Reply With Quote
Any church that advertises a belief in "Believers Baptism" will not accept a baptism performed as an infant.
"obviously", how? Source please. I maintain it is NOT so "obvious".
Any church that advertises a belief in "Believers Baptism" will not accept a baptism performed as an infant.
Exactly where did I defend sexual depravity, "blindlessly" or otherwise? Please post a link to where I did that.
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 at ude is tearing at the very credibility of the church's ability to minister to people in need. That to me, is the obvious part.
Thanks Travis. Well done.
That isn't what I've been told by the priests who ran the school I went to.
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.
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.
Sorry, I did not realize.
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.
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 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 bag" comments. I guess at least you don't want my mother to be killed.
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.
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?
Give me Catholicism, or give me convenience!
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).
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 at ude 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.
I tend to think that being a sick 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.
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
Thanks, smeagol...don't sell yourself short...
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.
Last edited by smeagol; 10-19-2006 at 10:29 PM.
It's true.
Thanks, smeagol...don't sell yourself short...
It was your posts almost three years ago, among other things, that inspired me to read more about my religion.
Thanks
Smeag's you're a good man, I'm just messing with you. Don't take me serious.
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.
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.2. How can the Trinity be explained with the Bible alone?
Faith.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.
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)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.
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?
It was at this point that I began to think I had seen this line of questioning before.5. Where in the Bible does it say that the Sola Scriptura is what Christians should believe in?
Here it is
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.
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 en ies, 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 ins utional rites, rather than on a personal relationship with the LORD.
This is what happens when an ins ution 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 ins ution?
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 ins ution. 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 cap al 'H' if you like...
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.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-19-2006 at 05:02 PM.
True, minor point.
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.
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 would ask you to do your research on this one. Also, research on all the other opinions Luther held. It’s very enlightening.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unfortunately, we will never agree on this point. You, as a former Catholic, know very well what I feel about this point.
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 en y 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?
Last edited by smeagol; 10-19-2006 at 09:04 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions