The following are questions raised by Coffee_Black that deserve a response:
Opening note: Often times we here how Rome “Cherry-picked” the Bible to suit their doctrine, yet many people, mostly non-Catholics demand that only the Bible “sola scriptura’ be used as the canon of the faith. There is a serious inconsistency in such a demand that both worships the Bible on one hand and then condemns the Church which compiled that very same book on the other hand; the very same Church, and the only Church which formally declared the Bible is inspired 800 years after Jesus Christ!
1. Why name Christian Churches after anyone but Christ?
Catholics have not named the Church after anyone but Christ. The word 'Catholic' is primarily a functional term meaning 'universal' or all-inclusive. Catholics call themselves Christian. The term Christian began being used near Antioch, where the term 'catholic' also began. The first recorded instance of using the noun-title “The Catholic Church” was by Ignatius of Antioch. He was a student of the Apostle John, a friend of the Apostle Paul, and the one groomed to be Bishop of Antioch by the Apostle Peter. He is among the earliest Church writers ... and is considered among the most authentic. The term Catholic stuck in the Western Roman Empire, whereas the term Orthodox stuck in the Eastern Roman Empire. The Church does not need a 'name.’ It is simply a function of history, and a tradition at least commenced by one of the most credible Christians outside the Apostles.
2. What is the Biblical basis for praying to Mary or saints?
The question presupposes that the Bible is a book of canon law that must be adhered to against all other claims ... a book that was allegedly 'cherry-picked' by the Roman Catholic Church. The Bible is not, nor ever was "The" standard for Christians for the first 1600 years after Christ. It is a post-Renaissance notion dubbed, 'sola scriptura' which in itself has absolutely no Biblical basis. What is the Biblical basis of requiring a Biblical basis? It is nothing more than a nice sounding phrase that some Christians parrot.
Prayer to Mary and the Saints: Praying in ancient times was not reserved to God alone. One could pray to a judge ... and in fact, in American courts today, in many jurisdictions, documents appealing to the court use the term 'pray' or ‘pray to the court.’ Praying is a process of appeal ... and since Catholics believe that the Apostles and early Christians and others called Saints are alive in heaven, we can ‘appeal’ to them just as we would to anyone here on earth. If I come onto this board and ask for prayer for me, or a situation, I am 'praying' in the Biblical sense to the participants of JWN. It is groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower, and other post-renaissance groups who created this prohibition, and then imposed the so-called 'Biblical' standard ... a standard that has no basis in Christianity prior to the first 1600 years of the Christian faith.
3 (a) What is the Biblical basis for the costumes and the formality?
The costumes, as you call them, are sacramental vestments, and are also used in variations outside the Catholic Church among Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and even non-deminational groups. The vestments are taken from early Roman and Greek secular society, and in time underwent various evolutions in the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic. There was further evolution among the first Protestant denominations that emerged after the Renaissance and Rococo periods. The sacramental vestments are for liturgical use only, and have sacred symbolism and meaning. Catholic Priests outside their role at Mass, typically dress like everyone else on the street … and fit in well with the social standards of the cultures in which they live. Christians up until recent times wore their best to Church, often suits (costumes) and semi-formal dresses. One would not want to wear tattered clothing. In recent times, people are less formal ... but the current standard should not cause one to judge what came down to us and evolved through the ages. Here is a good article for a complete history: http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12014
3 (b) In my reading of the New Testament I find early Christian gatherings to be much simpler and pretty informal.
Nothing in the Bible really describes how they dressed, if that is what you mean by informal. They originally gathered in Synagogues, which is formal, and one would assume they wore appropriate dress for the Synagogue. When they were expelled from the Synagogues, they gathered in homes because that is pretty much all they had. Then, in the beginning of the 2nd century, right about 107AD, Ignatius of Antioch, mentioned above, was among the martyrs in the beginning of the general Roman persecution of the early Christians under emperor Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Traianus). So, Christians eventually had to meet in caves, especially in Rome, known as catacombs. What they wore can be surmised from the study of art history. It was not until the 4th century, under Constantine, that Christians were finally given religious freedom, though they were being tolerated in the empire for sometime prior to Constantine. But outside the Roman empire, they were quite free to build churches, which they did do. And in several Holy Sees founded by the Apostles (namely Peter, Paul, Mark, and Andrew) one can find the traditional dress carried on to this day in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople.
3 (c) Matt 23:5 talks about the fine garments the scribes and Pharisees wore…doesn’t sound like Jesus approved.
If your manner of dress is done for inappropriate purposes, then there could be a problem.Matthew 23:5 reads this way: "And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes."
The "Phylacteries"... that is, parchments, on which they wrote the ten commandments, and carried them on their foreheads before their eyes. The Pharisees wore broader than other men; so to seem more zealous for the law. The fringes were the required complimentary decor in blue worn by Jewish men that are on the edge of their clothing, but not the clothing itself. The Pharisees enlarged these too, so as to be more righteous. Nothing in that verse discusses 'dress' as such. But Jesus was dealing with what these men did under the 'Law.' Whereas, Jesus made no such condemnation of the Jewish Priests or High Priest dress used at the temple. Likewise, if a Catholic or Orthodox priest is outside his function as Priest (Presbyter) in Church activity, you would not recognize him. Priests move about in public all the time without notice. The problem was more that the Pharisees were trying to impersonate something they were not.
3 (d) In fact, I don’t think Jesus himself was too concerned about his own garments…nor does it appear that the apostles were either.
Please provide supporting historical evidence for this statement. I find nothing either way ... it is a mere assumption as far as I can tell. And, you will have to explain why the Roman Soldiers at his death found Jesus garments worthy of being divided among them, and his robe worthy of gambling to obtain it.
"Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did." (John 19:23-24)
Jesus was not a poor beggar who wore tattered clothing … at least not judging from early Christian tradition, as a carpenter back then, Jesus and his ‘father’ Joseph today would be equivalent to building contractors. And certainly, Roman soldiers, who understood wealth and the value of material things, would not have cast lots (gambled) for Jesus robe, or divided his other garments! Catholic priestly vestments are partly based on Jesus dress, and partly on Jewish High Priests dress … with evolution over time. Their purpose and function has nothing in common with what the Pharisees did. Their being fine garments and vestments used in spiritual functions have no relationship to what Jesus condemned the Pharisees.
3 (e) What is the Biblical basis for the “Hail Mary” repetitive recitals and the rosary beads?
Luke 1:27-29:"To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
Today, Catholics say the Hail Mary prayer using the words, “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.” I do not say the prayer much … but I cannot fault and judge those who do. What words could be more Biblical?
Hail was a common greeting ... like saying Hello or Hi today, but a more formal salutation, such as saying ‘Greetings.’ And the Angel from God used it with Mary. Mary herself prophesied that all generations would call her blessed. Ignatius of Antioch (mentioned above) referred to Mary as the 'Lady of our new religion.’ There was much honor accorded to Mary among the early Christians ... not much was recorded much in the Bible ... a so-called “cherry-picked” book by Rome ... but in the documentation that is not included by the Church in the Bible and by oral tradition, which the Bible speaks of as being handed down by the Apostles.
4. Why do you call priests "Father" when Jesus clearly said not to? Matt 23.9
The verses in context at Matthew 23:6-10: "And they [Pharisees] love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues, 7 And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi. 8 But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren. 9 And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, Christ.
At first, this scripture would seem to condemn what Catholics do ... and as such, Catholics should stop doing it. It’s very important never to take a Scripture passage out of context and treat it like it was written in a vacuum — with nothing either before it or after it. First we need to consider the verse’s immediate context, and then consider its wider context (which is the entire Bible).
The immediate context of this verse from Matthew 23 is Jesus’ dialogue with his disciples concerning the scribes and the Pharisees. The scribes and Pharisees were the religious leaders of the Jews at the time. Many of them, unfortunately, were filled with pride; hence they greatly enjoyed being called by fancy titles like ‘rabbi’ and ‘teacher’ and ‘father’ and ‘master’. Jesus knew this — which is precisely why he criticized them in this scene and encouraged his own disciples to be humble.
But the real question is: In doing this, did Jesus intend for his words in verse 9 to be understood literally? Or was he speaking in a figurative way? If he did mean them literally, of course, then you’re absolutely correct in your assertion, and we Catholics should stop calling priests ‘Father’ immediately! Likewise, we should not call our male parent ‘father’ either. However, it seems that if Jesus did intend a literal interpretation, then he certainly would have followed his own rule. He wouldn’t have given his disciples (and all of us) a commandment — not to call anyone on earth ‘father’ — that he didn’t intend to keep himself.
The wider context of this verse (i.e., the rest of the New Testament), what we find is that Jesus did not observe this rule himself! For example, in this very same chapter of Matthew (in verses 30 and 32), Jesus uses the word “father” to refer to men here on earth! Speaking to the scribes and Pharisees in verse 30, our Lord says, ‘And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ Then, in verse 32, he says, ‘Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.’
Jesus did the same thing at other times in his ministry: He referred to people on this earth as ‘fathers’. Just read your King James Version and see! And so did the writers of the New Testament! St. John, for example, addresses ‘fathers’ more than once in the second chapter of his first letter (Epistle).
St. Paul calls Abraham ‘the father of us all’ in chapter 4 of his letter to the Romans. And then, in 1 Corinthians 4, he goes so far as to speak of himself as a father—a spiritual father—to the Corinthian people. Can you imagine? Of course, that makes perfect sense to every Catholic, because St. Paul was a priest! As a priest, he was a spiritual father to all the people in the various churches he founded.
The bottom line is this: If Jesus intended a literal interpretation to his words, ‘Call no one on earth your father’, and if violating the words of Jesus is a sin, then you’re forced into a position where you have to say that Jesus himself sinned! You also have to say that St. John and St. Paul sinned!