There are several ways of interpreting this passage. One is that priests have the authority to forgive sins. (Jesus was explicit in John 20:23 that Apostles have that authority). Another is the authority to teach- because if a rabbi 'bound' something, that meant he was making that the rule. If we bind and loose on Earth, then it is bound or loosed in Heaven- in other words, what the Church teaches as true actually is true. Another is the strange idea that the Church can distribute graces. It's like God gave the Church a storehouse of graces... so the Church can make a decision like creating indulgences, etc.
Another interpretation which would probably be more popular among protestants is the binding and loosing of demons. For a lot of protestants, demons are not just what you picture in exorcisms and stuff, but are actually the source of bad moods, inconveniences, anger, illnesses, etc. (Catholics tend to just attribute these things to nature). There is even a joke, how many pentecostals does it take to change a lightbulb? 5. 1 to change the bulb, and 4 to cast out the spirit of darkness. So you'll often hear proetstants binding and loosing' spirits- something you don't often hear Catholics doing.
This site is where I let my faith wrestle with reason. If you have a question to submit, do it at vankampen.peter@gmail.com. Although I try to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, these answers are the opinion of a Catholic youth Coordinator, and should not be construed as the views of the Catholic Church.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
What is the biggest difference between Protestants and Catholics?
I'd say the biggest difference is the authority of the Church. Protestants believe in 'Sola Scriptura"- only the Bible is the source of truth. Catholics believe in the Church as well. Amongst protestants, there is a huge variety of ideas, because they all interpret the Bible differently. If Sola Scriptura worked, all the protestants would agree. But by in large, they can't figure out if homosexuality is wrong or not, or whether they should divorce, have women pastors, how much money to give, sacraments, who gets saved, honour Mary..... etc. Protestants are really all over the place! Jehovahs Witnesses even use the same bible, and come to completely different conclusions, like that Jesus was not God, and only 144,000 people go to Heaven. So the bible alone is not only unscrpitural- it has been demonstrated to not work! Whereas in 2000 years, all over the world, the catholic Church has always (officially) taught the same thing. (I say officially because there are always wack jobs who claim to be Catholic, but teach their own opinions instead of truth.)
What is the body/spirit connection?
Question What is wrong with thinking that there is no connection between physical and spiritual, and that is only symbolic? If we believe it to be a physical sign of a spiritual reality, then isn't it symbolic? I can understand how it is a more special symbolism than other kinds, but isn't is still symbolism rather than an actual connection?
AnswerIt's kind of like the passage where Jesus spits and makes mud to heal a blind man. He didn't have to do that- but he uses physical things because they make sense to us. The Bible is full of counts of people doing something physical- lifting their hands, bathing in the Jordan, touching dead bones of a prophet.
Humans are both spiritual and physical. Though God is pure spirit, for our sake, he relates to us at both these levels. Some people (dualists) think of the body as like a prison for the soul- and when we die, we shed the prison. But the body is actually as much who we are as the spirit- this is why even the body will rise again at the end of the world.
It's like the fact that Jesus took on a body, and really, physically dies. He could have saved us without doing that- but He chose not to. These things indicatethe value of our physical nature.
The body-spirit connection have been very understated historically- this is why Pope John Paul II worked so hard to develop the Theolo9gy of the Body, that our bodies are 'sacraments'- physical signs- of our spiritual realities, and the two are intrinsically linked.
AnswerIt's kind of like the passage where Jesus spits and makes mud to heal a blind man. He didn't have to do that- but he uses physical things because they make sense to us. The Bible is full of counts of people doing something physical- lifting their hands, bathing in the Jordan, touching dead bones of a prophet.
Humans are both spiritual and physical. Though God is pure spirit, for our sake, he relates to us at both these levels. Some people (dualists) think of the body as like a prison for the soul- and when we die, we shed the prison. But the body is actually as much who we are as the spirit- this is why even the body will rise again at the end of the world.
It's like the fact that Jesus took on a body, and really, physically dies. He could have saved us without doing that- but He chose not to. These things indicatethe value of our physical nature.
The body-spirit connection have been very understated historically- this is why Pope John Paul II worked so hard to develop the Theolo9gy of the Body, that our bodies are 'sacraments'- physical signs- of our spiritual realities, and the two are intrinsically linked.
Does everyone get saved?
Question Do Protestants believe that everyone will be saved and immediately go to heaven?
Answer Everyone who accepts Jesus as Lord. It begs some important questions about what happened to people who never even hear about Jesus, through no fault of their own. Catholics believe that God can save those people too, by his grace working through them, but they may not realize that is what is happening.
Answer Everyone who accepts Jesus as Lord. It begs some important questions about what happened to people who never even hear about Jesus, through no fault of their own. Catholics believe that God can save those people too, by his grace working through them, but they may not realize that is what is happening.
How can the Church teach things not explicitly in Scripture?
Question- If purgatory isn’t explicitly biblical where does it come from and why do we believe it to be absolute truth?
Answer The Trinity is not explicitly biblical either. The idea that something has to be explicitly biblical came from Luther, because he didn't believe the Church was inspired the same way the Bible is. The problem is, the Bible was never written to teach us everything we could know about God, and the idea that everything would be in the Bible is not in the Bible, so it is actually self contradictory!
Catholics do not believe that all of revelation is explicitly in scripture. That would actually pose major problems- for example, where in scripture does it tell you which books belong in scripture? It doesn't- someone needed to decide that! (There were other books written about Jesus in the time of the apostles that did not make the cut, for example.) Because the Catholic Church is inspired, and can't make mistakes, it chose the books which are now in the Bible. By the time they did so- 300 years after Jesus- people were already arguing about stuff like the Trinity. However, it should be noted that stuff like purgatory and the honour of Mary and the true presence in the Eucharist were already well established!
So, in short-
The authority of the Bible does not make sense without the authority of the Church who gave us the Bible. The authority of the Church also taught us about purgatory.
Answer The Trinity is not explicitly biblical either. The idea that something has to be explicitly biblical came from Luther, because he didn't believe the Church was inspired the same way the Bible is. The problem is, the Bible was never written to teach us everything we could know about God, and the idea that everything would be in the Bible is not in the Bible, so it is actually self contradictory!
Catholics do not believe that all of revelation is explicitly in scripture. That would actually pose major problems- for example, where in scripture does it tell you which books belong in scripture? It doesn't- someone needed to decide that! (There were other books written about Jesus in the time of the apostles that did not make the cut, for example.) Because the Catholic Church is inspired, and can't make mistakes, it chose the books which are now in the Bible. By the time they did so- 300 years after Jesus- people were already arguing about stuff like the Trinity. However, it should be noted that stuff like purgatory and the honour of Mary and the true presence in the Eucharist were already well established!
So, in short-
The authority of the Bible does not make sense without the authority of the Church who gave us the Bible. The authority of the Church also taught us about purgatory.
Can we work for our Salvation?
Question What is wrong with thinking we can't work towards our own salvation? Is it just that then we don't try as hard and don't worry about hurting God? Is this the same idea with why we must be made just rather than declared just? What is meant by "once saved always saved"?
Answer One of the things that Luther objected to was the fact that people were trfying to 'earn' their way to Heaven. as if we could ever be so good that we could 'deserve' a relationship with God! He was right that we can never deserve it, but God through his grace wants to make us perfect anyway. We could never do it on our own. Lutherans and Catholics agree that we are saved by Grace (God's free gift) and not by works. But Luther thought that grace can 'declare' someone 'saved'- ie, perfect, prepared for Heaven- even though they are not perfect. Whereas Catholic teach that grace is working to make us perfect- and if the job is not done on Earth (which it hardly ever is) there is purgatory to finish the deal.
Some protestants (not all) say that since all you need to be 'saved' is to accept Jesus as Lord, then once you do this it is impossible to go back. You say it, and you can be absolutely certauin then that you will go to Heaven. Obviously, some people accept Jesus as Lord, and turn their backs on Him later- those protestants would just say that person was never really saved in the first place. That's what is meant by 'once saved always saved'.
For Catholics, since salvation is a process and not a one time thing, we continue to fight our sinful nature throughout life, and put all our Hope and trust in God that He can and will save us, but we have to fight for it. This is why scripture says things like
"...work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12b-13)
The idea of process I think gives humans more diginty because we are part of what's going on, and is better for this world because it includes the promise that people can be freed from corruption here- so if we want to transform the world, there is hope that through bringing people to Christ this can happen.
Answer One of the things that Luther objected to was the fact that people were trfying to 'earn' their way to Heaven. as if we could ever be so good that we could 'deserve' a relationship with God! He was right that we can never deserve it, but God through his grace wants to make us perfect anyway. We could never do it on our own. Lutherans and Catholics agree that we are saved by Grace (God's free gift) and not by works. But Luther thought that grace can 'declare' someone 'saved'- ie, perfect, prepared for Heaven- even though they are not perfect. Whereas Catholic teach that grace is working to make us perfect- and if the job is not done on Earth (which it hardly ever is) there is purgatory to finish the deal.
Some protestants (not all) say that since all you need to be 'saved' is to accept Jesus as Lord, then once you do this it is impossible to go back. You say it, and you can be absolutely certauin then that you will go to Heaven. Obviously, some people accept Jesus as Lord, and turn their backs on Him later- those protestants would just say that person was never really saved in the first place. That's what is meant by 'once saved always saved'.
For Catholics, since salvation is a process and not a one time thing, we continue to fight our sinful nature throughout life, and put all our Hope and trust in God that He can and will save us, but we have to fight for it. This is why scripture says things like
"...work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12b-13)
The idea of process I think gives humans more diginty because we are part of what's going on, and is better for this world because it includes the promise that people can be freed from corruption here- so if we want to transform the world, there is hope that through bringing people to Christ this can happen.
Why is the Church Corrupt?
Question Ok, so first off, the Church was historically corrupt primarily because it was an authority of two opposing values,the religious and worldly power, which makes sense because straight out of the Bible it says how one cannot serve two masters, for he will either love one and hate the other, or hate one and love the other. So the corruption can be blamed on this, right?
Answer The Church has had corruption in her history for a number of reasons. The fact that power was found in the Church is a major one, but I wouldn't say it's the only cause. Worldly power, money and respect would attract the wrong sort, so it should not be surprising that when the Church was at its most influential, there was more corruption. Even today you will find more corruption in Africa then in N. America, because in Africa there's more wealth and power associated!
But, at the end of the day, there's sin in the Church because God chooses to use people to acomplish his mission, despite the fact that people are sinners. It's kind of like suppose there was some scandal at OLVC- say, I was pocketing the registration money. It's not because God is not using OLVC, but rather because He has chosen to use people, and I myself can be corrupted. Even in the Bible, St Paul had to confront St Peter on a sin he was commiting. (Gal 2:11-21)
I suppose it would be more effective for God just to by pass our corruption and do everything Himself. Just like, it'd be easier for me to just give all the talks at OLVC, rather than train people. But even if people will make mistakes, I want to raise more people up to be leaders- and so does God! (Even just now I let my 2 year old 'help' me unload the dishwasher. I could do it better and faster myself, but it gives her some dignity, and she will eventually learn.)
This is the difference between being 'infallible' and being 'inscrutible'. Infallible means you are protected from ever making a mistake in teaching, so that when the Church teaches something complicated like the Trinity or 'abortion is wrong', you don't have to wonder if they are right. Without this, it would be anyones guess what the truth is. But if God made the Church inscrutible as well, He would essentially be overiding the free will of the Popes... and then the very people who want to teach us how to overcome temptation, and grow in virtue and love God- would not even be capable of those things!
Answer The Church has had corruption in her history for a number of reasons. The fact that power was found in the Church is a major one, but I wouldn't say it's the only cause. Worldly power, money and respect would attract the wrong sort, so it should not be surprising that when the Church was at its most influential, there was more corruption. Even today you will find more corruption in Africa then in N. America, because in Africa there's more wealth and power associated!
But, at the end of the day, there's sin in the Church because God chooses to use people to acomplish his mission, despite the fact that people are sinners. It's kind of like suppose there was some scandal at OLVC- say, I was pocketing the registration money. It's not because God is not using OLVC, but rather because He has chosen to use people, and I myself can be corrupted. Even in the Bible, St Paul had to confront St Peter on a sin he was commiting. (Gal 2:11-21)
I suppose it would be more effective for God just to by pass our corruption and do everything Himself. Just like, it'd be easier for me to just give all the talks at OLVC, rather than train people. But even if people will make mistakes, I want to raise more people up to be leaders- and so does God! (Even just now I let my 2 year old 'help' me unload the dishwasher. I could do it better and faster myself, but it gives her some dignity, and she will eventually learn.)
This is the difference between being 'infallible' and being 'inscrutible'. Infallible means you are protected from ever making a mistake in teaching, so that when the Church teaches something complicated like the Trinity or 'abortion is wrong', you don't have to wonder if they are right. Without this, it would be anyones guess what the truth is. But if God made the Church inscrutible as well, He would essentially be overiding the free will of the Popes... and then the very people who want to teach us how to overcome temptation, and grow in virtue and love God- would not even be capable of those things!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)