It’s a common question these days when speaking with Protestants. John J Dietzen in “The New Question Box” gives us a good response:
Images of Jesus and the saints have been used for decorational and devotional purposes since the beginning of Christianity. Today, only the most grossly uninformed person gives any credence to the old accusation that Catholics worship these statues or pictures.
Several hundred years ago, the Council of Trent explained the practice perfectly: “The images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints are kept and honored in churches not because it is believed that there is any divinity or power in these images, or that anything may be asked of them, or any faith put in them.
“The honor shown to them is really being given to the persons whom they represent. Through these images which we kiss, and before which we bow with bared heads, we worship Christ, and not the saints whose likenesses they display.”
Even many Catholics do not realize that, since such pictures and statues become intimately connected with what people believe about God and his revelation, the church is very careful about what images are allowed for public veneration. All such pictures or sculptures must be approved by the bishop or other proper authority.
The reasons most Protestant denominations do not allow images in their churches are varied. One is that, early in the Protestant Reformation there was much misunderstanding about the meaning of honoring images of Jesus and the saints nd “no statues” became one of the symbols of protest against the church of Rome.
Perhaps a more significant reason is that many early Protestant leaders, especially of the Calvinist and other Puritan traditions, were extremely austere and considered any sort of display, color, or emotion, such as might be encouraged by statues and pictures, totally out of place in religious worship.
This reminds me of a friend’s encounter with a Christian once. I forget where he met him, but my Catholic friend asked the other person, “Are you a Christian?” So as to differentiate between Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians, the other person responded, “I am a Protestant.” And my friend went, “I see, so what are you protesting against?”
While it is true that many Protestants today don’t know why they are called Protestants, it is also true that many Catholics don’t know why they are called Catholics. They just see it as just another name or label, but do we see what’s beyond that label? Or do we just see the external?
Indeed this is the very problem that causes the misunderstanding regarding statues and images – that we see only the external and do not see what’s beyond.
One good example is the use of photographs. Protestants may not have statues or images in their churches, but I am positive that they have photographs of their loved ones in their wallets, on their office desks, in their homes. I can also bet that if they got a chance to meet a famous person, they would at least take a photo with him and have it framed up on the wall.
But does that photo mean that it is the real thing? Do we talk to the photograph as we talk to the person represented in the photo? When we kiss the photo of our spouse or loved ones, don’t we know that we are only kissing a representation of him or her?
These photographs point us beyond the paper that they are printed on. They point us to the reality of that person. When we keep the photograph of a deceased loved one, and touch it sometimes, do we really think that we’re touching the real person? What we’re doing is keeping alive our memory of that person, what we loved about him, what that person means to us, what we admired about that person.
It is the same with Catholics and their statues and images, and it is a practice that has been taking place in Christian churches long before the first Protestant was born.
And indeed it is a beautiful and touching practice, to remember those saints that we admired, the Jesus that we love and his mother that we honour.
I’m married to a catholic and spent the first six years of my schooling in a Catholic school. I have many dear Catholic friends. Fundamentally, however, I believe the Catholic church is no different than the Morman church. Church doctrine is based on the wants and desires of a few very powerful men. The Vatican conventions through the centuries have made up the rules as they went along. Catholics are not taught to be Christians, they are taught to be Catholics. And Catholics do pray to statues and charms and any number of symbols of saints and Mary. The Bible is very clear that Jesus is the only way to God. The Bible does not speak of Mary as the Mother of God. I’m sure that she is in Heaven in a beautiful place, but nowhere in the Bible, which by the way should supersede Catholic dogma, does it say we should pray to her and put her on equal footing with God. The history of the Catholic Church is filled with evil men who sought to control and exploit the masses.
Hi Wes,
I am not married, and I spent all my years of schooling in a public school. I am not familiar with the workings of the Mormon Church, so I cannot say much about it.
I would say that Church doctrine is based on the teachings of one very powerful man – the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords, the humble man known as Jesus Christ, who died on a cross and rose again to free us from sin.
If the Catholic Church was made only of men, then yes, I would agree that the councils (not conventions) held through the centuries have made up the rules as they went along. Incidentally, only the last two councils were held in the Vatican. The rest were held in other major cities such as Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Lyons, Vienne… among others.
Now God exists, and God became man in the person of Jesus Christ, to show us the way to live fully as a human being. He gathered around him a group of trusted disciples (including the one that was not so trustworthy) and he taught that all that they needed to know. After he died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, these men continued to spread his teachings throughout the world. The communities that listened to the words of Jesus formed the Church.
It was only much later when the Protestants came into the picture that there was a need to differentiate the original Christians from the Protestants (those who protested against the Church). Thus, this is how the original Christians came to be known as Catholics.
So when you say that Catholics are not taught to be Christians, you are actually contradicting yourself, because to be a Catholic is to be a Christian. Not just any Christian, but one that is faithful to the original teachings of Jesus Christ. These teachings are preserved, by the grace of God, only in the Catholic Church, and any believer of Christ who disagrees with these teachings are therefore called ‘Protest-ants’.
Another thing you might be interested in is how the Bible came about, and why there was a Bible in the first place. Now remember that the only group of Christians that existed all the way to the time of the first Protestants was what is now known as the Catholic Church. And since the books in the Bible that were finalized was done in the fourth century, therefore the Bible comes from the Catholic Church. Not only that, you will be surprised to know that the reason these books were compiled is because there was a need to decide which readings could be proclaimed during Mass.
The Bible comes from the Catholic Church. Imagine that! When Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church, he took out some books from the Bible because if these books taught some things that he disagreed with, such as the existence of a place of purification after death. This is why the Protestant Bible has fewer books than the Catholic Bible.
Now if you think I am making all this up, all you have to do is to learn more about the history of Christianity, and the history of the Bible to find out the truth.
I won’t say too much about Catholics praying to statues and charms and the saints and Mary, because it is all part of the history of Christianity. Since you are obviously not familiar with it, it would be useless to explain these additional details to you. We start with the basics – how did Christianity come to be what it is today, and where did the Bible come from?
But I will say one thing about Mary, and it concerns Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is both God and human. Now if Jesus is a human, that means that he was born of a woman, specifically a virgin. This is written in the Old Testament prophecies about the coming of Christ, and it is how the Church came to realise that Jesus is the Christ.
Now if Jesus is born of a woman, Mary, that makes Mary his mother. And since Jesus is God, Mary then becomes the Mother of God. It can then be seen quite clearly that any Christian who denies that Mary is not the mother of God is also denying that Jesus is human.
Now in the Bible, it also says in Mary’s song: From this day forward all generations will call me blessed, for the Almighty has done marvels for me. (Luke 1:48)
Do you call Mary blessed? No? Why not? It’s in the Bible, isn’t it? But don’t worry, Catholics do not believe that Mary is on equal footing with God. Nowhere in Catholic dogma does it say that. We believe that Mary is a creature of God.
So, in conclusion, before you make judgements and proclaim your ignorance about the history of the Catholic Church, it would be less embarassing for you to actually find out more about the history of the Catholic Church. Similarly, if you want to claim the Bible as the sole source of authority, it would be good for you to find out how the Bible came to be what it is today.
Wikipedia is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Canon#Christian_canons
Incidentally, you will find that nowhere in the Bible says that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth. That was Martin Luther’s invention.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
dear CW
surprised to see such a vitriolic reply to Wes from you(other coments on other pages are comparitively free from emotion).as a protestant, i had as many misconceptions about the catholic church as Wes till i got to read from your blog.though i donot completely agree with what the vatican proclaims for christians to follow,what i consider of most significance is that irrespectiveof denomination,we have salvation through Jesus Christ and that He is part of the Trinity.of course other doctrines follow.much of the misconceptions(among both protestants and catholics) stems from what we see other catholics and protestants do which may or maynot be done with its intended purpose or the way it should be done.
now,what protestants and luther really protested were certain practices and beliefs of the then existant church,not Jesus or any Biblical doctrines.also it is wrong to claim that catholics are the ‘original’ christians.the fellow who sticks to God and His will is the ‘original ‘ christian.finally what are the other sources of christian truth if the Bible isnt the only one?
Hi bejoy john,
I agree with you that there are many misconceptions among both Protestants and Catholics that stem from what we see others do. Certainly Luther did not protest against Jesus or biblical doctrines, but he also protested against teachings that have existed since the early Church. However, I truly believe that Luther did this because he saw many of these teachings being abused. But removing them from Christian belief is not the way to go about correcting such abuses. Even so, he did a good job of waking up the Church to what was taking place.
I don’t really understand what you mean by ‘original’ Christians, but I would say that according to history, the Catholic Church was the church from which Luther broke away from. After all, the very term ‘Protestant’ indicates that these Christians are protesting against something, and that something would be the Catholic Church, wouldn’t it? Anyway, there are many non-Catholic Christians today who are not at fault for being brought up in a Christian community that is not Catholic… as in, they aren’t protesting any more, so it’s not really right to call them ‘Protestants’, is it? I think this is why the Catholic Church is slowly moving to addressing these as our separated brothers and sisters.
Now on your query on sources of Christian truth, there is much that has been written in this area, and further down, I will give you a couple of links to articles that will explain it in greater detail, as well as provide you the biblical verses you require to see that scripture is not the only source of Christian truth.
We take a short walk back into the history of the early Church, say the first 300 years, when there was no Bible in existence. It was not till the fourth century that the Bible as we know it today started to take shape. So what did the Christians rely on those first 300 years? Since they had no bible, does it mean that they had no source of Christian truth from which they could learn? Remember that Jesus never wrote a book. In fact, the bible records only one instance in which he wrote anything, and that was in sand which was quickly brushed aside. But what Jesus did leave behind is plenty of oral teaching – the preached word.
In Paul’s second letter to Timothy, he says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition is not legends or myths or customs or rituals or even liturgical rubrics. What sacred or apostolic tradition consists of is the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. Most of these overlap with what is in scripture, but the mode of transmission is different. This is how Christ’s teachings have been handed down and entrusted to the Churches. The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph 3:5) who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (Jn 14:25-26, 16:13).
Oral preaching is how the Church has handed down Christ’s teachings for centuries. One thing that Luther did was to make the Bible available to the common people. This posed some problems however, and that is the interpretation of the scripture. Anyone can read scripture and use it to justify their own beliefs. Anything can be justified so long as you can find the appropriate verse in the Bible. What the Catholic Church has, and no other Church has, is a magisterium to interpret the teachings of the Church. What protects this magisterium from error is the Holy Spirit itself, the spirit of truth that Jesus promised would remain with the apostles.
That’s another thing that the Catholic Church has that no other church has – apostolic succession. The popes, all 265 of them, can trace a direct line of succession (by the laying of hands) back to St. Peter, the first pope.
Without such a teaching authority, any Christian community can claim to hold the truth, and yet teach something completely opposite to another Christian community. This is why there are tens of thousands of non-Catholic Christian communities in the world – because any time someone disagrees with their pastor, they simply break away and form their own church, preaching their own brand of the truth. None can claim the authority to interpret the bible, and this incredible number of Christian communities (in the tens of thousands) in the world only serve to show that Christianity is divided, and we know that a kingdom divided upon itself cannot stand.
Compare the range of numbers of divisions in Christianity pre- and post-Luther and you will find that there is something wrong with what Luther teaches – that Christian truth is found only in the bible.
Finally, you mentioned that what Protestants and Luther really protested were certain practices and beliefs of the then existant church, not Jesus or any biblical doctrines… and that the fellow who sticks to God and His will is the ‘original’ Christian. How do you know what is God’s will? Or to put it in another way, how do you know what is not God’s will? A person can kill in the name of God and say that it’s God’s will, and he can find the biblical verse to prove it to you.
So what were Protestants and Luther really protesting? Not Jesus or any biblical doctrines, which I think you mean to say that these are the essentials of Christian faith, while the others are secondary? How do we know what teachings are essential and what are secondary? How did Luther know what to discard and what to keep? If he looked to the bible only for that, then it is no surprise that other Protestants did the same and broke away from the Lutheran Church. Incidentally, you do know that Luther had to discard certain books from the bible because they did not fall in line with his own teaching, don’t you? That’s why the Protestant bibles have fewer books than the Catholic bibles.
How do we know what is essential to Christian teaching or not? How about the necessity of baptism for salvation (is it merely a sign or does it have a real role in justification?)? How about whether or not one can forfeit salvation? Most, if not all, Protestants claim to be ‘Bible-only’ Christians, but which group is right when one group teaches something and another group teaches the opposite? I think you will find that there is no answer, because there is no authoritative teaching body, guided by the Holy Spirit, that prevents the Church from falling into error.
Now to end off, let me just say once more that I do not blame Luther for what he did, because I believe he did what he did with good intention. Right intention, wrong method, perhaps? But God is overall in charge and nothing that takes place is beyond God’s control. Neither am I blaming Protestants for being brought up in a Christian tradition that broke away from the Catholic church centuries ago, for the present generation is not to be blamed for the mistakes of the past generations. What we are trying to do now is to mend the rifts that have formed and bring both Catholic and our separate brethren back into one fold under one shepherd.
Now I promised you those links. I took some of the material in this comment from those links.
The first one is on the link between scripture and tradition, and why scripture alone doesn’t work:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
The second link is on authority of the Christian teachings:
http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp
Hope these help your search! I personally found these links to be very enriching for my own knowledge.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
In this article there is a mixture of truth and half-truth. One such statement is that no other church possesses Apostolic Succession. If this means specifically the Roman Catholic Church, then the author is grossly off target. What about the four Patriarchates of the East which comprise the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Church holds a similar teaching on Oral Tradition also, but the Eastern Church has NEVER had statues in her churches. Instead She uses Icons for the reverence by the people. The use of Icons is theologically linked to the theology of the Divine Incarnation.
What was Luther protesting against? A lot! He was mainly protesting against the gross abuses of the Roman Catholic Church and the great distortions (heresies) of its teachings. Luther’s protest against Tradition was against Tradition as seen through the eyes of one who lived within the Roman Church.
Paul V. Dolan
Former Roman Catholic seminarian and now practincing Orthodox
pavindol@yahoo.com
Hi Paul,
You are right. The Eastern Orthodox Church also has apostolic succession, which is why it is also called the Eastern Catholic Church. Both Roman and Orthodox Churches are two halves of the same Catholic Church, and the split which occurred so many centuries ago was indeed unfortunate.
Our common heritage should make Catholics from both sides respectful of the great treasures that the other side holds for all the Church, which is why on Oct 12, 2002, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Teoctist of Romania came together to sign a common text, in which they both agreed to work towards full common, “on the common path of the dialogue of truth and love”. May that be our common vision!
I’m not very familiar with the Eastern Church, Paul. Perhaps you could share with me a bit of how the Church is structured. Does it have a magisterium? How did the splits occur in the Church that was once one? Are the reasons for the split still in existence?
Hope to learn from you!
God bless,
Catholic Writer
First off I have many friends in both Protestant and Catholic churches and I hold them all in high regard. I know that faith is a personal thing and most individuals will defend that faith regardless of available information. I have spent some time considering different approaches to my faith in God as well as different churches to help further my faith. In doing so I have come across concerns that I have about the Catholic church and have some questions that maybe can be addressed here.
1. The Virgin Mary
Mary the physical mother of Jesus is of great importance to Catholics, but the Bible says very little about Mary. Why?
2. The Pope
As I understand it the Pope is a mediator between God and mankind according to the Catholic church. But I thought Jesus is the only mediator between God and mankind (1 Timothy 2:5). Catholics also claim the Pope is the head of the Church on earth, but the Bible says Jesus is the head of the Church (Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22, Colossians 2:9-10). Is the Bible wrong?
3. Confession
Why must sins be confessed to priests? In the Bible it says Jesus has the power to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6). The Bible also teaches we can ask God ourselves for forgiveness, and He promises to forgive us and cleanse us (1 John 1:9).
4. Penance
I can’t find anything in the Bible about penance. The Bible does say that God’s forgiveness is a free gift we receive by turning away from our wrong ways and accepting it through believing in Jesus as our Lord (Galatians 2:16, Romans 1:17). According to the Bible good works do not make a person a Christian, but good works should be the sign of a person who is a Christian.
5. Purgatory
I can’t find anything about purgatory in the Bible. Jesus said in the Bible, that He who hears His word and believes in Him who sent Him, has everlasting life, and will not be judged, but has passed from death to life (John 5:24). The Bible also says God does not remember sins that have been forgiven (Hebrews 10:17). The Bible also says that once Christians die they will be present with God (2 Corinthians 5:8-9), there is no place in between.
It appears to me that with the exeption of the of the Apocrypha, the Protestant Bible and Catholic Bible are the same. I personally don’t believe that the Apocrypha was omitted from the Protestand Bible for any other reason that what can be found in the writings of Jewish historian Josephus (in 90 A.D.). He indicated that the Jews did not accept the books of the Apocrypha as a part of their scriptures either, and although Jesus and the Apostles quoted frequently and accurately from almost every other Old Testament book, never once did they quote from the Apocrypha.
Much of the Dogma of the Catholic Church seams to have come hundreds of years after the Bible was written and is based on leaders in the Roman Catholic Church. Why should this grant authority over what is in the Bible?
Sorry for all the questions. I actually have more, but that will have to be for another time.
Thanks,
Loren
Hi Loren,
You ask many difficult questions. I will respond to them soon.
In the meantime, here’s a good article about the papacy that I received in my email today:
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/594/Papal_Primer.html
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Hi Loren,
Thank you for asking these questions. They have given me an opportunity to revisit what I have learnt and to refresh my memory of it.
First, let’s talk about the Bible, since a number of your questions concern it. You wrote that you don’t believe that the Protestant bible omits the Apocrypha because the Jews do not accept these books as part of their scriptures.
One of the first things to realise is that Josephus wrote this in A.D. 90, and the first Protestant bible ever published appeared only in 1611. What bible was used for the first 15 centuries of Christianity? It is the Catholic bible.
Secondly, when did the Catholic bible come into place? It took a while for the Church to decide which books would be the approved canon. The word ‘canon’ means ‘the books of the Bible recognised by the church as genuine and inspired’. Historical records show that it was only in the 4th century that the canon was formalized. That sparks the question: if there was no bible to refer to in the first three centuries of the church’s history, how did the Christians know what was from God and what wasn’t?
Here we come to what the Catholic Church calls Tradition (with a capital ‘T’). Tradition does not mean legends or mythological accounts, nor does it include customs and practices that change with time, or even liturgical rubrics. Rather, Tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. This is the form of teaching that Jesus Christ used (bearing in mind that he never wrote anything down, except for some scribbles in the sand). These teachings largely overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the way it is handed down through the generations is different.
Tradition was handed down and entrusted to the Churches founded by the apostles in the various regions (see Acts of the Apostles). The truth of this faith is given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph 3:5) who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13). I give you scripture references to show you that this teaching of the Catholic Church is based on Scripture.
In the past and even today, whenever the Jews gathered at their synagogues, part of the Scriptures were read out for the people. The first Christians were Jews, and this practice carried on into Christianity. Every Sunday, they gathered in communities for the breaking of the bread (now called the Eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church) and part of the Scriptures were read out. What was also read out were portions of the instructional letters from the Apostles, which are the Epistles that we find in the New Testament. There were probably as many letters from the Apostles as there were Apostles, but not all of them are found in the New Testament today. How were these selected?
One of the reasons why it was necessary to formalize a canon for the New Testament was precisely for this reason – the Church had to agree on which letters and gospels could be read out for the breaking of the bread. So the leaders of the Christian communities (the bishops) gathered and agreed on which letters and gospels could be used at the Eucharistic celebration, and which could not. This is part of the history of how the Bible came to be.
In summary, the Bible came to be because the Churches (all in communion with one another back then, under what is now called the Catholic Church) needed to be sure which books of the Bible could be used in the celebration of the Mass (Eucharistic celebration is a term used interchangeably with ‘Mass’).
In other words, the Bible came from the Catholic Church, and was to be used by the Catholic Church. 11 centuries later, the Protestant Bible (the first was the King James Version) came into being. As to why the Protestants (more specifically the Church of England) decided to remove the Apocrypha from the canon of the Bible, I do not really know. What I do know is that the Church of England was formed when King Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church in 1533-34 because the Pope Clement VII refused to allow him to remarry. So King Henry VIII formed his own Church… hence the long-standing law in Britain that no person who has at any time professed Roman Catholicism, or has ever married a Roman Catholic, may succeed the throne of England.
You also wrote that much of the dogma (the more accurate word is ‘doctrines’) of the Catholic Church seems to have come hundreds of years after the Bible was written, and is based on the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. And you asked by this should grant authority over what’s in the Bible.
I think after reading what I’ve written so far, it should be quite clear that the Bible came from the Roman Catholic Church, not the other way around. It should also be quite clear that what’s in the Bible was decided by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. How were the contents of the Bible decided? How was it decided as to what should go into the Bible and what should not? This was mainly decided by investigating whether or not the specific books adhered to the teachings of Christ through the Apostles, that is, what is known today as the Catholic Church.
In other words, everything that you have in the Bible today is part of Catholic doctrines, and Catholic doctrines extend further than the scope of the Bible because it includes Tradition. In addition, nothing that the Catholic Church teaches today runs contrary to the Bible, which is not the case in many Protestant churches. I’ll give you just one example: Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only rule of faith. Yet many Protestants claim that it is. If so, where in the Bible can it be found?
You also wrote that Jesus and the apostles never referred to any books in the Apocrypha. This is not entirely true. Here’s a short explanation of the differences in what is considered the Apocrypha between Catholics and Protestants.
Catholics regard books such as 3 Maccabees, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, the Book of Enoch, the Protoevangelium of James, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Peter as the Apocrypha. Protestants include seven extra books of the Old Testament accepted by Catholics, but excluded from the Protestant canon. These are Judith, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. These are what Catholics call the deuterocanonicals.
The immediate question I want to ask is: How did the Protestants decide which books to remove?
Now I will show you some references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament.
Hebrews 11:35 refers to an event that was only explicitly recorded in one of the deuterocanonicals (2 Maccabees 7). Even more tellingly, 1 Corinthians 15:29 writes: “If this were not true, what do people hope to gain by being baptised for the dead? If the dead are not ever going to be raised, why be baptised on their behalf?” This is an allusion to 2 Maccabees 12:44: “For if he had not expected the fallen to rise again it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.” 1 Corinthians 15:29 is a reference to the suffering to help the dead be loosed from their sins.
These two references give us some indication why the books of the Maccabees were removed from the Protestant canon. This will be further explained in the later response to the question on Purgatory.
Okay, I’ve written enough on the Bible for now, and will proceed to address to your questions.
To keep this reply from growing to be longer than it has to be, I have written separate posts in reply to your questions. I have also staggered the publication of each article, so that it doesn’t all appear in one day.
Here are the links to the articles:
1. Published on Apr 28: The Virgin Mary
http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/what-do-catholics-believe-about-mary/
2. Published on Apr 29: The Pope
http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/what-do-catholics-believe-about-the-pope/
3. Published on Apr 30: Confession
http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/what-do-catholics-believe-about-confession/
4. Published on May 1: Penance
http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/what-do-catholics-believe-about-penance/
5. Published on May 2: Purgatory
http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/what-do-catholics-believe-about-purgatory/
I hope these responses will help clear things up. Feel free to ask more anytime.
God bless,
Catholic Writer