All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
How well do you know Catholic Christianity?
As a Catholic Christian I am often hurt by the contempt with which the Church is written about here at All About God. net. And yet I know that many Christians would not be able to answer even basic questions about the Biblical-based teaching and practice of the Holy Catholic Church. So, here is a quiz that I found at Catholic Bible 101. Can you pass this quiz without looking up the answers before hand? And if not, then could we all agree to get to know Catholic Christianity before we condemn Catholic Christians?
Take the quiz and find out.
- Pope John Paul II instituted a new set of mysteries to the Rosary called the ______Mysteries. It is suggested by the Church to say these mysteries on _______ .
- The 3rd Glorious Mystery of the Rosary is the ________.
- Saul saw Jesus as a bright light on his way to _________.
- The first Christian in the New Testament, as well as the first evangelist, was _______.
- Paul describes Jesus as the new ______.
- The Ark of the Covenant contained three items, according to Paul, including ____, ____, & _____ .
- There are at least 3 righteous people mentioned in the Book of Luke, ____, _____, and _____.
- According to the Bible, _______ is the prince of the air.
- The first murderer in human history was _________.
- Adam and Eve's third son was named _______.
- Jesus is a priest forever, in the order of _______.
- True or False--The Catholic Church added the 7 books of the "apocrypha" to the Bible after the Protestant Reformation.
- True or False--The Bible condemns all tradition.
- The Liturgy of the Hours draws mainly from the Biblical book of ______.
- __________ was completely forgiven for his sin by God, but still had to endure the death of his child as punishment.
- ________ told Mary that a sword would pierce her heart.
- Psalm _____ foretells the crucifixion of Jesus and that lots would be cast for his clothes.
- Bethlehem means _______of _______.
- The prophet _______ foretold that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.
- The prophet _______ foretold that Jesus would be born of a virgin.
- The prophet _______ foretold that Jesus would be sold for 30 pieces of silver.
- _________chopped off the head of General Holofernes, saving Israel. She is a biblical type of Mary, who crushes the head of the serpent, saving the Church.
- ________ was caught up to heaven in a whirlwind. Just prior to that, ________ asked for and received a double portion of his spirit.
- _____ went to the Witch of Endor to get her to conjure up Samuel from the dead.
- True or False - Witchcraft, sorcery, and divination are not condemned by the Bible.
- ____ & _____ asked Jesus if he should rain fire down on a Samaritan village.
- Jesus appeared to his unknowing disciples after the Resurrection on the road to _______ .
- In _____ chapter 6, Jesus told his disciples that if they eat ____and drink ____ they would abide in him, and he in them.
- The angel Gabriel called Mary _____ of _____, rather than by her name.
- __________ was an Old Testament Prophet and King, who was a shepherd, was born in Bethlehem, started his Kingship at 30 years of age, and foretold that evil men would cast lots for the Messiah's clothes.
- Following the death of King __________in 930 BC,the nation of Israel split into the Northern Kingdom, called ________, and the southern Kingdom, called __________.
- Of the 12 tribes of Israel, ___ were in the northern kingdom, and ____ were in the southern kingdom.
- The capital of the northern kingdom was ____________, while the capital of the southern kingdom was __________.
- In 722 BC, the northern kingdom was taken captive by __________.
- In 587 BC, the southern kingdom was taken captive by __________.
- The ________ kingdom eventually returned home after 70 years of exile.
- The ________kingdom assimilated with pagan countries and was never heard from again.
- Jesus said that a kingdom __________ cannot __________.
- According to 2 Maccabees, ________buried the Ark of the Covenant containing the 10 Commandments in a cave on or near Mount ________.
- Also according to 2 Maccabees, the long dead prophet _________ appeared to the former high priest Onias and to Judas Maccabees and presented a golden sword to Judas. Onias said the prophet_______much for the people and the holy city.
- Straight out of the Bible, the Seven Sorrows of Mary are ________, ________, ________, ________, ________, ________, & ________.
- _______ was taken up into heaven in a whirlwind (at the spot on the Jordan River where ________ started his ministry years later), after giving a double portion of his spirit to his protege, ________.
Views: 1203
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Sharon Theresa Theil on
-
You have not discussed the topic extensively. You have only quoted over and over again what the Catechism tells you to think about those verses. Can you tell me biblically using other verses of the Holy Bible where it is taught that Peter was left to be a pope?>>
David,
Your language is insulting. 'what the Catechism tells you to think'...that's rude. And no the Bible does not state that Peter was left to be a pope but the Bible also doesn't say that God is a Trinity, to ask Jesus into your heart, you will be saved by faith only, nor pray this little prayer to be saved.
The Bible doesn't say a great many things because the Bible never was and never shall be the Totality of God's Revelation to His people. To find the fullness of the Gospel one needs the Church.
btw...if you want to get into same argument that Protestants have had with Catholics for the past five centuries...do it with me...as I know that nothing you, or anyone else, writes on these forums will ever shake my faith but, that may or may not be true for someone who is new to our little faith community.
And I promise to tie half my brain behind my back just to be fair. :)
Sharon. -
-
Permalink Reply by RoyW on
-
Sharon,
It is great to hear that you are doing better. I was one praying for you. From this post, it appears you are fired up and ready to go. However, with David, I would recommend you not tying half your brain behind your back. You guys are turning him into an expert on the subject. Congratulations.
Roy -
-
-
Roy,
One of the many good things about David is he knows I love him so I know that he can take a joke, at least I hope he knows I love him! :)
And thanks for your prayers my brother in Christ.
Sharon. -
-
Permalink Reply by Helen on
-
David....Long sigh....
I have indeed quoted various scriptures and extensively elaborated on them.
I did NOT base my arguments on the Catecthism ( by the way, I think you dont understand what the CCC is, you keep mis-quoting it all the time...) Just read my replies and you will see....
However, and eventhough I have already shown it to you, Sir. I have just posted another reply somewhere here, in response to another question you posed me, and there you will find more SCRIPTURAL evidence. OK?
Blessed be!
H. -
-
-
Helen,
I like that you are using Protestant experts to back up your assertions. Good for you!
Sharon. -
-
-
Dear Scribe, since I might not be able to get back to this again, I thought I'd just answer your points, in spite of the excellent link that I have already sent you.
You stated:
Helen, your premise seems to begin with the famously misinterpreted verses of Matthew 16 and the erroneous assumption that Jesus "founded the church" on St. Peter. [your quote: "Hence, I will elaborate my reply to you anchored by the understanding that indeed Jesus founded His Church upon Peter..."]
Jesus said nothing of the sort. Period. This is a deliberate attempt by the Roman church to usurp authority that was not granted to any single Bishop, and especially not to the Roman church. Peter never claimed any kind of primacy ever and the only time in scripture that we know he seemed to be attempting to exercise some sort of authoritarian attitude - Paul shot him down for hypocrisy.
Yes He did! Go back to Matthew 16-19. That is not an attempt of Rome. It is a factual claim.
In Matthew 16, Jesus said he was henceforth calling Simon "Pedros" (pebble) and that upon this "Petra" (boulder) he would establish his church. There is a clear distinction between those two concepts and Jesus was deliberately drawing that contrast.
I'm afraid that is wrong. Petra means large rock, feminine noun in Greek. Whereas Petrus, is the declension for the same noun that makes it into a masculine form, since Peter was a male. I am not sure if you have any knowledge of German or Latin, if so you will understand what I mean.
He could have easily said he was founding the church on Peter, if that is what he meant. He did not say that. He said he was founding it upon Peter's confession - which is another thing entirely.
Since you’ve got the Greek mixed up, your understanding has been compromised. So you cannot use it to refute the Catholic claim.
1. If the confession was the sole possession of Peter, Jesus would not have taken the glory from him by saying "this was revealed to you by my Father".
No one is claiming confession is sole possession of Peter. The RCC claims he was the first overseer , which means Epicopos in Greek, or bishop in English. What is the pope? The bishop of Rome.
2. if he had intended the point to be about Peter, he would have said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against you".
Wrong. He was talking about the Church, therefore He gave Peter the keys, then proclaimed to build the Church upon this Rock - Peter - and them promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church that Peter is to be the leader of. When Jesus gave Peter the Keys he was making a clear reference to the OT, when David appointed his new Chief Minister, he gave the minister the keys of his kingdom, so that he would be recognized as the leader of all ministers by everyone in David's kingdom.
Note that Jesus said "he would found HIS church. He is taking sole possession of it, otherwise he would have said "our church" which would have led to the understanding of Peter somehow being a co-ruler.
Leadership does NOT imply ownership or founding. Fact. You may be the leader of an organization of which you are not the owner.
He did not, so therefore he is not making Peter a co-ruler of any kind - not in any way as superior to the other Apostles.
Jesus appointed Peter as a leader, that is what the RCC teaches. Therefore, to discuss what Jesus did NOT appoint him as is not relevant. Simple as that.
Peter's confession is about the Deity and Supremecy of Christ. This is something that no one, until that moment had comprehended. Jesus is therefore making a clear statement of the church belonging to those who adhere to his LORDship, not the lordship of some petty earthly ruler or ecclesiastical dictator.
These are two separate things. Jesus acknowledged Peter’s understanding of the Truth. Praised him for such an understanding and then proclaimed that his understanding came from God. Point one made by Jesus.
Then He goes on saying that He will indeed found HIS Church and that Peter would be the rock on which He was to build it. That is plainly stated. No need to interpret it.
Furthermore, it is clearly and abundantly stated elsewhere in Scripture that this is the point Jesus is making.
No it is not abundantly stated anywhere else that Jesus selected anyone other than Peter to lead his Church.
Paul goes to great lengths to establish Christ as the Head of the Church.
That is EXACTLY the RCC claim: Christ is the Head. The Pope is His Vicar.
The book of Hebrews goes to great lengths to establish Jesus as the only authority, the supreme fulfillment of all of Scripture.
That is exactly the RCC claim. Jesus is the WORD incarnate, the Head of the Church, which is His mystical Body.
The Church is only to guard and spread the Divine Revelation given to the Apostles by Jesus and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, which has consistently been passed on through the centuries both through the Scriptures and the Apostolic Tradition of the disciples (which was received orally). This is called the Fidei Depositum.
Finally, John could easily have labored in his letters and his Gospel to establish Peter as an authority. He does not. In fact, he focuses on Peter's failure and the need for his restoration.
1- This is your interpretation. It is not in the Scripture, so we can know for sure.
2- Assuming Jonh didnt write something is just assumption, it is not scripture sound.
John's central theme is Christ; from John 1:1 to Revelation 22. John's point is to remove all doubt of the gnostic heresy of his day and he does not make one effort to establish Peter as an authority, nor to establish a Roman Bishop of any kind.
John’s concern was not gnostic heresy, but to be loyal to the Truth of God, namely Jesus, the Word incarnate. Does John say he was concerned with Gnosticism? No. So, lets not even discuss it.
In fact, it is very well established that John remained the final recognized apostolic authority-leader of the church until his death sometime in decade of 90 AD (well after Peter, perhaps 25 years after Peter's martyrdom).
Thanks. You’ve just helped me demonstrate my point re: the Catholic Apostolic SUCCESSION.
When he died, Rome was by no means a seat of authority, but rather Ephesus and that area of Asia minor continued for more than a 100 years post-apostolic era as a headquarters or rather a hub of Christianity. (this is why Constantine chose Nicea as the seat of the council to on apostolic doctrine).
I am sorry, but that is not accurate. The writings of the Church Father Irenaeus who wrote around 180 AD reflect a belief that Peter "founded and organised" the Church at Rome. However, Irenaeus was not the first to write of Peter's presence in the early Roman Church. Clement of Rome wrote in a letter to the Corinthians, c. 96 about the awesome persecution of Christians in Rome as the “struggles in our time” and presented to the Corinthians its heroes, “first, the greatest and most just columns, the “good apostles” Peter and Paul. St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote shortly after Clement and in his letter from the city of Smyrna to the Romans he said he would not command them as Peter and Paul did. Given this and other evidence, many scholars agree that Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero.
When Rome was relinquished by Constantine, it was not the center of the empire, but rather the abandoned backwater that it had become. Constantine chose Byzantia as his headquarters, because it was the thriving center of the empire in his day.
That is absolutely irrelevant for our discussion. We are not debating the economic , social, cultural importance of Rome. We are debating Peter’s leadership. The RCC does not claim that Peter's leadership resulted caused economic/cultural/social prominence in Rome or anywhere for that fact.
There is nothing historically, nor biblically, to establish the Vatican as any greater authority of Christianity than any other Bishop-led centre of the time.
Wrong again. Have you ever heard of a book called the Teachings of the Twelve? It is nothing less than a treasure of Christianity dated 50 AD where you will find various of references to Peter’s leadership and apostolic succession, as mentioned above. But that is not the only sources. Obviously, there numerous epistles or Apostolic Letters, as the Church calls them and which Protestants reject, even though some are dated as early as 35 AD, that can attest to the RCC claim.
In fact there were 6 other Bishop-seats (in the day that Rome was relinquished by Constantine), each with just as much of a sense of Apostolic authority as Rome, if not more. It is well established that Rome only began to exercise it's sense of combined political and ecclesiastical authority centuries later as power corrupted the Roman church.
That is the point of hierarchy. If you have more than one in charge of their local churches, then you have a leader overseer ( Episcopos)
So, you are beginning with a flawed premise and you would do well to stop, step back and consider what David has been saying.
No, as have shown again. There is no flaw and I promise you I am not the only one who thinks so. How about you taking a step back?
Since you yourself have admitted that your entire set of arguments begins with a premise that can so easily be refuted both Biblically and Historically.
Please, don’t twist my words. I began that post to which you replied stating to David that I could not consider his request for me to ‘ignore’ the issue of Peter’s leadership in order to refute his view. I THEN said to him, I could not do that because that IS the point of my argument. Please read the previous posts. I am not assuming anything. I am emphatically, objecting to the Protestant view.
Many thanks.
Helen -
-
Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on
-
Raj,
Yes! I was called by God. I was not seeking God. I was seeking to escape from prison, not to find God. I was already an accountant when I went to prison and my life was on schedule to become who I wanted to become. Prison was a vacation according to my old way of thinking. I was trying to attain knowledge in many different areas of life, so I could be the perfect criminal. I use to smoke a joint while drinking a 40oz beer while taking to my best friend about going to hell and being the most crazy fools in that place. We lived to die. God was not in my thoughts. I wanted nothing to do with God. I had nothing against Christians, but I wanted nothing to do with God. If anything I wanted to know about the occult and also about God, but just to be the perfect criminal, not to serve Him.
No friend - I was not seeking God. He sought me. He loved me first. He saved me from my self. -
-
-
Raj,
I know another person that was not seeking God but was on the road to Damascus seeking to arrest Christians. He had absolutely no thought of any kind whatsoever of joining them. Suddenly, a blinding light from heaven struck him. He was immediately changed. His whole life (all his thinking, his ambitions, his philosophies, etc.) was instantly changed in a moment. This is the power that Christ has. This is the same power that He exercised on David. Why are you struggling with that? There are others in Scripture struck with that power. When God's chosen ones come face to face with Christ, they are changed. This is good news.
Roy -
-
Permalink Reply by Carla on
-
Amen to this!
at the risk of going off on a rabbit trail..
If i may be so bold as to share my personal experience also.. my testimony is on my page. I was not searching for God. I hated God, and I athiestically denied His existence. God found me.. In that moment, His Love that He poured out on me caused me to Love Him in an undeniable Awesome way. I needed to get to the end of myself, but it was not until I 'saw Jesus for who HE is' that I knew of my need for Him.. This could only be this way because HE showed me. This is one of the beautiful unexplainable mysteries of God...
God found me.. I was not searching for Him.
Blessings and Love in Christ, Carla -
-
-
Rom 10:20 And later Isaiah spoke boldly for God: "I was found by people who were not looking for me. I showed myself to those who were not asking for me."
-
-
-
Amen to that!
-
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
