Catholic Sacraments - Explained without Protestant Bias

“All priests have studied the Scriptures for four years at the graduate level in the seminary.”

It does not show at all.

“It is time to put this lie to rest. The fact is that the Catholic Church encourages the faithful to read the Bible”

Go ahead and call me a liar. I take it as a complement when it comes from a person of your persuasion. Christ’s opponents called Him a lunatic and demon possessed. So calling me names is not really going to make me feel bad.

It is not a lie that the Catholic church HAS A LONG HISTORY as I said earlier of opposing the spread of scriptures.

You conveniently twist what I said and then call your own version of my comments a lie.

“You do not trace your beliefs directly to the Bible but to how Tyndale and other Protestants have interpreted it for you.”

That’s the thing, Tyndale did ACTUALLY translate it. Obviously you think this was a wicked thing for him to do since you refuse to denounce those who murdered him. In so doing you show plainly that you consent to their deeds.

“It is interesting how you constantly try to change the subject rather than address the fact that you do not, in deed, follow the plain teaching of the Bible when it comes in conflict with your Protestant ideology.”

I really have no idea what you are referring to. Protestants don’t have a catechism. I never studied a “Protestant ideology”. I only studied the Bible. I did not study the teachings of William Tyndale either. I just know from history if it was not for men like him I would not have the freedom to own a Bible and read it for myself.

My point with Tyndale is not that his interpretation is better than someone else’s. The Bible does not need an interpreter when it is correctly translated into a language the reader understands. It is a living book, the book that reads you. The whole idea of “private interpretation” that Peter warns of is EXACTLY what Catholics do when they claim to have the exclusive ability to interpret it. No, God has revealed His word openly rather than in private.

Deuteronomy 30:11-14
For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

Paul says in Romans 10:8 that this is the word of faith which the apostles were preaching.

He also taught that if someone spoke in tongues in a church meeting that there needed to be an interpreter so that everyone would understand and benefit, but if someone prophesied there did not need to be an interpreter because the message is plain. (See 1 Corinthians 14.)

The Bible was written in a different language (i.e. tongue) and had to be interpreted (i.e. translated) into my language for me to understand it for myself. This is not a “private interpretation” because scripture never came by the means of a “private interpretation”.

But you and the Catholic religion twist Peter’s words to mean the opposite of what he said. The Gnostics believed they had private interpretation. They claimed to have secret knowledge that could only be learned through them. There are a number of groups claiming to be Christian today who hold this same doctrine that they are the exclusive keepers of truth rather than God having made it publicly proclaimed for all to hear. Among those groups who hold this false doctrine, the Catholic religion is the largest.

Tyndale insured that people like me would not need to rely on the private interpretation of the Catholic religion but would be able to read the Bible for myself. It is no longer in a foreign tongue but has been publicly interpreted and translated into a language I can read and understand because it speaks for itself.

The woman in Revelation 12 is Israel.

There have been good pope and bad popes. They are human.

You should really limit yourself to topics of which you are knowledgeable. All priests have studied the Scriptures for four years at the graduate level in the seminary. Many go on to advanced degrees.

I'd say that applies to you, and more so...

Go to Seminary or Complete Graduate Work
Aspiring Catholic priests may attend a seminary before ordination. Some churches, like the Roman Catholic Church, may require candidates to go to seminary for four years. A seminary program offers graduate-level coursework in subjects like Biblical studies, liturgy, ethics, pastoral studies, church history and preaching. Aspiring priests may obtain a Master of Divinity or another related degree. Other churches may not strictly require their priests to receive training at a seminary. Future priests may be required to earn a graduate degree in any field, though some churches prefer candidates with a degree related to theology or religious studies.

There is very little actual bible study for priests...The education is mostly human philosophy... The rest is Catholic church history, theology, ritual, apologetics...Very little actual bible study...

And there you have it. You do not trace your beliefs directly to the Bible but to how Tyndale and other Protestants have interpreted it for you.

Apparently you don't know much about that either...Tyndale was not an interpreter...Tyndale was a translator...A translator who put the bible in language of the native people, Protestant and Catholic alike...

Please show it’s support and teaching of the assumption of Mary.

Revelation 12

You couldn't find the mother of Jesus in Revelation 12 if you used the Hubbell Telescope...

It is not a lie that the Catholic church HAS A LONG HISTORY as I said earlier of opposing the spread of scriptures.

While comforting to Protestants it is completely untrue. In fact, contrary to the mythology of Protestantism, there were multiple vernacular translations of the Bible before Luther and Tyndale. In German there were 18 editions of the complete Bible, 90 editions of the Gospels and the readings for Sundays and Holy Days, and 14 editions of the Psalter before Luther. English was admittedly not so lucky but there were partial translations. The fact is that before the invention of the printing press in the 15th century Bibles were so expensive that few could afford one and those who could were able to read it in Latin. English Catholics produced their own translation in 1582(NT)/1609(OT) which all Catholics were free to read.

That’s the thing, Tyndale did ACTUALLY translate it. Obviously you think this was a wicked thing for him to do since you refuse to denounce those who murdered him. In so doing you show plainly that you consent to their deeds.

As did many other before him. Let us have some honesty here. Tyndale was not condemned for translating the Bible but for mistranslating it. It should be noted that Tyndale's translation was so notorious that even King Henry VIII, after his break with Rome, ordered all copies to be burned. Nor was he condemned by Pope Paul III but by the secular court of Emperor Charles V. But if we are to reject a religion for the burning of heretics will you also condemn Calvin for the burning of Servetus and reject his spiritual heirs?

Protestants don’t have a catechism.

Learn some history:

Luther's Catechism

Of course I could also list innumerable commentaries from which Protestants get their understanding of the Bible.

I never studied a “Protestant ideology”. I only studied the Bible.

Do you want me to believe that you never read a word of Protestant commentary on the Bible or heard a Protestant sermon? If so you would be unique.

Go to Seminary or Complete Graduate Work

I do have a Masters degree. What is your training? There is very little actual bible study for priests...The education is mostly human philosophy... The rest is Catholic church history, theology, ritual, apologetics...Very little actual bible study..

The study of Scripture is one of the subjects that is indeed one of the subjects that is taught in the seminary and is covered each of the four years. Many priest graduate with a Masters degree in Scripture in addition to their M.Div. Put away your Protestant ignorance.

Apparently you don't know much about that either...Tyndale was not an interpreter...Tyndale was a translator...A translator who put the bible in language of the native people, Protestant and Catholic alike...

More of a mistranslator. His translation was deliberately polemical. He also introduced commentary within his translation promoting Protestant beliefs. Even the Protestant King Henry VIII ordered all copies of his translation to be burned. Nor was he the first to offer a vernacular translation. There were many such translations in various languages before either Tyndale or Luther.

“Satan’s greatest work of deception.”

No, there’s no deception in the founding of the Catholic Church more than 1900 years ago. Satan’s greatest deceptions are in fooling people into believing he doesn’t exist and in the spread of heresies and schisms like Protestantism.

“Most humans want to have the freedom, to be right or wrong.”

There’s nothing wrong with freedom, but freedom without truth is worthless.

“Some people in this world don’t want us to have that freedom, such as Liberals, Democrats, dictators, and popes.”

Popes believe in freedom. They also believe in truth and know the former is worthless without the latter.

“Few victims of the popes:
Waldensians.”

Nope. Waldensians victimized themselves when they chose heresy and schism.

“Cathars.”

Nope. Cathars victimized themselves when they chose heresy and schism and violence.

“John Wycliff/Lollards.”

John Wycliffe was never a “victim” of any pope. He died in his bed after a stroke. Lollards were persecuted by the state and Church in England not the pope.

“Jan Hus/Hussites.”

Nope. Hus chose his own fate by choosing to embrace heresy. Hussites chose their own fate by violently supporting heresy and war.

“....just to name a few million”

No.

“Has anyone heard of any aplogies from “the spokesman for Christ” so called?”

Yes. If you’re ignorant of those apologies that only tells us about you not the Church or the pope. It’s the information age. The only reason to be ignorant today is out of bigotry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

“Boniface VIII was the norm.”

How I wish that were the case.

“Unam Sanctum B.S.”

No, but your post certainly is.

“How could anybody be a Roman Catholic knowing history?”

I’m Catholic. I have a PhD in History. You really aren’t doing very well in this effort.

“By being born into it from the cradle.”

And?

“Beware of wolves in shepherds clothing.”

I agree - beware of Protestants. They lie. They are ignorant. They make things up out of thin air.

“The Word of God is the only rule for faith and practice.”

No, it isn’t. And the Bible doesn’t claim that it is either.

The study of Scripture is one of the subjects that is indeed one of the subjects that is taught in the seminary and is covered each of the four years. Many priest graduate with a Masters degree in Scripture in addition to their M.Div. Put away your Protestant ignorance.

From my research online I find that a Catholic Master of Divinity degree pretty much consists of:

M.Div. Fulfilling Academic Requirements for Roman Catholic Ordination – thirty semester-hours of philosophy; twelve semester-hours of theology or religious studies,

And, a relative number of Catholic related studies...As you can see, only 12 hours of bible OR religious studies, and, a whole heap of man-made human philosophy...

I would say that's not an awful lot of bible...

Thank you for your high value repetitious contribution...

The program you describe sounds more like the Pre-Theology that is a prerequisite for entry into the M.Div. A typical M.Div. program, as offered by Mount Saint Mary’s in Maryland, consists 90 credit hours in three years and would include 15 credit hours of Sacred Scripture. This is only for the degree. Ordinations candidates would also have to complete a fourth year so that the entire program would typically include at least 21 credit hours in Sacred Scripture.

“Learn some history: [about Protestant catechism]”

I stand corrected. I have never heard that term in my life applied to anything other than Catholic doctrines, but you are correct that there are apparently many Protestant catechisms. I did not know this, and I acknowledge I was wrong and learned something useful from you.

In general, most Protestant groups with which I am familiar do use commentaries, other books as well as sermons for learning as you mentioned. That is true. What all hold in common is a reliance on the scriptures as the final authority. There is a very broad consensus as to identifying the scriptures which is similar but not exactly the same as what the Catholic church considers canonical (as much as I have been told by those who have argued the Catholic views in the past).

“Nor was he [Tyndale] condemned by Pope Paul III but by the secular court of Emperor Charles V.”

Tyndale was convicted of heresy by an ecclesiastical panel in August, 1536 which turned him over to the secular authority, much as the religious leaders turned Christ over to the Romans to do their dirty work. Tyndale was opposed by religious and governmental leaders in England and the Holy Roman Empire.

“King Henry VIII, after his break with Rome, ordered all copies to be burned.”

Tyndale actually agreed with Rome about divorce, particularly as it applied to the king of England, which earned him little favor with the king. Yet his dying request appears to have been fulfilled when he prayed to God to open the eyes of the king. Tyndale’s translation of the scriptures make up most of text of the Authorized version.

“While comforting to Protestants it is completely untrue [that the Catholic church opposed the spread of scripture]. In fact, contrary to the mythology of Protestantism, there were multiple vernacular translations of the Bible before Luther and Tyndale. In German there were 18 editions of the complete Bible, 90 editions of the Gospels and the readings for Sundays and Holy Days, and 14 editions of the Psalter before Luther. English was admittedly not so lucky but there were partial translations.”

It was largely because of the scripture being translated into other languages that the doctrine and practices of the Church of Rome began to be called into question and Luther gained many followers. The clergy were vehemently opposed to any translation of scripture into English so they could avoid an English movement similar to Luther’s from taking place.

“English Catholics produced their own translation in 1582(NT)/1609(OT) which all Catholics were free to read.”

The Catholic church was forced to make an English translation because of Tyndale’s work. This was a whole generation after Tyndale’s contributions.

“will you also condemn Calvin for the burning of Servetus and reject his spiritual heirs?”

First of all, Calvin had a long, ongoing dispute with Servetus in which Calvin told him “I neither hate you nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with so great audacity.” Later Servetus wanted to visit Calvin in person but Calvin refused because he knew the matter would escalate and end with Servetus being condemned. Further, Calvin did not burn Servetus at the stake and requested that he be punished as a traitor rather than a heretic; but Calvin’s request was denied. So, no, Calvin did not have him burned.

Thomas More vehemently opposed Tyndale and condemned his translating work. Though More denied the accusations that he tortured those he labeled heretics, he himself admits to imprisoning them. Here is a man still highly regarded by the Catholic church today.

What is more important is that hindsight is 20/20, and we now know from history why freedom of speech and separation of powers is important because we can see clearly what doing otherwise leads to. I do not believe in apostolic succession; so it is not relevant to me whether Calvin was right or wrong historically or even a true believer himself. The apostolic authority I regard is what is preserved in the writings of the apostles. I do not mean that whether Calvin was right or wrong is unimportant but that what I believe is not based on him nor even Tyndale.

“Tyndale was not condemned for translating the Bible but for mistranslating it.”

Tyndale was opposed before he translated. The idea of translating it to English was opposed. But the more important question is, is that what you would like to see today? Would you like to see a worldwide Catholic theocracy with the power to imprison, torture and execute those who dare challenge its doctrine and practices?

Without men like Tyndale and Luther, there still would have been an inevitable revolt against the abuses and hypocrisy in the visible church and government of that era.

The idea of centralized power being a way to insure a continued integrity of practices, beliefs, accuracy of facts has a corollary which we know in hindsight: such centralized power can just as easily insure the continuance and continuity of evil practices and the propagation of lies with little opportunity to correct these things.

The founders of this nation were able to build a coalition of various Christian sects which all agreed on the freedoms of religion, speech, conscience, and associations. This would never have happened without men like Tyndale. Your failure to condemn his murder speaks volumes.

In general, most Protestant groups with which I am familiar do use commentaries, other books as well as sermons for learning as you mentioned.

And what this body of works does is create a filter through which Protestants view the Bible. This becomes just as much a tradition as that of Catholics. If Protestants were true to the claim of direct access to the Bible they would either present it without any theological commentary or present both Protestant and Catholic commentaries together, giving them equal weight and allowing the reader/student to choose the interpretation that appeals to him.

It was largely because of the scripture being translated into other languages that the doctrine and practices of the Church of Rome began to be called into question and Luther gained many followers.

As I pointed out before, there were a number of translations in the various languages before Luther and Tyndale. They were not widely available before the invention of the printing press because of cost, not a effort by the Church to prevent their distribution. What happened with Luther and Tyndale was the introduction of mistranslations that were deliberately polemical. Rather than allowing the readers to have direct access to the Bible the Reformers used the process of translation to promote a theological agenda. Luther himself admitted that he inserted "alone" to the phrase "by faith alone."

The clergy were vehemently opposed to any translation of scripture into English so they could avoid an English movement similar to Luther’s from taking place.

Admittedly true but this was based on a practical need because they feared the civil war going on in Germany rather than on a theoretical opposition to vernacular translations.

The Catholic church was forced to make an English translation because of Tyndale’s work. This was a whole generation after Tyndale’s contributions.

You conveniently leave out the revolution caused by the invention of the printing press in your timeline of events. There was not attempt to "hide" the Bible from the people. Rather, before the printing press it was just too expensive and literacy rates too low to produce widespread vernacular translations. It took a whole generation for English Catholic translation because the English Catholics were forced into exile and had to work with little funding.

The founders of this nation were able to build a coalition of various Christian sects which all agreed on the freedoms of religion, speech, conscience, and associations. This would never have happened without men like Tyndale. Your failure to condemn his murder speaks volumes.

You want me to say it then I will say it, the execution of Tyndale and other heretics was unjustified and sinful. But let us not pretend that this was something unique to Catholicism. I can name a Catholic victim by the Protestants for every Protestant victim you can name. It was a sad product of the age, not of either Catholicism or Protestantism per se. Nor should we pretend that Protestantism was founded on religious liberty. Wherever the Protestants came to power during the Reformation they set up their own state churches and persecuted Catholics. We both have enough skeletons in our respective closets from this dark age.

I think your last assessment is generally pretty fair.

I do think you underestimate the opposition to spreading the Bible in English, but I will grant that much of this opposition was not because of Catholic doctrines but more of a failure to follow what all Christians generally agree to be God’s moral laws.

One other thing I will point out is that much of the Bible study tools Protestants use are dedicated to helping the reader to get more familiar with the Bible itself rather than trying to explain it.

For example, a concordance might identify the original Greek or Hebrew text being translated, distinguish this from other words with similar meanings. They sometimes help to recover what might be lost in translation. A Bible dictionary could contribute similarly. A commentary might provide some historical or cultural context which makes a passage more easily understood. Sometimes cross references help to clarify the meaning and intent.

Granted that some of these things may be influenced by the authors’ theology, but often it is just a tool like basic literacy that can allow someone to read and understand the Bible.

We regard these tools as always fallible and to generally contain errors. We even generally recognize that translations can contain errors or misunderstand the meaning of the original. Occasionally there is even dispute as to whether a word or phrase was copied correctly. But none of these things really have a definitive impact on our understanding of basic doctrines.

The debate revolves around the authority of oral traditions and teachings. We recognize these things to have value as well but believe that everything essential for us to know for salvation and godly living is preserved in the Bible.

The traditions of the apostles are not the same as the traditions of men. Apostolic traditions were ordained by God. We believe these have been faithfully preserved in the Bible.

Likewise, the apostles’ doctrines are not doctrines of men. Yes, these were taught by them to faithful men who in turn taught others who did likewise. However, we hold that none of these oral instructions contain any knowledge that is not also recorded in scripture so that everything essential can be derived through the “rightly dividing of the word of truth”.