Questionable Catholic Doctrines?

[Josh]

Okay, so I'm a flaming Catholic-friend.

Still, in all fairness I should express some elements of Catholic doctrine I disagree with.

Here's my short list of disagreements which I think aren't just misunderstandings but genuine and pretty thorough differences (if anyone-- especially a Catholic-- has any input here, please, by all means jump in):

The Catholic doctrines of
1. The sinlessness of Mary
2. Mary's own immaculate (virginal) conception,
3. The perpetual virginity of Mary, and
4. The bodily assumption (translation to heaven) of Mary after death.

First off, I have a problem with these doctrines because they are late arrivals in not only Early Church speculation but super late arrivals as official Catholic doctrine (I think 1700 or 1800s- though some of these ideas were debated from much earlier)

Also, not only are they not taught in Scripture, but Scripture actually affirms facts in opposition to these doctrines. The best reading of the Greek (in my opinion, after studying both sides) tells us that Mary indeed did have other kids after Jesus- that James and Jude, etc.. were Jesus' brothers not his cousins. Also, we see Mary in the New Testament not as a perfect woman, but as an honorable woman who still dealth with sins common to humans: worry, anxiety, doubt, etc... There is also a passage in Luke, I believe, where it is said of Mary herself that she, as much as anyone else, is in need of a Savior.

It seems to me that the doctrines of her own virginal conception and her bodily assumption after death (the translation of her body to heaven, I believe) are just add-on doctrines that spill over from the false assumption of her sinlessness.

Notice I'm not quibbling here with Mary's status as the Mother of the Church and as an interceding Saint. Though I have some concerns about doctrines like that, I will treat that elsewhere as I also have a lot of positive things to say about them as well.

But these Maryan doctrines above- I just can't see any reason to accept them, and they do seem to require an all-or-nothing stance.

[tara]

Josh,
I know you wrote this a long time ago, but I have to whole heartedly agree with you. Your disagreement list holds the very reasons I began to question catholocism as a child and left when I could. In addition to your list (revolving around Mary, I might add) I take issue with the whole mortal sin issue.

For example, my dear sister, a baby Christian, has become engaged to a wonderful, Christian man who happens to be divorced and have a daughter. My extended family (aunts, uncles, grandparents) is refusing to attend her wedding because her fiance won't have his marriage annuled. They claim they cannot come by order of their priest because they will be committing a mortal sin by attending the marriage of my sister to this divorced man. Keep in mind that my sister doesn't attend mass and hasn't for years. Her fiance is not catholic and never has been.

Thank the Lord for Jesus. For without him, we are lost.

Tara

[Josh]

Yeah, I kind of forgot about the whole mortal/ venial sins thing. I remember studying it quite a bit, but the particular differences are a bit blurry in my mind. If I recall there wasn't a very clear statement on the differences in the RCC catechism. Of course, I think it's dangerous to categorize particular sins in that way.

Besides the example you gave, did that come up much in your RCC experience?

[tara]

Josh,
I am not sure what RCC means? Roman Catholic...something? Anyway, I noticed today in the paper that the Catholic church added some new sins to take note of. One of them had to do with taking care of the earth. I think it is strange that sins can change.

I haven't had too many other mortal sin experiences except for when I was 18 and legally left the church. I told my grandma that I was no longer catholic and she told me that I was committing a mortal sin by leaving the church and that I would end up in hell. It was very scary. We sat side by side on her bed as she wept. I told her that I was so very sure and my faith was very strong and that she needn't worry about me. My soul was a sinner's soul, but thanks go Jesus I would be with him in heaven one day.

She had some heart trouble over the next few weeks that got blamed on me.

Now, she acts like that never happened and has even made comments that my faith is the strongest of all of her grandchildren. I will accept that as an apology although I never needed one. She is just living in fear. I am glad I am sharing this. It reminds me to pray for her and my Grandpa.

Tara

[Josh]

She had some heart trouble over the next few weeks that got blamed on me.

Ouch.

I'm glad you stuck to your guns. That sort of fear-induced environment has crippled the faith of many.

Oh, and, by RCC I meant Roman Catholic Church. Sorry for just assuming that one.

[robin]

Hi Josh,
I was thinking about the conversation on Catholicism that we had on Saturday night, in particularly about intersection of the saints. In voicing my opposition to such a practice, you made the statement that it is not all that different that asking a friend to pray for us. I wanted to respond to this, and I'm not sure why this argument escaped my mind at the time.

If I seek intersection by one of the saints, am I not assuming that they posses a divine quality, specifically omnipresence. What if thousands or millions of others are seeking intersection at the same time, is the Saint able to hear all prayers at the same time? You see, I can't sit at home and pray "Josh please seek Gods favor for me in this situation" and assume that you will here my prayer and partition God on my behalf. I can however, pray to Jesus and know that he hears me. Only God holds such a quality and if we attribute such qualities to others (dead saints), are we not belittling Gods uniqueness?

What do you think?

Robin

[Josh]

The main thing I'd like to say about the intercession of the saints (asking the saints to pray for us), from a Catholic standpoint is that, contrary to what I was told from a Protestant perspective, I don't believe this belief is idolatry.

A Catholic worth his salt believes that praying to the departed Saints is simply asking them, as we might ask a friend, to intercede for us in prayer to God. Scripture says that the prayers of those who live righteous lives are very effectual- how much more effectual would their prayers be when those folks have gone on to the very presence of Jesus?

There is ultimately one mediator between God and man, Jesus, as the New Testament says. Still, we are told to pray for each other, to act as little mediators for each other in imitation of Christ. Well-informed Catholics understand this and aren't trying to replace Jesus as the ultimate mediator by beseeching the saints to pray for them. Authentic catholic theology doesn't teach that saints are to worshipped, but rather revered and it doesn't claim that the saints can intercede for us on their own merits, but on the merits of Christ.

I don't see belief in the intercession of saints as an evil, idolatrous doctrine. The only concerns I have with it are 1) the doctrine is easily misunderstood and 2) it's fairly speculative.

That this doctrine is easily misunderstood is demonstrated by the amount of Protestants and Catholics who mistake this belief for idolatry. Still, as Lewis pointed out, just because a belief is dangerous doesn't mean it's not worth holding. The most beautiful and true things are often quite dangerous.

This doctrine that departed saints can hear our prayers and intercede on our behalf is quite speculative. Scripture says little to lend it credibility, although I would point to two passages which I think might lend some support (back to that in a minute)

One thing I like about this doctrine, though I must remain largely agnostic on it, is that it stresses much more fully than most Protestants ever do the idea that the communion of the Saints includes not just those living on earth, but the whole company of heaven- the followers of Christ who have gone on before. And furthermore, this belief underscores another belief which I think important- that heaven and earth overlap- that the boundaries between the dead and the living aren't as fixed and permanent in Christ's kingdom as we might think.

In regard to your objection above, Robin, I'd say that we don't know enough about the existence of the departed saints to know whether they can hear multiple prayers at once. I tend to see them as outside of, or in a different experience of time, so I see it as possible for them, knowing as they are known (1 Cor. 13), to handle all that if God sees fit.

So, here's the two passages that might lend some support, if tentatively: they're both from the book of Revelation.

The first would be the mention of the martyrs under the throne of God who are watching the events on earth and crying out to God for justice/ intervention (Rev. 6:9-11).

More importantly would be the mention in Rev. 20:4-6 that the departed saints (or at least the martyred ones) will reign with Christ during the millennium. Of course, from my eschatological perspective I believe we are currently in the millennium. Therefore, those departed saints are reigning as we speak* What does reigning imply? Well, a couple things, I think: observing, being involved in, and perhaps affecting the affairs of this world and furthermore, serving as agents of the ultimate King Jesus. So to see them as sharing in his intercession doesn't seem to strange to me.

Still, this is highly speculative and I think needs to remain so for the most part. These are just reasons why I don't get all fired up by Catholic doctrine on this point**

*I happen to think that as Christians die, they go and join those who are reigning until the Resurrection.

** I do get fired up about the fact the Catholic Church doesn't seem to be doing a good job at teaching their own theology well. I'm sure there are so many thousands out there whose beliefs on this subject do approach idolatry. Is the Catholic Church doing much to correct such misunderstandings?

[christopher]

Don't mean to barge in here, but I just wanted to make an observation on a progression of thought I found interesting:

Regarding the doctrine, Josh, you wrote:

it's fairly speculative.

and then...

is quite speculative

and finally...

this is highly speculative

You finished well.

[Josh]

Well, to be more clear, there are parts of this doctrine that I think are fairly speculative, parts that are quite speculative, and parts that are highly speculative.

I think the efficacy of the intercession of praying to departed saints is highly speculative, but I think the notion that departed saints are aware of and in some way active in the affairs of this world (as co-reigners with Christ) is way less speculative (I tend to believe it). So, this isn't a monolithic, all-or-none idea.

I'm curious what you guys think about the idea of the current reigning of departed saints.

[krhagan19]

The Roman Catholic Church likes to make stuff up as it goes along. Look at Limbo, which they recently dropped. It is a product of their long history of deductive reasoning instead of inductive reasoning. . . shakes head in shame