Catholic views

[sickdsm]

I'm a casual Lutheran (aren't all lutheran's?) and my fiancee is Catholic and much more religious (aren't all catholics?). I've said that i willl switch and i intend too. But the more and more i think about it, the more convinced I am that the Catholic faith is similar to a cult. I havn't took classes yet but i'm worried that if i question how i want to question the faith that there going to toss me out and say don't come back.


I need someone to talk to about this without there being any repercussions.


I don't believe in worshipping Mary, I think most priest are hypocrits that more than likely masturbate if there not preying on little boys, i don't believe in a priest being more important than me. They are there to help, there not in "power". Most catholics seem to almost worship the priests and they higher ups. I don't believe in the "rules" that this orgainzied religion brings. I'm on the straight and narrow much more than most people that are spewing out hail mary's yet if you dont go to church every single day your' not as important? Plus why the hell do I see the fathers that push there kids to go to church every week then see them sleeping? That's better than me going about my religious views from home but wholeheartedly? How come when you give your offering it goes elsewhere yet our small churchs stink like mothballs and are an eyesore?


I know there's a few very smart religion scholars/catholics here and i'd like to talk to one.

If anyone's up for it, PM me a phone number and i'll call sometime as i don't get on here that regular anymore.

[clambake]

Why do you feel like you have to switch?

Is this a requirement from your fiancee?

Your statement of priest chasing little children should tell you to back away.

[Phenomanul]

Every religion will have its apparent extremes...

A few comments:
1) Not all priests are pedophiles...

2) Not all Catholics 'worship' Mary...

3) Religiousity (adherance to rules and doctrines) does not equate to spirituality (a connection with GOD). If you seek the latter, you will be better off.

4) Fellowship with fellow members of the Body of Christ (the Church) should envelop you with support and encouragement, not prejudice or scorn.

5) Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Life, no man cometh to the Father except through Him. This clause should supercede any doctrine emanating from anyone not named GOD. Don't let anyone, juxtapose his position as a way of interrupting the connection between you and GOD. Christ died so that we could have a personal and direct relationship with GOD. Other men exist solely for the purpose of counsel.

[johnsmith]

I'm a casual Lutheran (aren't all lutheran's?)
No.

and my fiancee is Catholic and much more religious (aren't all catholics?).
No

I've said that i willl switch and i intend too. But the more and more i think about it, the more convinced I am that the Catholic faith is similar to a cult.
You can make this argument regarding any religion/faith.

I havn't took classes yet but i'm worried that if i question how i want to question the faith that there going to toss me out and say don't come back.
You'll be pleasantly surprised how open, accepting and encouraging the people leading these classes will be to your questions and arguments.



I need someone to talk to about this without there being any repercussions.
I'd gladly discuss this, I'll be glad to PM you with a cell #.


I don't believe in worshipping Mary, I think most priest are hypocrits that more than likely masturbate if there not preying on little boys
A few bad apples ruined everyone's view on Catholic priests.

i don't believe in a priest being more important than me.
They don't either, I promise.

They are there to help, there not in "power".
Exactly.

Most catholics seem to almost worship the priests and they higher ups. I don't believe in the "rules" that this orgainzied religion brings.
No they don't. There are no "rules", that's the old testament.

I'm on the straight and narrow much more than most people that are spewing out hail mary's yet if you dont go to church every single day your' not as important?
Good for you, being on the "straight and narrow" is something preached by every religion. Catholic's aren't asked to go to church every day, just on Sunday's.

Plus why the hell do I see the fathers that push there kids to go to church every week then see them sleeping?
Because one day they will see an importance in going to church on Sunday's and slowly, over time, begin to understand and appreciate being involved each and every week.

That's better than me going about my religious views from home but wholeheartedly?
Are you really taking time out of your day to think about God? How about really reflecting about your family, loved ones, friends?

How come when you give your offering it goes elsewhere yet our small churchs stink like mothballs and are an eyesore?
Where do you want your offerings to go? Someone has to pay for everything. It's funny that you say that about mothballs though, I've often wondered why they all seem to smell like my grandparents house used too. It's most likely because the churches you've visited are old, and have had a lot of time to develop the smell. I recommend visiting a new catholic church, you'll find they smell and look just fine. Or go to an old Lutheran church, they probably smell like mothballs as well.


I know there's a few very smart religion scholars/catholics here and i'd like to talk to one.
That's the best thing you can do. And remember to keep an open mind all the time, your thoughts and beliefs aren't 100% right, and neither are their's. It's the same as when you go to church, not everyone is their for the right reasons, but are you their for the right reason is the only thing that matter. Everyone doubts, everyone criticizes, and everyone has their own opinions, the only thing that matters is YOUR relationship to God......


If anyone's up for it, PM me a phone number and i'll call sometime as i don't get on here that regular anymore.
Again, hit me up. I was born a Catholic and never really practiced the traditions until my girlfriend started making me. I went to the classes and did all that stuff and held (and still do to a certain extent) many of the doubts and frustrations you have regarding the Catholic church. Should you choose not to get a hold of me, my biggest piece of advice is this, go to church. If not for yourself, go for your fiance, it will make life much simpler for you............trust me.

[leemajors]

definitely check out the classes before you make your judgement on the Church itself. I was also raised Catholic and do not currently attend any Masses, but your paragraph that starts with Mary worship seems to be based on tv/movie/Protestant assumptions and beliefs about the Church that are simply no longer true.

[Duff McCartney]

Because one day they will see an importance in going to church on Sunday's and slowly, over time, begin to understand and appreciate being involved each and every week.

What is the importance of going to Church every Sunday?

I don't think there is...as someone once said.."I go to my own church in my own mind."

Nobody needs to go to a church period....I'm not religious or believe in god, but according to what is said about him, he is all power and all knowing and is everywhere....if he's everywhere, then why does a person have to go a building every sunday? I can just stay in my own building on sundays and have the same experience.

Like I said I'm not religious, but I honestly don't see the difference between a church and my own home. The connection to god is beyond the physical, so it doesn't matter where you are or on what day you are on.

[Samurai Jane]

Going to church has nothing to do with the building, its about celebration, fellowship, and learning.

[JoeChalupa]

Once again the "cult" thing pops up again on Catholics.
You won't find the answers you are looking for on an internet forum for the answers are within you and must find the answer on your own.

Catholicism is like any other religion in the world. You will find all kinds of lvel of beliefs and practice.

My wife is not Catholic but she goes to Mass with me all the time and we are raising our children as Catholics. But they also attend Baptists and other churches when invited.

You will find all types of extreme answers on here since religion comes up a few hundred times a year.

[Duff McCartney]

Once again the "cult" thing pops up again on Catholics.
You won't find the answers you are looking for on an internet forum for the answers are within you and must find the answer on your own.

Catholicism is like any other religion in the world. You will find all kinds of lvel of beliefs and practice.

My wife is not Catholic but she goes to Mass with me all the time and we are raising our children as Catholics. But they also attend Baptists and other churches when invited.

You will find all types of extreme answers on here since religion comes up a few hundred times a year.

I don't think the Da Vinci Code has helped much either. I don't totally believe the Da Vinci Code but I don't totally disagree with it either.

[Duff McCartney]

Going to church has nothing to do with the building, its about celebration, fellowship, and learning.

What is there to celebrate that I can't celebrate anywhere? What is there to learn that I can't learn anywhere by readin the Bible?

[sickdsm]

^what I believe


When is the last time you walked into a large catholic church and it was crappy? I've never had that happan. Old ladies diving into there retirement funds and they still have to have mass in a 1971 General Steel pole barn (literally) that smells and looks like 1971 still? I don't believe in the hierachy of the priests, deacons, etc.. The term hiearchy sp? leads one to believe that others are more important and, in the church's words "more connected with God" then us peons.


How come i have to jump through "requirement" hoops to get married?

I can't use a rubber but they teach me how to jizz inside my wife when i know she can't get pregnant? That's a loophole if i've ever seen one.

[Samurai Jane]

What is there to celebrate that I can't celebrate anywhere? What is there to learn that I can't learn anywhere by readin the Bible?

We are celebrating our love of God and I prefer to do that amongst individuals that feel inclined to do likewise, whether it's at the church or at a park or whatever.

If you actually take the time to read the Bible, I'd be interested in hearing what you have learned. However, most people recognize that there are limitations to what you can learn on your own. Often, you need a different perspective on things and you see things you never think of. Of course, why go to listen to a person who went to school for years and actually diligently studied the material and the background references, when you can sit there and try to figure it all out for yourself?

[Samurai Jane]

By the way, I'm not Catholic, so I'm sorry I can't provide any information to you. I'm just pointing out that a church is not just a building. I personally don't go to church just to satisfy an obligation, although, unfortunately, alot of people do. Anyway, that's all. Sorry to interrupt..

[ChumpDumper]

It sounds like you'll resent your wife if you convert. Seems like a bad idea.

[johnsmith]

What is the importance of going to Church every Sunday?

I don't think there is...as someone once said.."I go to my own church in my own mind."

Nobody needs to go to a church period....I'm not religious or believe in god, but according to what is said about him, he is all power and all knowing and is everywhere....if he's everywhere, then why does a person have to go a building every sunday? I can just stay in my own building on sundays and have the same experience.

Like I said I'm not religious, but I honestly don't see the difference between a church and my own home. The connection to god is beyond the physical, so it doesn't matter where you are or on what day you are on.


The importance of going to church is that God sacrificed his only son so that the rest of us could be forgiven. In return, we are asked to sacrifice one hour of every week in return to thank God, celebrate God, reflect upon our own lives, and come together as a community.
Having said that, I don't think there is anything wrong with not being religious or believing in something else, this is just what I choose to believe.

[George W Bush]

Why don't you just pretend to be a Christian?

Me and my party do it all the time,
and it's worked out just fine. :tu

[johnsmith]

^what I believe


When is the last time you walked into a large catholic church and it was crappy? I've never had that happan. Old ladies diving into there retirement funds and they still have to have mass in a 1971 General Steel pole barn (literally) that smells and looks like 1971 still? I don't believe in the hierachy of the priests, deacons, etc.. The term hiearchy sp? leads one to believe that others are more important and, in the church's words "more connected with God" then us peons.


How come i have to jump through "requirement" hoops to get married?

I can't use a rubber but they teach me how to jizz inside my wife when i know she can't get pregnant? That's a loophole if i've ever seen one.

The requirements aren't near as bad as you think. In fact, the "engaged encounter" weekend should be attended, in my opinion, by anyone getting married. They don't preach to you, in fact, God doesn't really come up all that often. It's just a way to talk about potential problems/issues that may come up and remind the two of you why you are getting married in the first place. Trust me, it's not what you think it is.

Oh, and get over the hierarchy (sp) as well. It won't affect you in any way, shape or form. Remember, like any other form of Christianity, at the end of the day it's really only about love and that's about it.

[johnsmith]

It sounds like you'll resent your wife if you convert. Seems like a bad idea.


Agreed, but if it makes her happy and makes life easier on you as well, I'd say do it anyway. Sure you might have to go to church hungover every now and again, but would you rather deal with that or argue over it all the damn time.

Oh, and I find that church is a wonderful way of preparing me to scream at the television all day long during the games as well.

[spurster]

The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics have a Pope and Protestants don't. It's surprising Catholicism is not even stranger than it is given that Catholics have had Popes for so long.

Once you have a sequence of authorities from before the Dark Ages whose pronouncements can't be questioned or changed except with great soul-searching and gut-wrenching, any outsider is going to find a lot of "tradition" difficult to accept.

The Protestants have the opposite problem as they are all over the map.

[clambake]

Something strange about a religion when a Pope protects priest that rape little boys.

[johnsmith]

if you're talking about infallibility, the pope isn't infallible most of the time. the main difference between (roman and eastern orthodox) catholics and protestants is that catholics believe in transubstantiation; i.e. the bread literally is jesus's body and the wine is jesus's blood, they're not just symbols


Yes and no. Catholics believed that when Jesus said "this is the my blood" it actually turned into his blood etc. Today however, they are still symbols.

[clambake]

I guess what that means is the congregation DOES condone this sort of criminality.

[johnsmith]

I guess what that means is the congregation DOES condone this sort of criminality.


Yeah, you're right, I think I speak for everyone at my church when I say that I hope every priest is molesting children and getting away with it. :rolleyes

[johnsmith]

it's a sacrament -- a symbol that brings about what it symbolizes


Thank you.

[leemajors]

I guess what that means is the congregation DOES condone this sort of criminality.

it means you are making retarded assumptions. is there any reason to believe that protestant ministers aren't molesting little boys in equal or greater numbers? it's easy to pick on catholic priests because they have taken a vow of celibacy and there is a central authority in the church.

[101A]

I was raised in a devoutly Catholic household & I married a Baptist who converted.

We happily attended Catholic service for the first 5 year of our marriage; then moved to a Lutheran Church.

We now attend a much more "evangelical" church.

In the meantime we have sent our children to a very strict Catholic School.

There are differences in what Catholics and Protestants believe about Christ and his message.

Most Protestant's believe what John wrote in 3:16; my mother (a devout Catholic her entire life) didn't know the reference. Protestants believe "Saved by grace not by acts". Catholics, as a rule, do not. Catholics believe in pergatory as a holding place to serve time for your sins (Reader's digest Version). Catholics believe in praying to (not worshiping) Mary, other Saints, and even dead relatives, for intercession. Most Protestants do not.

I personally believe that the Catholic Church could do well to focus more on the bible; that 2 thousand years of tradition have lead them slightly a-stray from the basic premise of what Jesus came and did for us all. I would not go back to being Catholic, but by no means am I "Anti-Catholic".

Also, after being in both, Catholics don't understand any more about what Protestants believe than Protestants understand Catholics.

[Phenomanul]

it's easy to pick on catholic priests because they have taken a vow of celibacy...

A vow that was not needed, called for, required or requested. Simply a 'sacrifice' that was instituted by men that then turned to tradition. How will someone who is neither a father or a husband relate to the problems of his congregation? This doctrine hurts more than it helps.



.....and there is a central authority in the church.

The central authority in the Church should be none other than the Head of the Church itself... i.e. Jesus Christ.

[johnsmith]

This doctrine hurts more than it helps.

Opinion


The central authority in the Church should be none other than the Head of the Church itself... i.e. Jesus Christ.

And the Catholic church agrees with you on this one.

[xrayzebra]

Haven't we all gone thru these arguments before? Priest, Ministers are people from
society. Society is not perfect. Neither are those who criticize it. Yeah, including me.
So what is new. The Catholic church has paid dearly for their "sins" and the other
denominations will also if some of their ministers are found to do the same as the
Priest.

[Duff McCartney]

Of course, why go to listen to a person who went to school for years and actually diligently studied the material and the background references, when you can sit there and try to figure it all out for yourself?

Why not? I always thought the relationship with god is a personal one...and I don't think anyone else can teach you about that or what is said.

[spurster]

if you're talking about infallibility, the pope isn't infallible most of the time. the main difference between (roman and eastern orthodox) catholics and protestants is that catholics believe in transubstantiation; i.e. the bread literally is jesus's body and the wine is jesus's blood, they're not just symbols
No, I'm not just talking about the Pope's infallible moments. Tradition is much, much, more important in Catholicism than for Protestants.

Is there any Protestant church that really cares about transubstantiation? Protestants are happy however Jesus is present.

[johnsmith]

Why not? I always thought the relationship with god is a personal one...and I don't think anyone else can teach you about that or what is said.


This is obviously going towards an argument similar to that of abortion, you are either pro-life or pro-choice and you won't change your mind. You are either for the Catholic church or against it.

[clambake]

It doesn't mean that every preist is molesting children, but when you discover an organization that is protecting preist that molest children, then that organization deserves to be gutted.

[01Snake]

Call me crazy but I just never understood how people can get up early every Sunday and go to Chuch. Too each his own I guess. :downspin:

[johnsmith]

I'm not justifying by any means, just came across this and thought it was interesting.

Some media sources have noted that when placed in perspective, the documented cases in the Catholic Church are much lower than incidents of pedophilia in the public school system. For the latter, the problem is over three times higher (up to 5% of teachers, versus estimates of 0.2%[7] and 1.5% of Catholic priests), and only an estimated 1% of pedophile teachers have faced the loss of their license since most are merely moved to other districts. The police are rarely notified.

[Duff McCartney]

This is obviously going towards an argument similar to that of abortion, you are either pro-life or pro-choice and you won't change your mind. You are either for the Catholic church or against it.

I'm not for or against the catholic church I meant church in general...the idea of going to it.

[johnsmith]

It doesn't mean that every preist is molesting children, but when you discover an organization that is protecting preist that molest children, then that organization deserves to be gutted.


Yeah, and everyone that has dedicated their lives to following the teachings of Christ while maintaining the discipline that the catholic church requests from it's followers should be punished too. In fact, you should go and dig up my grandmothers grave and slap her around a bit for being such a devout catholic and going to a catholic church every day. You're a jackass.

[johnsmith]

I'm not for or against the catholic church I meant church in general...the idea of going to it.


Got ya. I don't really care if people are for or against any church to tell you the truth, I just don't understand some people's hatred towards religion of any type.

[Samurai Jane]

Got ya. I don't really care if people are for or against any church to tell you the truth, I just don't understand some people's hatred towards religion of any type.
Perhaps because of the judgemental spin some people like to place on it.

[clambake]

I don't want to dig her up because she's a devout catholic, but it couldn't hurt to slap some sense into people who praise an individual that protects child molesters.

When you break everything down to it's lowest common denominator of the catholic religion, you'll find the Pope.

[sickdsm]

Good points, however, remeber that its not like i'm an aethist converting.

A question about sacrament. I'm the god parent to my nephew. Do i continue to guide him as a Lutheran or Catholic?

[clambake]

Guide him as a role model.

[sickdsm]

Hell, even most catholics while denying that its a high rate admit that the Church covers up all those molesters.


I've already told Mary that i do NOT want alot of one on one alone time with our future sons because of this.


When you deny a basic animal instinct, your asking for problems. By denying the priests sex, they are asking for the problems.


I like the comparisons though between religions though, it is helping me to keep an open mind.

[sickdsm]

Guide him as a role model.


I accepted the role as guiding his religious life.

[Spurminator]

Why not? I always thought the relationship with god is a personal one...and I don't think anyone else can teach you about that or what is said.



And let us consider and give attentive, continuous care to watching over one another, studying how we may stir up (stimulate and incite) to love and helpful deeds and noble activities, not forsaking or neglecting to assemble together [as believers], as is the habit of some people, but admonishing (warning, urging, and encouraging) one another, and all the more faithfully as you see the day approaching.

[JoeChalupa]

Here we go again. :lmao

Go Notre Dame!! Go Buckeyes!! Go Big Ten!!!

I'm Catholic and I'm stickin' to it. Yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!

[Phenomanul]

Opinion




While I agree with you that the comment is strictly my opinion; the question still beckons...

What benefit does a priest's celibacy offer the congregation that would otherwise not be provided if he were married? Jesus never explicitly told his followers that church leaders were to remain celibate... Peter himself was married, the disciple Catholics claim as their first Pope.

Again though, don't assume I'm attacking the Catholic church simply because I have a disagreement with one of its practices.

[Duff McCartney]

I guess there are ways to read that...I mean i read it and meaning keeping people safe and helping each other but not in a relgious or spiritual way. I don't agree that we should guide each other religiously...I don't think I have any right to guide someone in religious matters or lack thereof.

[clambake]

I guess it would be prudent to stick with the religion you're most familiar with, regarding your God child.

It's just wierd that religion is supposed to be about love, understanding, goodwill, and all that shit, when in reality it's about killing each other these days.

[Spurminator]

In the part of reality you choose to focus on I suppose it is. You see what you want to see.

[clambake]

So, if I don't focus on it, it's not there?

That's interesting.

[Spurminator]

That's not what I said.

[ploto]

Most Protestant's believe what John wrote in 3:16; my mother (a devout Catholic her entire life) didn't know the reference. Protestants believe "Saved by grace not by acts". Catholics, as a rule, do not. Catholics believe in pergatory as a holding place to serve time for your sins (Reader's digest Version). Catholics believe in praying to (not worshiping) Mary, other Saints, and even dead relatives, for intercession. Most Protestants do not.


Just because your mom hasn't memorized the verse does not mean that she does not believe what it contains. I think you would find that Catholics believe John 3:16 as much as you do.

Catholics also believe we are ALL saved by the grace of God.

As for intercession- have you ever asked someone to pray for you-- have you ever prayed for someone else. It is the same thing- just because the person is dead does not separate them from you and you can still ask them to pray for you as you did when they were alive. Wouldn't you ask the mother of your Savior to pray for you?

As to the original poster- my very sincere advice. Go to the classes and get ACCURATE answers to your questions. The worst thing you can do is listen to a bunch of people who think they know what the Church teaches when they really have no clue.

[ploto]

I guess it would be prudent to stick with the religion you're most familiar with, regarding your God child.

If you agreed to be a Godchild at a Catholic baptism, it should have been clear that you were agreeing to support him or her in a Catholic faith upbringing. You are asked that at the baptism.

[clambake]

He is already a god parent, before thoughts of changing religions.

[ploto]

He made a promise when he became a Godparent. That promise does not go away. Whatever it was he agreed to within whatever faith it was, he should keep.

[Melmart1]

I don't agree that we should guide each other religiously...I don't think I have any right to guide someone in religious matters or lack thereof.
Going to Church does not obligate you to 'guide' anyone. But if someone needs it, I do believe Church is the right place for them.

The way I have always seen it is that by going to Church, you are admitting that you don't know everything, and are opening yourself up to knowledge. Now, if that knowledge comes from the scriptures being read, a psalm or something like that then yes- you can learn those things w/o going to Church. However, you will be surprised how much you can learn from the homily or your fellow Churchgoers, and therein lies the beauty of a Mass- when people with a common thread (their religion) are brought together in a loving way like that, you can always learn and relate. We are constantly learning, are we not?

In other words- I have always felt that going to mass expands your relationship with God, not defines it. But that is just this little Catholic's opinion.

[smeagol]

The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics have a Pope and Protestants don't.


Differences between Catholics and Protestants are far more than having a Pope or not.



It's surprising Catholicism is not even stranger than it is given that Catholics have had Popes for so long.


Jesus himself instituted the Papacy. It's only logical that we have had Popes for 2000 years. That's who He wanted heading His Church. Unfortunately, 500 years ago, the first Protestants decided to change parts of Catholicism, which was equivalent to Christianity since 400 AC, and sewed the seeds of what Protestantism now has become.



Once you have a sequence of authorities from before the Dark Ages whose pronouncements can't be questioned or changed except with great soul-searching and gut-wrenching, any outsider is going to find a lot of "tradition" difficult to accept.


Popes by themselves don't come up with "pronouncements" that change Catholicism. They simply rule on traditions that have been part of Catholicism for hundreds of years but, in the past, were unclear because they were not explicitly stated in the Bible, such as Mary's assumption. By the way, the Pope makes his "pronouncements" in agreement with the Bishops from all over the World, not in an authoritative manner all by himself.



The Protestants have the opposite problem as they are all over the map.


This I agree with.

[101A]

Differences between Catholics and Protestants are far more than having a Pope or not.

I Agree






Jesus himself instituted the Papacy.

Chapter and verse, please.


Unfortunately, 500 years ago, the first Protestants decided to change parts of Catholicism, which was equivalent to Christianity since 400 AC, and sewed the seeds of what Protestantism now has become.

Martin Luther was a Catholic priest and was fed up with the corruption and decidedly un-Christian behavior of the Church; Including the Pope; we reap what we sow.



... because they were not explicitly stated in the Bible...

aaahhhh; there's the rub.

[johnsmith]

Jesus himself instituted the Papacy. It's only logical that we have had Popes for 2000 years. That's who He wanted heading His Church. Unfortunately, 500 years ago, the first Protestants decided to change parts of Catholicism, which was equivalent to Christianity since 400 AC, and sewed the seeds of what Protestantism now has become.


While I understand what you are saying throughout your post, I disagree with this part. I don't think it's unfortunate at all that Martin Luther chose to go and nail his opinions on the church door. The way I look at it is that no matter what form of Christianity or any religion for that matter that people choose to be a part of is a good one because they all teach love and respect for others as well as God.

[johnsmith]

I Agree







Chapter and verse, please.



Martin Luther was a Catholic priest and was fed up with the corruption and decidedly un-Christian behavior of the Church; Including the Pope; we reap what we sow.




aaahhhh; there's the rub.


What's the rub?

[101A]

Just because your mom hasn't memorized the verse does not mean that she does not believe what it contains. I think you would find that Catholics believe John 3:16 as much as you do.

Catholics also believe we are ALL saved by the grace of God.

As for intercession- have you ever asked someone to pray for you-- have you ever prayed for someone else. It is the same thing- just because the person is dead does not separate them from you and you can still ask them to pray for you as you did when they were alive. Wouldn't you ask the mother of your Savior to pray for you?

As to the original poster- my very sincere advice. Go to the classes and get ACCURATE answers to your questions. The worst thing you can do is listen to a bunch of people who think they know what the Church teaches when they really have no clue.


If the Catholic Church now believes strictly in a "Saved by Grace" doctrine, you let me know when that happened. I discussed this specifically with TWO priests not 2 and a half years ago, as my dad was on his death bed; he thought, after 60 years of Catholic worship (including St. Gerards & St. Mary's) that he might end up in hell because he had done bad things.

According to my Bible, you don't end up in Hell because you did bad things, nor do you end up in heaven because you did good ones.

[101A]

What's the rub?

If it's not gospel, it ought not be taught that it is so. Catholic churches (I was an active, practicing Catholic for 32 years of my life - and I have sent my children to Catholic School; I'm not speaking from anything other than experience), don't explain what IS in the bible, and what is not. Catholics are taught to follow ALL teachings, without ever explaining that, hey, some HUMAN BEING made some of this up (albeit with the best of intentions, usually), and it isn't actually the word of the Son of Man.

[Phenomanul]

While I agree with you that the comment is strictly my opinion; the question still beckons...

What benefit does a priest's celibacy offer the congregation that would otherwise not be provided if he were married? Jesus never explicitly told his followers that church leaders were to remain celibate... Peter himself was married, the disciple Catholics claim as their first Pope.

Again though, don't assume I'm attacking the Catholic church simply because I have a disagreement with one of its practices.

Anyone???

[spurster]

Catholicism, which was equivalent to Christianity since 400 AC
You forgot the Eastern Orthodox.

[Extra Stout]

I guess there are ways to read that...I mean i read it and meaning keeping people safe and helping each other but not in a relgious or spiritual way. I don't agree that we should guide each other religiously...I don't think I have any right to guide someone in religious matters or lack thereof.
Some people want to have others helping to guide them. They are interested in the insights and experiences of others regarding religion and faith. Are you saying that they should not be allowed to receive that guidance?

[Phenomanul]

If the Catholic Church now believes strictly in a "Saved by Grace" doctrine, you let me know when that happened. I discussed this specifically with TWO priests not 2 and a half years ago, as my dad was on his death bed; he thought, after 60 years of Catholic worship (including St. Gerards & St. Mary's) that he might end up in hell because he had done bad things.

According to my Bible, you don't end up in Hell because you did bad things, nor do you end up in heaven because you did good ones.


I am glad that my fate will not be decided based on my works, for I, like everyone else am imperfect and full of sin -- no matter how 'good' I want to, think I am, or claim to be.

GOD is a JUST GOD and His justice cannot overlook my inadequacies and shortcomings; were spiritual communion with GOD based on my deeds alone, I would never be able to reach Him. Because of His Grace, however, manifested through Jesus' atoning sacrifice I can enter His presence. Were it not for Christ's redemptive act of Love -- our ability to interact with GOD would not even exist.

Eternal communion with GOD is one of the wonderful 'gifts' we receive once we choose to acknowledge Jesus' sacrifice for us. Eternal separation from GOD however, is what the future holds in store for those that reject Christ's redemptive act. Exclusive.... yes. Unfair... no, not by any stretch of the imagination. GOD's offer is extended to everyone.

[johnsmith]

Anyone???


Being a Catholic, I can honestly answer this question with a resounding "I have no fucking clue". It's one of the many things I disagree with the catholic church about, but I'm still catholic and will continue to be.

[johnsmith]

I am glad that my fate will not be decided based on my works, for I, like everyone else am imperfect and full of sin -- no matter how 'good' I want to, think I am, or claim to be.

GOD is a JUST GOD and His justice cannot overlook my inadequacies and shortcomings; were spiritual communion with GOD based on my deeds alone, I would never be able to reach Him. Because of His Grace, however, manifested through Jesus' atoning sacrifice I can enter His presence. Were it not for Christ's redemptive act of Love -- our ability to interact with GOD would not even exist.

Eternal communion with GOD is one of the wonderful 'gifts' we receive once we choose to acknowledge Jesus' sacrifice for us. Eternal separation from GOD however, is what the future holds in store for those that reject Christ's redemptive act. Exclusive.... yes. Unfair... no, not by any stretch of the imagination. GOD's offer is extended to everyone.


Ok

[101A]

I am glad that my fate will not be decided based on my works, for I, like everyone else am imperfect and full of sin -- no matter how 'good' I want to, think I am, or claim to be.

GOD is a JUST GOD and His justice cannot overlook my inadequacies and shortcomings; were spiritual communion with GOD based on my deeds alone, I would never be able to reach Him. Because of His Grace, however, manifested through Jesus' atoning sacrifice I can enter His presence. Were it not for Christ's redemptive act of Love -- our ability to interact with GOD would not even exist.

Eternal communion with GOD is one of the wonderful 'gifts' we receive once we choose to acknowledge Jesus' sacrifice for us. Eternal separation from GOD however, is what the future holds in store for those that reject Christ's redemptive act. Exclusive.... yes. Unfair... no, not by any stretch of the imagination. GOD's offer is extended to everyone.


Well said.

[Phenomanul]

Being a Catholic, I can honestly answer this question with a resounding "I have no fucking clue". It's one of the many things I disagree with the catholic church about, but I'm still catholic and will continue to be.


Fair enough. To me, it's just a another man-made tradition...

[johnsmith]

Being a part of a particular faith means you have to have just that, faith. I have faith that the catholic church is leading me in a the correct direction to get where I hope to get.
What's wrong with that?

[leemajors]

maybe the celibacy stricture was something reinforced by the augustinian school of thought, but i am not sure where it came from exactly.

[Goliadnative]

Anyone???

See 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 - 32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. NIV

As Paul says above, a celibate priest would be able to give more attention to his prayer life and the concerns of his congregation. Jesus does discuss this practice in Matt 19:11 - 12 and does not condemn it. Matt 19:11 -12 - 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." NIV

[johnsmith]

Fair enough. To me, it's just a another man-made tradition...


I totally agree, but I think every tradition regarding any religion is more then likely man made. Am I to believe that a human being was actually born from a virgin mother and then created all these miracles throughout his lifetime with the biggest one being coming back to life after being dead for a couple of days when something like this had never happened in the history of mankind before or after it happened to him. Sounds pretty far fetched, but that is what "faith" is.

Nothing wrong with it if it leads me down a better path in life and teaches me how treat others.

[Phenomanul]

Being a part of a particular faith means you have to have just that, faith. I have faith that the catholic church is leading me in a the correct direction to get where I hope to get.
What's wrong with that?

Nothing... except that sometimes (not an absolute) men get in the way of allowing you to experience GOD fully, without the obfuscate intrusion that is introduced by certain practices or rites that claim to be more significant than they truly are.

[carina_gino20]

just a response to the original poster:

Catholics don't worship Mary or any other saint for that matter. that would be tantamount to idolatry. instead, we pray to her because we believe that she leads us all to Jesus, who is really the very essence of our faith.

[Phenomanul]

just a response to the original poster:

Catholics don't worship Mary or any other saint for that matter. that would be tantamount to idolatry. instead, we pray to her because we believe that she leads us all to Jesus, who is really the very essence of our faith.

Then you should focus on this last part.

Pray to GOD in Jesus' name. Christ died so that we could have direct communion with GOD... Praying to Mary or any other being, undermines that unique and amazing priviledge.

[101A]

Being a part of a particular faith means you have to have just that, faith. I have faith that the catholic church is leading me in a the correct direction to get where I hope to get.
What's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with it, if it's what you have faith in. For me, when I began studying the bible (marrying a Baptist will do that for you - although they have their own non-scriptually based traditions), I found that, as Luther began pointing out, much of the central meaning of Christ's message was being lost in the traditions of the church. Catholicism had become a series of rules and beliefs more similar to Judaism, than to what Jesus, again to me, taught.

[101A]

I totally agree, but I think every tradition regarding any religion is more then likely man made. Am I to believe that a human being was actually born from a virgin mother and then created all these miracles throughout his lifetime with the biggest one being coming back to life after being dead for a couple of days when something like this had never happened in the history of mankind before or after it happened to him. Sounds pretty far fetched, but that is what "faith" is.

Nothing wrong with it if it leads me down a better path in life and teaches me how treat others.

Christianity was man made only so far as Jesus was man. What is written as Gospel (as opposed to all other parts of the Bible), spoken and taught by the Son of God, I have absolute faith in.

You speak the Apostles (or Nicene) Creed every week, ostensibly, do you not believe it?

[johnsmith]

Christianity was man made only so far as Jesus was man. What is written as Gospel (as opposed to all other parts of the Bible), spoken and taught by the Son of God, I have absolute faith in.

You speak the Apostles (or Nicene) Creed every week, ostensibly, do you not believe it?


I do believe it, I was just saying that a lot of the stuff seems far fetched and it's faith that keeps you coming back for more, regardless of your denomination.

[carina_gino20]

Then you should focus on this last part.

Pray to GOD in Jesus' name. Christ died so that we could have direct communion with GOD... Praying to Mary or any other being, undermines that unique and amazing priviledge.

on the other hand, i believe it enhances that priviledge.

[Samurai Jane]

on the other hand, i believe it enhances that priviledge.

Please explain. Why go to a mediator when you can go directly to the source?

[johnsmith]

Please explain. Why go to a mediator when you can go directly to the source?


Does it matter?

[Samurai Jane]

Does it matter?

I'm just curious.

[101A]

The tradition of Intercession is taken from The Wedding Feast at Cana - when people ran out of food & drink they went to Mary, who went to Jesus, who performed a miracle.

It is not unfounded in scripture.

[smeagol]

if you're talking about infallibility, the pope isn't infallible most of the time. the main difference between (roman and eastern orthodox) catholics and protestants is that catholics believe in transubstantiation; i.e. the bread literally is jesus's body and the wine is jesus's blood, they're not just symbols


No, this is one of the differences. There are many others.

[johnsmith]

I always wanted to bring the Pope to Vegas and play roulette with him. I'd put all my money on the number 1 and then when the dealer announces the number and says I lost I'd look to the pope and he would say "no, sorry the number is 1", and since he's infallible, I'd win 38 times my money.


Sweet.

[Samurai Jane]

The tradition of Intercession is taken from The Wedding Feast at Cana - when people ran out of food & drink they went to Mary, who went to Jesus, who performed a miracle.

It is not unfounded in scripture.

Interesting, but that still didn't answer my question. There are also times when people went directly to Jesus for miracles, why would you choose to go through Mary rather than go directly to Jesus? I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind this.

[smeagol]

Something strange about a religion when a Pope protects priest that rape little boys.


Link please.

[smeagol]

I guess what that means is the congregation DOES condone this sort of criminality.

You are proving to be nothing but a bigot with these kinds of statements.

Please elaborate on how is it you think Catholics condone priests abusing little kids.

[Goliadnative]

Interesting, but that still didn't answer my question. There are also times when people went directly to Jesus for miracles, why would you choose to go through Mary rather than go directly to Jesus? I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind this.


Do you ask people to pray for you? That is a form of intercession. You're not going directly to the source. You're asking someone else to intercede for you. There is nothing wrong with asking for prayers. St Paul did it all the time. See Romans 15:30 and 1 Timothy 2:1–4 for example.

If you had a pressing need and had the opportunity to ask the Rev. Billy Graham or some other highly regarded preacher to pray for you, would you not ask? I would think you would since James 5:16 says "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." We Catholics believe that since Mary and the saints are in heaven that their prayers joined to ours would make them more effective. The offerings of our prayers by the saints and angels can be seen in Revelation 5:8 and 8:3 -4.

[101A]

Do you ask people to pray for you? That is a form of intercession. You're not going directly to the source. You're asking someone else to intercede for you. There is nothing wrong with asking for prayers. St Paul did it all the time. See Romans 15:30 and 1 Timothy 2:1–4 for example.

If you had a pressing need and had the opportunity to ask the Rev. Billy Graham or some other highly regarded preacher to pray for you, would you not ask? I would think you would since James 5:16 says "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." We Catholics believe that since Mary and the saints are in heaven that their prayers joined to ours would make them more effective. The offerings of our prayers by the saints and angels can be seen in Revelation 5:8 and 8:3 -4.

I think the difference now is:

1. Revelation is Pre-Messiah
2. Asking a living person to pray for you (a righteous man) is New Testament teaching; nothing in there, that I am aware of, that suggests people already in heaven, other than HIM, are listening.

[Samurai Jane]

Do you ask people to pray for you? That is a form of intercession. You're not going directly to the source. You're asking someone else to intercede for you. There is nothing wrong with asking for prayers. St Paul did it all the time. See Romans 15:30 and 1 Timothy 2:1–4 for example.

If you had a pressing need and had the opportunity to ask the Rev. Billy Graham or some other highly regarded preacher to pray for you, would you not ask? I would think you would since James 5:16 says "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." We Catholics believe that since Mary and the saints are in heaven that their prayers joined to ours would make them more effective. The offerings of our prayers by the saints and angels can be seen in Revelation 5:8 and 8:3 -4.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, I was just curious. I don't know anything about Catholism and I was curious as to why it appears that people are praying to Mary all the time. I don't pray to my friends or pastor or whatever when I ask them to pray on my behalf, so I think I misunderstood what was going on when I heard Catholics saying "Hail Mary full of grace....".

Thank you for the information.

[Samurai Jane]

I think the difference now is:

1. Revelation is Pre-Messiah
2. Asking a living person to pray for you (a righteous man) is New Testament teaching; nothing in there, that I am aware of, that suggests people already in heaven, other than HIM, are listening.


That's the other thing I couldn't wrap my mind around. Assuming that the saints are in heaven, a place without sorrow or pain, and that they can hear your prayers, the majority of the time, people are praying for things that trouble them, cancer, the death of a loved one, etc. Assuming they can hear you, wouldn't that introduce sorrow and pain into heaven or do they lose their sense of compassion and become mere messengers as they ascend to heaven?

[101A]

That's the other thing I couldn't wrap my mind around. Assuming that the saints are in heaven, a place without sorrow or pain, and that they can hear your prayers, the majority of the time, people are praying for things that trouble them, cancer, the death of a loved one, etc. Assuming they can hear you, wouldn't that introduce sorrow and pain into heaven or do they lose their sense of compassion and become mere messengers as they ascend to heaven?


Yeah, I could buy Angels as Intercessories, especially pre-Christ, but now, there is no need; That's the whole point, IMO.

[johnsmith]

That's the other thing I couldn't wrap my mind around. Assuming that the saints are in heaven, a place without sorrow or pain, and that they can hear your prayers, the majority of the time, people are praying for things that trouble them, cancer, the death of a loved one, etc. Assuming they can hear you, wouldn't that introduce sorrow and pain into heaven or do they lose their sense of compassion and become mere messengers as they ascend to heaven?


You are asking questions that should be answered by a priest, or someone extremely well read on these subjects. My answer to the question would be, I have no idea.

[Goliadnative]

I think the difference now is:

1. Revelation is Pre-Messiah
2. Asking a living person to pray for you (a righteous man) is New Testament teaching; nothing in there, that I am aware of, that suggests people already in heaven, other than HIM, are listening.

Revelation cannot be Pre-Messiah because the gates of Heaven were closed until the Resurrection. Thats why Lazarus the beggar in Luke 16 went to the Bosom of Abraham and not to Heaven when he died. Also, there would only have been angels present in Heaven.

[Phenomanul]

on the other hand, i believe it enhances that priviledge.


Notice I bolded the verb participle "praying to".... Again, all prayer should be directed to GOD.... Others can pray for you, or you can pray for others... but you shouldn't pray to others...

In this light, asking that Mary intercede for you is unnecessary considering that you can ask GOD for guidance DIRECTLY. Again, this is the priviledge that was gained through Christ's sacrifice. We shouldn't dismiss the significance of this direct access; it is our spiritual lifeblood.

[johnsmith]

Notice I bolded the verb participle "praying to".... Again, all prayer should be directed to GOD.... Others can pray for you, or you can pray for others... but you shouldn't pray to others...

In this light, asking that Mary intercede for you is unnecessary considering that you can ask GOD for guidance DIRECTLY. Again, this is the priviledge that was gained through Christ's sacrifice. We shouldn't dismiss the significance of this direct access; it is our spiritual lifeblood.


I disagree...........see, that's the difference between denominations.

[Phenomanul]

I disagree...........see, that's the difference between denominations.


No biggie... If Christ is your Lord, you share the same divine access priviledge whether you choose to use it or not.

[Goliadnative]

No biggie... If Christ is your Lord, you share the same divine access priviledge whether you choose to use it or not.

You make it sound like we don't ever prayer directly to God. :lol

Also, if you examine the words of the "Hail, Mary" for example; the first part "Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." This is based on Luke 1:28 and 1:42 although the King James and other bibles translate "full of grace" as "highly favored". The second part, "Holy Mary, Mother of God," based on Luke 1:43, "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death" Here, we are asking her to prayer for us. Also, by honoring Mary we are just doing what Luke 1:48 says to do.

[johnsmith]

No biggie... If Christ is your Lord, you share the same divine access priviledge whether you choose to use it or not.


Agreed, and if Christ is your lord, regardless of your denomination, who really gives a shit how you worship? That's just my opinion.

[Phenomanul]

You make it sound like we don't ever prayer directly to God. :lol

Not the message I was trying to deliver...

More like when you do pray to Mary, you are relinquishing the priviledge by deferment....

We are to pray to the Father in Jesus' name. He is NOT too busy to hear our prayers.


Psalm 5:2 Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray.

Psalm 140:6 I said unto the LORD, Thou art my God: hear the voice of my supplications, O LORD.

Isaiah 59:1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

John 14:13-14 [Jesus said] "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."

John 15:16 [Jesus said] Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

John 16:23-24 [Jesus said] And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

Matthew 6:6 [Jesus] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.



Also, if you examine the words of the "Hail, Mary" for example; the first part "Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." This is based on Luke 1:28 and 1:42 although the King James and other bibles translate "full of grace" as "highly favored". The second part, "Holy Mary, Mother of God," based on Luke 1:43, "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death" Here, we are asking her to prayer for us. Also, by honoring Mary we are just doing what Luke 1:48 says to do.

Says to do??? In what context?.... doesn't Luke also say that Mary also recognizes that JESUS was her Savior as well (Luke 1:47)... If she needed a Savior, she needed remission of her sins just like the rest of us. She found favor in the eyes of GOD - not an easy task, no less. That doesn't mean I need to, or should feel compelled to pray to her.


Three questions then:

IS MARY OUR INTERCESSOR?

No, I don't believe so; the Bible says that Jesus is our Intercessor.


Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

The Bible also states the Holy Spirit is interceding for us:


Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Romans 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.


IS MARY CO-MEDIATOR?

No. The Bible says that Jesus is our Mediator. Scripturally speaking, Jesus is the ONLY Mediator.


1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


IS MARY CO-REDEEMER?

No. The Bible clearly states that there is no Savior but the Lord. Nowhere in Scripture does it remotely suggest that Mary is co-redemptrix. God deserves all praise! There is no redeemer but the Lord. GOD will not share His glory with another....


Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Philemon 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.


And again, for re-emphasis...

Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Mary, herself, acknowledged God as her Savior. Should not we do the same? We are to worship the Lord and Him only.

In the book of Revelation we have John, the Apostle, wanting to worship an angel and here is what is said:


Revelation 19:10 "And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship GOD: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Note: some references were looked up online, but I believe them all to be King James Version.

[101A]

Note: some references were looked up online, but I believe them all to be King James Version.

Very good read.

I would have thought you to be an NIV man.

[Goliadnative]

I said honor her not worship her. As the King James Bible says, Luke 1:48 "48For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

[Phenomanul]

I said honor her not worship her. As the King James Bible says, Luke 1:48 "48For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."


You have made the distinction...

Many in Mexico or other Latin American countries fail to do so.... their priests and bishops... and archbishops fail to do so... many in the past failed to draw that distinction between.... 'honor' and 'worship'.

[101A]

You have made the distinction...

Many in Mexico or other Latin American countries fail to do so.... their priests and bishops... and archbishops fail to do so... many in the past failed to draw that distinction between.... 'honor' and 'worship'.


As a practicing Catholic for so many years, I have to agree with Phenomanu here.

It is also Catholic doctrine now that Mary was also immaculately conceived, is it not? The Marianists certainly have exerted much influence on the Church over the past couple of centuries.

[Guru of Nothing]

Blinded by the Light (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6U29S--wn8)

[smeagol]

Protestants believe "Saved by grace not by acts". Catholics, as a rule, do not.


"Saved by faith alone" is not in the Bible, except in Lutheran Bibles where Luther himself changed Rom 3:28 to read: "man is justified by faith [alone] apart from works of the Law". As a Lutheran yourself, where you aware of this?


Catholics believe you are saved by faith and works. Both, not simply one because it suits a particular theology.



Catholics believe in praying to (not worshiping) Mary, other Saints, and even dead relatives, for intercession. Most Protestants do not.


Praying for the dead is part of the Bible, at least the Catholic Bible.



I personally believe that the Catholic Church could do well to focus more on the bible.


Catholics focus on the Bible as much as one should focus on it. They do not worship the Bible, because they know the Catholic Church came before the Bible and that for three hundred years, Christians had no Bible to base their beliefs on and had to rely on the Catholic Church for guidance. And now that there is a Bible, it should be no different.

It is actually thanks to the Catholic Church you have a Bible at all. The Catholic Church put the Bible together in the IV century AD. It was the Catholic Church who decided which books where inspired and which were not, in a time where, aside from the Gospels, Acts and some of Paul's letters, all other book that ended in the New Testament were not accepted by everybody as inspired. Moreover, there were other books that were considered inspired and read in Churches throughout the ancient world on Sundays.

And it was the Catholic monks who took care of the ancient copies of the Bible, such as the ancient Codex found in the Vatican, Paris and London, and who copied them through the ages in order for you and me to be able to read it nowadays.



that 2 thousand years of tradition have lead them slightly a-stray from the basic premise of what Jesus came and did for us all.


No it hasn't. As I said before, the Bible did not exist for almost 400 years. In those first years of Christianiy, the Word of the Lord was transmited oraly. Four inspired men decided to put down in written words what the Lord had done when he was among us. But they never said this was meant to be the complete works of Jesus on Earth. As a matter of fact, John said they weren't, because no book could contain all the things Jesus said and did while on his time on Earth.

Therefore, tradition came before the written word. And this tradition was kept within the Catholic Church, and passed down from generation to generation.

One more thing, in the basic dogmas of its religion, Catholicism does not deviate one inch from what the Bible says. It's much less important things, such as the Virgin's Assention, where Dogma cannot be founded in the Bible. This is where Catholics look for tradition as there only justification. But this does not happen often.

[smeagol]

A vow that was not needed, called for, required or requested.


Paul is celibate and encouarages those men who lead congregations to be celibate too. What more do you need in order to accept this tradition which is rooted in the Bible?

The truth is celibacy was held by many priests in the Church throughout the centuries and it became so popular that by the XII or XIII century it was insituted for all Roman Catholics priests as a requirement.

There is nothing wrong with celibacy. It is not for everybody and it's a gift of God.



Simply a 'sacrifice' that was instituted by men that then turned to tradition.


I can argue with you that Paul implicitly institued it, but somehow I can see you not accepting it.



How will someone who is neither a father or a husband relate to the problems of his congregation?


How can a married man devote 100% of its time to its congregation when he has to take care of something as precious as his wife and children?



This doctrine hurts more than it helps.


No it doesn't. It is simply misinterpreted and used by anti-Catholics to bash Catholics. This topic will undoubtedly appear on every anti-Catholic book or in any discussion on why Catholicism is wrong.



The central authority in the Church should be none other than the Head of the Church itself... i.e. Jesus Christ.


The Head of the Church or Earth is the Pope. Jesus himself instituted Peter as the first Pope. But we have had a long discussion on this topic and none convinced the other. :spin

[Phenomanul]

I know we have had our theological interchanges in the past... so you know that I respect you as a person. Having said that....



Catholics focus on the Bible as much as one should focus on it. They do not worship the Bible, because they know the Catholic Church came before the Bible and that for three hundred years, Christians had no Bible to base their beliefs on and had to rely on the Catholic Church for guidance. And now that there is a Bible, it should be no different.

It is actually thanks to the Catholic Church you have a Bible at all. The Catholic Church put the Bible together in the IV century AD. It was the Catholic Church who decided which books where inspired and which were not, in a time where, aside from the Gospels, Acts and some of Paul's letters, all other book that ended in the New Testament were not accepted by everybody as inspired. Moreover, there were other books that were considered inspired and read in Churches throughout the ancient world on Sundays.

And it was the Catholic monks who took care of the ancient copies of the Bible, such as the ancient Codex found in the Vatican, Paris and London, and who copied them through the ages in order for you and me to be able to read it nowadays.

I would like to think that we owe our gratitude to GOD for the Bible's existence... That He not only left us the Holy Spirit as a guide and comforter but that He left us His Word.

Christians in the Catholic Church were used as instruments and vessels to discern what GOD wanted in the Bible... and to 'weed out the shaft'.... so to speak. The Catholic Church in and of itself deserves no glory for this.



No it hasn't. As I said before, the Bible did not exist for almost 400 years. In those first years of Christianiy, the Word of the Lord was transmited oraly. Four inspired men decided to put down in written words what the Lord had done when he was among us. But they never said this was meant to be the complete works of Jesus on Earth. As a matter of fact, John said they weren't, because no book could contain all the things Jesus said and did while on his time on Earth.

A large part of the Bible, much of the 'Old Testament,' was written by Hebrews/Jews, well before the time of JESUS... And yet JESUS Himself is a central theme in the 'Old Testament'. The Will of GOD allowed for the Revelation of His Character to withstand the test of time through writings that were finally compiled into what we know as The Bible...



Therefore, tradition came before the written word. And this tradition was kept within the Catholic Church, and passed down from generation to generation.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD.

The Word... The Revelation of GOD through JESUS has always been around. He is more important than tradition. He supercedes it. Was it not the Pharisees' traditions that JESUS rebuked?



One more thing, in the basic dogmas of its religion, Catholicism does not deviate one inch from what the Bible says. It's much less important things, such as the Virgin's Ascension, where Dogma cannot be founded in the Bible. This is where Catholics look for tradition as their only justification. But this does not happen often.

It happens more often than you think.... but again, as long as our focus remains on Christ. He will be able to guide us via the Holy Spirit... the Holy Spirit should then help us discern what teachings don't fall in line with GOD's Word or GOD's character... by placing the importance of tradition above GOD's Word, however, one ends up walking a very fine line.

[smeagol]

Chapter and verse, please.


I thought you were well versed in the Bible.

Matthew 16-19, more especifically Matthew 16:18



Martin Luther was a Catholic priest and was fed up with the corruption and decidedly un-Christian behavior of the Church; Including the Pope; we reap what we sow.


Martin Luther wanted to reinterpret religion and came up with a new theology. He changed parts of the Bible (as I have mentioned on another post) and even wanted to eliminate an entire epistle (the Epistle of James), which he called the "Epistle of Staws". He also disliked the Book of Revelations.



aaahhhh; there's the rub.

No rub, as I said before, tradition preceeds the Bible; the Catholic Church preceeds the Bible. Therefore, it only makes sense that Catholicism holds these traditions dear.

But as I said before, all important Catholic dogmas are rooted in the Bible.

[scott]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned (I only read the first handful of posts) but to be married in the Catholic church, both the husband and wife need to be Catholic (either life long or by conversion).

[Phenomanul]

Paul is celibate and encouarages those men who lead congregations to be celibate too. What more do you need in order to accept this tradition which is rooted in the Bible?

The truth is celibacy was held by many priests in the Church throughout the centuries and it became so popular that by the XII or XIII century it was insituted for all Roman Catholics priests as a requirement.

There is nothing wrong with celibacy. It is not for everybody and it's a gift of God.


No there isn't... and yes it is a gift of GOD....

It shouldn't be stipulated as a requirement however when Christ himself doesn't even mention it.

Hebrew priests were married and had children....
Peter had a wife...
Some of the other apostles were also married...




I can argue with you that Paul implicitly institued it, but somehow I can see you not accepting it.

If it's not in the Bible... no.





How can a married man devote 100% of its time to its congregation when he has to take care of something as precious as his wife and children?


This is a far more manageable 'problem'... and not drawn out to the extreme you make it out to be with your 100%.

My father has managed his family fairly well I would say... but I guess my view would be biased anyway...

Leading a household to produce three college graduates... all on scholarships, with limited resources... I consider my father a shining example every which way despite his flaws. But again, all glory be to GOD for his guidance, provision, blessings and most importantly for His Love...





No it doesn't. It is simply misinterpreted and used by anti-Catholics to bash Catholics. This topic will undoubtedly appear on every anti-Catholic book or in any discussion on why Catholicism is wrong.


I'm not attacking the church simply by disagreeing with one of its practices....



The Head of the Church on Earth is the Pope. Jesus himself instituted Peter as the first Pope. But we have had a long discussion on this topic and none convinced the other. :spin

You're right that I disagree.... The Head of the Church is Christ - not any sinful man.

[smeagol]

I know we have had our theological interchanges in the past... so you know that I respect you as a person.


And I respect you . . . although you had a different name when we debated the last time :lol



I would like to think that we owe our gratitude to GOD for the Bible's existence... That He not only left us the Holy Spirit as a guide and comforter but that He left us His Word.


Of course we do. God, through Jesus, instituted the Catholic Chruch precisely for that reason. "And the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it". And she will be free of error.

This same Church, which Jesus himself instituted, is the one you deny.



John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD.

The Word... The Revelation of GOD through JESUS has always been around. He is more important than tradition.


Of course Jesus existed before humanity and therefore before tradition. That has nothing to with the fact that for almost 400 years humanity had no Bible to rely on. But they were Christians, weren't they? And some of them were saved, even if they had no "guide", weren't they?

Well, if there was no Bible, then who has their "guide"? According to Bible Christians, only the Bible contains the teachings of the Lord. This is incomplete information. The Bible, under the interpretation of the Catholic Church, plus the traditions that came down from Jesus Christ, which were not written down on paper, but maintined by the Catholic Church, are the guide to salvation.


Tradition is what Christians went by in 100 AD. Tradition and the Bible is what Catholics went by in 600 AD and this is what they go by nowadays.



Was it not the Pharisees' traditions that JESUS rebuked?

Tradition of men. Catholics traditions are rooted in Christ (and 99.999% are rooted in the Bible).




It happens more often than you think....


Examples please.



Christ will be able to guide us via the Holy Spirit... the Holy Spirit should then help us discern what teachings don't fall in line with GOD's Word or GOD's character...


If the Holy Spirit guides Protestants to the truth by private interpretation of the Bible, how come there are 20,000 Protestant denominations, all claiming to posses the truth and all different among themselves? The truth must be only one.



by placing the importance of tradition above GOD's Word, however, one ends up walking a very fine line.


Not if those traditions come from Jesus himself.

[Guru of Nothing]

Blinded by the light, held up like a loofa by the foreman of the night.

[smeagol]

No there isn't... and yes it is a gift of GOD....

It shouldn't be stipulated as a requirement however when Christ himself doesn't even mention it.

Hebrew priests were married and had children....
Peter had a wife...
Some of the other apostles were also married...

And Paul was celibate. And he incourages it, especially for priests. What else can I tell you?

In any case, celibacy is not a doctrine and could be changed tomorrow. Nevertheless, it makes sense.



If it's not in the Bible... no.


But there is mention of celibacy in the Bible. Read 2 Tim 2:3-4 or 1 Cor 7.




This is a far more manageable 'problem'... and not drawn out to the extreme you make it out to be with your 100%.

My father has managed his family fairly well I would say... but I guess my view would be biased anyway...

Leading a household to produce three college graduates... all on scholarships, with limited resources... I consider my father a shining example every which way despite his flaws. But again, all glory be to GOD for his guidance, provision, blessings and most importantly for His Love...

I congratuale your father. He certainly did a great job with you. But not all Protestant pastors are like your father.



You're right that I disagree.... The Head of the Church is Christ - not any sinful man.


The Head of the Church is Christ. The Head of the Church on Earth, until Christ comes back, is a sinful man called the Pope. That is the way Christ wanted it.

[smeagol]

Blinded by the light, held up like a loofa by the foreman of the night.
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[scott]

The Head of the Church is Christ. The Head of the Church on Earth, until Christ comes back, is a sinful man called the Pope. That is the way Christ wanted it.

To me this is the greatest example of the flaws of Protestantism. They wish to employ a (more) literal interpretation of the bible, yet conveniently choose to ignore the part which makes their Protestantism a violation of that very bible.

[smeagol]

If the Catholic Church now believes strictly in a "Saved by Grace" doctrine, you let me know when that happened.


Why would it if Saved by Grace doctrine is not in the Bible, except the altered version by Luther.


I discussed this specifically with TWO priests not 2 and a half years ago, as my dad was on his death bed; he thought, after 60 years of Catholic worship (including St. Gerards & St. Mary's) that he might end up in hell because he had done bad things.

If a Catholic believes will go t Hell because he had done bad things, he has no clue of what the Doctrines of Catholicism are.


According to my Bible, you don't end up in Hell because you did bad things, nor do you end up in heaven because you did good ones.

According to the Bible, you are not saved by faith alone.

[smeagol]

To me this is the greatest example of the flaws of Protestantism. They wish to employ a (more) literal interpretation of the bible, yet conveniently choose to ignore the part which makes their Protestantism a violation of that very bible.
Wow, an unlikely ally in Scott? :lol

[smeagol]

If it's not gospel, it ought not be taught that it is so. Catholic churches (I was an active, practicing Catholic for 32 years of my life - and I have sent my children to Catholic School; I'm not speaking from anything other than experience), don't explain what IS in the bible, and what is not. Catholics are taught to follow ALL teachings, without ever explaining that, hey, some HUMAN BEING made some of this up (albeit with the best of intentions, usually), and it isn't actually the word of the Son of Man.


Please enumerate the Catholic Doctrines that are not rooted in the Bible.

[smeagol]

You forgot the Eastern Orthodox.
True until the Great Schism

[smeagol]

Being a Catholic, I can honestly answer this question with a resounding "I have no fucking clue". It's one of the many things I disagree with the catholic church about, but I'm still catholic and will continue to be.


If you have no clue, read about it. It is always good to be able to defend your Faith.

I have given some reasons why celibacy is good.

[smeagol]

Fair enough. To me, it's just a another man-made tradition...
"Made" by Paul himself. And who is to say Jesus had nothing to do with what Paul says in 2 Tim?

[smeagol]

See 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 - 32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. NIV

As Paul says above, a celibate priest would be able to give more attention to his prayer life and the concerns of his congregation. Jesus does discuss this practice in Matt 19:11 - 12 and does not condemn it. Matt 19:11 -12 - 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." NIV

Hector, how come you never responded to Goliadnative?

I hadn't seen his post. It would've saved me time and posts :lol

[smeagol]

Christianity was man made only so far as Jesus was man. What is written as Gospel (as opposed to all other parts of the Bible), spoken and taught by the Son of God, I have absolute faith in.?

You know there were dozens of Gospels floating around in the III century?

And the same Church that proclaimed these four are the inspired ones, with the help of the Holy Spirit, is the one you are bashing now. You believe in the Gospels and only the Gospels but don't believe in the one entity that was around 2,000 years ago to put together these Gospels, but even more so, was around to see what Christ did when he was alive, which might not even be in the Gospels.

Actually, this entity was created by Jesus himself. There lies the irony.

[smeagol]

I always wanted to bring the Pope to Vegas and play roulette with him. I'd put all my money on the number 1 and then when the dealer announces the number and says I lost I'd look to the pope and he would say "no, sorry the number is 1", and since he's infallible, I'd win 38 times my money.


Sweet.


C'mon dude, you really need to learn the religion you profess.

[smeagol]

Sorry for posting so many times (record of consecutive posts?).

I was too busy at work today and this thread it too good to pass.

I'm out now.

TBC tomorrow

God Bless you all.

[sickdsm]

Link please.


In some cases the crimes were covered up by Church authorities and the perpetrators moved to another location, sometimes repeatedly. In the worst cases these involved pedophile priests with continued access to children as a result (see, for example, the Ferns report). Criticism of the Church and its leadership followed, especially as some high-ranking Church clergy failed to disclose information about certain sex abuse cases involving law breaking to government authorities.

While the reported sexual abuse by the clergy related to incidents predominantly from the 1960s to 1980s.[9] some cases occurred in the 1990s and sexual abuse has also happened in the distant past. It was the topic of Pope Benedict XIV's apostolic constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae in 1741.


Do you know how to google?

[sickdsm]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned (I only read the first handful of posts) but to be married in the Catholic church, both the husband and wife need to be Catholic (either life long or by conversion).



Completely false. Met with the priest saturday and he said that was not a requirement. It would only make the paperwork easier.


I do know a friend that recently told a catholic priest to fuck off after the priest told him that since him and his catholic wife were married in a Lutheran church that the Catholic church did not recognize the marriage and would need to be remarried for him to join though.

[travis2]

This is a far more manageable 'problem'... and not drawn out to the extreme you make it out to be with your 100%.

My father has managed his family fairly well I would say... but I guess my view would be biased anyway...

Leading a household to produce three college graduates... all on scholarships, with limited resources... I consider my father a shining example every which way despite his flaws. But again, all glory be to GOD for his guidance, provision, blessings and most importantly for His Love...


So how large was his congregation?

Catholic parishes are not small. Those "megachurches" you hear about? They only get called that because there might be only one or two services for the entire congregation...which might be a few thousand. (And yes, I know there are a few REALLY LARGE ones...but a "megachurch" seems to come into being at around 2-3000 people...don't quote me on that number....)

My parish here in SA is about 4200 families. I don't have a full head-count. And that figure is NOT the largest here in town. It is not uncommon for a parish to have 1000+ families. But you don't ever hear them called "megachurches".

A pastor of an "average" parish in general has many many more people to take spiritual care of than a pastor of an "average" church. Not to mention in out-of-the-way communities, the local parish priest might be the only one for miles...and civil organizations (police, fire, hospitals, stuff like that) call on his services too.

It was only in the last couple of months that my parish got a (temporary, as I understand it) associate pastor. For several months our pastor had that 4200 family parish all to himself...the poor guy was getting run into the ground. And if he'd had a family? Poor things...

Celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. It could be changed. I certainly won't leave the Church if they do. But it is not a bad thing.

Oh, and the rest of you...stop with the bigoted BS about "celibacy causes priests to molest little boys" and crap like that. You have absolutely no case...just a bigoted mindset. There are no increases in the rate of sexual depravity among priests compared to Protestant pastors, teachers, or other fields. None. So get away from the lies.

[JoeChalupa]

God Bless everyone.

[leemajors]

Completely false. Met with the priest saturday and he said that was not a requirement. It would only make the paperwork easier.


I do know a friend that recently told a catholic priest to fuck off after the priest told him that since him and his catholic wife were married in a Lutheran church that the Catholic church did not recognize the marriage and would need to be remarried for him to join though.

that doesn't sound right - the Catholic Church recognizes sacraments performed in other churches - you don't have to get re-baptized to be a Catholic like a lot of Protestant churches require. Maybe the priests i knew were a lot more liberal than that one though.

[sickdsm]

Celibacy may very well be a gift that's not for everyone.
Therein lies the problem. A lot of these priests AREN"T cut out for it.

IMO, more and more priests are the outcasts of society nowdays beforee they decide to be a priest. Meaning i believe they have problems enough being awkward before they decide.


What happans when you take sex away? The average guy masterbates a LOT, LOT more. Bubba in prison buttfucks Tyrone even though there macho, straight men. The priests that aren't special in that aspect look admiringly at your sons and nephews.


For Fucks sake, The most fucked up priest more than likely abducted Jacob Wetterling, poster child, years ago for his own enjoyment and the church has been covering it up ever since. That monastary was known prior to that incident as a "safehaven, rehab" for troubled priests.


The church doesn't dismiss these guys and go the police, they try with all their might to protect "God's sons"

[101A]

You know there were dozens of Gospels floating around in the III century?

And the same Church that proclaimed these four are the inspired ones, with the help of the Holy Spirit, is the one you are bashing now. You believe in the Gospels and only the Gospels but don't believe in the one entity that was around 2,000 years ago to put together these Gospels, but even more so, was around to see what Christ did when he was alive, which might not even be in the Gospels.

Actually, this entity was created by Jesus himself. There lies the irony.


I've been gone for hours, Smeagol, and I know you're on line now...too much to respond to, but I picked this post as a jumping-in point.

I am not feverishly Anti-Catholic; I was raised Catholic, my wife (in 1990 before we were married) converted to Catholicism - from Baptist; as recently as 18 months ago, my kids were in Catholic school, and not just any Catholic School - The Atonement Academy - where they attended mass daily, and received a great education; however we had to move from SA, and the local Catholic school is not to our liking (too secular & the academics are not challenging).

I am not "bashing" the church, nor am I a great biblical scholar (raised Catholic, remember :lol

However since I have been attending non-Catholic churches for more than a decade now, it has become glaringly apparent that the Catholic Church does a poor job of teaching its parishiners the simple, profound message and purpose of Jesus's life on earth.

Forget Dogma and everything else, where the tire meets the pavement, most Catholics beleive:

1. Go to Church
2. Take Communion
3. Go to Confession
4. Say your prayers
5. Be good
6. Go to Heaven

It is taught as a recipe, again, similar to Judaism

They are additionally taught and believe in their inherent superiority to Protestanism, and are convinced that Protestants are simply lost sheep and will find their way back home. They do not understand the very serious biblical discussions that go on weekly in every Protestant church I have attended - by many, many more members of the congregation than actively participate in such discussions at a Catholic Church. They don't sit around and talk about what's wrong with Catholics, or how horrible the Church is, they study the bible and try to grasp the teachings of our lord - as the bible (Jesus) commands us to do. They develop a relationship with Him.

That was missing in the many years of my Catholic life. I did not know Jesus - because, frankly, it is not stressed. The list above is stressed.

It's a cliche, but it really is summed up in John 3:16 (NIV)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

That's, now, what I believe I have to do to go to heaven.

[Phenomanul]

There are no increases in the rate of sexual depravity among priests compared to Protestant pastors, teachers, or other fields. None. So get away from the lies.

You make a valid point...

But I don't believe schools or people in other fields protect known perpetrators... that is the one difference. There are countless of documented cases where it was proven that the Catholic Church aided its ministers by covering up their crimes... and instead of sanctioning them from within... the church authorities would simply move them elsewhere... where, perplexingly enough they were given access to children yet again...

This is what drives 'outsiders' mad... and you or anyone else from the Catholic institution would be foolhardy to defend the practice. You all should be enraged like the rest of us -- particularly because it is an institution which represents Christ.

Are the rates any worse... probably not. But the above practice is reprehensible by all accounts. You all should embrace the change that would rid the Body of Christ from such shame... not blindlessly defend it, by considering all criticisms of said practice an attack on the whole institution itself... and in doing so, sidestepping the issue by deferment. Change should spring from within... but if the members don't acknowledge that there is a problem to begin with, how will they ever purge it away?

[101A]

that doesn't sound right - the Catholic Church recognizes sacraments performed in other churches - you don't have to get re-baptized to be a Catholic like a lot of Protestant churches require. Maybe the priests i knew were a lot more liberal than that one though.

No Protestant church I have ever attended or actually heard of requires a "re-baptism". Some Catholics choose to be baptised after they begin attending one of them, however. This was a myth I believed when I was a Catholic, as well.

I have been baptised once - @ St. Josephs on loop 410, as a Catholic.

Protestant churches are much more open with communion, marriage - and my wife, with her Ph.D. in Biochemstry, as a Lutheran, could not get a job as a Science Teacher @ a Catholic school in SA (she briefly toyed with not being a professor anymore). Again, from experience, Catholic Churches are far more discriminatory than any Protestant Church I have attended; although I must admit, they take care of their own. I was born and raised Catholic; I am allowed to take communion when I go to my mother's church, my wife, raised Baptist, and converted, cannot, even though neither of us attend Catholic Church now.

BTW: I don't.

[leemajors]

Celibacy may very well be a gift that's not for everyone.
Therein lies the problem. A lot of these priests AREN"T cut out for it.

IMO, more and more priests are the outcasts of society nowdays beforee they decide to be a priest. Meaning i believe they have problems enough being awkward before they decide.


What happans when you take sex away? The average guy masterbates a LOT, LOT more. Bubba in prison buttfucks Tyrone even though there macho, straight men. The priests that aren't special in that aspect look admiringly at your sons and nephews.


For Fucks sake, The most fucked up priest more than likely abducted Jacob Wetterling, poster child, years ago for his own enjoyment and the church has been covering it up ever since. That monastary was known prior to that incident as a "safehaven, rehab" for troubled priests.


The church doesn't dismiss these guys and go the police, they try with all their might to protect "God's sons"

it sounds more and more like you definitely shouldn't get married in a Catholic Church with your vitrioloc posts about priests - does your fiancee have her heart set on it?

[leemajors]

No Protestant church I have ever attended or actually heard of requires a "re-baptism". Some Catholics choose to be baptised after they begin attending one of them, however. This was a myth I believed when I was a Catholic, as well.

I have been baptised once - @ St. Josephs on loop 410, as a Catholic.

Protestant churches are much more open with communion, marriage - and my wife, with her Ph.D. in Biochemstry, as a Lutheran, could not get a job as a Science Teacher @ a Catholic school in SA (she briefly toyed with not being a professor anymore). Again, from experience, Catholic Churches are far more discriminatory than any Protestant Church I have attended; although I must admit, they take care of their own. I was born and raised Catholic; I am allowed to take communion when I go to my mother's church, my wife, raised Baptist, and converted, cannot, even though neither of us attend Catholic Church now.

BTW: I don't.

plenty of protestant churches in victoria did require a re-baptism. victoria is a weird place though.

[101A]

plenty of protestant churches in victoria did require a re-baptism. victoria is a weird place though.

Ironically (and absolutely unrelated to the topic): I was born in Victoria.

[spurster]

It is actually thanks to the Catholic Church you have a Bible at all. The Catholic Church put the Bible together in the IV century AD. It was the Catholic Church who decided which books where inspired and which were not, in a time where, aside from the Gospels, Acts and some of Paul's letters, all other book that ended in the New Testament were not accepted by everybody as inspired. Moreover, there were other books that were considered inspired and read in Churches throughout the ancient world on Sundays.

The Protestants and Eastern Orthodox hadn't split by that time, so what is now the Catholic church can't take all the credit. Protestants claim that history, too.

[Phenomanul]

And Paul was celibate. And he encourages it, especially for priests. What else can I tell you?

Paul had a unique and rare Spiritual Gift... So yes he encourages the celibate lifestyle for those that can handle it... much like what Jesus says in Matthew... for those that can handle it. No where does it say that to be a church leader one must give up of the hope of creating their own family.



In any case, celibacy is not a doctrine and could be changed tomorrow. Nevertheless, it makes sense.

In some ways... obviously, however, the practice is hurting the church in other ways.



But there is mention of celibacy in the Bible. Read 2 Tim 2:3-4 or 1 Cor 7.


Recommendation does not equate to 'requirement' or 'stipulation'....
The mere mention of celibacy is not enough to stipulate a requirement. It works for some, but not for many. Clearly it doesn't work for everyone.




The Head of the Church is Christ. The Head of the Church on Earth, until Christ comes back, is a sinful man called the Pope. That is the way Christ wanted it.

So interprets the Catholic Church... I am bound to no one on earth except for Christ, since only He is mediator between GOD and men.

If you prefer to have a middle man... that is your perogative.... Again though, Christ died so that we could have an eternal and DIRECT connection with GOD. Don't throw that priviledge away.

[sickdsm]

it sounds more and more like you definitely shouldn't get married in a Catholic Church with your vitrioloc posts about priests - does your fiancee have her heart set on it?


Just because the refs suck doesn't mean you need to stop being a spurs fan.



Note to self: Questioning said practice means your discouraged from committing.

[johnsmith]

C'mon dude, you really need to learn the religion you profess.


C'mon dude, it was a joke, get over yourself.

[johnsmith]

Just because the refs suck doesn't mean you need to stop being a spurs fan.



Note to self: Questioning said practice means your discouraged from committing.


No one is discouraging you they are just pointing out that through six pages of rhetoric your thoughts and biased opinion on Catholic priests doesn't look like it has been swayed even the tiniest bit, nor does it seem like you have any intention of even considering what many people have very eloquently posted throughout this thread.

[johnsmith]

If you have no clue, read about it. It is always good to be able to defend your Faith.

I have given some reasons why celibacy is good.


You have given some good reasons, and I think I understand it for the first time now. Having said that, your inability to recognize a joke and your obvious tendncy to think you are the smartest man in the world and take yourself far too seriously has now rubbed me the wrong way, you my friend, are a douche bag. And a catholic one too.

[leemajors]

Just because the refs suck doesn't mean you need to stop being a spurs fan.



Note to self: Questioning said practice means your discouraged from committing.

i did not mean that in the slightest - converting would require a serious commitment, but you stated earlier conversion would not be necessary. from the harsh words toward the priesthood in some of your posts i wondered if you really wished to be married in a Catholic Church or to be a part of it.

[smeagol]

In some cases the crimes were covered up by Church authorities and the perpetrators moved to another location, sometimes repeatedly. In the worst cases these involved pedophile priests with continued access to children as a result (see, for example, the Ferns report). Criticism of the Church and its leadership followed, especially as some high-ranking Church clergy failed to disclose information about certain sex abuse cases involving law breaking to government authorities.

While the reported sexual abuse by the clergy related to incidents predominantly from the 1960s to 1980s.[9] some cases occurred in the 1990s and sexual abuse has also happened in the distant past. It was the topic of Pope Benedict XIV's apostolic constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae in 1741.


Do you know how to google?

I do. Do you know how to read?

Clambake said the Pope was covering up for pedophile priests and I asked him for a link.

What you quoted gives no evidence that JP II was covering up this scandal.

[travis2]

In some ways... obviously, however, the practice is hurting the church in other ways.


"obviously", how? Source please. I maintain it is NOT so "obvious".

[travis2]

No Protestant church I have ever attended or actually heard of requires a "re-baptism". Some Catholics choose to be baptised after they begin attending one of them, however. This was a myth I believed when I was a Catholic, as well.

I have been baptised once - @ St. Josephs on loop 410, as a Catholic.

Protestant churches are much more open with communion, marriage - and my wife, with her Ph.D. in Biochemstry, as a Lutheran, could not get a job as a Science Teacher @ a Catholic school in SA (she briefly toyed with not being a professor anymore). Again, from experience, Catholic Churches are far more discriminatory than any Protestant Church I have attended; although I must admit, they take care of their own. I was born and raised Catholic; I am allowed to take communion when I go to my mother's church, my wife, raised Baptist, and converted, cannot, even though neither of us attend Catholic Church now.

BTW: I don't.


Any church that advertises a belief in "Believers Baptism" will not accept a baptism performed as an infant.

[travis2]

You make a valid point...

But I don't believe schools or people in other fields protect known perpetrators... that is the one difference. There are countless of documented cases where it was proven that the Catholic Church aided its ministers by covering up their crimes... and instead of sanctioning them from within... the church authorities would simply move them elsewhere... where, perplexingly enough they were given access to children yet again...

This is what drives 'outsiders' mad... and you or anyone else from the Catholic institution would be foolhardy to defend the practice. You all should be enraged like the rest of us -- particularly because it is an institution which represents Christ.

Are the rates any worse... probably not. But the above practice is reprehensible by all accounts. You all should embrace the change that would rid the Body of Christ from such shame... not blindlessly defend it, by considering all criticisms of said practice an attack on the whole institution itself... and in doing so, sidestepping the issue by deferment. Change should spring from within... but if the members don't acknowledge that there is a problem to begin with, how will they ever purge it away?


Exactly where did I defend sexual depravity, "blindlessly" or otherwise? Please post a link to where I did that.

[Phenomanul]

"obviously", how? Source please. I maintain it is NOT so "obvious".


Granted that was my opinion.

But apparently some priests can't deal with their celibacy. That burden should never have fallen on their shoulders as something dictated by GOD and as a requisite for their position. As a result children have been abused... Could that result have been avoided if those priests had been given a natural, divinely sanctioned outlet for their desires? I believe so (again my opinion). I also believe that denying the link between the two issues stems from a stubborn blindness to face the fact that there is a problem, to admit that the Catholic Church made a mistake with regards to the strictness of this tradition. Cause again, a change in this practice does not invalidate the core of the RCC... nor should it be seen as an attack. But then it all falls back on the matter of the Pope's supposed 'interpretative infallability' -- cause a Pope can't possibly mess up on matters of interpretation, doctrine and tradition. Can he? It's a vicious cycle that doesn't allow the Church to progress, to weed out its problems for the benefit of the Evangelistic message of Christ... Oh well.

I'd be more concerned about the fact that when crimes go unpunished, a message is sent that they are indirectly and inherently being sanctioned - even though they are not being condoned. This illogical attitude is tearing at the very credibility of the church's ability to minister to people in need. That to me, is the obvious part.

[JoeChalupa]

Thanks Travis. Well done.

[scott]

Completely false. Met with the priest saturday and he said that was not a requirement. It would only make the paperwork easier.


I do know a friend that recently told a catholic priest to fuck off after the priest told him that since him and his catholic wife were married in a Lutheran church that the Catholic church did not recognize the marriage and would need to be remarried for him to join though.

That isn't what I've been told by the priests who ran the school I went to.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm Catholic and had no problems marrying my Baptist wife. Was never an issue. But the pre-marriage encounter was a requirement and we loved it and have gone back as speakers to couples and are planning on doing a marriage encounter this year.

[smeagol]

The Protestants and Eastern Orthodox hadn't split by that time, so what is now the Catholic church can't take all the credit. Protestants claim that history, too.
Not sure how Protestants can claim that part of the history.

They sarted to exist in the XV century and their theology was really developed in the XVI century. Many of the most vocal groups, Evangelicals, Baptists, Fundamentalists, only have 150 or so years of existance.

[smeagol]

C'mon dude, it was a joke, get over yourself.
Sorry, I did not realize.

[spurster]

Not sure how Protestants can claim that part of the history.

They sarted to exist in the XV century and their theology was really developed in the XVI century. Many of the most vocal groups, Evangelicals, Baptists, Fundamentalists, only have 150 or so years of existance.
Early church history is early church history no matter the denomination. Next you'll be telling me Protestants can't claim Peter or Jesus because the split was after that.

[smeagol]

You have given some good reasons, and I think I understand it for the first time now. Having said that, your inability to recognize a joke and your obvious tendncy to think you are the smartest man in the world and take yourself far too seriously has now rubbed me the wrong way, you my friend, are a douche bag. And a catholic one too.

I'm sorry if I came accross as the smartest mas in the world. It was not my intention. Actually, I'm far from it, and when it comes to Catholicism, I'm pretty ignorant. You should listen to guys such as Travis. He knows his s**t when it comes to religion.

I like to read about the Church, it's origins and the writtings of the Early Fathers, the controversies with our brother Protestants, but with three kids, all of them 4 years old or less, and a 10 hour a day demanding job, it is pretty hard to read more than a couple of pages per week.

It's sad though that you consider me a douche bag because I fail to recognize a joke, or came accross as to serious. People who have posted on this forum for more than a couple of months know I have a pretty good sense of humor.

The one thing I have learned about you is that you jump to conlusions very quickly and you tend to insult other posters for no good reason.

Not sure my comments were su rude to you as to deserve your "you are douche bag" comments. I guess at least you don't want my mother to be killed.

[smeagol]

Early church history is early church history no matter the denomination. Next you'll be telling me Protestants can't claim Peter or Jesus because the split was after that.


In early Church history (70 - 300 AD), there are plenty of writings that support many of the Catholic practices Protestants reject, such as the Real Prescence, the Papacy, the Apostolic Succession, the Virginity of Mary, Marian beliefs in general, praying to the dead and to the Saints, auricular confession, infant baptism, purgatory, the sacrifice of the mass, etc, etc.

How can Protestants state that the early Church held the "Protestant" beliefs when there is hardly or no evidence of it. The truth is, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Catholicism.

[smeagol]

Phenomemanul and other Protestants, a couple of questions for you.


1. Where does it say in the Bible that children born to Christian families have to be baptized only at he point in their lives when they claim Jesus is their Savior (obviously, when they are adults)?

2. How can the Trinity be explained with the Bible alone?

3. Why do you accept this Bible as inspired when, as I said in another post, it was put together in a long process that lasted almost 300 hundred years, from the time when the first of Paul's Epistles where written (50 AD) to the time the canon was finally closed with the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (late IV C). In that process, many books that were considered inspired by some (Clement I, Sheperd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of Barnabas) were rejected, and many that were not considered inspired by many (Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 3 John, Jude and Revelation) were included.

Hector, you said it was the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, who made these decisions. Then why can’t you accept that all the other teachings of the Church, which I detailed in my previous post, and which were practiced by the Early Church, were also inspired by the Holy Spirit?

4. To my Lutherans friends: Under what basis did Luther reject the epistle of James?
Under what basis did he change Romans 3:28? Supposedly, the canon was closed in 397 AD.

5. Where in the Bible does it say that the Sola Scriptura is what Christians should believe in?

[Guru of Nothing]

But apparently some priests can't deal with their celibacy. That burden should never have fallen on their shoulders as something dictated by GOD and as a requisite for their position. As a result children have been abused... Could that result have been avoided if those priests had been given a natural, divinely sanctioned outlet for their desires? I believe so (again my opinion). I also believe that denying the link between the two issues stems from a stubborn blindness to face the fact that there is a problem, to admit that the Catholic Church made a mistake with regards to the strictness of this tradition. Cause again, a change in this practice does not invalidate the core of the RCC... nor should it be seen as an attack. But then it all falls back on the matter of the Pope's supposed 'interpretative infallability' -- cause a Pope can't possibly mess up on matters of interpretation, doctrine and tradition. Can he? It's a vicious cycle that doesn't allow the Church to progress, to weed out its problems for the benefit of the Evangelistic message of Christ... Oh well.[/B]

Give me Catholicism, or give me convenience!

[smeagol]

But apparently some priests can't deal with their celibacy.


True.

On the other hand, some mothers and fathers can't deal with fatherhood, what should society do? Not allow them to procrerate (may this is not a bad idea :spin ).

And some Fundamentalists cannot follow thier own rule of not drinking alcohol(by the way, is that prohibition somewhere in the Bible?).



That burden should never have fallen on their shoulders as something dictated by GOD and as a requisite for their position.


Hector, where have I said celibacy was dictated by God. I have said a number of times that it is not Catholic Doctrine and that it could change tomorrow.



As a result children have been abused... Could that result have been avoided if those priests had been given a natural, divinely sanctioned outlet for their desires? I believe so (again my opinion).


To come to such conclusion, you need something to back it up. I have yet to see a study that links pedophilia to celibacy. Nevertheless, I can tell you many cases of pedophiles that were not priests and were never celibate.




I also believe that denying the link between the two issues stems from a stubborn blindness to face the fact that there is a problem, to admit that the Catholic Church made a mistake with regards to the strictness of this tradition.


Instead of claiming this link is a proven fact, come up with studies to back it up.

There is a problem. There is no denying that. But is is not strictly linked to celibacy.



Cause again, a change in this practice does not invalidate the core of the RCC... nor should it be seen as an attack. But then it all falls back on the matter of the Pope's supposed 'interpretative infallability' -- cause a Pope can't possibly mess up on matters of interpretation, doctrine and tradition.


One last time: Celibacy is not Doctrine. It has nothing to do with the Pope being Infallible. You have a number of concepots mixed up.



It's a vicious cycle that doesn't allow the Church to progress, to weed out its problems for the benefit of the Evangelistic message of Christ... Oh well.


Again, you imply that Catholicism is about man-made traditions which blur Jesus' message. It is not like that. It has never been like that.



I'd be more concerned about the fact that when crimes go unpunished, a message is sent that they are indirectly and inherently being sanctioned - even though they are not being condoned.


This I totally agree with you.



This illogical attitude is tearing at the very credibility of the church's ability to minister to people in need. That to me, is the obvious part.


With regards to celibacy, it is still not obvious the conclusion you are trying to reach, which is that it leads to pedophilia.

[scott]

I tend to think that being a sick fuck leads to pedophilia more than anything else.

[smeagol]

I tend to think that being a sick fuck leads to pedophilia more than anything else.
Bingo!

To be a pedophile, you have to be sick in the first place.

How does not being able to have sex transform you into somebody who likes young boys (or young girls), i.e., a pedophile?

Abstaining from sex will only make a man want to have sex the way he enjoys it. If he is a pedophile, he would have been one even if he tried celibacy for a while without success.

And if you are celibate but not a sick man (pedophile), and you are not meant to keep celibacy, then you will probably end up having sex with sombody your age (18 years or older).

Again, how does celibacy transform an otherwise normal human being into a pedophile?

As I said before, this is one of the anti-Catholics' preferred way of attacking the Faith, or other people of good faith (Hector) who have not really though the whole situation over and jump too fast into erroneous conclusions.

[carina_gino20]

just to add to the "Saved by Grace and Works" belief for Catholics...

James 2:14-24: "My friends, what good is it for one of you to say that you have faith if your actions do not prove it? Can that faith save you? Suppose there are brothers or sisters who need clothes and don't have enough to eat. What good is there in your saying to them, "God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!" [...] Do you believe that there is only one God? Good! The demons also believe--and they tremble in fear. [...] You see, then, that it is by our actions that we are put right with God, and not by faith alone."

although, i believe that we can never really earn our way to heaven because God has the final say, i wouldn't want it to be for lack of trying. after all, how will God judge us according to the Bible? Matthew 25:31-46

[travis2]

:oops

Thanks, smeagol...don't sell yourself short...

[smeagol]

James 2:14-24: "My friends, what good is it for one of you to say that you have faith if your actions do not prove it? Can that faith save you? Suppose there are brothers or sisters who need clothes and don't have enough to eat. What good is there in your saying to them, "God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!" [...] Do you believe that there is only one God? Good! The demons also believe--and they tremble in fear. [...] You see, then, that it is by our actions that we are put right with God, and not by faith alone."

This is the reason why Luther did not think the Epistle of James should be in the Canon of the Bible. Because it contradicts with parts of the new theology he came up with when breaking with the Catholic Church.

Luther and the Reformers of the XV Century also dismissed 7 OT books: Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees and Baruch. By the way, in 2 Maccabees, there is references to praying for the dead ("it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead so that they might be loosed from sin" 2 Mac 13:46), therefore justifying two Catholic traditions that Protestants reject as non-Biblical: Purgatory and praying for the dead. Well, they are non-Biblical to them because they took them out of the Bible!

By the way, they also got rid of 7 chapters of the Book of Esther and 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel.

If people read Luther's autobiography, they will find in his own writing how he dismissed not only the Epistle of James (of straw, he called it), but also Jude, Hebrews and John's Apocalypse, declaring they were not on the same footing as the rest of the books in the NT.

Finally there's the inclusion of the word "only" after St Paul's phrase "We are justified by faith . . ." in Romans. It amazes me that a man can play with the Bible to the point of including words that were not there for 1,200 years and people still can justify it.

In any case, this is in line with the the Protestant standpoint of individual judgement: no authority outside oneself. However unlearned you might be, you are allowed to carve out a religion for yourself and whoever is willing to follow you. There are too many examples of this tradition in the world, but especially in America: 20,000 examples, to be more precise.

[smeagol]

:oops

Thanks, smeagol...don't sell yourself short...

It's true.

It was your posts almost three years ago, among other things, that inspired me to read more about my religion.

Thanks :tu

[johnsmith]

Smeag's you're a good man, I'm just messing with you. Don't take me serious.

[101A]

Phenomemanul and other Protestants, a couple of questions for you.


1. Where does it say in the Bible that children born to Christian families have to be baptized only at he point in their lives when they claim Jesus is their Savior (obviously, when they are adults)?

It doesn't; nor does it say we ought to baptize infants. No infants were baptized in the bible, btw. Additionally, of the three protestant churches I have been a member of - all have performed infant baptism, this is somewhat of a straw-man argument.


2. How can the Trinity be explained with the Bible alone?

I'm not sure I understand the question. There is no more profound understanding of the trinity explained Catholic churches. Obviously Heg...er Phenomanu has a deep conciousness of the trinity, raised in the house of a protestant preacher, and elegantly describles aspects of it in this very thread.


3. Why do you accept this Bible as inspired when, as I said in another post, it was put together in a long process that lasted almost 300 hundred years, from the time when the first of Paul's Epistles where written (50 AD) to the time the canon was finally closed with the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (late IV C). In that process, many books that were considered inspired by some (Clement I, Sheperd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of Barnabas) were rejected, and many that were not considered inspired by many (Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 3 John, Jude and Revelation) were included.

Faith.


4. To my Lutherans friends: Under what basis did Luther reject the epistle of James?
Under what basis did he change Romans 3:28? Supposedly, the canon was closed in 397 AD.

I am not Lutheran, but I have a bible given to my son @ a Lutheran Church (NIV); I also have the bible given to me by my parents at my confirmation (Catholic)

Romans 3:28 NIV: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart fom observing the law."

Romans 3:28 St Joseph Edition: "For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law"

Apart from the Catholic bible being somewhat more politically correct, I don't see the significant difference here. Another Straw Man?


5. Where in the Bible does it say that the Sola Scriptura is what Christians should believe in?

It was at this point that I began to think I had seen this line of questioning before.

Here it is (http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/sola.html)

And here I thought Smeagol was doing this by himself.....

Anyway to answer the question:

Catholics (and as I used to be one, I know this to be true), take history as their ultimate ally when Protestants question their authority on issues. The fact that THE CHURCH has been around for Two Thousand Years, and that EVERYTHING that Protestants have in their bag of tricks, ultimately, comes FROM THE CHURCH trumps anything a Protestant might say or argue. That link (which obviously Smeagol has drawn his arguments from) arrogantly flaunts this (flawed) logic.

A poster above pointed out that Protestants and Catholics share a history up to the reformation. The two cannot be divided. PROTESTANT'S ANCESTORS WERE CATHOLIC! If they weren't, well, the Catholic Church probably killed them as heretics. When the papacy was being bought and sold like the extremely valuable commodity it had become by Italian families like the Medici, and there was enough free-thinking in the world to imagine a separate church and state, did there develop enough momentum for a break to occur which was probably long overdue.

Up to that point in history, there was no point even reading scripture. The Catholic Church interpreted scripture, and Christians were to believe what the Church taught, because the Church said so. (We've already coverered what happened if you disagreed with that). So, finally, when people began to read scripture for themselves, they started deciding that maybe what the Catholic Church was teaching about what Jesus's taught could be open for different interpretations - and indeed they did decide that.

[Phenomanul]

Smeagol,

I had answered all your questions point by point... but lost it all before I could submit it... I've been having trouble with my browser at home ever since I switched to the new Yahoo Beta mail toolbar... Anyways, I don't know if I have the will or the time to argue endlessly over something so personal that no matter what I say -- neither you or anyone else will budge from their current way of thinking...

You do what you must to feel you are right with GOD.... I will do what I must.

One thing though. You mentioned the RCC does not blur the message of Jesus. I believe it does, remember I was born into a Catholic household before my parents converted. I was baptized as an infant into the Catholic Church (in fact my Godfather is the brother of the Governor from the state of Nuevo Leon in Mexico). Anyhow, both my parents know hundreds upon hundreds of people from our city back in Mexico who claim to be fervent Catholics and know not the message of Christ. That is a very serious and depressing problem. And this perspective is not limited to Mexico alone.

That is what happens when 'Man' supercedes the WORD of GOD with their traditions.

That is what happens when someone is held to a status of infallibility when sometimes even they get it wrong. For example, in this instance, even though celibacy isn't a doctrine as you stated (I heard you the first time around) the concepts of papal infallability and the celibate vow weren't all mixed up as you claim. Does not the Pope dictate on matters of tradition and policy also? Do Popes not confer with the Vatican Council on these matters? If by suggesting that the RCC has been too strict with regards to the celibacy requirement were tantamount to admitting an error, wouldn't that suggest that some Pope, somewhere down the line messed up? But they don't mess up on matters of interpretation do they? Their own rules essentially bind the RCC to the judgement of all previous Popes whether or not they were right. Again, the dilemma doesn't allow for the church to weed out these problems without indirectly admitting to have made an error in judgement in the first place... an error that suppossedly Popes don't make. Back on point, that is not to say that celibacy should be abolished... simply that they allow it to be an option.

That is what happens when followers seek 'heavenly' guidance from other entities, such as Mary, and inherently devalue the importance of our direct access to the Father that Christ died to provide. Go straight to the source.

That is what happens when emphasis is placed on institutional rites, rather than on a personal relationship with the LORD.

This is what happens when an institution gets so caught up with tradition that they begin to deviate from the foundation and the source. Much like what happened with the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin after hundreds of years of practicing the Hebrew/Jewish faith. The RCC is essentially saying that only they have been given the power of the Holy Spirit. That through them, only they have the power to save. Whereas biblically, the Holy Spirit is personally endowed on those that profess their faith in Christ as their LORD..... hmmm, think about that phrase... 'CHRIST is my LORD' ... doesn't that imply that He alone is our spiritual leader via the guidance of the Holy Spirit... not any man, or institution?

I know you're going to get 'enfuriated' with my comments above but frankly it's a matter of choice... and I have made mine. There are numerous Catholics out there who have given JESUS His rightful place in their heart. I applaud their decision and their ability to seek out the truth, despite the detractions posed by their institution. Granted this is my opinion... but hey, this is a forum afterall.

Having said that, am I claiming that the evangelical church is free from error? NO, far from it.... But that is why we are called to fervently study the scriptures in search of the Truth, to seek guidance from above.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me.

See the connection.


P.S.
No. 1) Drinking alcohol is not governed by a rule, it is an optional practice... much like I feel celibacy should be. The Bible only says to avoid excessive drinking.... see Proverbs 20:1.

No. 2) Objective studies linking celibacy and pedophilia would be hard to come by.... think about it. Who would want to willingly get associated with pedophilia? No one. And those that were 'clean', would more than likely be the willing volunteers... but this self serving tendency will always skew the results - always. Most importantly, I never claimed that celibacy was the sole cause behind pedophile priests... I've continually hinted that celibacy is only a factor. That is a big difference, considering the clause is not as linear as you made it out to be.

No. 3) With regards to the Trinity... Although never explicitly coined as such, the Bible is inundated with the concept from Genesis to Revelations. It's all there... GOD the Father, JESUS (GOD the Son), and the Holy Ghost (GOD Spirit) are all facets of the same GOD.

No. 4) I'll politely ask that you not use my first name (unless it's a PM)... you can use a captital 'H' if you like... :spin, I've been trying to keep a low profile from lurkers at work.... That is also why I changed my username... :downspin:

BTW... we're still cool, I just don't like the RCC's claim that they own the Church.... We are the Church, the bride of Christ... But it seems like we will forever disagree on that one.

[smeagol]

It doesn't; nor does it say we ought to baptize infants. No infants were baptized in the bible, btw. Additionally, of the three protestant churches I have been a member of - all have performed infant baptism, this is somewhat of a straw-man argument.

True, minor point.



I'm not sure I understand the question. There is no more profound understanding of the trinity explained Catholic churches. Obviously Heg...er Phenomanu has a deep conciousness of the trinity, raised in the house of a protestant preacher, and elegantly describles aspects of it in this very thread


My point is Bible-only Christians need to explain their beliefs by quoting the Bible. The word Trinity is not only not found in the Bible, the concept of the Trinity we believe in today (Protestants and Catholics alike) was developed during the first 300 years of Christianity. It’s only in the times of Basil the Great, when Arianism, who denied the Trinity, was creeping into mainstream Christianity, that the concept of the Trinity, as we know it today, was finally developed. Again, to come to this definition/concept, the fathers of the Church drew on the Christian traditions.



Faith.


So you have Faith that God guided the Church in putting together an infallible Bible. But then you don’t have faith that God guides this Church when it comes to other doctrinal issues, and further more, you don’t trust that Church in helping you interpret the Bible you admit was put together by that same Church.



I am not Lutheran, but I have a bible given to my son @ a Lutheran Church (NIV); I also have the bible given to me by my parents at my confirmation (Catholic)

Romans 3:28 NIV: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart fom observing the law."

Romans 3:28 St Joseph Edition: "For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law"

Apart from the Catholic bible being somewhat more politically correct, I don't see the significant difference here. Another Straw Man?

I would ask you to do your research on this one. Also, research on all the other opinions Luther held. It’s very enlightening.



It was at this point that I began to think I had seen this line of questioning before.

Here it is (http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/sola.html)

And here I thought Smeagol was doing this by himself.....

I came up with these questions from stuff I’ve read over the years. In particular, last night, I was using two other books to guide me. I have not surfed the website you linked, although it looks interesting.



Catholics (and as I used to be one, I know this to be true), take history as their ultimate ally when Protestants question their authority on issues. The fact that THE CHURCH has been around for Two Thousand Years, and that EVERYTHING that Protestants have in their bag of tricks, ultimately, comes FROM THE CHURCH trumps anything a Protestant might say or argue. That link (which obviously Smeagol has drawn his arguments from) arrogantly flaunts this (flawed) logic.


It’s funny you state I OBVIOUSLY drew my arguments from a site I have never seen. Actually, the reason why my arguments look similar to those of the website is simple: we Catholics view this issue the same way.



A poster above pointed out that Protestants and Catholics share a history up to the reformation.


How can we share a history when the writings of the Church Fathers show they believed all the doctrinal points Protestants don’t believe? (see my post #166 of this thread). If we share a history, then Protestants prior to the year 1,500 AD believed in the Real Presence, the Papacy, the Virginity of Mary, praying to the dead etc, etc.

Unless you can prove there are various writings from proto-Protestants dated from 30 AD to 1,500 AD, stating the Protestant’s beliefs, I will continue to believe Protestantism came to be in the XIV / XV centuries.



If they weren't, well, the Catholic Church probably killed them as heretics. When the papacy was being bought and sold like the extremely valuable commodity it had become by Italian families like the Medici, and there was enough free-thinking in the world to imagine a separate church and state, did there develop enough momentum for a break to occur which was probably long overdue.


Breaking from a “corrupt” Church would make sense (if Reformers would have left it at that). But this is not what the Reformers did. They broke away from Catholicism, inventing a new theology in the process. A new theology that had not been practiced (at least by the majority of Christianity) up until then.




Up to that point in history, there was no point even reading scripture. The Catholic Church interpreted scripture, and Christians were to believe what the Church taught, because the Church said so. (We've already coverered what happened if you disagreed with that).


Unfortunately, we will never agree on this point. You, as a former Catholic, know very well what I feel about this point.



So, finally, when people began to read scripture for themselves, they started deciding that maybe what the Catholic Church was teaching about what Jesus's taught could be open for different interpretations - and indeed they did decide that.


Different interpretations of the Bible have led to 20,000 protestant denominations.

Who do you trust more: your own personal interpretation of the Bible or the interpretation of the entity that Christ founded, which put together the Bible, which bases its teachings on what Christ, his apostles and the Christians who met the apostles or lived a few years after the apostles died?

[clambake]

Everybody seems to quote the bible and interpret some scripture that best supports their argument or belief.

I have been all through this damn bible, and I can't find the scripture that tells religious leaders to protect their priests that molest children.

Can we just agree that the catholic religion is full of extravigant wealth and hipocracy?

[smeagol]

Smeagol,

I had answered all your questions point by point... but lost it all before I could submit it... I've been having trouble with my browser at home ever since I switched to the new Yahoo Beta mail toolbar... Anyways, I don't know if I have the will or the time to argue endlessly over something so personal that no matter what I say -- neither you or anyone else will budge from their current way of thinking...


Six years ago I was an atheist, you were born a Catholic, who knows what the future may bring . . .



You do what you must to feel you are right with GOD.... I will do what I must.


Good mantra.



One thing though. You mentioned the RCC does not blur the message of Jesus. I believe it does, remember I was born into a Catholic household before my parents converted. I was baptized as an infant into the Catholic Church (in fact my Godfather is the brother of the Governor from the state of Nuevo Leon in Mexico). Anyhow, both my parents know hundreds upon hundreds of people from our city back in Mexico who claim to be fervent Catholics and know not the message of Christ.


I'm sure there are hundreds of Evangelicals that, after claiming Jesus as their savior, lead a fervently un-Christian life because they don't know the message of Christ. This does not mean the Evangelical message is blurred.



That is what happens when 'Man' supercedes the WORD of GOD with their traditions.


. . . traditions practiced by the first Christians. There lies the problem. Christians who knew Christ, or who knew the Apostles, left us writings. Doesn't it make sense that these writings hold teachings of the Lord that complement what is in the Bible? St John himself says that the Gospels do not tell us of all the doings and teachings of the Lord.

In approx. 100 AC, St Ignatius wrote about the Real Prescence. St. Ignatius heard St John preach. You believe what St John wrote in his Gospel but you outright dismiss what a disciple of St John wrote when addressing other Chuches on his way to martyrdom. And there are dozens of these examples.



That is what happens when someone is held to a status of infallibility when sometimes even they get it wrong.


When did a Pope get it wrong when dictating in matters of morals and doctrine?



For example, in this instance, even though celibacy isn't a doctrine as you stated (I heard you the first time around) the concepts of papal infallability and the celibate vow weren't all mixed up as you claim.

Yes they were.



Does not the Pope dictate on matters of tradition and policy also? Do Popes not confer with the Vatican Council on these matters?


Yes, but the Pope's infallibility applies only in matters of Doctrine. Therefore it does not apply when ruling about celibacy.



If by suggesting that the RCC has been too strict with regards to the celibacy requirement were tantamount to admitting an error, wouldn't that suggest that some Pope, somewhere down the line messed up?


No. Vatican II changed the whole way the mass if offered. Does hat mean mass prior to 1962 was a misatke or it was offered incorrectly? No.



But they don't mess up on matters of interpretation do they?


Interpretation of certain customs or traditions can change. I would not call it a "mess up".



Again, the dilemma doesn't allow for the church to weed out these problems without indirectly admitting to have made an error in judgement in the first place... an error that suppossedly Popes don't make.


H, celibacy is not a problem if you really understand it.



Back on point, that is not to say that celibacy should be abolished... simply that they allow it to be an option.


Actually, after some further research, I found out that in the Catholic Eastern Rite, celibacy is an option.



That is what happens when followers seek 'heavenly' guidance from other entities, such as Mary, and inherently devalue the importance of our direct access to the Father that Christ died to provide. Go straight to the source.


Again we go back to the traditions handed down by the Apostles through the ages. And praying to Mary to intercede for me does not deminish my relationshp with Jesus, it enhances it.



That is what happens when emphasis is placed on institutional rites, rather than on a personal relationship with the LORD.


If you ever actually read what the Fathers of the Church say about these "rites" you mention, you would be surprised at how many of them were already practiced in the first 70 years after the last Apostle died. I would much rather trust what St Igantius, St Polycarp or St Ireaneus (the Catholic Church) have to say about Mary, celibacy, the sacrifice of the mass, the real presence, etc, people who new the Apostles, rather than what Calvin, Luther Wycliff and others have to say about theology, given that they lived 1,400 years after the llast Apostle, St John, died.



This is what happens when an institution gets so caught up with tradition that they begin to deviate from the foundation and the source.


This is not true.




The RCC is essentially saying that only they have been given the power of the Holy Spirit. That through them, only they have the power to save.


Fundamentalists and Evangelicals say that Catholicism is a cult and that all Catholics go to Hell. Unfortunately, this is what happens with religion when the Truth is one.



Much like what happened with the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin after hundreds of years of practicing the Hebrew/Jewish faith.


Low blow equating the Church with the group of people Christ antagonized the most when he walked among us.



Whereas biblically, the Holy Spirit is personally endowed on those that profess their faith in Christ as their LORD..... hmmm, think about that phrase... 'CHRIST is my LORD' ...


Christ is my Lord too. And the Church is his bride.



doesn't that imply that He alone is our spiritual leader via the guidance of the Holy Spirit... not any man, or institution?


No it doesn't.



I know you're going to get 'enfuriated' with my comments above but frankly it's a matter of choice... and I have made mine. There are numerous Catholics out there who have given JESUS His rightful place in their heart. I applaud their decision and their ability to seek out the truth, despite the detractions posed by their institution. Granted this is my opinion... but hey, this is a forum afterall.


I'm not enfuriated. Not in the least.



John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me.


Beuatiful phrase which does not descredit the Church Christ founded.



No. 2) Objective studies linking celibacy and pedophilia would be hard to come by.... think about it. Who would want to willingly get associated with pedophilia? No one. And those that were 'clean', would more than likely be the willing volunteers... but this self serving tendency will always skew the results - always. Most importantly, I never claimed that celibacy was the sole cause behind pedophile priests... I've continually hinted that celibacy is only a factor. That is a big difference, considering the clause is not as linear as you made it out to be.


Linking celibacy with pedophilia is like linking celibacy with excesive drinking.



No. 3) With regards to the Trinity... Although never explicitly coined as such, the Bible is inundated with the concept from Genesis to Revelations. It's all there... GOD the Father, JESUS (GOD the Son), and the Holy Ghost (GOD Spirit) are all facets of the same GOD.


The doctrine of the Trinity says that Father, Son and Holy Gost are one: none is greater than the other one, right? Well, if you read the Bible closely (and I know you do), you will find concepts such as:

"The Father is greater than I" - John 14:28

"Why do you call me good? . . . no one is good but God alone" - Mark 10:18

"You are my Son; today I have become your Father" - Heb 1:5

These phrases seem to indicate some hierarchy between the Father and the SOn. This is precisely what Arianism did in the III and IV centuries. If all you have to fight Arianism is the Bible, you are not going to win the battle.



No. 4) I'll politely ask that you not use my first name (unless it's a PM)... you can use a captital 'H' if you like... :spin, I've been trying to keep a low profile from lurkers at work.... That is also why I changed my username... :downspin:


:oops Sorry :depressed



BTW... we're still cool, I just don't like the RCC's claim that they own the Church.... We are the Church, the bride of Christ... But it seems like we will forever disagree on that one.

We were never anything but cool :spin

Yeah, I know our posts are getting too long and we are probably the only ones who read them :lol

[Guru of Nothing]

Christians have taught me, disagreement is the essence of God.

[Phenomanul]

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals say that Catholicism is a cult and that all Catholics go to Hell. Unfortunately, this is what happens with religion when the Truth is one.



I'll just comment on this...

That is not what we think... whomever told you that did not know what they were talking about.

Another erroneous claim is that Fundamentalists = Evangelicals... They are not one and the same.

[Guru of Nothing]

I'll just comment on this...

That is not what we think... whomever told you that did not know what they were talking about.

Another erroneous claim is that Fundamentalists = Evangelicals... They are not one and the same.

Nested quotes are are a challenge ...


Who, is WE?

[Samurai Jane]

I'll just comment on this...

That is not what we think... whomever told you that did not know what they were talking about.

Another erroneous claim is that Fundamentalists = Evangelicals... They are not one and the same.

I'm considered Evangelical and I don't believe that at all and I have never heard anyone that goes to my church say that either. Misconceptions about in every direction...

[Nbadan]

Colbert Debates The Existence of God (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA9EiSJaXww)

[travis2]

True, minor point.

Not really minor. First, infant baptism in the Protestant churches is a mixed bag. The older "high" churches, like Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodist, continue infant baptism. The more fundamentalist churches do not, and will not accept them as valid from anyone else.

Further, all one can say is that infants are not explicitly baptised in the Bible. But there is much implicit evidence for it. Anyone who says they can use the Bible to "prove" infant baptism did not exist does not know their Bible.




So you have Faith that God guided the Church in putting together an infallible Bible. But then you don’t have faith that God guides this Church when it comes to other doctrinal issues, and further more, you don’t trust that Church in helping you interpret the Bible you admit was put together by that same Church.

Actually, they don't. Remember, as you posted earlier, Luther threw out a slew of books (and portions of others) because he didn't like them...putting his own judgement against that of the Church which (through the Holy Spirit) established the Bible.

Plus, as you say, Luther didn't like James too terribly much...and much of the Protestant outlook maintains that disdain. Many like the idea of being able to sit in their recliner in a wife-beater T-shirt, beer in hand, empties on the floor, watching TBN and yelling "Praise Jesus"...and that's all they need to get to heaven. (And DAMNIT get me another beer, woman!)





I would ask you to do your research on this one. Also, research on all the other opinions Luther held. It’s very enlightening.

Luther was definitely a different character...






How can we share a history when the writings of the Church Fathers show they believed all the doctrinal points Protestants don’t believe? (see my post #166 of this thread). If we share a history, then Protestants prior to the year 1,500 AD believed in the Real Presence, the Papacy, the Virginity of Mary, praying to the dead etc, etc.

Many will try to mis-quote or quote out of context to "disprove" these statements. Fortunately, the population of misquotes is pretty much known...every argument against the above (and more) has been refuted multiple times.



Breaking from a “corrupt” Church would make sense (if Reformers would have left it at that). But this is not what the Reformers did. They broke away from Catholicism, inventing a new theology in the process. A new theology that had not been practiced (at least by the majority of Christianity) up until then.

The corruption of the time (which unfortunately was real) was merely the entering wedge for Luther. He wanted that "easy" theology...but he couldn't get the Church to to along.



Different interpretations of the Bible have led to 20,000 protestant denominations.

Who do you trust more: your own personal interpretation of the Bible or the interpretation of the entity that Christ founded, which put together the Bible, which bases its teachings on what Christ, his apostles and the Christians who met the apostles or lived a few years after the apostles died?

That is a point that no one has ever seemed to have an answer to...other than "well, my interpretation is obviously correct, so..."

[101A]

Phenomanu and I have both been Catholic, and in this debate have cited our own PERSONAL observations and esperiences as Catholics to make points.

Travis and Smeagol continuously post extreme, or even non-existent, Protestant positions, ascribe them to us, then knock them down. It is a frustrating dialogue, unfortunately also exacerbated by the fact that we are not on line at the same time.

Smeagol, I apoligize for accusing you of redirecting web information to suit you purpose.

Finally, I don't believe that it is in my best interest to interpret the bible ALONE, and that my interpretation is absolutely correct in all cases; far from it. I now understand far more about what the bible says than I ever did as a Catholic, because, as a Protestant I am encouraged TO READ IT; and encourage my children to do the same. I then regularly get together with other Christians and discuss The Book; even going so far as to get the opinion of religious scholars (I live in a college town in PA); hell, a JEWISH RABBI was present during our last 8 week series, and offered his opinion of both the Old AND New Testaments we were studying.

Show me in the bible where Jesus suggests this kind of study and quest for a deeper understanding of my faith is wrong, or unwarranted. You certainly have a disgust and disdain for it, apparently.

Also, there are several posters on the board who were Catholic but are now Protestant. Are there any who WERE Protestant and are now Catholic? Your opinions could be valuable.

[johnsmith]

Phenomanu and I have both been Catholic, and in this debate have cited our own PERSONAL observations and esperiences as Catholics to make points.

Travis and Smeagol continuously post extreme, or even non-existent, Protestant positions, ascribe them to us, then knock them down. It is a frustrating dialogue, unfortunately also exacerbated by the fact that we are not on line at the same time.

Smeagol, I apoligize for accusing you of redirecting web information to suit you purpose.

Finally, I don't believe that it is in my best interest to interpret the bible ALONE, and that my interpretation is absolutely correct in all cases; far from it. I now understand far more about what the bible says than I ever did as a Catholic, because, as a Protestant I am encouraged TO READ IT; and encourage my children to do the same. I then regularly get together with other Christians and discuss The Book; even going so far as to get the opinion of religious scholars (I live in a college town in PA); hell, a JEWISH RABBI was present during our last 8 week series, and offered his opinion of both the Old AND New Testaments we were studying.

Show me in the bible where Jesus suggests this kind of study and quest for a deeper understanding of my faith is wrong, or unwarranted. You certainly have a disgust and disdain for it, apparently.

Also, there are several posters on the board who were Catholic but are now Protestant. Are there any who WERE Protestant and are now Catholic? Your opinions could be valuable.


I've done the same thing and I'm Catholic and always have been. You'd be surprised the difference in opinion among Catholic Priest to Catholic Priest. My current priest here in San Antonio has encouraged me to attend bible study sessions taught by every denomination I could think of, and I've attended such. Having said that, the priest I had in Colorado probably would have cut my throat if I even suggested such thing. People are too narrow minded when it comes to religion.........I think anyway.

[travis2]

Phenomanu and I have both been Catholic, and in this debate have cited our own PERSONAL observations and esperiences as Catholics to make points.

Travis and Smeagol continuously post extreme, or even non-existent, Protestant positions, ascribe them to us, then knock them down. It is a frustrating dialogue, unfortunately also exacerbated by the fact that we are not on line at the same time.

Smeagol, I apoligize for accusing you of redirecting web information to suit you purpose.

Finally, I don't believe that it is in my best interest to interpret the bible ALONE, and that my interpretation is absolutely correct in all cases; far from it. I now understand far more about what the bible says than I ever did as a Catholic, because, as a Protestant I am encouraged TO READ IT; and encourage my children to do the same. I then regularly get together with other Christians and discuss The Book; even going so far as to get the opinion of religious scholars (I live in a college town in PA); hell, a JEWISH RABBI was present during our last 8 week series, and offered his opinion of both the Old AND New Testaments we were studying.

Show me in the bible where Jesus suggests this kind of study and quest for a deeper understanding of my faith is wrong, or unwarranted. You certainly have a disgust and disdain for it, apparently.

Also, there are several posters on the board who were Catholic but are now Protestant. Are there any who WERE Protestant and are now Catholic? Your opinions could be valuable.


Please post where I ascribed a position to you and then knocked it down.

Also, please post any "non-existent or extreme" Protestant positions I have stated.

I see much of that with you, BTW. Just because you were once Catholic doesn't mean you know anything about it. Did you actually study your faith? Many don't...and then when they have a crisis, they don't know why their faith is weak. Meanwhile, they believe the half-truths and outright lies being bandied about concerning the Catholic Church and accept them as truth. So before you start throwing stones at me or smeagol for things we may or may not have done...you'd better make sure your hands are clean. And saying "I was once Catholic" doesn't cut it.

Personal revelation...read 2 Peter for starters.

[101A]

Please post where I ascribed a position to you and then knocked it down.

Also, please post any "non-existent or extreme" Protestant positions I have stated.

On perusing the thread for evidence, what I have found was written by Smeagol - specifically regarding baptism and his infatuation with what Luther did, and did not, want included in the bible. Luther, ultimately, was just another person who had a profound effect on Christianity, but was no more infallible than any Pope.


I see much of that with you, BTW. Just because you were once Catholic doesn't mean you know anything about it. Did you actually study your faith? Many don't...and then when they have a crisis, they don't know why their faith is weak.

I see this as a serious failing of the Catholic Church, frankly. It is often indifferent, or completely oblivious to what it's members know about its teachings. Catholic churches (the ones I attended for 30+ years) don't encourage people to learn more, study the bible or Catholic Doctrine. This isn't some stereotype I'm citing: this is my experience in the Catholic Church. Maybe your experience has been different, you obviously have learned more about what Catholics believe and why they believe it then I did. Trust me, it wasn't for a lack of exposure. I went to mass every Sunday, even through college. My wife converted to Catholicism, even though she was an active, practicing Baptist, because I refused to accept any other form or Christianity as valid, or true. How could they be: right? They've only been around for a few centuries, and ultimately only exist because some King wanted a divorce!

Then we attended a Protestant Church, and I found that Jesus, and not the Church, was the central theme; his sermons, his miracles, the reason he was sent in the first place! It was enlightening. In a few months as a Protestant I leaned more about the teachings of Christ than I did after being Catholic for years. I was Catholic, and a "good" person; a strong argument could be made, however, that I was not Christian. Even my children, who I sent to a Catholic school after I was no longer Catholic, learned A WHOLE LOT about being Catholic, but not much about Jesus Christ. To me, the priorities seem out of whack. Again, if it works for you, great.



Meanwhile, they believe the half-truths and outright lies being bandied about concerning the Catholic Church and accept them as truth. So before you start throwing stones at me or smeagol for things we may or may not have done...you'd better make sure your hands are clean. And saying "I was once Catholic" doesn't cut it.

Nothing I have claimed about the Catholic Church has been a half-truth or outright lie, because every single reference I have made has been a relation of mine about my own experience. The way I was treated and my experiences are what they are.
[/QUOTE]

[leemajors]

the catholic churches i attended always made an effort to reach out to parishoners - plenty of classes about catholicism and reaching out to offer more knowledge - it wasn't their fault 99% of the parishoners were only interested in paying their dues by sitting in mass once a week. for some reason 101A's post reminds me of sarah silverman's movie title "Jesus is Magic!" i don't see a problem with the catholic church focusing on the holy trinity more than jesus alone - they are three sides of the same entity and that should not be forgotten. then again that's my personal opinion. :dramaquee

[Samurai Jane]

Then we attended a Protestant Church, and I found that Jesus, and not the Church, was the central theme; his sermons, his miracles, the reason he was sent in the first place! It was enlightening. In a few months as a Protestant I leaned more about the teachings of Christ than I did after being Catholic for years. I was Catholic, and a "good" person; a strong argument could be made, however, that I was not Christian. Even my children, who I sent to a Catholic school after I was no longer Catholic, learned A WHOLE LOT about being Catholic, but not much about Jesus Christ. To me, the priorities seem out of whack. Again, if it works for you, great.


I've heard this testimony from several converted Protestants over the years. In fact, two of my very good friends were devout Catholics all their lives (20+ years of adulthood, plus childhood), raised by devout Catholic families and shared this same testimony with us, even making their Catholic parents angry when they became "Protestants".

[sickdsm]

I do. Do you know how to read?

Clambake said the Pope was covering up for pedophile priests and I asked him for a link.

What you quoted gives no evidence that JP II was covering up this scandal.



I figured you'd say that.


Funny, when that pedophile senator from Florida's story broke the PTB above him are starting to get the heat. Pope's call the shots and they make the rules. You think some two bit deacon is doing all the covering up years and years against the Pope'(s) wishes?


Next thing i suppose you'll say Bush, Cheney and Rummy are not liable for what happans bc those soldiers should have moved a couple feet to the left every time one gets shot or steps in the path of a bomb?

[sickdsm]

No one is discouraging you they are just pointing out that through six pages of rhetoric your thoughts and biased opinion on Catholic priests doesn't look like it has been swayed even the tiniest bit, nor does it seem like you have any intention of even considering what many people have very eloquently posted throughout this thread.


Nope, no intentions whatsoever.



Hell, even most catholics while denying that its a high rate admit that the Church covers up all those molesters.


I've already told Mary that i do NOT want alot of one on one alone time with our future sons because of this.


When you deny a basic animal instinct, your asking for problems. By denying the priests sex, they are asking for the problems.


I like the comparisons though between religions though, it is helping me to keep an open mind.

[johnsmith]

Nope, no intentions whatsoever.


You've proven me wrong via actual evidence and sarcasm. Well played sickdsm, well played.

[smeagol]

I'll just comment on this...

That is not what we think... whomever told you that did not know what they were talking about .

I have read a number of books and have visited many protestant sites where the make this characterization.

I’m happy to learn you don’t consider Catholicism a cult


Another erroneous claim is that Fundamentalists = Evangelicals... They are not one and the same.

I know they are not the same. But they do overlap in many of their beliefs

[Phenomanul]

I'm sure there are hundreds of Evangelicals that, after claiming Jesus as their savior, lead a fervently un-Christian life because they don't know the message of Christ. This does not mean the Evangelical message is blurred.


I know there are... although it's not my place to judge them for it. The only difference is that the message can't be blurred when JESUS is the the central focus. It is inherently blurred when He is not. Simple concept really.




. . . traditions practiced by the first Christians. There lies the problem. Christians who knew Christ, or who knew the Apostles, left us writings. Doesn't it make sense that these writings hold teachings of the Lord that complement what is in the Bible? St John himself says that the Gospels do not tell us of all the doings and teachings of the Lord.

So why were all those writings not included in the original biblical canons? If they were that important, and enhanced our Spiritual understanding of GOD in that they revealed more of GOD's message to the church, why were they left off? This decision was carried out by the Catholic Church no less, and with the seal of Papal authority... which again is supposed to be a seat that is doctrinally infallible. Either those writings are inspired works or they are not... If they aren't you can't claim that the traditions found in said writings supercede the teachings found in the inspired works. That is a logical conundrum.

So either all Doctrine is found in the WORD or some of it is missing -- in which case you would have to wonder why portions of it would be left off... to be passed on only as tradition. The WORD, Jesus Christ, is more important than tradition.



In approx. 100 AC, St Ignatius wrote about the Real Prescence. St. Ignatius heard St John preach. You believe what St John wrote in his Gospel but you outright dismiss what a disciple of St John wrote when addressing other Chuches on his way to martyrdom. And there are dozens of these examples.


I believe in what JESUS said. If something else deviates from his views I will defer to JESUS's teachings. Simple as that. Again though, it was the Catholic Church who decided not to include St. Ignatius' teachings in the Bible.... not Luther, not Calvin etc... who by the way I never claimed as being free of interpretative error.




When did a Pope get it wrong when dictating in matters of morals and doctrine?

Could a Pope that allowed the merciless bloodshed of thousands during the inquisition be spiritually connected with GOD? Is that link possible? Could that same Pope then turn around and stipulate moral policy and doctrinal interpretation free of human error, as something ordained and sanctioned by GOD? Would GOD even allow the 'papal lineage' to be tarnished by such actions?

Human imperfection aside, and if you follow Biblical history, GOD's servants screwed up on many occasions (Abraham, Israel, Samson, David, Peter, etc...) note however that they could not be used by Him if they had not yet repented of their actions. For example, Saul's Kingdom was stripped away from him on account of direct disobedience, futhermore Saul's reaction was one of disbelief not repentance. David on the other hand, upon realizing the gravity of his own sin when confronted by Nathan, plead for repentance, and cried bitterly... GOD still punished him severely, but David remained as King and remained 'close' with GOD.

With that in mind, the inquisition spanned how many Popes? How on earth can someone claim moral supremacy without committing a sin as they made said claim? Granted, I know that doctrinal infallibility does not imply that Popes were sinless. The point remains:

Luke 18:14 Everyone who exalts himself will be abased, but He who humbles himself will be exalted.

Did any of the prophets ever claim superiority over their peers? Look at the life of Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist... When did they use their connection with GOD as a way of improving their financial interests, their political influence? Either way, the doctrinal exclusivity that is claimed by the papal seat, along with its 'air of superiority,' (i.e. proclaiming to be 'Holy Roman Emperors'), does not conform to the biblical relationship pattern that describes how GOD interacts with His people or with His stewards.

Furthermore, since we will never agree on the meaning of Jesus' statement to Peter, it is not likely that I would agree to the concept that one man and his institution can alone hold the keys to Heaven. Does not Jesus refer to himself as the Conerstone? It couldn't possibly be that Jesus built the church upon 'himself', could it? His Church.



Yes, but the Pope's infallibility applies only in matters of Doctrine. Therefore it does not apply when ruling about celibacy.

Is celibacy a moral tradition? Or is it only a job requisite of sorts? Does this policy not stipulate that breaking the vow of celibacy would be considered a sin? If the RCC is decreeing that this action constitutes a sin... isn't celibacy more than just a policy?

And if celibacy were just an administrative policy, then in the event of non-compliance, the offending priest would just be stripped of their priesthood - defrocked as punishment. But no, breaking the vow is considered a sin; celibacy is a moral policy that inherently defines a particular sin.

But since when does man have the authority to decree and define a sin unless it comes directly from GOD? And unless the RCC is contending that Popes are like prophets, this is not possible. Jesus clearly stated that John the Baptist was the last of the prophets (a clause not liked by Islam). We are to receive 'conviction' of our sins through the work of the Holy Spirit... not a list of rules, or because an institution has decreed it so...

Hence, due to the very nature of celibacy we find that the practice is very much a matter of morals and not just administrative policy alone -- it falls into an area that is supposedly infallible on interpretation.



No. Vatican II changed the whole way the mass if offered. Does hat mean mass prior to 1962 was a misatke or it was offered incorrectly? No.

Strictly a policy change... much like saying that water bottles will now be placed outside every other office at work. A policy which has no bearing on morals or sin.



Interpretation of certain customs or traditions can change. I would not call it a "mess up".

If the practice defines a sin... ummm GOD isn't the one that will change, He doesn't change...

Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Why then would GOD 'confuse' the pope into thinking that celibacy was required, and be upheld as a moral policy if the practice weren't meant to be a requirement at all? If this is a practice that can in fact be changed, then no moral constituency should have been involved from the get-go. But because disobedience of said vow involves moral ramifications could it possibly be that the infallibility of the Pope really does not exist? Whoa whoa... why that jump? One blip alone would render the Pope's authority on such matters fallible... just one... and one instance of fallibility would render the concept of infallibility null. You may or may not agree with the application of the concept to celibacy or how that vow was handled... but the statement is valid nonetheless.

So either celibacy was stipulated without divine authority or it was... And if it was divinely mandated I don't believe it wouldn't engender the sorts of problems we see today...




H, celibacy is not a problem if you really understand it.

Oh I personally understand it.... I'm what, 26 years old... and have remained completely chaste to date (not married yet). So although I understand that celibacy and chastity are two different things... they are still very much intertwined. I know about the mental struggles. Eitherway... the lifestyle is not for everyone.

A bigger problem is homosexuality amidst Catholic seminaries... Does priesthood, in fact, attract a disproportionate number of men with a homosexual orientation? It is obvious that these perverts are NOT and never had any intention of being celibate. Their inability to live up to their vows should not besmirch those men who have been able to do so. At the same time the RCC should do everything in its power to discourage admission of homosexual priests into its ranks.

I don't know why homosexual pedos are attracted to the priesthood in the first place. I'm sure that, in most cases, they are committed Catholics who wish to live by the catechism, but are nevertheless urged to molest children due to their mental condition (a factor completely independent from the church), and because their position provides the cover. They probably see the priesthood as a place of shelter precisely because it insists that all sexual desires be repressed.

Unfortunately, however, when they succumb to their urges, the molestations occur. Sexual urge, in many people, is as powerful as hunger. I'm also sure that there are plenty of priests who also succumb to sexual temptation of the normal, legal heterosexual variety. Whether in their mind or not; no one is perfect. We just don't hear about those cases, of course, because no laws are broken.




Actually, after some further research, I found out that in the Catholic Eastern Rite, celibacy is an option.

:clap They get it... some of the other 'rites' get it.....

There are 22 rites (i.e. churches) in the Catholic world that are in formal union with the Pope. The Latin Rite (what I think of when someone says "the Catholic Church") is the only ONE that has decreed a vow of celibacy for its priesthood. Virtually every other rite (Maronite, Melkite, Byzantine, Ukrainian, etc.) allow the ordination of married men. As you mentioned above, the Orthodox Christians (who separated from Rome in the early 11th century) have 'always' allowed the ordination of married men - so they were doing it back when they were Catholic!

This discipline can change within the Latin Rite. Ironically though, the Latin Rite already incorporates married priests in its ranks; some Episcopal priests who converted to Latin Rite Catholicism and became ordained as Catholic priests brought their wives with them. I have even heard of Lutheran pastors getting ordained as RC priests and keeping their wives. So married priests already exist within the Latin Rite although no formal message from the Pope has addressed or admitted it.




Again we go back to the traditions handed down by the Apostles through the ages. And praying to Mary to intercede for me does not deminish my relationshp with Jesus, it enhances it.

OK this is a simple analogy, so bear with me... Do you get satisfaction from eating a cookie or from having your neighbor relay the taste?

How would anything be enhanced by taking detours? Is going through Mary some sort of scenic venture? Again, go straight to the source. Immerse yourself with GOD's presence. Breathe GOD. Don't be distracted by other heavenly beings. They aren't able to reveal anymore of GOD to you than He Himself can. How can anybody enhance GOD? Would they have to supercede GOD's attributes in order to do so???



If you ever actually read what the Fathers of the Church say about these "rites" you mention, you would be surprised at how many of them were already practiced in the first 70 years after the last Apostle died. I would much rather trust what St Igantius, St Polycarp or St Ireaneus (the Catholic Church) have to say about Mary, celibacy, the sacrifice of the mass, the real presence, etc, people who new the Apostles, rather than what Calvin, Luther Wycliff and others have to say about theology, given that they lived 1,400 years after the llast Apostle, St John, died.


Again, why were their writings not included in the biblical canon then?




Christ is my Lord too. And the Church is his bride.

Good. :tu




Beautiful phrase which does not descredit the Church Christ founded.

I did not quote John 14:6 to discredit the RCC... simply to show that the focus of the Gospel, 'the good news', is Christ-centered.




Linking celibacy with pedophilia is like linking celibacy with excesive drinking.

That analogy is 100 times more distant than the link between celibacy and pedophilia actually is...

Have you read a book on the topic by Michael Rose? I can't remember the name.

If a celibate priest who inherently struggled with his lifestyle were presented with the opportunity to acquiece his natural desires by using the innocence of a child as an unhindered medium -- where no adults could stop him -- would that automatically suggest that he would sucuumb to temptation? No, he may still be able to contain his urges. Indefinitely even.

Say now that this scenario presented itself 2-5 times per week. The odds that he may end up doing something innapropriate - not necessarily an outright sexual advance - increases... If anything, this frequency gradually desensitizes the priest to the severity of his growing problem, it may also gradually diminish his personal restraint -- and suddenly voila! His desires have turned from being normal to being pedophilic. The objects of his fantasies... his secretive sexual outlet... even if only in his mind, have become children. Does this happen because he intentionally wants to hurt children? Not usually. This happens as a result of the power bond that develops between an entrusting child and the 'more' experienced and manipulative adult.

The celibate lifestyle doesn't always lead to pedophilia, in fact such a statistic would be impossible to measure... but that finality certainly isn't precluded.



The doctrine of the Trinity says that Father, Son and Holy Gost are one: none is greater than the other one, right? Well, if you read the Bible closely (and I know you do), you will find concepts such as:

"The Father is greater than I" - John 14:28

"Why do you call me good? . . . no one is good but God alone" - Mark 10:18

"You are my Son; today I have become your Father" - Heb 1:5

These phrases seem to indicate some hierarchy between the Father and the SOn. This is precisely what Arianism did in the III and IV centuries. If all you have to fight Arianism is the Bible, you are not going to win the battle.



While on earth Jesus was 100% man, and 100% GOD.... Many times he responds as a man. But many times He manifested his full power as GOD (as displayed with his miracles). In an earlier post I commented on why JESUS (as GOD) responds to Mary with the word 'woman' instead of 'mother' (something he would have said if he was responding to her as 'Jesus the man') at the wedding feast in Cana...

I'd saw this list of all places on wikipedia a while back...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarianism

Scriptural texts cited as implicit support for the doctrine of the Trinity
This is a partial list.

Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." together with John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." and John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

John 8:23-24: "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins."

John 8:58 "'I tell you the truth', Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I Am!'"

John 10:38: "But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

John 12:41: "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him." - As the context shows, this implied the Tetragrammaton in Isaiah 6:1 refers to Jesus.

Colossians 2:9: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"

Revelation 1:17-18: "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." This is seen as significant when viewed with Isaiah 44:6: "This is what the LORD says - Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

[smeagol]

H, thanks for taking the time to read my post and give such a detailed response.

I will respond later today. Gotta feed the kids and look after the wife for a while . . . :spin

[smeagol]

I will break this down into more than one post. Sorry to the other posters who find this discussion boring. I’ve already have had one of these with Phenomanul and it got quite long. I personally find these debates enriching.


I know there are... although it's not my place to judge them for it. The only difference is that the message can't be blurred when JESUS is the the central focus. It is inherently blurred when He is not. Simple concept really.


Jesus is the central focus of the Catholic Church and its message too. What I will concede is that the Catholic Theology is not simple. Protestant Theology is much simpler and therefore much more appealing.



So why were all those writings not included in the original biblical cannons? If they were that important, and enhanced our Spiritual understanding of GOD in that they revealed more of GOD's message to the church, why were they left off?


Most of them were not included because they were written too long after Jesus and the Apostles had died (100+ years). Nevertheless, this does not mean that the Church is prohibited from using some of these letters to complement its own Theology, especially when the teachings in these letters harmonize what's in the Bible. Furthermore, these eachings, which were passed on to the authors of these writings, such as the ones I mentioned on another post: Ignatius and Polycarp, both disciples of St John, or Ireaneus, disciple of Polycarp, were passed on by St. John himself. These men had fresh in their minds the teachings of the the Blessed Apostle and put them in writing. These writings have much less importance than the Bible itself, but they are key to interpret some passages in the Holy Book. They are also key to see how the Apostles and his immediate followers interpreted the Bible when Christianity was in its infancy.



This decision was carried out by the Catholic Church no less, and with the seal of Papal authority... which again is supposed to be a seat that is doctrinally infallible.


I see a big contradiction here, and I ask if you can clarify it. On the one hand, you say the Catholic Church, under the Holy Ghost’s guidance, decided which books were inspired and which were not, to produce the definite Canon of the Bible. Canon which was closed in 397 AD (and unfortunately reopened in the XV Century). Therefore, you trust the Catholic Church’s decision in this crucial matter. But you don’t trust the Church’s guidance when it tells its flock that many of its teachings, which can be found in the Bible although sometimes not in a conclusive way, are complemented by many Saints’ writings, some of which written even before the last of the Gospels was completed.



Either those writings are inspired works or they are not...


It’s irrelevant if these writings, such as the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, were or were not inspired. Clement I was written by a man who is believed to have learned the Word of Life from St Peter and St Paul themselves (some believe he is mentioned in one of Paul’s Epistles, I forget which one). How can you outright dismiss what this letter says? This is as close as you will get to Christ outside the Bible. All Christians should rejoice this letter has been preserved. As I mentioned on another post, early churches read this epistle in mass as if it were part of the Gospel.



If they aren't you can't claim that the traditions found in said writings supercede the teachings found in the inspired works. That is a logical conundrum.


I have never ever said this. There is no conundrum. These writings complement what the Bible says, they never supersede it. If these writings had teachings which are the opposite to what the Bible says (and they don’t), then they would be rejected by the Church as the Church has rejected all the spurious gospels that were being written left and right in the II and III centuries (the latest one to surface was the Gospel according to Judas, made famous in the Discovery Channel Special).

Let me be totally clear: these writings (i) complement what the Bible says, because as I said before, the Bible is not meant to be complete (the Sola Scriptura question I have asked on another post but nobody has yet answered), and (ii) tell us about the customs of the early Christians, which not surprisingly are the customs the Catholic Church practices today.



So either all Doctrine is found in the WORD or some of it is missing -- in which case you would have to wonder why portions of it would be left off... to be passed on only as tradition. The WORD, Jesus Christ, is more important than tradition.


Again, where in the Bible does it say that what it is written in it is the complete set of teachings of Jesus? Where in the Bible is it clearly stated that Christianity has to be based only in the Bible? It is not there. What it is there for everyone to see, at the end of John’s Gospel, is precisely the opposite: that his Gospel does not contain all of Christ’s works and teachings.



I believe in what JESUS said. If something else deviates from his views I will defer to JESUS's teachings. Simple as that. Again though, it was the Catholic Church who decided not to include St. Ignatius' teachings in the Bible.... not Luther, not Calvin etc... who by the way I never claimed as being free of interpretative error.


I believe (and this is just a supposition and not a personal attack), that your Evangelical background does not allow you too look at these wonderful writings impartially . . . for what they really are: a complement to the Bible and a rich source of information with respect to how the earliest Christians practiced their religion and interpreted the Holy Scriptures.

Remember, when Ignatius wrote his epistles in 110 AD, many Christians did not have access to the Gospels, much less the Bible, which did not exist and would not exist for hundreds of years. So this man, who new St John, is telling you that Christians as early as 100 AD believed in such Doctrines and principles as: the Church’s divine establishment and the hierarchy of the Church instituted by Christ; the catholicity and infallibility of the Church; the doctrine of the Eucharist, which word is found for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament; the Incarnation; the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (celibacy once again); the religious character of matrimony; the value of united prayer; the primacy of the See of Rome. Ignatius also denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters of religion (I borrowed this list from a Catholic website).

[leemajors]

you could argue that the word is tradition - oral tradition related through storytelling. you could even argue that what we call the bible today isn't really the word of God - it is man attempting to capture the word of God with crude instruments like language and writing that cannot come close to expressing the true meaning they attempt to. passed first through oral filters and then written ones - translation through at least 3-4 languages in most cases - the word as divine inspiration itself set down in hebrew, then translated through either greek, latin or both, then through another germanic or romantic language, and finally to the english it is most often printed in today. we've all heard the story about a sentence passing through a crowd that has a tacked on ending of purple monkey dishwasher, and there is no reason to assume with how many filters the "word of God" has passed through should be any different. what makes it even more of a mess is separating what was divinely inspired from the vast number of heretic gnostic texts that smeagol has referred to - Gnostics were quite taken with the story of Jesus and wrote numerous "gospels" with wildly varying versions of the story - they're quite entertaining as well. borges, the great argentinian writer, even reiterated an earlier argument in a story of his called "the three versions of judas" - he proves with quite sound logic that Judas was the son of God to debunk strict adherence to accepted versions of the Gospel story. his points expressed through the logician in the story are quite interesting - the Judas kiss is ridiculous, everyone knew who Jesus was - by doing so, Judas was the one sacrificing himself for humanity in the same way Jesus did - Judas subverted his own happiness for God's plan by betraying Jesus: "Judas sought Hell, because the happiness of the Lord was enough for him. He thought that happiness, like morality, is a divine attribute and should not be usurped by humans." he also states it is logically impossible for God to become truly human without sin -God as a pefect human would have to sin, thus Judas betrayed Jesus. anyways, got sidetracked, but faith does make all things possible - if you believe the bible is the word then it is. sorry to deviate from the strict theological arguments being presented -they are great to read while at work, so i'll end with a joke of sorts. the crusaders sure could have used one of those biblical cannons pheno alludes to!

[Phenomanul]

I will break this down into more than one post. Sorry to the other posters who find this discussion boring. I’ve already have had one of these with Phenomanul and it got quite long. I personally find these debates enriching.

I find these discussions enriching as well... but unfortunately other people feel as though we can't agree on GOD... as long as they understand that we believe that the other is entitled to his views there should be no problem.



Jesus is the central focus of the Catholic Church and its message too. What I will concede is that the Catholic Theology is not simple. Protestant Theology is much simpler and therefore much more appealing.


That's because the message is simple.

--GOD created the Universe and everything therein.

--GOD created man in His image... "Let us create Him in our image"

--Man 'fell' and sin was introduced into the world. "For all have sinned and have fallen short of the Glory of GOD".

--Man's fate was certain death (both physically and spritually -- an eternity apart from GOD). "For the wages of sin is death...."

--GOD developed a plan to redeem mankind. "There is no remission of sins without the spilling of blood."

--JESUS, fully GOD and fully man, restored our link to GOD by dying for everyone's sins.

--JESUS defeated and conquered death (the causality of sin) upon His ressurrection. "... but the gift of GOD is eternal life through Christ JESUS our LORD."

--Upon leaving, JESUS promised the arrival of the Holy Spirit, one who would guide His followers to Truth.

--Anyone who acknowledges JESUS's redemptive act of love and "believes that GOD has raised Him from the dead" will inherit the 'gift' of eternal life - one where man will be reconnected to an eternal communion with GOD.

--All you have to do is accept JESUS's sacrifice for you. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

--The Holy Spirit will work in the hearts of those that truly want to know GOD, He will convince followers of their sins, seeking out true repentance.

--One day JESUS will return to establish His kingdom on Earth.

--1000 years later, in one decisive battle, sin will forever be purged from the Universe and Satan and his minions will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

--A New Heaven and a New Earth will follow and all the saints (all those who accepted the message of JESUS) will forever live with GOD.


Rites and Rituals won't get us into Heaven... a close personal relationship with GOD will.




Most of them were not included because they were written too long after Jesus and the Apostles had died (100+ years). Nevertheless, this does not mean that the Church is prohibited from using some of these letters to complement its own Theology, especially when the teachings in these letters harmonize what's in the Bible. Furthermore, these eachings, which were passed on to the authors of these writings, such as the ones I mentioned on another post: Ignatius and Polycarp, both disciples of St John, or Ireaneus, disciple of Polycarp, were passed on by St. John himself. These men had fresh in their minds the teachings of the the Blessed Apostle and put them in writing. These writings have much less importance than the Bible itself, but they are key to interpret some passages in the Holy Book. They are also key to see how the Apostles and his immediate followers interpreted the Bible when Christianity was in its infancy.

I see a big contradiction here, and I ask if you can clarify it. On the one hand, you say the Catholic Church, under the Holy Ghost’s guidance, decided which books were inspired and which were not, to produce the definite Canon of the Bible. Canon which was closed in 397 AD (and unfortunately reopened in the XV Century). Therefore, you trust the Catholic Church’s decision in this crucial matter. But you don’t trust the Church’s guidance when it tells its flock that many of its teachings, which can be found in the Bible although sometimes not in a conclusive way, are complemented by many Saints’ writings, some of which written even before the last of the Gospels was completed.



The answer is simple really.

GOD, and GOD alone, allowed the Bible that exists today to stand the test of time. The texts that didn't make it, were not meant to be included. If GOD had truly wanted their inclusion, GOD would have made it happen. Bara bing bara bang bara boom.

The Holy Spirit did the work it had to in order to weed out the "shaff from the wheat." No one, but GOD deserves credit for this.

If I spread the message of Christ to 20 people and they repent -- I certainly don't deserve the credit. I simply did the job that Christ commissioned us to spread, but the Holy Spirit is the one that actually 'works' in people's hearts so that He can convince them of their need for GOD. The messengers [i.e the stewards, us] have the priviledge of partaking in the process - that is all. In fact, GOD doesn't need us to do His work. HE can move whether or not we do, but we are blessed, however, when we do allow Him to work through us... when we allow Him to use us.

As an undertone you make it sound as if I believe Catholics aren't capable of being true disciples of Christ. Many of them are and many of them were used for GOD's work. I do however believe that the RCC errs when it retroactively claims that the other writings are just as important on matters of doctrine as the current biblical canon, in order to conveniently suit its needs. Again, if those works were truly that important, GOD would have made them 'stick'.




It’s irrelevant if these writings, such as the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, were or were not inspired. Clement I was written by a man who is believed to have learned the Word of Life from St Peter and St Paul themselves (some believe he is mentioned in one of Paul’s Epistles, I forget which one). How can you outright dismiss what this letter says? This is as close as you will get to Christ outside the Bible. All Christians should rejoice this letter has been preserved. As I mentioned on another post, early churches read this epistle in mass as if it were part of the Gospel.

How many counterfeit texts and letters were discovered in the 3rd and 4th centuries alone?

Again, what is found in the current Bible was meant to stand the test of time. GOD wants to reveal Himself to us... He's not trying to confuse us.



I have never ever said this. There is no conundrum. These writings complement what the Bible says, they never supersede it. If these writings had teachings which are the opposite to what the Bible says (and they don’t), then they would be rejected by the Church as the Church has rejected all the spurious gospels that were being written left and right in the II and III centuries (the latest one to surface was the Gospel according to Judas, made famous in the Discovery Channel Special).

Let me be totally clear: these writings (i) complement what the Bible says, because as I said before, the Bible is not meant to be complete (the Sola Scriptura question I have asked on another post but nobody has yet answered), and (ii) tell us about the customs of the early Christians, which not surprisingly are the customs the Catholic Church practices today.


The Bible doesn't claim Mary's perpetual virginity... tradition does.
Nor does it establish a human-led church... the veil tore in half to allow mankind direct access to the Father. No mediator is needed aside from Christ.

Besides, I can't imagine Paul or Peter praying to Mary.




Again, where in the Bible does it say that what it is written in it is the complete set of teachings of Jesus? Where in the Bible is it clearly stated that Christianity has to be based only in the Bible? It is not there. What it is there for everyone to see, at the end of John’s Gospel, is precisely the opposite: that his Gospel does not contain all of Christ’s works and teachings.


No it certainly doesn't... only the teachings GOD wanted to endure were included... nothing more, nothing less.



I believe (and this is just a supposition and not a personal attack), that your Evangelical background does not allow you too look at these wonderful writings impartially . . . for what they really are: a complement to the Bible and a rich source of information with respect to how the earliest Christians practiced their religion and interpreted the Holy Scriptures.

Remember, when Ignatius wrote his epistles in 110 AD, many Christians did not have access to the Gospels, much less the Bible, which did not exist and would not exist for hundreds of years. So this man, who new St John, is telling you that Christians as early as 100 AD believed in such Doctrines and principles as: the Church’s divine establishment and the hierarchy of the Church instituted by Christ; the catholicity and infallibility of the Church; the doctrine of the Eucharist, which word is found for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament; the Incarnation; the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (celibacy once again); the religious character of matrimony; the value of united prayer; the primacy of the See of Rome. Ignatius also denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters of religion (I borrowed this list from a Catholic website).

Funny how Christ wasn't the one to initiate many of these practices and doctrines.

[leemajors]

GOD, and GOD alone, allowed the Bible that exists today to stand the test of time. The texts that didn't make it, were not meant to be included. If GOD had truly wanted their inclusion, GOD would have made it happen. Bara bing bara bang bara boom.

The Holy Spirit did the work it had to in order to weed out the "shaft from the wheat." No one, but GOD gets credit for this.

man has free will - man chose to fall by eating from the tree of knowledge, so man can easily decide what he thinks is the chaff from the wheat. if God didn't stop man from committing the original sin, why would he swoop down and stop someone from commiting an error in omitting a gospel or teaching from the bible? then again logic and faith are like oil and water. just because something isn't in the bible doesn't mean it isn't divinely inspired or can't help you to be a better christian, or even just a better person.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=leemajors]man has free will
And this is the problem that sickdsm seems to be confronted with. We do have free will, and in light of that, we shouldn't feel constrained by having to join a particular denomination.
I've been attending and have been active in an AG Church for 17 years. My wife has been a member for many years, but I have never taken the membership class. It's not an act of rebellion on my part, but more of an exercise of the freedom that I have in Christ.
I don't see the significance of having my name put on a membership roll, the important thing being that my name is written in the Lambs Book of Life.

The moment I accepted the teaching of Christ I became a member of the Church, which can be defined as those that have become the Family of Believers in Christ. All of those who followed His teaching before me and after me have become my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, and that's good enough for me. That's not meant in any way to condemn those that have signed on as members of a Church, signed on as members, or not, we're still all part of the same Family.

(Take this FWIW sickdsm. In an oversimplification, I'm just a beggar attempting to give Bread to another beggar).

[travis2]

Phenomenaul, I can't even begin to address your post. It is the most bigoted piece of trash I have seen yet. You say such untrue things about another Christian "church" and dare to call yourself a Christian?

I sure as hell don't see you living any Christian lifestyle here in this thread.

101A accused myself and smeagol of taking extreme positions and knocking them down. What I see is you and others doing that in this thread. And doing it in a damned hateful manner.

[johnsmith]

Wouldn't it be funny if in the end we were all wrong? That thought makes me chuckle.

[johnsmith]

Phenomenaul, I can't even begin to address your post. It is the most bigoted piece of trash I have seen yet. You say such untrue things about another Christian "church" and dare to call yourself a Christian?

I sure as hell don't see you living any Christian lifestyle here in this thread.

101A accused myself and smeagol of taking extreme positions and knocking them down. What I see is you and others doing that in this thread. And doing it in a damned hateful manner.


Yeah, I'm gonna agree on this one, travis2 and smeagol use a lot less hate when debating religion. Are you guys still mad that the Catholic church was around before your church? Cause if you are, dude it was a long time ago, get over it, worship how you wish and continue to believe that you and only you are "right".............I'm sure when God was.........oh fuck it.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=travis2]Phenomenaul, I can't even begin to address your post. It is the most bigoted piece of trash I have seen yet.

From the Catholic viewpoint you have educated opinions, and I'm interested in hearing them travis. If you get the opportunity, I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to address his questions and points with substance, as smeagol has, rather that a generalized "it's the most bigoted piece of trash". Generalizations really don't carry any weight.
Thanks t2.

[travis2]

[QUOTE]

From the Catholic viewpoint you have educated opinions, and I'm interested in hearing them travis. If you get the opportunity, I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to address his questions and points with substance, as smeagol has, rather that a generalized "it's the most bigoted piece of trash". Generalizations really don't carry any weight.
Thanks t2.

At a later time, I will. Right now that post still has me too angry.

I appreciate the words. You'll get your calmer debate from me when I am mentally able to give it. Despite possible posts of mine to the contrary, I prefer it that way.

[Phenomanul]

Phenomenaul, I can't even begin to address your post. It is the most bigoted piece of trash I have seen yet. You say such untrue things about another Christian "church" and dare to call yourself a Christian?

I sure as hell don't see you living any Christian lifestyle here in this thread.

101A accused myself and smeagol of taking extreme positions and knocking them down. What I see is you and others doing that in this thread. And doing it in a damned hateful manner.

I didn't attack the 'Church'...

I'm questioning the RCC's practices... you have to truly understand them before accepting them... that is all. YOUR heated stance only serves to show that many people simply don't want their religion questioned. Christ compels us to search for the Truth. If its between the Pope and Christ; I choose Christ - simple as that.

I know that any criticisms will always be taken as an attack... but that is not the case my brother...

Don't let your institution limit the grandeur of your experience with GOD... 'man' was never meant to 'wire-tap' that connection -- It's yours and yours alone.

BTW before you backlash yet again, I would look up countless of Catholic resources which question why homosexual men are being drawn to the priesthood. It's a recognized problem within your institution, I gain nothing by making it up. Again, whether or not I agree with its practices I still inherently agree that the Catholic Church represents Christ -- the RCC should do everything in its power to purge out its problems...

[Phenomanul]

man has free will - man chose to fall by eating from the tree of knowledge, so man can easily decide what he thinks is the chaff from the wheat. if God didn't stop man from committing the original sin, why would he swoop down and stop someone from commiting an error in omitting a gospel or teaching from the bible? then again logic and faith are like oil and water. just because something isn't in the bible doesn't mean it isn't divinely inspired or can't help you to be a better christian, or even just a better person.


So you don't believe that GOD interacts with His children?

Yes or no?

Again, GOD wants to reveal Himself to us.... He's not trying to confuse us on who He is. Him preventing Adam's fall has nothing to do with allowing His handiwork to be tarnished by error. You make it sound as if Moses were trying to get personal credit by writing the books of Law we know as the Torah. He was doing what GOD instructed Him to do. This event also brings up an interesting point that's been working in my mind for weeks (and one that links this thread to the last thread I got heavily involved in - the 'evolution' one). OK here it goes: Who do you think revealed to Moses the names and ages of Adam's lineage, the 'so and so begat so and so and he lived to be 'x' hundred years old etc... '

It's a very revealing question considering that it's highly unlikely that those names would have been written down in any centralized location to serve as Moses' reference. GOD revealed those names, He revealed their ages and He revealed the necessary 'historical' accounts that pre-dated Abraham. So why then don't we believe that GOD revealed the story of Genesis to Moses? Somehow people have diminished the veracity of Chapter 1 and inadvertantly give more weight to Chapters 2, 3, and 4 which are inundated with 'factual' statements regarding the aforementioned lineages. Not to mean we should take them 'literally'... but their content cannot be outright dismissed the way it is by many people (inncluding people in the church no less). Either we believe it is inspired or we don't.

Anyways I believe GOD has worked closely on the oneness and authenticity of the 'scriptural' WORD He left mankind. Again, He wants us to know Him... to be drawn to Him. Here's some food for thought: If the Bible contained doctrinal error, would GOD allow it to represent His attributes erroneously? Would He allow it to confuse generation upon generation at the expense of their souls? I don't believe so.

[spurster]

To say there is a single Protestant position is a little crazy. Protestants range from very conservative to very liberal, from inerrancy to inspired to full-blown Biblical criticism.

Roman Catholics have had a long time to make their theology consistent, so arguing minutia is basically going to be a deadend. The problem I have with the Catholics (which applies to many/most other denominations) is the dichotomy often made that either you must believe all their tenets or else you are inferior. I am sure you can come up with good reasons why I should accept the Pope or that Mary ascended, but they are not good enough to convince me. Especially, I am not simply going to accept what the Pope or anybody else says without making my own evaluation.

[leemajors]

So you don't believe that GOD interacts with His children?

Yes or no?

i never said anything of the sort. you really have a knack for misconstruing. if anything i mentioned the possibility of divine inspiration happening to anyone, and not limited to christians and people who were interpreting the bible. if you meant by His children christians only my answer would be a resounding NO.

[johnsmith]

To say there is a single Protestant position is a little crazy. Protestants range from very conservative to very liberal, from inerrancy to inspired to full-blown Biblical criticism.

Roman Catholics have had a long time to make their theology consistent, so arguing minutia is basically going to be a deadend. The problem I have with the Catholics (which applies to many/most other denominations) is the dichotomy often made that either you must believe all their tenets or else you are inferior. I am sure you can come up with good reasons why I should accept the Pope or that Mary ascended, but they are not good enough to convince me. Especially, I am not simply going to accept what the Pope or anybody else says without making my own evaluation.


Funny, I'm 100% Catholic from birth. I go to church every Sunday, practice what I preach.........yet I frequently find myself questioning the politics and viewpoints of the Catholic Church. But I must be the only member of the Catholic church that thinks that way. :rolleyes

[Phenomanul]

i never said anything of the sort. you really have a knack for misconstruing. if anything i mentioned the possibility of divine inspiration happening to anyone, and not limited to christians and people who were interpreting the bible. if you meant by His children christians only my answer would be a resounding NO.


Oh don't be a :dramaquee ...

It was only a question. You said;


if God didn't stop man from committing the original sin, why would he swoop down and stop someone from commiting an error in omitting a gospel or teaching from the bible?

I explained my position on that concept by suggesting that GOD had active hand in the emergence of the Bible... That the Bible's content is based on GOD's active participation... that was all. Your analogy though a valid comment is not supported by the pattern GOD laid forth in His Word...

[smeagol]

Could a Pope that allowed the merciless bloodshed of thousands during the inquisition be spiritually connected with GOD? Is that link possible?


The Pope is not a super man. He is not an angel nor a god. He is human. Flesh and blood. And he is a sinner, like you and me. Some Popes have been saints, some have been far from being saints.



Could that same Pope then turnaround and stipulate moral policy and doctrinal interpretation free of human error, as something ordained and sanctioned by GOD?


I know the concept of Infallibility is a difficult concept to accept. But we Catholics believe it is in the Bible. Christ himself wanted a visible Church and said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Christ also named Peter as the leader of his Church. But as you said, we will never agree on this.



Did any of the prophets ever claim superiority over their peers? Look at the life of Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist... When did they use their connection with GOD as a way of improving their financial interests, their political influence? Either way, the doctrinal exclusivity that is claimed by the papal seat, along with its 'air of superiority,' (i.e. proclaiming to be 'Holy Roman Emperors'), does not conform to the biblical relationship that describes how GOD interacts with His people or with His stewards. Furthermore, since we will never agree on the meaning of Jesus' statement to Peter, I will never agree to the concept that one man and his institution can alone hold the keys to Heaven. Does not Jesus refer to himself as the conerstone? It couldn't possibly be that Jesus built His church upon 'himself', could it?


And there lies the problem (bold sentence above).

There is plenty of evidence Christians understood this passage of the Gospel as Catholics have understood it for 2,000 years. It was not until the XV century that people have changed its meaning.



Is celibacy a moral tradition? Or is it only a job requisite of sorts? Does this policy not stipulate that breaking the vow of celibacy would be considered a sin? If the RCC is decreeing that this action constitutes a sin... isn't celibacy more than just a policy?

IF celibacy were just a policy, then in the event of non-compliance, the offending priest would just be stripped of their priesthood - defrocked as punishment. But no, breaking the vow is considered a sin; celibacy is a moral policy that inherently defines a sin.

But since when does man have the authority to decree and define a sin unless it comes directly from GOD? And unless the RCC is contending that Popes are like prophets, this is not possible. Jesus clearly stated that John the Baptist was the last of the prophets (a clause not liked by Islam). We are to receive 'conviction' of our sins through the work of the Holy Spirit... not a list of rules, or because an institution has decreed it so...

Hence, due to the very nature of celibacy we find that the practice is very much a matter of morals and not just administrative policy alone -- it falls into an area that is supposedly infallible on interpretation.


All I know is that Celibacy is not an infallible doctrine.



And if it was divinely mandated it wouldn't engender the sorts of problems we see today


You have failed to bring any proof of this, scientific or other. Until you do, I will assume you are operating under the influence of anti-Catholic rhetoric.



Oh I personally understand it.... I'm what, 26 years old... and have remained completely chaste to date (not married yet). So although I understand that celibacy and chastity are two different things... they are still very much intertwined. I know about the mental struggles. Eitherway... the lifestyle is not for everyone.


I congratulate you. In this day and age, it is very difficult to do what you have done. And as you say, the lifestyle is not for everyone. Every person that goes into the Seminar wanting to be a priest knows this.



A bigger problem is homosexuality amidst Catholic seminaries... Does priesthood, in fact, attract a disproportionate number of men with a homosexual orientation? It is obvious that these perverts are NOT and never had any intention of being celibate. Their inability to live up to their vows should not besmirch those men who have been able to do so. At the same time the RCC should do everything in its power to discourage admission of homosexual priests into its ranks.


Again, a lot of anti-Catholic rhetoric. It looks like you are mixing two concepts here: homosexuality, which does not equal pedophilia.



I don't know why homosexual pedos are attracted to the priesthood in the first place


They are as attracted to the Catholic priesthood as they are attracted to teaching, being rabbis, being male nurses or being Protestant pastors.



There are 22 rites (i.e. churches) in the Catholic world that are in formal union with the Pope. The Latin Rite (what I think of when someone says "the Catholic Church") is the only ONE that has decreed a vow of celibacy for its priesthood. Virtually every other rite (Maronite, Melkite, Byzantine, Ukrainian, etc.) allow the ordination of married men. As you mentioned above, the Orthodox Christians (who separated from Rome in the early 11th century) have 'always' allowed the ordination of married men - so they were doing it back when they were Catholic!


First of all, this proves to you that celibacy is not a Dogma. Second, a clarification: these rites permit married men to be ordained priests, but if you are single and you want to become a priest, you have to vow chastity (become celibate).



This discipline can change within the Latin Rite. Ironically though, the Latin Rite already incorporates married priests in its ranks; some Episcopal priests who converted to Latin Rite Catholicism and became ordained as Catholic priests brought their wives with them. I have even heard of Lutheran pastors getting ordained as RC priests and keeping their wives. So married priests already exist within the Latin Rite although no formal message from the Pope has addressed it.


How does this help your argument? This again proves to you celibacy is not a Catholic Dogma and has nothing to do with the Pope’s infallibility.

[Phenomanul]

You responded to a version of that post that hadn't yet been 'cleaned up' to flow better. Did you keep it open on that window all night... I had edited it before your response... :dizzy

[smeagol]

You responded to a version of that post that hadn't yet been 'cleaned up' to flow better. Did you keep it open on that window all night... I had edited it before your response... :dizzy
Yes I did, I answered part of it last night, part of it today (I kept the window open all night), and I wtill have more stuff to respond to. I actually copied it into word . . . :depressed

[smeagol]

OK this is a simple analogy, so bear with me... Do you get satisfaction from eating a cookie or from having your neighbor relay the taste?

How would anything be enhanced by taking detours? Is going through Mary some sort of scenic venture? Again, go straight to the source. Immerse yourself with GOD's presence. Breathe GOD. Don't be distracted by other heavenly beings. They aren't able to reveal anymore of GOD to you than He Himself can. How can anybody enhance GOD? Would they have to supercede GOD's attributes in order to do so???


Do you ask your brothers that are alive to pray for you? Are they intermediating between Jesus and you? To some extent they are, but you have no problem with it.

Catholics believe, and have believed since the times of the Apostles, that dead people have a connection with you, they are part of the Body of Christ, the Church Triumphant, as opposed to the Church on Earth, the Church Militant. We ask them to pray in our name, the same way you might ask a friend to pray for the health of a very sick relative.



If a celibate priest who inherently struggled with his lifestyle were presented with the opportunity to acquiece his natural desires by using the innocence of a child as an unhindered medium -- where no adults could stop him -- would that automatically suggest that he would sucuumb to temptation? No, he may still be able to contain his urges. Indefinitely even.

Say now that this scenario presented itself 2-5 times per week. The odds that he may end up doing something innapropriate - not necessarily an outright sexual advance - increases... If anything, this frequency gradually desensitizes the priest to the severity of his growing problem, it may also gradually diminish his personal restraint -- and suddenly voila! His desires have turned from being normal to being pedophilic. The objects of his fantasies... his secretive sexual outlet... even if only in his mind, have become children. Does this happen because he intentionally wants to hurt children? Not usually. This happens as a result of the power bond that develops between an entrusting child and the 'more' experienced and manipulative adult.

The celibate lifestyle doesn't always lead to pedophilia, in fact such a statistic would be impossible to measure... but that finality certainly isn't precluded.


A person who is attracted to children, celibate or sexually active, is a sick person. Celibacy will not increase this desire more than being a married. It will not because you are starting with a sick man. You continue to imply that celibacy causes pedophilia. It does not. This thought of yours defies logic.

Scott, who is not a Catholic (not even a Christian, I think), gets it.





While on earth Jesus was 100% man, and 100% GOD.... Many times he responds as a man. But many times He manifested his full power as GOD (as displayed with his miracles). In an earlier post I commented on why JESUS (as GOD) responds to Mary with the word 'woman' instead of 'mother' (something he would have said if he was responding to her as 'Jesus the man') at the wedding feast in Cana...


Ok, but what about when God himself says “This is my own dear son. I am pleased with you”. The Father appears to imply his superiority over the Son.



Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."


There is no implication that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence, nature or substance with each other. The phrase simply says that disciples should baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, one could be higher in power than the other two.



John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." together with John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." and John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."


An Arian would reply with Heb 1:5 “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” which seems to imply there was a time before the Son was begotten.



John 8:23-24: "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins."

John 8:58 "'I tell you the truth', Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I Am!'"

John 10:38: "But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

John 12:41: "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him." - As the context shows, this implied the Tetragrammaton in Isaiah 6:1 refers to Jesus.

Colossians 2:9: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"

Revelation 1:17-18: "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." This is seen as significant when viewed with Isaiah 44:6: "This is what the LORD says - Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."


The quotes above are excellent quotes, but I’m sure a well-learned Arian could dispute them all. Why? Because approximately in the year 250 AD, Arius and his followers argued that Christ was not of the same essence and nature as the Father. And he argued this using the same Gospels you and I read today. And after the year 397 AD, Arians used the same Bible we use today to advance their heretic views. Arianism lasted another 200 years, but in those days it almost destroyed Christianity as we know it. It was finally defeated, not using the Bible (as I said, they used the Bible too), but using tradition to expand concepts known to many Catholics but, given their complexity, concepts not fully developed in the Bible.

Again, it is very interesting to read about the whole Arian controversy.

[smeagol]

I'm considered Evangelical and I don't believe that at all and I have never heard anyone that goes to my church say that either. Misconceptions about in every direction...


I'm happy to hear this. Nevertheless, I can show you access to plenty anti-Catholic literature and to many anti-Catholic websites.

Actually, Phenomanul, who I don't consider anti-Catholic, but does have a bias against Catholicism, on another debate in another life, linked a blatantly anti-Catholic website to drive one of his points home. I truly believe he was not aware of how bigotted that website is.

Travis, who blew a gasquet on this debate, went berserk on that one :lol

[smeagol]

Phenomanu and I have both been Catholic, and in this debate have cited our own PERSONAL observations and esperiences as Catholics to make points.


I don’t believe H was a Catholic for a long time after he was born, but could be wrong.

In any case, as Travis points out elsewhere in this thread, being an ex-Catholic does not make you an authority in Catholic doctrines (and I say this with the utmost respect for your knowledge and without any intent to ofend). I was a Catholic since I was born until I was 20 years old (I was a rabid atheist for 7 or 8 years thereafter). But the reality was I thought I was a good Catholic because I went to Church, confessed once a year, prayed here and there and hardly ever read the Bible, in other words, I went through the Catholic motions (does it sound familiar?). I can bet you if an evangelical apporached me at that time, there would have been high odds of me abandoning the Church.

What I'm trying to say with all this is that its difficult to discuss the Catholic position if you have never studied it or even become acquainted with it. I try to defend my faith now, after many years of reading and studying (and after a spiritual awakening which happened in 2000-2001 . . . you can say I'm a born again Catholic :spin ). But even now I feel I have so much to learn.



Travis and Smeagol continuously post extreme, or even non-existent, Protestant positions, ascribe them to us, then knock them down. It is a frustrating dialogue, unfortunately also exacerbated by the fact that we are not on line at the same time.


I beg you, list those extreme or non-existent Protestant positions I have continuosly posted.



Smeagol, I apoligize for accusing you of redirecting web information to suit you purpose


No wories, although I don't see why this could be a problem. Most of what I write comes, in one form or another, from stuff that I have read somewhere: the Bible, Catholic literature, anti-Catholic literature, religious websites, etc. I may, from time to time, link some website to help drive a point home. That should not be viewed as something negative.



Finally, I don't believe that it is in my best interest to interpret the bible ALONE, and that my interpretation is absolutely correct in all cases; far from it.


Agreed, that is why, when I have a doubt on how to interpret a certain passage, I go to my priest, or to the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, because I believe they will tell me what the interpretation of that passage has been for 2,000 years (approx).



I now understand far more about what the bible says than I ever did as a Catholic, because, as a Protestant I am encouraged TO READ IT


It is geat that you do. And who do you go to when there is a passage people you read the Bible with don't agree the meaning of?



Show me in the bible where Jesus suggests this kind of study and quest for a deeper understanding of my faith is wrong, or unwarranted.


Show me in the Bible where it says that you can interpret, understand and form your own religion exclusively with what is found in the Bible?



You certainly have a disgust and disdain for it, apparently.


Show me where I express disdain for people who read the Bible.



Also, there are several posters on the board who were Catholic but are now Protestant. Are there any who WERE Protestant and are now Catholic? Your opinions could be valuable.


I would like to hear there opinion too.

If you are interested, I recomend you a book: "By What Authority: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition" by Mark P. Shea. I bought it on Amazon. It is a paperback edition which costs not more than 15 bucks.

[smeagol]

On perusing the thread for evidence, what I have found was written by Smeagol - specifically regarding baptism and his infatuation with what Luther did, and did not, want included in the bible. Luther, ultimately, was just another person who had a profound effect on Christianity, but was no more infallible than any Pope.


What I wrote reagarding baptism is true for many Protestant denominations.

And what I wrote regarding Luther are facts.

What's the problem again?

[smeagol]

I figured you'd say that.

That's because you are a very intelligent poster



Funny, when that pedophile senator from Florida's story broke the PTB above him are starting to get the heat. Pope's call the shots and they make the rules. You think some two bit deacon is doing all the covering up years and years against the Pope'(s) wishes?


Bring me evidence JP II knew about these pedophile cases instead of writing empty phrases.



Next thing i suppose you'll say Bush, Cheney and Rummy are not liable for what happans bc those soldiers should have moved a couple feet to the left every time one gets shot or steps in the path of a bomb?

Is this suppose to be an analogy?

[Phenomanul]

Do you ask your brothers that are alive to pray for you? Are they intermediating between Jesus and you? To some extent they are, but you have no problem with it.

Catholics believe, and have believed since the times of the Apostles, that dead people have a connection with you, they are part of the Body of Christ, the Church Triumphant, as opposed to the Church on Earth, the Church Militant. We ask them to pray in our name, the same way you might ask a friend to pray for the health of a very sick relative.


Again, the big difference is that I don't pray to anyone but GOD.

I may pray for others, or others may pray for me... but never to them or vice versa.

Also, I find it quite odd to suggest that Peter or John, or Andrew, or Nathaniel etc... prayed to dead people. Not one instance of this practice is found in scripture. Furthermore, no account of them praying to Mary can be found either. What gives?

Another point.... Jesus is both our Mediator and Intercessor. We can pray in support of our brothers, but the Holy Ghost is invariably the one who will intercede for them... not us.




A person who is attracted to children, celibate or sexually active, is a sick person. Celibacy will not increase this desire more than being a married. It will not because you are starting with a sick man. You continue to imply that celibacy causes pedophilia. It does not. This thought of yours defies logic.

Scott, who is not a Catholic (not even a Christian, I think), gets it.


Smeagol, what would be illogical is to think that pedophiles were always sick. Their condition developed at some point in their life. I don't believe they are born with it. I simply explained a possible route to that condition, brought about precisely because their vow did not provide a natural outlet to their once natural urges. Children provide said outlet, and usually don't raise a word of opposition (at least not until they grow older). Really the link is not as crazy as you think.... You simply don't want to see it, and I can understand why.




Ok, but what about when God himself says “This is my own dear son. I am pleased with you”. The Father appears to imply his superiority over the Son.

That was said to JESUS while He was fulfilling His mission on earth... That is a very significant detail; one that the Arians simply did not grasp (especially since the era of JESUS's time on earth was still relatively recent). JESUS is NOW reunited with the Father as they once were before time began.




There is no implication that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence, nature or substance with each other. The phrase simply says that disciples should baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, one could be higher in power than the other two.


"Let us make man in our image"

and then re-read...

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says - Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

One GOD -- Three Facets.



An Arian would reply with Heb 1:5 “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” which seems to imply there was a time before the Son was begotten.


The quotes above are excellent quotes, but I’m sure a well-learned Arian could dispute them all. Why? Because approximately in the year 250 AD, Arius and his followers argued that Christ was not of the same essence and nature as the Father. And he argued this using the same Gospels you and I read today. And after the year 397 AD, Arians used the same Bible we use today to advance their heretic views. Arianism lasted another 200 years, but in those days it almost destroyed Christianity as we know it. It was finally defeated, not using the Bible (as I said, they used the Bible too), but using tradition to expand concepts known to many Catholics but, given their complexity, concepts not fully developed in the Bible.

Again, it is very interesting to read about the whole Arian controversy.


It's hard to grasp the essence of GOD... nevertheless, the Trinitarian concept is founded and grounded in scripture without the aid of extra texts or traditions. Starting from Genesis.

[Guru of Nothing]

Here is a random quote for Hector:


Many local Protestant churches organized Scout troops in the early days of the Scouting movement. Of the 7,375 registered troops at the close of 1915, more than 4,000 were chartered to Protestant churches, and 1,645 Scoutmasters were ministers.

Where could this lead?

[Guru of Nothing]

It's hard to grasp the essence of GOD... nevertheless, the Trinitarian concept is founded and grounded in scripture without the aid of extra texts or traditions. Starting from Genesis.

Grasping the essence of God is easy; the difficulty lies in religion.

[smeagol]

I find these discussions enriching as well... but unfortunately other people feel as though we can't agree on GOD... as long as they understand that we believe that the other is entitled to his views there should be no problem.

I'm ecumenical por naturaleza, as we say in Spanish




That's because the message is simple.

--GOD created the Universe and everything therein.

--GOD created man in His image... "Let us create Him in our image"

--Man 'fell' and sin was introduced into the world. "For all have sinned and have fallen short of the Glory of GOD".

--Man's fate was certain death (both physically and spritually -- an eternity apart from GOD). "For the wages of sin is death...."

--GOD developed a plan to redeem mankind. "There is no remission of sins without the spilling of blood."

--JESUS, fully GOD and fully man, restored our link to GOD by dying for everyone's sins.

--JESUS defeated and conquered death (the causality of sin) upon His ressurrection. "... but the gift of GOD is eternal life through Christ JESUS our LORD."

--Upon leaving, JESUS promised the arrival of the Holy Spirit, one who would guide His followers to Truth.

--Anyone who acknowledges JESUS's redemptive act of love and "believes that GOD has raised Him from the dead" will inherit the 'gift' of eternal life - one where man will be reconnected to an eternal communion with GOD.

--All you have to do is accept JESUS's sacrifice for you. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

--The Holy Spirit will work in the hearts of those that truly want to know GOD, He will convince followers of their sins, seeking out true repentance.

--One day JESUS will return to establish His kingdom on Earth.

--1000 years later, in one decisive battle, sin will forever be purged from the Universe and Satan and his minions will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

--A New Heaven and a New Earth will follow and all the saints (all those who accepted the message of JESUS) will forever live with GOD.

Rites and Rituals won't get us into Heaven... a close personal relationship with GOD will.


I'm with you with most of this, inlcuding the last sentence (bolded) except your "by faith alone" part. Simply accepting Christ as your savior will not get you into heaven. This is a great selling point of Protestantism, but is not enough to save you. It is pretty clear in James 14-26.




The answer is simple really.

GOD, and GOD alone, allowed the Bible that exists today to stand the test of time. The texts that didn't make it, were not meant to be included. If GOD had truly wanted their inclusion, GOD would have made it happen. Bara bing bara bang bara boom.

The Holy Spirit did the work it had to in order to weed out the "shaff from the wheat." No one, but GOD deserves credit for this.


Let me see if I follow you: The Holy Spirit only assisted the Catholic Church in putting together the Bible. From 30 AD to 397 AD (year when the Canon of the Bible was closed), whatever the Catholic Church did, and whatever his members wrote, even though some conversed with the Apostles themselves, is totally irrelevant. And from 397 AD to the present, again, whatever the Catholic Church did, and continues to do, is irrelevant again, because we don't know if the Holy Spirit it guiding it.

This is not an airtight argument by any means.



If I spread the message of Christ to 20 people and they repent -- I certainly don't deserve the credit. I simply did the job that Christ commissioned us to spread, but the Holy Spirit is the one that actually 'works' in people's hearts so that He can convince them of their need for GOD. The messengers [i.e the stewards, us] have the priviledge of partaking in the process - that is all. In fact, GOD doesn't need us to do His work. HE can move whether or not we do, but we are blessed, however, when we do allow Him to work through us... when we allow Him to use us.


The way the Holy Spirit operates is irrelevant. You argument is that you know the Holy Spirit aided the Catholic Church only once in history: the day the bishops and the Pope approved the Canon of the Bible. Before, or after that, you are not sure, but you are inclined to believe the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the Church.



As an undertone you make it sound as if I believe Catholics aren't capable of being true disciples of Christ. Many of them are and many of them were used for GOD's work. I do however believe that the RCC errs when it retroactively claims that the other writings are just as important on matters of doctrine as the current biblical canon, in order to conveniently suit its needs. Again, if those works were truly that important, GOD would have made them 'stick'.


How many times have I said they are not as important as the Bible? They are complements. Important complemets.



How many counterfeit texts and letters were discovered in the 3rd and 4th centuries alone?


Now you are suggesting Clement or Ignatius' Epistles are counterfeit? You must be running out of arguments because even the most prestigious Portestant scholars believe these letters are authentic.




Again, what is found in the current Bible was meant to stand the test of time. GOD wants to reveal Himself to us... He's not trying to confuse us.


You should tell this to your 20,000 brotherly Protestant denominations, because somebody in the Protestant world surely appears to be confused.




The Bible doesn't claim Mary's perpetual virginity... tradition does.


The Bible does not deny it. And tradition simply reinforces it.



Nor does it establish a human-led church


Again, we differ in the interpretation of Mt 16:18. I gave you a long and detailed explanation of the Catholic's position on how to interpret this passage, but it was not enough for you. All I can say, again, is that up until the XV century, nobody understood this passage the way Protestants do. But coming up with this twisted way of interpreting it, is the only way Protestants can make thier theology work.



No it certainly doesn't... only the teachings GOD wanted to endure were included... nothing more, nothing less.


"Only the teachings God wanted to endure were included"? And this is written where in the Bible?

Actually, you cleverly avoided answering the questions all Protestants do. Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is all God used to reveal himself?

If you answer the Sola Scriptura riddle, it will be a first.



Funny how Christ wasn't the one to initiate many of these practices and doctrines.

Tell me which ones are not referenced in the Bible.

I'll tell you one which is, and it's explicily as it gets (in the Bible), and that is the Sacrament of the Eucarist. It cannot be more explicitly stated than it is in John 6: 25-70. Why do Protestants not believe in the Real Presence beats me.

[travis2]

Nice work, smeagol...you hit several home runs with those posts. :clap

[Phenomanul]

Nice work, smeagol...you hit several home runs with those posts. :clap


Why?? Cause I'm to accept his viewpoint as Truth.... In fact, Smeagol misinterpreted my position on several occasions and then addressed those positions... not my own... but I won't argue about them right now. I'll get to them when I have the chance.

[smeagol]

Why?? Cause I'm to accept his viewpoint as Truth.... In fact, Smeagol misinterpreted my position on several occasions and then addressed those positions... not my own... but I won't argue about them right now. I'll get to them when I have the chance.

Don't get crossed, Pheno . . .

Please let me know where I missinterpreted your position, restate your position and I will try to address it again. If I missintepreted your position, let me assure you it as not done on purpose.

Cheers

[Guru of Nothing]

Blinded by the light,
Held up like a douche
By the foreman of the night

[travis2]

Why?? Cause I'm to accept his viewpoint as Truth.... In fact, Smeagol misinterpreted my position on several occasions and then addressed those positions... not my own... but I won't argue about them right now. I'll get to them when I have the chance.

Really? I saw him answer your post as you wrote it. And there were some real whoppers in there too. The priesthood somehow attracts homosexuals/pedophiles? We Catholics choose between the Pope and Christ? Come on...I'm not supposed to see those as attacks? And those are just two that I come up with right off the top of my head.

I mean, if I wanted to, I could draw back into history and lay some major wood down on Protestant churches...but what good would that do? And to answer your unspoken question, yes, I have a fair amount of experience...my father is Protestant ("non-denominational", used to be Baptist)...so I have at least a living source for my knowledge...not just books and (probably) biased websites.

In my opinion, you don't want to know what Catholics believe and how we got there. In my opinion, you believe our Church is wrong and sick. In my opinion, you would like nothing better than for smeagol and I and any other Catholics here to "come out" from under our Church and into the light.

But that's only my opinion...based on what I read from you. Are you willing to try to change my opinion?

Contrary to the beliefs of some, we are not interested in converting anyone. Nor do we send anyone to hell. Both of those are God's tasks. You want to know something, try asking nicely. We won't be hurt if you disagree...you have free will. If there's a question one of us can't answer, we're not going to bullshit you about it...we'll say we don't know. And then at least one of us is going to do some research...because those of us posting in this thread do care about our faith...and if there's something about our faith we don't know, then by golly that needs to be rectified.

What's nice about the people you'll be asking here is that we are Catholics by choice...we're all grown-up now, and we've had our crises of faith...and we've chosen to be where we are. And we're happy about it, too. Happy enough to share what we know...if you're willing to listen.

How 'bout it?

[smeagol]

Blinded by the light,
Held up like a douche
By the foreman of the night
You are having so much fun, aren't you? :lol

[smeagol]

Again, the big difference is that I don't pray to anyone but GOD.

I may pray for others, or others may pray for me... but never to them or vice versa.


Dead people are . . . well, dead. We cannot ask them to pray for us the same way we ask our brothers who are alive to pray for us. If you don't like the word parying to the dead, think about it as talking to the dead.



Also, I find it quite odd to suggest that Peter or John, or Andrew, or Nathaniel etc... prayed to dead people. Not one instance of this practice is found in scripture.


Revelation 5:8 says that the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints (on Earth). The fact that there is no record of the Apostles praying to the dead is not a good reason to dismiss the practice.

As I said in another post, 2 Maccabees also encourages praying for dead people although with a different meaning altogether.



Furthermore, no account of them praying to Mary can be found either. What gives?


Again you seem to be confusing concepts, probably because you have not been exposed to a well-versed Catholic (not that I am one).

Praying to Mary, as you are portraying it here, falls into the category of what I discussed two paragraphs above. Praying (asking/talking) to Mary in the same way a son who is a soldier, would ask his Dad to pray for him if he ever had to march into battle. If I'm this soldier, I would pray myself, ask my Dad, ask Mary and ask any other Saint I could think of to pray for me.

The Apostles might have asked Mary to pray for some reason or another, because she was alive, and this would not contradict your beliefs. This might have happened, even though it is not explicitly in the Bible.


Another point.... Jesus is both our Mediator and Intercessor. We can pray in support of our brothers, but the Holy Ghost is invariably the one who will intercede for them... not us.


Fine by me. I go by what Paul said in 1 Tim 2: 1-4

"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"



Smeagol, what would be illogical is to think that pedophiles were always sick. Their condition developed at some point in their life. I don't believe they are born with it. I simply explained a possible route to that condition, brought about precisely because their vow did not provide a natural outlet to their once natural urges.


I don't know if they were always sick, but I have to believe they are genetically predisposed. Because if I take your line of reasoning to the extreme, I absurdly conclude that we could all be pedophiles, and we are simply not because we are free to express ourselves sexualy.

In any case, if this were true, that celibacy leads to pedophilia, you would find many more pedophiles in the Church than in other organizations. Somebody, at the beginning of the thread, pointed out there are more pedophiles in the American school system than in the Catholic Church.

Have you seen that NBC program "Catching a Predator" or something like that? Pedophiles were caught on tape, and they were from all walks of life. There was a pastor and even a rabbi caught on tape.



Really the link is not as crazy as you think.... You simply don't want to see it, and I can understand why.


The link is crazy. To be a pedophile, you need to be sick in the first place.

If not, you are telling me that people who want to maintain their virginity until they get married, and don't find their bride until middle or old age, are running the risk of becoming pedophiles? This is how crazy you argument is.

Again, to be a celibate pedophile, first you have to be a pedophile, not the other way round. I don't understand why it is you who cannot see it.




That was said to JESUS while He was fulfilling His mission on earth... That is a very significant detail; one that the Arians simply did not grasp (especially since the era of JESUS's time on earth was still relatively recent). JESUS is NOW reunited with the Father as they once were before time began.

"Let us make man in our image"

and then re-read...

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says - Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

One GOD -- Three Facets.

It's hard to grasp the essence of GOD... nevertheless, the Trinitarian concept is founded and grounded in scripture without the aid of extra texts or traditions. Starting from Genesis.

It took Catholicism 400 years to defeat Arianism, and it was done with more than the Bible. The concept of the Trinity, as you and I know it, was developed way after the texts of the Bible were written.

[Phenomanul]

The fact of the matter is that no matter what I say... the Catholic Church is never wrong. It can never be questioned and if someone does question it, they are immediately branded as being anti-catholic bigots... Such arrogance is unbecoming of an institution that professes humility in the name of Christ... I simply seek the Truth.

There's really no point in keeping this discussion going. You agreed that the Gospel's message is simple and yet you are also willing to accept the fact that the RCC has complicated the SIMPLE message of Christ. That is why I compared the RCC to the pharisees and the sanehedrin in the first place... they did the exact same thing to the Hebrew/Judaic faith.

The underlying truth, if everything you claim is right, is that someone like me (or other protestants who have made a decision to follow Christ) cannot attain salvation because we have chosen to seek Christ outside the bounds set forth by the RCC... specifically by the catechism. I have admitted on numerous occasions that I believe that there are millions of true disciples of Christ within the Catholic laity. The RCC catechism on the other hand, suggests that people like myself can't inherit an eternal communion with GOD... without her blessing. I can't accept that.... I'm sorry, I just can't.

What's 'shocking', is that I've probably committed less sin in my lifetime than several of the popes in the Church's papal lineage... but hey, I'm just an insignificant protestant nobody! Am I supposed to believe that JESUS will exalt said popes 'higher' simply because they were popes... right. :rolleyes Everyone will face judgement equally... and those who have redeemed themselves with the blood of Christ will enter. Of course, if I would have said this 5 or 6 centuries ago, I probably would have been murdered for such 'heretic' comments.

On a side note: I've read the Bible from cover to cover at least seven times. A communion with GOD through Christ JESUS my LORD does not require that another man or institution mediate my bond. That much is understood. Besides, I have experienced the power of the Holy Spirit and seen His mighty hand at work -- and all outside the 'blessing' of the RCC -- was I just imagining things? IS GOD only GOD to Catholics? By their rules, apparently so.

It was a good discussion before Travis blew a gasket (and insulted me), so rather than continue and compromise the respect that I have for you two -- I'll just end with this post. Even his last post continued to undermine whatever semblance of logical counterpoint my posts had... as soon as the Catholic viewpoint was brought up (right, wrong or inconclusive)... that was it... end of argument! He felt that no further rebuttal was even valid - so what would be the point of submitting one?.

Travis did offer a return to civilized debate, and I appreciate that, but frankly I'm too tired to continue... It's not a debate I ever intended on 'winning' because I understood that these matters are very personal and highly engrained in our being -- depending on our life's experience. Besides it's not your garden variety ''I was right, you were wrong'' type of debate...

-Peace out.

[travis2]

Looks like I was right...

[Kori Ellis]

Man, it's good that I'm unwilling to chime in on this topic.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm Catholic and I'm stickin' to it.

God Bless.

[johnsmith]

I'm Catholic and I'm stickin' to it.

God Bless.


Not me, thanks to reading the "Catholic views" thread on spurstalk.com, I'm thinking about switching to a new denomination.................no, no I'm not.

[Phenomanul]

Before that other 'last' post I did intend on posting this.

A refute to Catholic Tradition on Mary's supposed Perpetual Virginity.

Did Mary Have Other Children?

One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic church deals with the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine maintains that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and that biblical references suggesting Jesus had siblings are really references to cousins (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510).

As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters?

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)

Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."

Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"

John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."

Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."

1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Gal. 1:19 - "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother."

An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is ‘adelphos’ and sister is ‘adelphe’. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word ‘brother’ means ‘fellow Jews’ or ‘cousin’ in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.

Let’s briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.

Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."

Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenter’s father? In other words, ‘mother’ here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though ‘carpenter’s son’ refers to Joseph, and ‘mother’ refers to Mary, ‘brothers’ does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus’ brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.

Psalm 69, A Messianic Psalm

There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus’ siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in

John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’"

He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in

John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."

Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.

To get the whole context, here is

Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5 O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6 May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7 Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8 I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s sons. 9 For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."

This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets."

God’s will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.

Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?

Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase "my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.

The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary and Joseph.

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.

[johnsmith]

Before that other 'last' post I did intend on posting this.

A refute to Catholic Tradition on Mary's supposed Perpetual Virginity.

Did Mary Have Other Children?

One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic church deals with the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine maintains that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and that biblical references suggesting Jesus had siblings are really references to cousins (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510).

As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters?

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)

Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."

Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"

John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."

Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."

1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Gal. 1:19 - "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother."

An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is ‘adelphos’ and sister is ‘adelphe’. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word ‘brother’ means ‘fellow Jews’ or ‘cousin’ in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.

Let’s briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.

Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."

Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenter’s father? In other words, ‘mother’ here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though ‘carpenter’s son’ refers to Joseph, and ‘mother’ refers to Mary, ‘brothers’ does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus’ brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.

Psalm 69, A Messianic Psalm

There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus’ siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in

John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’"

He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in

John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."

Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.

To get the whole context, here is

Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5 O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6 May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7 Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8 I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s sons. 9 For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."

This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets."

God’s will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.

Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?

Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase "my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.

The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary and Joseph.

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.


My response: Who gives a fuck? You don't like the Catholic church, we get it.

[Phenomanul]

My response: Who gives a fuck? You don't like the Catholic church, we get it.

Oh it's a significant point.

One instance of fallability in the RCC's doctrinal stance renders the whole concept of the RCC's supposed 'doctrinal infallability' null.

I don't hate the RC church... I simply don't tolerate its arrogance.

Bring a little more substance to the table next time Mr. Smith. Otherwise keep your insults to yourself.

[johnsmith]

Oh it's a significant point.

One instance of fallability in the RCC's doctrinal stance renders the whole concept of the RCC's supposed 'doctrinal infallability' null.

I don't hate the RC church... I simply don't tolerate its arrogance.

Bring a little more substance to the table next time Mr. Smith. Otherwise keep your insults to yourself.


Ummm, no, I think I'll bring exactly the same amount of substance to each and every one of my posts. Furthermore, I think I'll share my insults with everyone that chooses to read them, ya douche bag........now, what are you gonna do about it, "not tolerate" them?

[Phenomanul]

Ummm, no, I think I'll bring exactly the same amount of substance to each and every one of my posts. Furthermore, I think I'll share my insults with everyone that chooses to read them, ya douche bag........now, what are you gonna do about it, "not tolerate" them?

:rolleyes

[Extra Stout]

Some cherry-picking...


I'm with you with most of this, inlcuding the last sentence (bolded) except your "by faith alone" part. Simply accepting Christ as your savior will not get you into heaven. This is a great selling point of Protestantism, but is not enough to save you. It is pretty clear in James 14-26.
The Protestant position on faith vs. works is Christological. It is not saying that a "Christian" can have mental assent to the Gospel without any manifestation of that in his life. Faith is not faith if it does not beget works.

The Protestant position is that God's grace alone is sufficient to save, and that any works with come forth as a result of the believer's becoming a new creation (Galatians 5:17) were prepared by God in advance anyway (Ephesians 2:10). The point of salvation by faith alone is not to give the prospective believer a "Get Out of Hell Free" card without having to be obedient to God in everyday life, but rather to ascribe all the glory to God in the act of salvation, and none to the works of man.

In my observation, the difference can be whittled down in a nutshell: Catholics believe works are a necessary element of salvation, while Protestants believe they are necessary evidence of salvation, i.e. Matthew 7:16.


Actually, you cleverly avoided answering the questions all Protestants do. Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is all God used to reveal himself?
Well, it doesn't say that. Romans 1-19:20 contradicts the notion that the Bible alone presents the revelation of God.

However, the Bible does say this: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV) And the words for "thoroughly equipped" in Greek are "artios exartizo," from which we are meant to understand that Scripture is sufficient.

This does not mean that Christians should not aspire to hear the teaching of others regarding Scripture, for not all of it is easy to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Sincere Protestants would have no interest in solid expository preaching, nor in studying the Bible together, if they thought they knew it all by themselves. The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestants are not required to take such instruction as binding. The example provided to us is that of the Bereans (Acts 17:11).

I believe that the Bible allows believers to disagree on certain matters of doctrine without severing fellowship (1 Corinthians 14).


I'll tell you one which is, and it's explicily as it gets (in the Bible), and that is the Sacrament of the Eucarist. It cannot be more explicitly stated than it is in John 6: 25-70. Why do Protestants not believe in the Real Presence beats me.
Because of verse 63.

[travis2]

Did Mary remain a virgin all her life? The Church says "yes", and has since the very beginning. Rather than repeat a lot of stuff, I offer these links for your perusal. They explain it just as well as I could.

They are all from the same (pro-Catholic) website. Make of that whatever you will.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Burial_Box_of_St_James_Found.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp

[johnsmith]

:rolleyes


So that's your answer, to put in a little roll eyes smiley face..........in that case......... :cry

[JoeChalupa]

These threads always come up a few times a year. I read all the posts to get an idea of what other think but it does not effect my faith in any way, shape or form. My faith is solid as a rock and cannot be shaken. I've found that it is best to just let others believe as they wish. Now I've been accused of not being a real Catholic because I do not spread my beliefs to others but I feel that is not up to me for I believe that each person must find God on their own. Granted, it was my parents who introduced, some will say brainwashed, me to the Catholic faith and for that I am forever grateful.
I can tell you this. As God is my witness I would die before EVER denouncing my faith.

Carry on.

[101A]

Blinded by the light,
Held up like a douche
By the foreman of the night

:nope :lol :spin :dizzy :lol :lmao :idiot :td :grim:

Yeah he was blinded by the light
Cut loose like a deuce another runner in the night

-The Boss

[101A]

Ummm, no, I think I'll bring exactly the same amount of substance to each and every one of my posts. Furthermore, I think I'll share my insults with everyone that chooses to read them, ya douche bag........now, what are you gonna do about it, "not tolerate" them?

So, JS, you let Travis & Smeagol fight your battles, then you chime in with a "yeah what he said".

Weak.

I hope Boutons takes you up on your offer one day....

[101A]

Re: Mary.

Pope Pious IX in 1852, (that's right almost 1900 years after the birth of christ) proclaimed (infallibly) that Mary was also of "Virgin" birth. (Were her parents celibate all their lives- what about her grandmother?)

Pios XII in 1950 proclaimed Mary's assumption (that her entire body and soul were taken into heaven) - a full century after THAT.

All of this, just completely coincidentally, not so long after the Marianist movement BEGAN in France post-revolution.

What did Catholics think about Mary for the first 18 and a half centuries? (Honest question; I can only assume it is similar to what Protestants think now)

[johnsmith]

So, JS, you let Travis & Smeagol fight your battles, then you chime in with a "yeah what he said".

Weak.

I hope Boutons takes you up on your offer one day....


Ummm, where in that quote does it reflect that I'm letting Travis and Smeagol fight my battles? And what battles have I been fighting? And what would happen if Boutons takes me up on my offer?

[101A]

Ummm, where in that quote does it reflect that I'm letting Travis and Smeagol fight my battles? And what battles have I been fighting? And what would happen if Boutons takes me up on my offer?


Your dog was in this fight for a couple of pages; then when the big boys starting throwing ACTUAL SCRIPTURE around; you were pretty much gone - obviously you got your feelings hurt because you got sniped from both sides (Smeagol & Pheno took shots in this thread); you disappeared.

THEN when Travis loses it, followed by Pheno bailing, you come in and dance on the remnants - like I said: Weak.

The last reference was regarding your adolescent hangup with challenging the resident liberal bombthrower to a fight - which he has utterly ignored.

[johnsmith]

Your dog was in this fight for a couple of pages; then when the big boys starting throwing ACTUAL SCRIPTURE around; you were pretty much gone - obviously you got your feelings hurt because you got sniped from both sides (Smeagol & Pheno took shots in this thread); you disappeared.

THEN when Travis loses it, followed by Pheno bailing, you come in and dance on the remnants - like I said: Weak.

The last reference was regarding your adolescent hangup with challenging the resident liberal bombthrower to a fight - which he has utterly ignored.

What was my dog doing on the computer? And when scripture began to be thrown out, yes, I stopped posting for two reasons, one, I don't know scripture all that well, and two, Travis and Smeagol obviously know much more information regarding this subject then I do.....so what's your point?

Furthermore, one has to have feelings in order to get them hurt.
What is weak about throwing pot shots on an internet chatboard? You are doing in right now, does that make you weak?

As for the last reference and my "adolescent hangup", I again ask, what will happen if he takes me up on the offer. You said you hope he does, now I want to know what will happen.