Quote:I now believe that a priest will never encourage you to study the scripture. Because it wont be long until you start asking him where all this ritual he does is found in the scripture. Where does it say I have to confess my sins to a priest? etc.
I wish to address this first.
First of all, your first sentence is very general and is, for all intents in purposes, untrue. I, like BC above, am a convert to Catholicism. My dad is a Calvinist minister, and I just converted a few years ago. I too, have gone in an opposite direction.
However, your comment about not being encouraged to read a Bible by priests is just wrong. I went through RCIA class before I became a Catholic, which is the equivalent of CCD for younger Catholics. The class is meant to teach the person who wants to join the church about Catholicism. The entire class involved Church doctrine AND heavily relied on scripture as a foundation. Our priest encourages my parish regularly to steep ourselves in scripture. The burden is then upon the congregation to actually do what he says.
Now, the crux of your post seems to be that Catholicism is a "false gospel" and therefore is cursed. I believe, from your posts, that you think it is a false gospel because of the Catholic view of Tradition. However, we first have to get a few things straightened up. I'm going to break these down into arguments so they'll be easier to respond to.
A.) What is the "gospel?" The gospel message, to most protestants, means solely the written word in the Bible. However, historically and to this day, the word gospel really has a much more general meaning. "The first word common to the headings of our four Gospels is Euaggelion. The word, in the New Testament, has the specific meaning of "the good news of the kingdom" (cf. Matthew 4:23; Mark 1:15). In that sense, which may be considered as primary from the Christian standpoint, Euaggelion denotes the good tidings of salvation announced to the world in connexion with Jesus Christ, and, in a more general way, the whole revelation of Redemption by Christ." (Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent.org). So, the gospel is, generally, based upon the greek word used to as a heading for the original documents, is the revelation of Redemption by Christ. To say then the Catholics have a false gospel is to say we have a false revelation of Redemption by Christ.
B.) The greek word Euaggelion, obviously then, does not contain any reference to solely being written documents. This in of itself almost makes a Protestant cringe, as did I when I began to think deeply about the subject. However, the Bible itself brings evidence to my point.
For all intents and purposes, Christ died circa 33 a.d. (which is being generous because their are notable calendar errors that places his birth prior to 0 a.d.). Christ's church was established at Pentecost short after that. Now, I think you can agree that what holds true for Christians now should hold true for Christians then. They didn't have some different standard to live by that we don't have today. So, when you say that all you need is yourself and your Bible, this is a completely illogical statement and shows a lack of study of early church history (I don't mean that harshly, but I knew nothing of the early church in my Protestant years, and nor was I encouraged to find out about the early church fathers).
Most historical evidence points to the gospel of Mark being the earliest written gospel. Because of its lack of mention of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and other evidence, it is pinpointed at being authored prior to 70 a.d. and usually is given the date of roughly 65 a.d. What does this mean? This means that Christ's Church existed for almost 30 years before the gospel of Mark was even written. And, that doesn't even mean that it had received wide circulation yet, which would've taken longer. So, that is 30 years of existence as a church before even a single New Testament book was written down. And now, 30 years after Christ's death, there is only one gospel account even written down. Other gospels followed suit, with the Gospel of John being penned circa 90 a.d. So, almost 60 years after Christ's death, there is finally four gospels at least written down, and probably not entirely widely circulated yet.
Now, as even easier evidence, look at Paul's letters. Churches had to exist before Paul could write letters to them. So, could the Churches simply use their Bible before it was even written? It is absurd to think so. The earliest indication that we have that someone was aware of multiple epistles by Paul is circa 96 a.d., even though some of the letters were written 30 years prior by conservative estimations. So, it has now been almost 70 years without at least portions of the New Testament even written down.
Now, altogether, the latest written documents were, at the earliest, 90 a.d. in the form of 3 John. So, we can see clearly that a complete set of New Testament writings didn't exist until at least 90 a.d. Without taking into account that early Christians debated about what was canonical for centuries after that point and that the vast majority of Christians at the time didn't even know some of the other writings existed yet, one can easily see that the Church existed before the New Testament was even written.
C.) Now, that brings us to the inevitable question: What could early Christians possibly go by to lead their Christian lives? It obviously wasn't the Bible, because it didn't exist yet. That brings us to the Church.
You see, the only thing early Christians could go by was the word of their Church leaders: the Bishops. It is by this that the Church gets the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. The apostles chose their successors and handed down everything they knew to them to instruct them in the ways of Christ. This was not done by Bible: it was done by mouth. This is more than apparent in the Gospel of Luke:
Quote: 1: Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2: Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3: It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4: That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. KJV
It is obvious that Theophilus was instructed FIRST, and the Gospel was written to back up the instruction.
So you see, oral tradition existed long before the New Testament was even written down or contemplated. However, this is the important thing to note: Tradition does not contradict Scripture. They go hand and hand and constitute the entirety of revelation: the "gospel" in the most general sense. This is where we get our ideas of Tradition, and we firmly believe, as Catholics, that we carry thsoe traditions on today.
Now, onto the next point, which I will cover only briefly because of the length of my first point.
Quote:Because it wont be long until you start asking him where all this ritual he does is found in the scripture. Where does it say I have to confess my sins to a priest? etc.
If you are asking specifically about Confession, which seems to be a different question entirely than the notion of Tradition, Catholics firmly believe that it is a sacrament instituted by Christ. This is evidenced clearly in scripture.
The sacrament of Confession begins more loosely and metaphorically in Matthew 18:18...
Quote:18: Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. KJV
This was stated to the disciples. Four important points come out of this:
1.) That the "binding" and "loosing" refers not to physical but to spiritual or moral bonds among which sin is certainly included; the more so because
2.) The power here granted is unlimited -- "whatsoever you shall bind, . . . whatsoever you shall loose";
3.) The power is judicial, i.e., the Apostles are authorized to bind and to loose;
4.) Whether they bind or loose, their action is ratified in heaven. In healing the palsied man Christ declared that "the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins"; here He promises that what these men, the Apostles, bind or loose on earth, God in heaven will likewise bind or loose (newadvent.org).
This is later codified after Christ's ressurection in John 20:21-23...
Quote:21: Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22: And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. KJV
Important poitns arise out of this scripture passage:
1.) Christ here reiterates in the plainest terms -- "sins", "forgive", "retain" -- what He had previously stated in figurative language, "bind" and "loose", so that this text specifies and distinctly applies to sin the power of loosing and binding.
2.) He prefaces this grant of power by declaring that the mission of the Apostles is similar to that which He had received from the Father and which He had fulfilled: "As the Father hath sent me". Now it is beyond doubt that He came into the world to destroy sin and that on various occasions He explicitly forgave sin (Matthew 9:2-8; Luke 5:20; 7:47; Revelation 1:5), hence the forgiving of sin is to be included in the mission of the Apostles.
3.) Christ not only declared that sins were forgiven, but really and actually forgave them; hence, the Apostles are empowered not merely to announce to the sinner that his sins are forgiven but to grant him forgiveness-"whose sins you shall forgive". If their power were limited to the declaration "God pardons you", they would need a special revelation in each case to make the declaration valid.
4.) The power is twofold -- to forgive or to retain, i.e., the Apostles are not told to grant or withhold forgiveness nondiscriminately; they must act judicially, forgiving or retaining according as the sinner deserves.
5.) The exercise of this power in either form (forgiving or retaining) is not restricted: no distinction is made or even suggested between one kind of sin and another, or between one class of sinners and all the rest: Christ simply says "whose sins".
6.) The sentence pronounced by the Apostles (remission or retention) is also God's sentence -- "they are forgiven . . . they are retained". (newadvent.org).
Now, I think it is very clear that Confession was instituted by Christ, for the Apostles (note, this declaration wasn't made to "all Christians generally, but to the Apostles themselves). The apostles were charged with the power to forgive and retain sins. It is therefore clear from the words of Christ that the Apostles had power to forgive sins. But this was not a personal prerogative that was to erase at their death; it was granted to them in their official capacity and hence as a permanent institution in the Church -- no less permanent than the mission to teach and baptize all nations (newadvent.org).
The early church fathers agreed, and I think St. Augustine said it best: "Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God has power to forgive all sins."
I, unfortunately, must leave at the moment. I hope this helps as a preface to some of your questions.
Peace to you all.
