Question to Baptists, Protestants and other so-called Christians

What Dogface said. (And, by the way, neither of us is Roman Catholic.)

However, this board is for the fighting of ignorance. So, rather than compel you to wade through some rather deep prose, let’s look at the lies you were told:

Nope, what your pastor and leaders thought the Catholic church taught. And those myths tend to be self-perpetuating.

I’ve never seen nor heard of an idol in a Catholic church. The new cathedral in Los Angeles has doors done in a Mexican motif that some have falsely claimed incorporates pagan idols, but that’s within the past year.

If they meant statuary, it is purely and simply artwork of a religious nature, meant to remind the faithful of things like the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Birth of Christ, and of the saints whose lives following Christ serve as examples of how to follow Him for the rest of us – like my patron and namesake, who taught and pastored wisely until a ripe old age, then was burned to death after following Christ for 86 years for refusing to deny Christ.

A total canard. Catholic teaching is that worship and adoration (latria) belong to God the Holy Trinity alone. Catholics have the option of devotion to a saint whose life speaks to their particular spirit, and serves as an ideal on how to follow Christ. My wife, for example, is especially moved by Francis of Assisi, who took the Evangelical Counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience literally. Catholics “pray” to saints in the sense that they request their prayers of intercession, the presumption being that God in His mercy lets them in Heaven hear those requests – and that other than being done in a prayerful mode, they are no different than you or I asking our fellow Christians to pray for us.

Well, sir, it’s my understanding that it’s good Protestant doctrine, including among fundamentalists, that if you confess your sins to God, He is faithful to forgive them. Now look at John 20:22-23:

In order to forgive a sin of which somene repents, you must know about it. Hence Catholics can confess their sins (to God) before a priest, who then, by the authority transmitted to him by the apostles, and bestowed on them by Christ Himself, pronounces God’s forgiveness and absolves them of their sin. No priest has ever forgiven a sin, except perhaps one committed against him personally in the same way as you or I would. But he is given the authority to hear a confession of sin and proclaim with authority God’s forgiveness of that sin. For someone sorely troubled by thoughts of God’s wrath, that action of confession and specific forgiveness is often psychologically necessary.

Ah, that question. Pull up a chair; this takes a while. The Jews who returned from exile recognized a collection of books including the Torah, the first five books of the Law; the Prophets (which includes Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel, and I and II Kings, histories that focus on the prophets of the day such as Samuel, Nathan, Eliujah, and Elisha, along with the sixteen books written by prophets); and the Writings. Exactly which books were in the Writings was a bit nebulous, and they did not carry quite the authority of the Law or the Prophets.

The list was formalized for the first time when the Hebrew Bible’s books were translated into Greek, to form the collection we call the Septuagint, from the legendary 72 scholars who supposedly did the translation. This was done by order of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt, who reigned between 285 and 246 BC.

After the coming of Christ, as the apostles and other eyewitnesses were beginning to die off, what they had taught of Him was reduced to writing, and letters of counsel to churches, individuals, and the church as a whole were combined with it to form our New Testament. Spurious books abounded, and various people made lists of what was accurate in their opinion. This culminated in the fourth century with adoption of a definite list of canonical New Testament books by a church council.

Meanwhile, after the fall of Jerusalem in the Jewish Revolt, the surviving rabbis gathered at Jamnia and determined rules based on the teachings of the Pharisees for the Jewish faith. One of these was to limit the canon of their Bible, the Tanakh, to the contents of the Protestant Old Testament.

Some years later, Jerome, a remarkable Bible scholar, translated the Bible into Latin (as in King James’s day, there were previous translations of questionable value and sometinmes not complete). This was the Vulgate. For several reasons, Jerome himself decided to go with the Jamnia list rather than the longer one used by the Septuagint. The remaining books found in the Septuagint were later translated and added to the Vulgate.

The church as a whole spoke Greek for the most part in the East, and used the Septuagint plus the New Testament in the original Greek. The Latin-speaking West used the Vulgate. Both versions included Judith, Baruch, and the other “deuterocanonical” scriptures, and lessons in church were sometimes taken from them.

This continued, with the evolution of modern languages, until the Reformation. Luther and Calvin, seeing Catholic doctrine of which they disapproved founded in the deuterocanonical books, and influenced by the rabbinical decisions at Jamnia and by Jerome, eliminated all the deuterocanonical books from the Bible on their own authority. In response, the Catholic Council of Trent decreed that all but three of those books (I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh) did in fact belong in the Old Testament, and they would use them. The Orthodox continued using the Septuagint as they always had. Influenced by both Orthodox and Reformers, the Church of England (followed 200 years later by the Methodists when they splintered off) said that the deuterocanonical books, which were termed Apocrypha (an inaccurate but historically standard name), were a sort of second-class Scripture, valuable to read but not to be used to prove out doctrine.

So the Catholics did not add any books – rather, they and the founders of Protestantism dropped books from the complete Bible, which is still preserved by Orthodox and Anglicans. And of course the Reformers dropped far more books (15) than the Catholics (3).
[Fixed quote tag. – MEB]

Ok, for instance why do you pray to Mary. As to the idols, lI’m talking about the many idols in the Catholic church that people bow down to and worship, for instance (like before) Mary. Then you have saint Mark, Paul etc etc…

But thats beside the point…my point is that regardless of what Protestant church i go to, whether its Methodist or Pentacostal, these references always come up. But in public they never clearly point a finger to the Catholic church.

I still watch CBN sometimes and they still make references to the Catholic church without blatantly pointing at them. I think its hypocrisy when they do this, which makes no sense.

Catholics do not bow down to idols nor do they worship them. Nobody prays to idols in Catholic churches. True, there are statues of the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph in most Catholic churches, but they are just to help Catholics be mindful of the saints as models of sanctity and devotion to God.

Prayers to saints are considered to be simply asking the saints to intercede with God for the petitioner, no different than asking friends and family to pray for you. If you were to ask the Christian Dopers to talk to God on your behalf, does that mean you are praying to the Christian Dopers or with them? Same deal with saying the Hail Mary, and after all, is Jesus going to refuse His mother when she asks a favor?

Um, CBN went out of existence when Pat Robertson sold it to Fox, who then sold it to ABC. Now it’s called ABC Family. Maybe you mean TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network). I’ve never seen any anti-Catholic talk on there, but then I don’t watch it much, unless I feel like seeing how insane Jan Crouch has become (I swear, with her scrunched up face and that teased pink wig, that woman looks like a deranged Pomeranian).

If you want to know what Catholics believe, read the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, which contain the basic elements of the Catholic faith:

In the phrase, “the holy catholic church,” “catholic” should be read as “universal”, for that is that is the Latin meaning of the word and hence the source of the name, “the Catholic church”-- that is, the universal church.

Poly did a wonderful job in his explanation, EhhMon. Catholics don’t worship Mary; however, some do request her assistance (and please, the Catholics here, forgive me for this terrible analogy) along the lines of someone asking you, “Pray tell, what’re you talking about?”

But since you seem to think the mere presence of the statuary meant to remind the Catholics of certain religious issues constitutes idolatry, I really must ask you this: How, then, does the use of a cross in the protestant churches not constitute idolatry?

You see, it cuts both ways.

The use of statues and pictures began because the majority of people in Western Christianity could not read or write, therefore, the pictures told the story, rather than the text.

Not to mention stained glass depictions in Protestant churches. As Guin mentions, that was another way to get the message across in a pre-literate society.

RE whether or not Catholics “worship” idols & Mary. In theory, of course not, they give respect to images of Jesus & the saints like one would to pictures of loved one & they venerate but not Divinely adore Mary.

But in practice, honestly. some of us who have been in Catholic circles have to admit we’ve seen some straddle the line

Dammit EhhMon, Polycarp went to a lot of trouble to post an articulate, clear, intelligent response to your OP and the subsequent posts. The least you could do was read it.

Putting your hands over your ears and yelling “la la la la la la” isn’t usually the kind of debate that goes on in this forum.

Of course, but it’s just the same as we see some Protestants who elevate the Bible itself as God almost, rather than looking into the God it speaks of.

Or people who get too hung up on legalistic interpretations, like the Pharisees did.

It’s not exclusive to Catholicism.

Does this whole thread remind anyone else of kids on the playground arguing over who won an invisible battle?

“Hey, I shot you, you’re dead”
“Uh uh, I have a forcefield”
“Uh huh, 'cuz I have a ray gun that penetrates forcefields”
“Yeah, but it’s a special forcefield that reflects the ray back to you, so now you’re dead.”
“No fair - you’re cheating”

I mean, how exactly is one arbitrary set of rules more valid than another arbitrary set of rules? Because one group has an older book?

Fascinating. So, then, anyone who fights ignorance and prejudice is automatically of the group that is the target of the prejudice. I did not know that! I guess I’m Black, now! To answer your question, as far as I understand the RC doctrine, “prayer” is not identical to “worship”. Now, in church groups that have thoroughly thrown out the baby with the bathwater, the only vestigial relic had of “worship” is just prayer, but prayer is really any sort of request. Indeed, not so long ago, I would “pray” to my wife for a new shirt (as in “Prithee, [which means “I pray to thee”] goodwife, sew thou for me a shirt, for mine is too torn.”)

Again, this is not worship, (although my own church–Orthodoxy, not Roman Catholic–is very nervous about the use of “realistic” 3d sculpture for veneration by the RC). There is a difference between doulia and latreia.

Re: the title of this thread, EhhMon, why do you call all non-Baptist/Protestant Christians “so-called”? One could even infer from your thread title that you include those in your list of “so-called Christians”.

What, prithee do tell, makes one Christian in your eyes?

Asked and unanswered, iampunha, just like every other legitimate question asked of him/her/it.

I was raised in a strict Protestant home, switch to Pentecostal church in my teens, then a non-denominational church and now am a free agent.

My dad happens to be a preacher. To make a long story short, we didn’t associate with the Pentecostals etc…they were considred too radical or crazy, with all the “hallejuahs, clapping, and amens”. it was the same vice versa, which considered the protestants to stiff and stuck up. It was the same within the pentecostal churches as well ie…assemblies of god, church of god, baptists…one spoke in tongues, one didn’t allow women to wear pants, and the other didn’t believe in speaking in tongues and didnt like woment wearing pants. They didn’t eye to eye on alot of things, but they all had a disdain for the catholic church and its teachings.

What I was referring to in my earlier post was the hypocrisy in the churches. I’m just now realizing all of this after coming out of it. I had become what you would consider a die hard “fundamentlist” christian. But thats another story.

Sorry I couldn’t answer as quickly as you wanted me to EJsGirl. I’m sure if I had enough time to live vicariously thru my computer as you do. I’d be happy to answer your questions. But seeing as I have a life and dont’ have the time, I can only apologize to you. Have a great NAVY day.

No dice EhhMon. There have been plenty of answers to your questions that you must’ve skipped to get down to EJsGirl’s post. Perhaps a few replies to the following answers would be nice.

  1. Physical representations of the saints and Mary are used as visual reminders and inspirations to Catholics, not as objects of worship.
  2. Confession being mandated by Christ through his apostles to validate removal of sins.
  3. Development of the bible through editorial review of the constituent books.
  4. Cult being tied to singular personality seen as the primary mover of the organizations beliefs and processes. The church therefore would’ve been considered a Christ cult until its further development through the councils and papacy/bishop-hoods (that’s not the right word, damn it).

Finally as an aside the Catholic Church, having existed for 2000 years is uniquely placed to be tied to humanities inhumanity. Not an excuse, but a seemingly obvious piece of context.

For the record I am a Lutheran. We believe in the Eucharist as the Catholics do. Unless you say Protestant to mean non-Catholic it’s not fair to lump us all together. The same way Christian is used to lump together everyone who believes in Christ. It’s too broad a term.

So I get a weird feeling when I read something like:

A strict Protestant home? How strict can it be if you can’t even name the denomination? And I’ve never understood the term non-denominational. The denomination defines our beliefs. If it’s non-denominational does that mean you believe in nothing? I’m not even going to address free agent.

Then just answer one question, EhhMon: Why do y’all worship two crossed sticks?

Now, I realize that the cross itself is not an idol; however, y’all do the same with it that the Catholics do with the statuary–use it to focus one’s meditative attention on certain aspects of deity. FTR: my church doesn’t use the cross.

EhhMon, give us all a break. I asked the same question iampunha asked before your post on 7/12 at 12:37 pm. You either didn’t read it or ignored it, since you failed to respond. Both are considered bad form in this forum.

And as far as my posting schedule, I think I post less than once per day, on average. But whatever makes you feel better.

You posted an inflammatory OP, didn’t hang around to defend it, and your subsequent posts have been vague and lacking in any factual justification for your assertions.

Acting like a twit is no way to convince poeple that your opinion is worthy of discussion.

Niether did the ones I go to or went to.

Thats a good question though, only crosses I’ve seen were in a Catholic church or depicted in a movie or television.

My sincere apologies to EJsGirl, I just went back to read what I originally posted and I’m now getting the gist of what she was trying to convey so I hope you ignore the last response I gave you.

As for examples, I was referring to how Jehovah’s Witness have re-written the bible and come up with their version of the bible, with just a twist on some of the scriptures ie for example Jesus being crucified on a pole versus a crucifix etc…and then there is the Mormon Book which they say is a second book to the Bible, because it depictes Jesus work after his resurrection. Then you have the Catholics’ Apocrapha(sp?) Books, which is suppose to go into more detail and such (like the role of Lilith) about the Old Testament.

Thats it for now, I’ll post more if you like…gots to work.