Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: AD2100 on November 08, 2015, 11:26:27 AM
-
Are the Roman Catholic beliefs about Mary unchristian? Biblical Christianity vs. Roman Catholicism
-
Praying to her is idolatry. That simple.
-
Are the Roman Catholic beliefs about Mary unchristian? Biblical Christianity vs. Roman Catholicism
I like Dr. White a lot.
I own and have read his book "The Roman Catholic Controversy".
In short, Catholics are not Christians and Christians are not Catholics.
-
I have to, respectfully, disagree with my brother Man of Steel on this issue.
Roman Catholics confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in their hearts that God raised Him from the dead. They believe in the Trinity, and they believe that salvation is by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. They only worship the Trinity, and no one or nothing else.
There are many Roman Catholics who deviate from official Roman Catholic teaching, and who engage in idolatry regarding Mary and other Saints, etc. However, this is not the official teaching of the Vatican.
I do not know whether Mary was preserved from sin, or whether she was assumed bodily into Heaven, or whether she has been given some special role in Heaven related to intercessory prayer.
What I do know is that any special position or blessing that Mary possesses is not due to her own power, but due solely to the grace and mercy of God. And Roman Catholics accept this, too.
As for "praying to the Saints, and to Mary"... I think this, and many other Roman Catholic traditions, are misunderstood by most Protestants.
First, I think the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church is not that people should pray to Mary and the Saints, but that people should ask Mary and the Saints to pray for them... in the same way that a person might ask their Pastor to pray for them. (this line of reasoning goes like this: If a Pastor who is on earth has powerful prayer, how much more powerful are the prayers of those who are in Heaven.)
Personally, I am, by default, technically a "Protestant" (because I am neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox). But I really hate being called a Protestant. I dont think of myself as a protestor. Rather, I am 'non-denominational', both catholic and orthodox, simply Christian. Yet, I have an extremely high respect for the traditional doctrines of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths. I do find that upon deep meditation, and even surface readings, that the Bible much more agrees with their beliefs than it does Protestant ones.
So this is one area where I think you will find even conservative Christian fundamentalists disagree with each other about. Fortunately, I do not believe that any of them are salvation issues.
-
This might be the first time Tbombz isn't the craziest fuck in the chain.
-
Thanks for that tbombz, as a Roman Catholic I found Man of Steels post a bit offensively ignorant, and those sorts of falsehoods simply get passed around and from one generation to the next without checking the facts or asking WHY Catholics believe what they do..thank you for taking the time to do so and doing justice by righting the wrongs.
-
I like Dr. White a lot.
I own and have read his book "The Roman Catholic Controversy".
In short, Catholics are not Christians and Christians are not Catholics.
Even though this man has read and studied the Bible so much, he seems to lack charity.. Interesting how his sister is now Roman Catholic..
-
Thanks for that tbombz, as a Roman Catholic I found Man of Steels post a bit offensively ignorant, and those sorts of falsehoods simply get passed around and from one generation to the next without checking the facts or asking WHY Catholics believe what they do..thank you for taking the time to do so and doing justice by righting the wrongs.
I'd be happy for you to explain your position and educate me more on the RCC. I'm certainly no expert on Catholicism and I don't want to insult or offend you either.
I would like to understand more about the catechism, penance, venial and mortal sins, papal succession, the authority of the teaching magisterium, the infallible decrees of the papacy, Mary as mediatrix, purgatory, priestly absolution, faith plus works v faith alone in Christ and other such topics.
If you would please provide any scriptural basis for these and others topics you'd like to discuss so it helps me better understand them. I won't add anything else in this so that you can represent the basis of your faith as it seems most appropriate without the clouding of my perspective.
When you can of course.
Further, I am not anti-Catholic LOL, but it's certainly possible for me to be ignorant on various topics! I just make a clear distinction. I want all my current Catholic brothers and sisters to deny works of men and simply claim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior!
-
I have to, respectfully, disagree with my brother Man of Steel on this issue.
Roman Catholics confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in their hearts that God raised Him from the dead. They believe in the Trinity, and they believe that salvation is by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. They only worship the Trinity, and no one or nothing else.
There are many Roman Catholics who deviate from official Roman Catholic teaching, and who engage in idolatry regarding Mary and other Saints, etc. However, this is not the official teaching of the Vatican.
I do not know whether Mary was preserved from sin, or whether she was assumed bodily into Heaven, or whether she has been given some special role in Heaven related to intercessory prayer.
What I do know is that any special position or blessing that Mary possesses is not due to her own power, but due solely to the grace and mercy of God. And Roman Catholics accept this, too.
As for "praying to the Saints, and to Mary"... I think this, and many other Roman Catholic traditions, are misunderstood by most Protestants.
First, I think the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church is not that people should pray to Mary and the Saints, but that people should ask Mary and the Saints to pray for them... in the same way that a person might ask their Pastor to pray for them. (this line of reasoning goes like this: If a Pastor who is on earth has powerful prayer, how much more powerful are the prayers of those who are in Heaven.)
Personally, I am, by default, technically a "Protestant" (because I am neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox). But I really hate being called a Protestant. I dont think of myself as a protestor. Rather, I am 'non-denominational', both catholic and orthodox, simply Christian. Yet, I have an extremely high respect for the traditional doctrines of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths. I do find that upon deep meditation, and even surface readings, that the Bible much more agrees with their beliefs than it does Protestant ones.
So this is one area where I think you will find even conservative Christian fundamentalists disagree with each other about. Fortunately, I do not believe that any of them are salvation issues.
It's all good. ;) I also like to identify as a Christian or follower in Christ, but if forced to associate I'd most certainly be a Protestant.
Different church denominations worship God differently, but above all else they put Christ first above their traditions.
I take issue with those churches that invent doctrine and make it equal with scripture and God's authority.
Still I've met many Catholics that love the Lord and claim him as Savior. I'm not here to doubt them. I've also met Muslims that love Islam, but don't follow the Quran or Hadith to the letter, but they don't oppose it either.
-
Even though this man has read and studied the Bible so much, he seems to lack charity.. Interesting how his sister is now Roman Catholic..
Christ said that he came to divide mother from daughter, father from son, brother from sister. He came with a sword to collect his church.
Matthew 10:34-36
34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.
Notable Christian apologist Matt Slick's oldest daughter left her Christian faith that she was raised in and adopted atheism in her early 20s. Just because a man or woman is a theologian, religious scholar or minister doesn't mean their children will claim Christ as Lord and Savior or adopt their parent's faith and theology.
-
I'd be happy for you to explain your position and educate me more on the RCC. I'm certainly no expert on Catholicism and I don't want to insult or offend you either.
I would like to understand more about the catechism, penance, venial and mortal sins, papal succession, the authority of the teaching magisterium, the infallible decrees of the papacy, Mary as mediatrix, purgatory, priestly absolution, faith plus works v faith alone in Christ and other such topics.
If you would please provide any scriptural basis for these and others topics you'd like to discuss so it helps me better understand them. I won't add anything else in this so that you can represent the basis of your faith as it seems most appropriate without the clouding of my perspective.
When you can of course.
Further, I am not anti-Catholic LOL, but it's certainly possible for me to be ignorant on various topics! I just make a clear distinction. I want all my current Catholic brothers and sisters to deny works of men and simply claim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior!
I can quickly answer a couple of those...
Venial and mortal sin.. all sin is sin and all sin is worthy of damnation.. but there are, in the words of Jesus, "weightier matters of the law". Some sins are like gnats, some sins are like camels. (don't strain out a gnat in order to swallow the camel")
Justification is by faith, but "we are justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). Faith alone cannot save. Just as works without faith is dead, so is faith without works. We cannot earn our way to heaven, we must have faith in the cross. But we also have to have repentance, and despite what some people teach, not everyone who believes also repents. Matthew 7:21.
If like to take more time, but I'm typing on my phone.
-
I can quickly answer a couple of those...
Venial and mortal sin.. all sin is sin and all sin is worthy of damnation.. but there are, in the words of Jesus, "weightier matters of the law". Some sins are like gnats, some sins are like camels. (don't strain out a gnat in order to swallow the camel")
Justification is by faith, but "we are justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). Faith alone cannot save. Just as works without faith is dead, so is faith without works. We cannot earn our way to heaven, we must have faith in the cross. But we also have to have repentance, and despite what some people teach, not everyone who believes also repents. Matthew 7:21.
If like to take more time, but I'm typing on my phone.
Thanks for the response. Again I am no expert in Catholicism so I appreciate any and all clarification.
Only thing I would add is that we are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves as our salvation is a gift of God so that none of us can boast.
Although, our faith is a dead faith if it produces no good fruit via our works. The focus of James, for me, is about a nominal claim of faith that has no good works associated with it.
We are justified (or deemed righteous) through of our faith because of Jesus Christ and are we sanctified by the Holy Spirit so that we may seek his will for our lives and become Christlike. Justification is righteousness credited to us and sanctification occurs within us. Our good works are a result of the Holy Spirit that indwells believers. Without a result of good works coming from us as new creatures in Christ our claim of faith is essentially a dead faith. I see justification and sanctification working hand in hand as it pertains to our good works and righteousness therein.
James leads chapter 2 of his book by stating what good is man claiming he has faith but has no good works....essentially that faith is dead (it's a false faith or nominal faith). Like Abraham, righteousness was credited to him because of his faith. And his faith was demonstrated via his good works that aligned with God. So I agree that we are justified by our works and not just our claim of faith.
My issue with Catholicism is not about the theology of justification, but more about the false catechism doctrine that states that salvation occurs because of our faith, baptism and following of the commandments (our works).....as works-based salvation. As Christians we are saved by grace through faith alone. Yet we are justified by faith as demonstrated by our works (as Abraham was). I also don't understand how Mary acts mediator between us and God and helps atone for our sins. I don't find that in scripture and don't agree with that. That said I find a distinction between Christians and Catholics.
I would like nothing more than to be united with my Catholic brothers and sisters in one theology, one faith, one God. What I find is that most Catholics are very sincere, but don't grasp the basic teachings of the Catholic theology. Despite that ignorance I believe most love the Lord, seek his will, have made a public profession of faith in Christ yet don't even realize all the catechism teaches.
Again, please correct where I have errored in my understanding of Catholicism as I am not an expert.
-
I like Dr. White a lot.
I own and have read his book "The Roman Catholic Controversy".
In short, Catholics are not Christians and Christians are not Catholics.
This only makes sense from your worldview, though. In which case, how many Protestant denominations aren't really Christian either? Seems everyone is ultimately condemned to someone else's hell.
Rhetorical, no need to reply.
-
This only makes sense from your worldview, though. In which case, how many Protestant denominations aren't really Christian either? Seems everyone is ultimately condemned to someone else's hell.
Rhetorical, no need to reply.
;D
-
Thanks for the response. Again I am no expert in Catholicism so I appreciate any and all clarification.
Only thing I would add is that we are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves as our salvation is a gift of God so that none of us can boast.
Although, our faith is a dead faith if it produces no good fruit via our works. The focus of James, for me, is about a nominal claim of faith that has no good works associated with it.
We are justified (or deemed righteous) through of our faith because of Jesus Christ and are we sanctified by the Holy Spirit so that we may seek his will for our lives and become Christlike. Justification is righteousness credited to us and sanctification occurs within us. Our good works are a result of the Holy Spirit that indwells believers. Without a result of good works coming from us as new creatures in Christ our claim of faith is essentially a dead faith. I see justification and sanctification working hand in hand as it pertains to our good works and righteousness therein.
James leads chapter 2 of his book by stating what good is man claiming he has faith but has no good works....essentially that faith is dead (it's a false faith or nominal faith). Like Abraham, righteousness was credited to him because of his faith. And his faith was demonstrated via his good works that aligned with God. So I agree that we are justified by our works and not just our claim of faith.
My issue with Catholicism is not about the theology of justification, but more about the false catechism doctrine that states that salvation occurs because of our faith, baptism and following of the commandments (our works).....as works-based salvation. As Christians we are saved by grace through faith alone. Yet we are justified by faith as demonstrated by our works (as Abraham was). I also don't understand how Mary acts mediator between us and God and helps atone for our sins. I don't find that in scripture and don't agree with that. That said I find a distinction between Christians and Catholics.
I would like nothing more than to be united with my Catholic brothers and sisters in one theology, one faith, one God. What I find is that most Catholics are very sincere, but don't grasp the basic teachings of the Catholic theology. Despite that ignorance I believe most love the Lord, seek his will, have made a public profession of faith in Christ yet don't even realize all the catechism teaches.
Again, please correct where I have errored in my understanding of Catholicism as I am not an expert.
I will do my best to explain the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation.
They believe that faith forms the foundation of salvation, but receiving the sacraments and practicing repentance are the process of actually entering salvation.
They believe that sacraments are required for salvation - but not absolutely required. They recognize that, like the man on the cross next to Jesus, there are exceptions to the rule of Baptism.
Roman Catholics believe in justification by faith - just not by faith alone. I agree with them about this. We are justified by faith - but the Biblical definition of "saving faith" cannot be boiled down to faith alone. Biblical saving faith is a repentant, contrite, obedient, loving and fearful faith. This is not strictly faith alone.
I personally really enjoy the Eastern Orthodox view of salvation. They view salvation as a process they call "theosis" - becoming like God.
Paul speaks of salvation in three tenses: I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved.
We can think of the past tense as that moment when God recons our faith as righteousness and grants us The Holy Spirit to sanctify us.
We can think of the present tense as the process of cooperating with The Holy Spirit to become like Jesus.
We can think of the future tense as that moment when we finally and forever enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
While we can have some sense of assurance concerning our salvation as long as we are faithful and repentant, we cannot know for absolute certain that we are guaranteed to continue on this path forever. There are some people, unfortunately, who believe and repent for a while, yet in the end fall away and are not saved. (You may disagree with me about this - but it is my position and the position of many Evangelicals, as well as all Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic).
I hope this helps you understand my view, and the view of Roman Catholicism, when it comes to salvation. I do not agree with them about everything, but on this topic we share many beliefs.
-
I will do my best to explain the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation.
They believe that faith forms the foundation of salvation, but receiving the sacraments and practicing repentance are the process of actually entering salvation.
They believe that sacraments are required for salvation - but not absolutely required. They recognize that, like the man on the cross next to Jesus, there are exceptions to the rule of Baptism.
Roman Catholics believe in justification by faith - just not by faith alone. I agree with them about this. We are justified by faith - but the Biblical definition of "saving faith" cannot be boiled down to faith alone. Biblical saving faith is a repentant, contrite, obedient, loving and fearful faith. This is not strictly faith alone.
I personally really enjoy the Eastern Orthodox view of salvation. They view salvation as a process they call "theosis" - becoming like God.
Paul speaks of salvation in three tenses: I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved.
We can think of the past tense as that moment when God recons our faith as righteousness and grants us The Holy Spirit to sanctify us.
We can think of the present tense as the process of cooperating with The Holy Spirit to become like Jesus.
We can think of the future tense as that moment when we finally and forever enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
While we can have some sense of assurance concerning our salvation as long as we are faithful and repentant, we cannot know for absolute certain that we are guaranteed to continue on this path forever. There are some people, unfortunately, who believe and repent for a while, yet in the end fall away and are not saved. (You may disagree with me about this - but it is my position and the position of many Evangelicals, as well as all Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic).
I hope this helps you understand my view, and the view of Roman Catholicism, when it comes to salvation. I do not agree with them about everything, but on this topic we share many beliefs.
Thoughtful response and I appreciate taking the time. Something I'll definitely think about. ;)
-
Cool.
I just found this, too:
The Catholic Church teaches that it is the grace of God, "the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call", that justifies a person,[18] a grace that is a prerequisite for a free response of "collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity",[19] "With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man",[20] so that "we can have merit in God's sight only because of God's free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man's collaboration. Man's merit is due to God.
-
In short, Catholics are not Christians and Christians are not Catholics.
You know, of course, that Christ established the Roman Catholic Church Himself at the Last Supper?
-
You know, of course, that Christ established the Roman Catholic Church Himself at the Last Supper?
He certainly laid the tracks for the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, but it will fall on deaf ears among this crowd. Merry Christmas.
-
You know, of course, that Christ established the Roman Catholic Church Himself at the Last Supper?
Justify this from an exigesis of scripture please.
Well aware the early organized church was the early church of Rome.
-
He certainly laid the tracks for the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, but it will fall on deaf ears among this crowd. Merry Christmas.
Christ laid the tracks for Christianity.
Well aware the early organized church was the early church of Rome.
The RC church built it's own tracks and those veered away from Christ so I don't support the RC church today.
I believe there are many devout Catholics that love the Lord, but I don't think the majority understand what scripture says or what the RC espouses.
A running joke in Catholic and Protestant churches is that if you asked a Catholic crowd to open their bibles to a passage of scripture that the VAST majority would be unable to because they either never bring/own/read a bible and if they did happpen to bring a bible to church to they wouldn't have clue where a specific book of the bible is located if asked to turn to it.
-
Bullshit.
You read the Bible?
It was put together by what becomes the Roman Catholic Church.
I understand the history of the early organized church of Rome....that isn't in question.
Neither are councils of Nicea or Trent. So many don't understand what happened at Nicea.
-
Actually. If you question the RCC you question all of these things.
Christianity today would not exist without it. Whether the RCC has morphed is a completely different topic.
All religions morph. It's why we don't have witch trials today.
Y'all keep arguing this point as if I don't agree with it. I understand why this approach is taken....there isn't anything else.
I disagree with the RC church not because of where it started but because of what it became.
-
No y'all here.
I'm telling you my opinion.
Like every church doesn't have shit in it?
How many baptist or Protestant churches or leaders are corrupt or whatever.
If you think the RCC is bad though, you shouldn't support it in any way. Including reading its book it out together.
Other posters before you (within this thread and others) have suggested the same thing hence the "y'all".
World is full of corrupt people making idols unto themselves. I don't attend those churches either. Still this discussion doesn't need red herrings.....we can keep our eye on the ball.
Here's the thing scripture isn't "the word of the RC church" and the teachings of the papacy and magisterium don't add to it either.
-
The scripture wouldn't be in written form without the RCC. Period. You know this.
Again, I understand the history of the early organized RC church, it's contributions in forming the canon of scripture, the council of Nicea, the early crusades, etc....
I also understand Westboro baptist church, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Joel Osteen, Tullian Tchividjian, etc....
These things are not in question.
-
Again, I understand the history of the early organized RC church, it's contributions in forming the canon of scripture, the council of Nicea, the early crusades, etc....
I also understand Westboro baptist church, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Joel Osteen, Tullian Tchividjian, etc....
These things are not in question.
What do you understand about these verses without any mental gymnastics? and how do you think the early Christians understood it?
"For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed"
"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
-
What do you understand about these verses without any mental gymnastics?
So essentially keep my answers brief and direct. That's probably best and I'll do my best. Still, far easier to ask brief questions than it is to give brief replies.
and how do you think the early Christians understood it?
I believe there was turmoil and disagreement and given we eventually landed in the reformation period we know this was the case.
Still, we can look at the council of nicea as an example of early turmoil in early organized church. Most people say that Nicea was where "the church invented the bible" or "the church invented the trinity". Not correct.
For approximately 3 centuries prior to 325 AD Christians were severely persecuted for the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity they taught. They didn't use the term "Trinity" as it was later coined, but they absolutely discussed the coequal, coeternal persons of God in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
In the decade or so leading up to the Council of Nicea a presbyter named Arius spoke out against his church bishop and made the claim that Jesus, although on earth to fulfill a divine purpose, was in fact created by God and was therefore neither eternal nor was he deity.
After several years of this opposing position being taught by Arius, it eventually reached Emporer Constantine's ears and he feared that this teaching would eventually split the Christian church that was enjoying a breif period of peace from all out persecution. That said, he convened 300 bishops to appear at a council in Nicea on June 19, 325 AD to discuss Arius' competing idea of Jesus' being created by God. The council convened and discussed the point and despite Arius' "silver tongue" he was unable to convince the vast majority of his position given the existing teachings of the father, son and spirit dating all the way back to Christ himself.
That said, the trinity was not created in Nicea, but was merely upheld and reaffirmed there. I'll concede the concept may have been coined under the umbrella term of "Trinity" at this point, but the council certainly did not create the theology there...that's a twisted myth. In the years that followed, Arius' small group of believers eventually succumbed to infighting within their ranks and his unorthodox teachings fell to the wayside for the most part; although, today some small groups of "Christians" still deny the Trinity.
Here is an example of early Christian infighting that was resolved via council.
"For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed"
"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
Keeping everything brief and general, I do not abide by the RC doctrine of transubstantiation. I think the RCC’s exigesis of this scripture is a gross misinterpretation. Keeping it very simple, the Lord works in signs and covenant symbols throughout scripture. This passage in John 6 is no different and the interpretation is not meant to be literal….it’s a spiritual concept.
For example, Christ also referred to himself as the vine and his followers as fruit bearing branches. Does he literally become a vine and we literally sprout oranges and apples from ourselves? Of course not. In the OT in Exodus the Lord says that he delivered the Israelites out of their slavery on the wings of eagles. Do we believe that God sent countless eagles to place the enslaved Israelites on their wings and fly them out of Egypt? Again, of course not.
As Christ further states within John 6:
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”
Further, I believe the RCC concept ignores the greater context of the immediate passage and associated scripture outside of it. As it states in Isaiah we are to understand these theological concepts in scripture "precept upon precept".....the ideas build upon one another and are rarely isolated extractions with no context.
Remember, "a text without a context is always a pretext".
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
In order to again be brief I'll simply note the following:
Within the greek translation of this verse there isn't a definitive understanding of the use of the word "rock"......"petros" in reference to Peter (a movable rocky structure) as opposed to the more common "petra" used as a bedrock type foundation and in this case the foundation of the church. Peter cannot be both "petros" and "petra", but certainly he is the chief apostle. I actually believe that this is also just clever verbage used by Christ, but that's my humble opinion.
I would also say that scripture refers to Christ as the cornerstone (in OT scripture in Isaiah and NT scripture in Ephesians), Paul's letter to the church at Corinth states there is no other foundation other than Christ and that Christ is the rock and in Peter's NT writing he also affirms Christ as the rock.
Do I believe this scripture establishes the papacy and Peter as the first infallable Pope? No. I believe the only infallible words of Peter were those inspired by God that he penned in NT scripture. Beyond that the foundation of the church is Christ alone.
None of this is new argumentation and none of it is posted with anger and I welcome other viewpoints because I don't claim mine as absolute or infallible.
-
True early Christian writings do show they believed in the Trinity before the council of Nicea, as well as that they believed the Eucharist to be the real body and blood of Christ...
It wouldn't make sense if that wasn't what Jesus meant as he said 'Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord'...how can you profane against something that he meant only symbolically?...I think he made this pretty clear and I doubt he would of wanted the vast majority of Christians to be led astray until the protestant reformation over 1000 years later..
The other parts where you say Jesus referred to himself as the vine and his followers as fruit bearing branches it is made clear that this is only symbolic as in John10:6 is states "This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them"...
Saying that Jesus was referring to himself as 'the rock' when he said 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church' makes no grammatical sense as the adjective 'this' must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which is Peter..
Below is just one early Christians quote on the matter...
"Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?" -Tertullian 220 A.D
and as you know..Peter ended up being crucified upside down by Nero in Rome.
At the end of the day, whether you realise it or not, I do think you trust the authority of RCC, as they're the ones who decided which books to include in the Bible at the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD)
So to say Catholics don't know the scriptures as you mentioned earlier, is a bit of a stretch as well..
-
True early Christian writings do show they believed in the Trinity before the council of Nicea, as well as that they believed the Eucharist to be the real body and blood of Christ...
It wouldn't make sense if that wasn't what Jesus meant as he said 'Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord'...how can you profane against something that he meant only symbolically?...I think he made this pretty clear and I doubt he would of wanted the vast majority of Christians to be led astray until the protestant reformation over 1000 years later..
The other parts where you say Jesus referred to himself as the vine and his followers as fruit bearing branches it is made clear that this is only symbolic as in John10:6 is states "This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them"...
Saying that Jesus was referring to himself as 'the rock' when he said 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church' makes no grammatical sense as the adjective 'this' must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which is Peter..
Below is just one early Christians quote on the matter...
"Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?" -Tertullian 220 A.D
and as you know..Peter ended up being crucified upside down by Nero in Rome.
At the end of the day, whether you realise it or not, I do think you trust the authority of RCC, as they're the ones who decided which books to include in the Bible at the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD)
So to say Catholics don't know the scriptures as you mentioned earlier, is a bit of a stretch as well..
Agreed, early Christians did affirm the Trinity prior to Nicea and the Nicean council affirmed that teaching. The reason the point was discussed was the introduction of the teachings of Arius that contradicted the accepted theology. The council thereby convened and disaffirmed Arianism in the process.
You can certainly refer to old, extra-biblical sources from church fathers such as Tertullian for an opinion or you can go beyond that and head straight to the source greek, the lexicons and the commentary of linguists for further translation clarity and insight. Probably good to do both IMHO. It's your choice how far you choose to dig. The translation of "petros" and "petra" is crucial and if you choose to only go with an english translation of greek (or hebrew in other instances) you may miss quite a bit. Further if you ignore other scripture in greater context and simply adhere to an opinion that aligns with your own you might not be correct.....like I said Isaiah indicated a "precept upon precept" approach to understanding scripture.
I do trust the early church.....never in question....I've repeated that sentiment at least half a dozen times in this thread alone.
What I don't trust are the additions of the teaching magisterium and various "infallible papal decrees" in the catechism that doesn't align with scripture or is a force fit, eisegetical interpretation of scripture so as not to compromise the authority of the Vatican.
I said there's a long standing joke in both the RCC and Protestant churches in that Catholics rarely carry, read or sometimes own bibles because they rely on the local parish priest to interpret scripture for them. So if asked to turn to a portion of scripture they hold dearly to most wouldn't have a clue how to do so.
Here's the thing, most Catholics don't read and interpret scripture on their own because the doctrines outlined in the council of Trent forbid it:
"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established."
-
Here's the thing, most Catholics don't read and interpret scripture on their own because the doctrines outlined in the council of Trent forbid it:
"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established."
And for good reason, because if we decide to rely on our own interpretation, we will see as today, over twenty thousand different christian denominations..who's right?
Therefore I believe its wise to look to the church fathers, and trust that the church which Jesus founded upon Peter, will not be lead into error.
-
And for good reason, because if we decide to rely on our own interpretation, we will see as today, over twenty thousand different christian denominations..who's right?
Therefore I believe its wise to look to the church fathers, and trust that the church which Jesus founded upon Peter, will not be lead into error.
You mean the same church who turned its head when priests were molesting young boys? Or the same church who killed millions in the crusades? Or the same church that participated in the inquisition? Or the same church that help nazis flee justice in WW2?
Or the same church who has billions in art and gems and gold while people in the world are with out food, shelter and water?
Don't think they are representative of God.
-
You mean the same church who turned its head when priests were molesting young boys? Or the same church who killed millions in the crusades? Or the same church that participated in the inquisition? Or the same church that help nazis flee justice in WW2?
Or the same church who has billions in art and gems and gold while people in the world are with out food, shelter and water?
Don't think they are representative of God.
Where there are humans there will always be corruption, but I'm going to ask you to imagine, if Jesus had founded a church on earth, how do you think it would be treated?
-
And for good reason, because if we decide to rely on our own interpretation, we will see as today, over twenty thousand different christian denominations..who's right?
Therefore I believe its wise to look to the church fathers, and trust that the church which Jesus founded upon Peter, will not be lead into error.
In reality the number of denominations is drastically reduced and fractional in comparison. The vast majority of differences in Christian denominations often come down to styles of worship and adiaphora. Now, there are a bunch (probably thousands) of different Christians churches (this is true), but each church isn't a different denomination (that is false). Hence I belong to a non-denominational church that loves the Lord and teaches from scripture. Regardless of background all are welcome to attend, worship and learn.
What some would say is your type of response is a classic red herring response used to distract, but nevermind that.
I'd rather you address the first objections I've raised regarding the greek translations, other contextual scripture and the idea of understanding things precept upon precept.
Keep in mind, I've only put forth these few items as a start.....there are many others (and I claim zero "expert status"....I'm a humble, informal student of scripture).
-
Where there are humans there will always be corruption, but I'm going to ask you to imagine, if Jesus had founded a church on earth, how do you think it would be treated?
Sure there will always be corruption with man. This is the representative church of God, created in 325 at the council of the nicea, were they tried to increase followers by melding pagan traditions and ritual. It became the most powerful church on earth drunk with power and perversion. It hasn't been until the last 50 years that the Church has with drawn from some of its BS. I am not holding the church to a standard of perfection. But the i list i made go way beyond the line of responsibility.
-
In reality the number of denominations is drastically reduced and fractional in comparison. The vast majority of differences in Christian denominations often come down to styles of worship and adiaphora. Now, there are a bunch (probably thousands) of different Christians churches (this is true), but each church isn't a different denomination (that is false). Hence I belong to a non-denominational church that loves the Lord and teaches from scripture. Regardless of background all are welcome to attend, worship and learn.
What some would say is your type of response is a classic red herring response used to distract, but nevermind that.
I'd rather you address the first objections I've raised regarding the greek translations, other contextual scripture and the idea of understanding things precept upon precept.
Keep in mind, I've only put forth these few items as a start.....there are many others (and I claim zero "expert status"....I'm a humble, informal student of scripture).
So you believe the catholic church in its early days was right, then went wrong, so you now belong to a 'non denominational church', and adhere to clearly defined protestant interpretations of scripture..
My response is not a 'red herring' as no, they're not simply just 'churches' but denominations ..Here's an incomplete list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations - "Divisions between one group and another are defined by doctrine and church authority" .. so who holds the truth?
Your statement of understanding scripture in context is valid, and that Jesus founded his church on Peter could not be clearer..
One does not need to understand aramaic, hebrew, greek or latin to understand the bible..this is silly..Your arguments of 'big rock' 'little rock' is a very recent argument from evangelicals, certainly no older than 100 years, and its grasping at straws TBH.. Your mention of the greek "petra and petros are the greek translations of the language Jesus was speaking ..Aramaic..And Peters name in Aramaic is 'Kephas' which means 'big rock'..So as mentioned before, the English translation is correct, and this sentence makes only sense grammatically one way and its been understood the same way from the very begging.. And if not, show evidence proving otherwise, I've already shown you one quote from Tertullian..there's plenty more..
Sure there will always be corruption with man. This is the representative church of God, created in 325 at the council of the nicea, were they tried to increase followers by melding pagan traditions and ritual. It became the most powerful church on earth drunk with power and perversion. It hasn't been until the last 50 years that the Church has with drawn from some of its BS. I am not holding the church to a standard of perfection. But the i list i made go way beyond the line of responsibility.
Ozmo, I urge you not to believe every accusation that gets made, and to look up both sides of every story..we've already seen how this thread started off..with accusations that catholics worship Mary and that they're not christian..
-
I grew up going too a Roman Catholic Grade school for 9 years and went too church twice a week. I READ SCRIPTURE EVERYDAY ;) ;) The last time I went too the church I went too growing up was back in July for my Nieces baptism but before that I hadn't Gone too church in YEARS. Theres a part of me that wants too either go back too the Church I went too growing OR finding a New Church BUT..................... .........At the same time, One does not have too go too church too be able too Read/learn Bible Scripture.
As far as Mary and Saints, its not Worshipping them, its simply PRAYING too them too Pray too God For Us ;)
-
So you believe the catholic church in its early days was right, then went wrong, so you now belong to a 'non denominational church', and adhere to clearly defined protestant interpretations of scripture..
My response is not a 'red herring' as no, they're not simply just 'churches' but denominations ..Here's an incomplete list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations - "Divisions between one group and another are defined by doctrine and church authority" .. so who holds the truth?
Your statement of understanding scripture in context is valid, and that Jesus founded his church on Peter could not be clearer..
One does not need to understand aramaic, hebrew, greek or latin to understand the bible..this is silly..Your arguments of 'big rock' 'little rock' is a very recent argument from evangelicals, certainly no older than 100 years, and its grasping at straws TBH.. Your mention of the greek "petra and petros are the greek translations of the language Jesus was speaking ..Aramaic..And Peters name in Aramaic is 'Kephas' which means 'big rock'..So as mentioned before, the English translation is correct, and this sentence makes only sense grammatically one way and its been understood the same way from the very begging.. And if not, show evidence proving otherwise, I've already shown you one quote from Tertullian..there's plenty more..
Ozmo, I urge you not to believe every accusation that gets made, and to look up both sides of every story..we've already seen how this thread started off..with accusations that catholics worship Mary and that they're not christian..
i am not "anti-catholic" ... I believe that Roman Catholics are Christians ... But the "protestant" (Evangelical) interpretation, in regards Peter and the Rock, is not a new one. It goes back to the early church, including St. Augustine and many others.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/the-church-fathers-interpretation-of-the-rock-of-matthew-1618-an-historical-refutation-of-the-claims-of-roman-catholicism-by-william-webster/
-
So you believe the catholic church in its early days was right, then went wrong, so you now belong to a 'non denominational church', and adhere to clearly defined protestant interpretations of scripture..
My response is not a 'red herring' as no, they're not simply just 'churches' but denominations ..Here's an incomplete list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations - "Divisions between one group and another are defined by doctrine and church authority" .. so who holds the truth?
Your statement of understanding scripture in context is valid, and that Jesus founded his church on Peter could not be clearer..
One does not need to understand aramaic, hebrew, greek or latin to understand the bible..this is silly..Your arguments of 'big rock' 'little rock' is a very recent argument from evangelicals, certainly no older than 100 years, and its grasping at straws TBH.. Your mention of the greek "petra and petros are the greek translations of the language Jesus was speaking ..Aramaic..And Peters name in Aramaic is 'Kephas' which means 'big rock'..So as mentioned before, the English translation is correct, and this sentence makes only sense grammatically one way and its been understood the same way from the very begging.. And if not, show evidence proving otherwise, I've already shown you one quote from Tertullian..there's plenty more..
Ozmo, I urge you not to believe every accusation that gets made, and to look up both sides of every story..we've already seen how this thread started off..with accusations that catholics worship Mary and that they're not christian..
As I noted the differences in the vast majority of denominations come down to adiaphora and preferences in worship. The essentials of the gospel are rarely compromised. We're discussing the RCC and their foundations of the papacy. Introducing differences in Protestant denominations neither validates or invalidates the other.
Understanding scripture is not as simple as reading the english translations. I certainly believe a person can read a KJV bible or an NASB and grasp the gospel message and become saved.....praise God for that!
Still, points of contention are points of contention because of things like lingustics and textual criticism and to pass it off as "no nevermind" is ignorant. Also the understanding of the greek is far older than 100 years. Apologetic arguments develop over time and whether some are centuries old or decades old doesn't validate or invalidate them. Much like our church fathers they're a wonderful source of scriptural validation when the manuscript evidence is questioned. Still, their individual opinions are not authority.....recall we had a huge Reformation period in the church.
The word of God is a living word and I fully believe we glean and discover more nuances about that word with study and time. I sometimes wish I was a seminary student so that I had formal guidance in greek and hebrew.....what I studied independently has been tremendously helpful though. When I was ignorant of certain things it shook me at first and I didn't accept what I'd learned. I study, read, meditate and pray about things. Sometimes I come to peace with certain things and other times I don't have total peace and continue to seek answers.
Now you did ask a wonderful question: Who holds the truth? The living word of God holds the truth. The Lord Jesus Christ holds the truth. The entire foundation and structure of the RCC is grounded upon a single verse of scripture that is called into question with more than I've presented in my few replies. And despite you claiming I'm grasping at straws....well, that's fine for you to hold that opinion. Personally, I examine the whole of scripture and when verses seem to conflict I look at greater context, examine ideas precept upon precept and seek to understanding how things align. If you believe that Peter is the first Pope and the papacy of the RCC was grounded in this single passage so be it. I'm not convinced of that at all. Like I noted previously, what we're discussing is merely a single facet of the argument. You haven't addressed the other verses of scripture I noted so I won't introduce other argumentation yet. And again what we're discussing is just a part of this one objection in reference to the RCC.....there are many others.
-
Ozmo, I urge you not to believe every accusation that gets made, and to look up both sides of every story..we've already seen how this thread started off..with accusations that catholics worship Mary and that they're not christian..
Are you saying the things I listed are not true?
You will notice i didn't list worshiping Mary. I was raised Catholic, I have seen women go in the church after the service place a statue of Mary on the alter get on their knees and start "asking" her to pray for them.
To me that's like saying, "I am not stabbing you with this knife, i am just placing it in your body."
Further more there are things the Catholic church promotes that go against the Bible, here are a couple of the top of my head:
Mathew 6:7
Mathew 23:9
Then there is crap they add like don't eat meat on good Friday.
If you believe the Bible KJV is the word the of God then i cannot see how you can be a Catholic.
PS Don't ignore the first sentence of my post please. Thanks
-
I was raised Catholic
Sorry Ozmo, but if this were the case I believe you would know better on all these points, even if you had left the faith.
However, if not and you truly do wish to know more and haven't made up your mind, I'm sure you'll research these things from both sides.
-
Sorry Ozmo, but if this were the case I believe you would know better on all these points, even if you had left the faith.
However, if not and you truly do wish to know more and haven't made up your mind, I'm sure you'll research these things from both sides.
Are you saying the things I listed are not true?
And why are you also choosing to ignore the other stuff i talked about?
Also, are you saying i am lying about being raised Catholic?
So far Sizwe, it seems like you running away from my assertions.
First, you dismiss my list by saying I should research the other side. You don't address any of it, nor do you provide any tangible counter points or arguments.
Second, You ignore 2 Bible versus I provided that fly squarely in contradiction of Catholic Ritual.
Third, you suggest i am lying about being raised Catholic
If this how you feel you have to defend you faith?
BTW here is a link to a post i made in 2006 on this forum: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=102738.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=102738.0)
Here is the post.
Purge...
I was raised catholic. After spending some time going ot a non-denominational church and doing research on the origins of the Bible and Christianity I realized the Catholic church doesn't follow the bible very well. Here are some some general points of why i don't think too much of the catholic church:
- It was born of political agreement at the council of nicea (s?)
- The pope is supposed to speak for god
- It adopted many pagan rituals
- It is a overly wealthy church with loads of riches, gold, diamonds, land, buildings.... soooo much excess
- It doesn't follow the bible with "hail Mary repetative verses
- It makes you call priests "father" when in the bible it says not to.
- It created it's own parts of the afterlife: Pergatory
- It created new sins: Eating meat on good Friday
- It allows idol worship
- It allows praying to a spirit other than god
All these things made me rethink being a catholic.
-
A nice quote i was just reminded of..
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church....As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do." ARCHBISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN -- preface to RADIO REPLIES
(http://www.ncregister.com/images/uploads/Fulton_Sheen_Time.jpg)
-
(http://www.mortylefkoe.com/wp-content/uploads/bigstock-Denial-1238913.jpg)
I don't hate the Catholic Church, I am, however, not in denial of it.
Nor am i a coward when it comes to defending or attacking it.
:D
-
personally, i dont feel it necessary to attack the Roman Catholic church. while I dont agree with them about everything - and there are certain things which I am certain they are wrong about - they still believe and teach the essentials of the faith.
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
I dont think it is profitable for us to argue amongst each other non-essentials. what matters most is that each person has a personal relationship with Christ.
-
personally, i dont feel it necessary to attack the Roman Catholic church. while I dont agree with them about everything - and there are certain things which I am certain they are wrong about - they still believe and teach the essentials of the faith.
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
I dont think it is profitable for us to argue amongst each other non-essentials. what matters most is that each person has a personal relationship with Christ.
I agree, Catholics are Christians.
Ist unfortunate that man has developed a way to split that 100+ ways
-
I agree, Catholics are Christians.
Ist unfortunate that man has developed a way to split that 100+ ways
THIS... my best friend was a Catholic and i saw the segregation in Scotland and later N Ireland. Now we need to be as one together.