21 'Tough' Questions for a 'Roman' Catholic. Part 1 of 3

Colossians Two Ministries (C2M) put up 21 'tough' questions for Catholics, which were just begging for answers. I guess they didn't get any of the memos that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, upon the Rock of Peter, that has preserved the Truth. Someone should get them one of those memos, like this one from Cardinal Ratzinger.

Well, let's answer the first 9 'tough' questions, shall we?

 1. How can a group of fallible men elect a fallible man as their leader who then becomes infallible through the election?

The same way Protestants think that a group of fallible men decided which books would make up an infallible book (Scripture). That was a little tongue in cheek.

In actuality, it's because Christ promised it. He granted the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to his apostle Peter (Matthew 16:19). Christ promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). The way in which the successor of St. Peter and his See is chosen has changed slightly over the centuries, but because Christ promised there would be a Pope (who is infallible) there must be a way for someone to fulfill that office.

Furthermore, you have to understand that it is not the man that is infallible, but it is the office. The Pope is only infallible when he functions in his office (ex cathedra or from/out of the chair). So in actuality, a conclave only elects the fallible man that will be in the infallible office of the Pope.


2. Why do Catholics refer to Church leaders as Father when Jesus strictly forbids the use of that title to designate religious leaders?

If Christ forbid calling everyone father, then St. Paul, St. John, and St. Luke are in a heap of trouble! Relevant verses include 1 John 2:13  "I write unto you, fathers, because you have known him, who is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one"; Acts 7:2 "our father Abraham"; and Romans 9:10 "our father Isaac."

If that doesn't satisfy you, I did three posts on calling priests father (post 1, post 2, post 3).


3. If Peter was the first Pope, why did he refer to himself as only a fellow elder? 1 Peter 5:1

Because he was a fellow elder (presbyter, where the English word for priest comes from)! The Pope was exhorting them as a fellow elder/priest (he was connecting with them on something they share- the fact that they both share the priesthood), but that doesn't mean that he wasn't also Pope. A CEO can exhort his fellow workers, even though he is at the same time CEO (he is CEO and a worker. They both share the workhood, eventhough he is set apart as a CEO). Even today Popes exhort others in areas that they share with Catholics. So the Pope often exhorts the Catholic faithful as a fellow human being; he exhorts priests as a fellow priest; and he often exhorts bishops as a fellow bishop. At the same time, he is Pope.

So St. Peter was exhorting his fellow elders/priests because they share the office of presbyter.


4. If Peter was the first Pope, how do you explain the fact that he was married? (Mark 1:30)

Um... because a Pope can be married. Celibacy is a practice in the Catholic Church, not a doctrine or dogma. The practice of celibacy can be changed. Furthermore, there are still married priests today in the Catholic Church (in some of the Eastern Rites, for example), and even a few in the Latin Rite (such as married Anglican priests that converted to the Catholic Church).

So I first explain the fact that Peter was married by answering first "so what?" and second "being married does not mean one cannot be Pope."


5. If Peter was the first Pope, why did he admit to being wrong in the matter of the false teachers and submit to the Gospel? (Galatians 2:11-14)

Because what Peter was doing was wrong! But Papal Infallibility (which, I assume, is what you are arguing against) deals with what the Pope teaches, not with what the Pope does or even personally believes! So it is no contradiction to say that Peter was infallible, and at the same time did something wrong.


6. Where do you find the word Catholic in the Bible?

Around the same verse that uses the word Trinity, Lutheran, Anglican, King James Version, etc. Even though these words are not found in the Bible, does not mean that they either don't exist or shouldn't exist.

The name Catholic (in relation to the Church) was used by St. Ignatius around 110 AD. "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2).


7. Why does the Catholic church allow and even encourage prayers to Mary, designated saints and angels when the Bible strictly forbids it? (Revelation 22:9; Matthew 6:7)

1. Revelation 22:9 does not even deal with prayer to saints!!! Instead, the angel in Revelation 22:9 was telling John not to "worship at [his] feet" (Revelation 22:8. I mean, all they had to do is read the preceding verse!). Praying to saints, just like asking someone on earth to pray for us, is not the same thing as 'worshipping at the feet' of the saints.

2. Matthew 6:7 relates to praying and not meaning what one prays, not to praying to saints. Maybe Colossians Two Ministries missed the words "because of their many words," and instead focused on "for they think they will be heard." Either way, this relates to pagans when they pray, instead of Christians praying to those in Heaven.


8. If Mary was born without sin, why did she take a sin offering to the temple? (Luke 2:24) And why did it take until the early 1950’s for the Church to begin teaching this important doctrine?

In regards to 1950... the date actually is 1854! Colossians Two Ministries falls pray to the Fundamentalist's problem of history... that is exists.

Here are both verses 23 and 24 (this is why context in important). "When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons."

Mary went through the post-childbirth purification ritual for the same reason Jesus went through the post-childbirth circumcision ritual: out of obedience to the Mosaic law. Both rites (purification of the mother, which was a ritual cleansing, and circumcision and of child) symbolized being freed from sin. Both Jesus and Mary underwent them not because they needed to be freed from sin, but because they were Jews who followed the Mosaic law.

According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son. She was required to offer a sacrifice. The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness, not a moral fault in giving birth! Jesus and Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law. The Mosaic Law wasn't written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah/Jesus) or His sinless mother (Mary).

The Church taught the Immaculate Conception long before 1854. There was a feast in celebration of the Most Holy and All Pure Mother of God as late as the 5th century in Syria, for example. And, of course, there are always the Church Fathers.

So waiting until 1854 wasn't because of it being a new belief, but because it seemed most opportune. Mark Shea gives the reason for the declaration of the Immaculate Conception in 1854:
"The reason given by Pius IX for defining the doctrine is deeply Christian: love. The Holy See had been petitioned on the Immaculate Conception for centuries because the vast majority of Catholics already believed it and wanted to see the Church define the doctrine as a sort of love letter to Mary... [and it also] end(ed) up serving as an antidote to a great many poisonous ideas that were... beginning to take root all over the world." (Mary, Mother of the Son V2. pg. 127-128). These poisonous ideas included secularism, Nietzsche, atheism, Marxism, and Freudism. (You can buy Mark Shea's excellent book Mary, Mother of the Son here).

Here are two posts I did on the Immaculate Conception (offensive and defensive), in case one still has questions about the dogma.


9. Why does the Church teach that there is a second chance for salvation through Purgatory and Masses for the Dead when the Bible teaches the direct opposite? (Hebrews 9:27; Luke 16:26)

That is not what the Church teaches about Purgatory. Purgatory is not a second chance for salvation, but is a place of purification for those that die in G-d's friendship and grace, but are not perfectly clean. Those that go to Purgatory are destined for Heaven, but they just need to be cleaned up a little before they enter. Here is an article from Catholic Answers that might address other concerns with Purgatory that Colossians Two Ministries might have.

Part I, Part II, Part III