Q&A: Priestly Vestments, Is it Biblical?

Question: My Friend Born Again ask me. Why it is Important to Wear your Priests a Vestment?? And Where are the Biblical Verse???

Answers:

There's nothing unscriptural about vestments. God commanded that they be used in the Old Testament. Look at Exodus 28:2:

For your brother Aaron you will make sacred vestments to give dignity and magnificence. You will instruct all the skilled men, whom I have endowed with skill, to make Aaron's vestments for his consecration to my priesthood. These are the vestments which they must make: a pectoral, an ephod, a robe, an embroidered tunic, a turban, and a belt. They must make sacred vestments for your brother Aaron and his sons, for them to be priests in my service. They will use gold and violet material, red-purple and crimson, and finely woven linen.

The rest of the chapter gives details on each garment.

Nothing in the New Testament requires abolition of priestly vestments. Our Lord attacked the Jewish leaders for a number of sins, but he never condemned their priestly garb. It's true the early Church didn't use the Old Testament vestments, but this is because Christians didn't want to identify their leaders with the Jewish priesthood.

Part of the problem for Fundamentalists is that vestments set priests apart from the laity. Fundamentalists object to a ministerial priesthood in the Church. They see vestments as a way of expressing a distinction between clergy and laity.

On this they're right, but there's nothing wrong with such hierarchical distinctions. The New Testament is full of them (Acts 20:28; Eph 2:20, 4:11; Phil 1:1; 1 Tm 3:1-13; Ti 1:5).

Within Fundamentalism there's also an unhealthy opposition set up between the spiritual and the material realms. There is an anti-incarnational attitude which views the use of anything material as superstitious. The distaste for vestments is but one example of this.

Fundamentalists who say Catholic priests adopted distinctive dress in the fifth century to put themselves above the laity have got it backwards. Actually, it was the laity who changed their attire, not to distinguish themselves from priests, but to keep up with fashions.

Catholic priests simply retained their manner of liturgical dress. Priestly vestments are no more than stylized secular Roman garments which have accrued symbolic, liturgical significance over the centuries.

Source: We are Catholic Sheep

Q&A: Did the Church add the Deuterocanonical books to the Bible at the Council of Trent?

Source: Catholic Answers

Full Question

Is it true that at Trent the Church added the seven Deuterocanonical books (Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus) to the Bible ?

Answer

No. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired.

The canons of the Old and New Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (though the books were not enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). Although the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther, was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book, it certainly did not add those books to the canon.

If that were the case, how could Martin Luther and the other Reformers have objected to the presence of those books decades before the Council of Trent if they weren't in the canon to begin with and were added by the Council of Trent?

Q: How can I answer this Protestant objection about “our crosses”?

Full Question

One Protestant objection I hear quite often has to do with “our cross.” The objection usually goes something like this: “Jesus died once and for all, for everyone. Any problems or difficulties we may encounter stem from our human nature or condition. To say that God gives us a cross that we must bear is not only unbiblical but minimizes Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice at Calvary.” In other words, we’re carrying a cross Jesus already died on!

Answer

Unbiblical? What about the words of Christ himself: “”If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me”” (Luke 9:23)?

While it is true that problems and difficulties stem from our human condition, they are permitted by God because they have the ability to conform us more perfectly to him. Taking up our cross is not in opposition to his cross, but our feeble attempt to be one with him in the love he has shown us in carrying his. We express love most sublimely through sacrifice, as Scripture abundantly shows us.

Source: CatholicSay

DID CATHOLICS DECLARE 'LUCIFER' AS THEIR GOD?

From WIKIPEDIA:

The Exsultet has been the subject of numerous online conspiracy theory videos attempting to show that Catholic practice is actually devil-worship. These conspiracy theories usually show a recording of a deacon chanting the final portions of the Exsultet in Latin, captioned with a purported "translation" of the text into English with these or similar words:

His Flame dawning His own creation May I say, O'Lucifer [sic], who knows no setting Christ, your son, who came back from the dead and shed his peaceful light to the human race and is alive and reigns for ever and ever. R/ Amen.

Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat: ille, inquam, lúcifer, qui nescit occásum. Christus Fílius tuus, qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit, et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum. R/ Amen.

These conspiracy theorists selectively translate, poorly and ungrammatically, everything except the word lucifer ("light-bearer" or "Morning Star"), which is used in 2 Peter 1 and Revelation 2 and 22 as a title for Christ, attempting to use the term as a name for Satan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anti-Catholics (that includes all various protestant churches, cults, sects) has been using this video below that says "VATICAN DECLARED 'LUCIFER' AS THEIR GOD".

Honestly, there is NOTHING WRONG with that video. What is wrong is that, those DECEIVING PASTORS freaks out with those LATIN words "LUCIFER" that was being read during the EXULTET during the EASTER VIGIL Mass at the Vatican.

LUCIFER in Latin means LIGHT BEARER OR MORNING STAR in English.

Here is the Latin Exultet being read:

Orámus ergo te, Dómine,

ut céreus iste in honórem tui nóminis consecrátus,

ad noctis huius calíginem destruéndam,

indefíciens persevéret.

Et in odórem suavitátis accéptus,

supérnis lumináribus misceátur.

Flammas eius LUCIFER matutínus invéniat:

ille, inquam, lúcifer, qui nescit occásum.

Christus Fílius tuus,

qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit,

et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum.

Deceivers interpret the LATIN EXULTED in English and RETAINS that word "lucifer" to prove that the Catholic Church are "devil worshipers". Consider the English translations of the Exultet.

Therefore, O Lord,

we pray you that this candle,

hallowed to the honor of your name,

may persevere undimmed,

to overcome the darkness of this night.

Receive it as a pleasing fragrance,

and let it mingle with the lights of heaven.

May this flame be found still burning by the MORNING STAR:

the one morning star who never sets,

Christ your Son,

who, coming back from death's domain,

has shed his peaceful light on humanity,

and lives and reigns for ever and ever.

Q&A: What is the Catholic Church’s official position on Freemasonry? Are Catholics free to become Freemasons?

Source: Catholic Say

Full Question

What is the Catholic Church’s official position on Freemasonry? Are Catholics free to become Freemasons?

Answer

Freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Freemasonry teaches a naturalistic religion that espouses indifferentism, the position that a person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining in any religion.

Masonry is a parallel religion to Christianity. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, “Freemasonry displays all the elements of religion, and as such it becomes a rival to the religion of the Gospel. It includes temples and altars, prayers, a moral code, worship, vestments, feast days, the promise of reward or punishment in the afterlife, a hierarchy, and initiation and burial rites.”

Masonry is also a secret society. Its initiates subscribe to secret blood oaths that are contrary to Christian morals. The prospective Mason swears that if he ever reveals the secrets of Masonry – secrets which are trivial and already well-known – he wills to be subject to self-mutilation or to gruesome execution. (Most Masons, admittedly, never would dream of carrying out these punishments on themselves or on an errant member).

Historically, one of Masonry’s primary objectives has been the destruction of the Catholic Church; this is especially true of Freemasonry as it has existed in certain European countries. In the United States, Freemasonry is often little more than a social club, but it still espouses a naturalistic religion that contradicts orthodox Christianity. (Those interested in joining a men’s club should consider the Knights of Columbus instead.)

The Church has imposed the penalty of excommunication on Catholics who become Freemasons. The penalty of excommunication for joining the Masonic Lodge was explicit in the 1917 code of canon law (canon 2335), and it is implicit in the 1983 code (canon 1374).

Because the revised code of canon law is not explicit on this point, some drew the mistaken conclusion that the Church’s prohibition of Freemasonry had been dropped. As a result of this confusion, shortly before the 1983 code was promulgated, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a statement indicating that the penalty was still in force. This statement was dated November 26, 1983 and may be found in Origins 13/27 (Nov. 15, 1983), 450.

Q: When did the term “Roman Catholic Church” first come into being?

ANSWER:

It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the “Roman Catholic Church,” but it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).

Different variants of the “Roman” insult appeared at different times. The earliest form was the noun “Romanist” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective “Romish” (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun “Roman Catholic” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined around 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb “to Romanize” (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun “Romanism” (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a latecomer term about 1815-1825, the noun “Roman Catholicism,” a synonym for the earlier “Romanism.”

A similar complex of insults arose around “pope.” About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term “papist” and later its derivative “papism.” A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective “popish.” Next came “popery” (1525-1535), then “papistry” (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, “papistical” and “papistic.” (Source: Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)

This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all, even national or racial) has such a complex of insults against it woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say “Catholic” without qualifying it or replacing it with an insult.

Source: CatholicSay
November 1, 2014

Q: What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Catholic religion?

ANSWER:

The Catholic religion/Church comprises all ecclesial communities, all group of churches in communion with the Pope. If a group or community does not adhere to the Pope, it is not part of the Catholic Church.

There are a number of individual or sui iuris (self-governing) churches, sometimes called “rites”. One of these is the Roman rite. It includes most catholics in the West. So when you say “Roman Catholic” it properly refers to a member of the Roman rite which is the largest of all other rites.

Maronites, Ukrainian, Chaldean, Syro-Malankara Catholics can be properly refered to as “Catholics” but not “Roman Catholics”. They are “Maronite Catholics”, “Chaldean Catholics” etc. They are all as catholic as everyone else since they are in full communion with the Pope.

All the rites are equal, their ecclesial customs and traditions may be different, ways of doing theology etc, but the doctrines are all the same.

Source: CatholicSay
October 10, 2014