A question about Catholocism.

[Albion]

They will know we are Christians by our obstinate pigheadedness.

-CryptoLutheran

Ah. I love that hymn. "They will know we are Christ-ians by our ob-stin-ate pig-head-ed-ness...."

 

[Yarddog]

Good people have been lied to and deceived at every turn. Bondage of man to man is what it is.
What bothers me the most is that Mary is always depicted as living and our Lord is depicted as an infant or dead. Their Cross has Him there. It is as empty as His tomb for:
***Matt 28:6....he is risen, as he said.....
Without the resurrection the cross would be meaningless.
***Rev 1:17-18
17....Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell (the grave) and of death.

We know that Christ is alive and sitting at the right hand of his Father. He is our Lord and Savior. The crucifix reminds us of what Jesus did for us but if you think that he is only depicted as an infant or crucified, then you haven't been very observant.

 

[Standing Up]

Where can I go for proof that Catholocism comes directly from Peter? I see it claimed alot but havent seen any proof.

It is impossible to show, if we go by scripture and tradition.

Peter called the elders (plural) and instructed them to feed the sheep. That was the same command given to Peter by Christ.

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
1 Peter 5:1-2

IIRC, Clement of Rome, who should know, writing c95ad (some place him even before 70ad), said only that Peter came to Rome and was martyred. Nothing about anything else.

BUT, if one looks to c200 or so, as a weapon against heretics, some argued for physical lineages of bishops back to apostles. The argument was the older the teaching, the more truth. (Since then, this argument is no longer used, because it doesn't support later developed doctrines like the 4 marian ones, etc).

Hope that helps.

 

[James4_14]

Abraham is really the father of all who are of faith.

Abraham was not the father of Noah, Enoch, Abel, et al. Many more had faith before Abraham. This shows that Abraham was to be the father of a particular group of redeemed, that being Israel.

 

[thegospel4all]

I understand and didn't think it was so harsh. I've had too many friends and family who believe they are saved by the traditions and sacrements of Catholicism...thus their souls are in jeopardy because of man-made doctrines and their traditions...that is serious business....peoples souls being at risk and led astray by those who exercise man-made authority over them is ...VERY serious business.

If I've misquoted God's Word please point it out and we can discuss it. I guess I have to work on my soft-shoe, tip-toe approach, which is admittedly hard for me, when peoples souls are at risk.

Thanks for your response.

 

[Yarddog]

Abraham was not the father of Noah, Enoch, Abel, et al. Many more had faith before Abraham. This shows that Abraham was to be the father of a particular group of redeemed, that being Israel.

I wrote: "Abraham is really the father of all who are of faith."
Scripture says:
Romans 4:16
For this reason, it depends on faith, so that it may be a gift, and the promise may be guaranteed to all his descendants, not to those who only adhere to the law but to those who follow the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all of us

 

[Standing Up]

Abraham was not the father of Noah, Enoch, Abel, et al. Many more had faith before Abraham. This shows that Abraham was to be the father of a particular group of redeemed, that being Israel.

Wrong.

I wrote: "Abraham is really the father of all who are of faith."
Scripture says:
Romans 4:16
For this reason, it depends on faith, so that it may be a gift, and the promise may be guaranteed to all his descendants, not to those who only adhere to the law but to those who follow the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all of us

Absolutely YD.

 

[James4_14]

I wrote: "Abraham is really the father of all who are of faith."
Scripture says:
Romans 4:16
For this reason, it depends on faith, so that it may be a gift, and the promise may be guaranteed to all his descendants, not to those who only adhere to the law but to those who follow the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all of us

Look what this says:
***Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

That is not a matter of chronology but as a matter of importance and preeminence to those folks. They were FIRST and so it was all through the Acts period such is the Romans passage you rendered. Likewise Galatians is but a cover letter for Hebrews. We are not Hebrews
The promises made to Abraham was to his literal blood descendants through Isaac and Jacob. They are the root and fatness of the Olive tree. The Good Olive Tree is Israel. That is plain. This promise was made concerning a Kingdom here on Earth with Christ as King. That is Israel. The seed of Abraham also includes Christ as well as Israel.

***Gen 13:14-17
14 And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.

The seed through Isaac are the persecuted. The seed through Ishmael are the persecutors. Which seed are you?

After the Acts period there was given to Paul (about 63 AD) a new revelation that was not a subject to prophecy in the Scriptures. This was a result of Israel being set aside in Acts 28. This is only temporary. Our calling is destined to the Heaven far above all (Colossians 3:4).

***Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
***Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed (AD 63) unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

I am in a hurry here but I encourage all who desire the Truth to read the epistles listed in my siggy. These were written AFTER Acts 28. You will see the absence of Jewish character and earthly Character (Col 3:1,2). Ephesians and Colossians are parallel epistles and reveal our calling in full.

Remember. Faith, justification, sanctification, etc apply to all believers but there are doctrines that do change at times.

Here is a good example here:
***Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Tell a Jew or SDA that!

Tradition has a strong hold. You better believe that.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by James4_14 Abraham was not the father of Noah, Enoch, Abel, et al. Many more had faith before Abraham. This shows that Abraham was to be the father of a particular group of redeemed, that being Israel.

I wrote: "Abraham is really the father of all who are of faith."
Scripture says:
Romans 4:16
For this reason, it depends on faith, so that it may be a gift, and the promise may be guaranteed to all his descendants, not to those who only adhere to the law but to those who follow the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all of us

These dudes also claimed Abraham as their father, but Jesus straightened them out on that


Matthew 3:9 "and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as [our] father.'
For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

Both Abraham and Moses are mentioned in this covenantle parable in Luke 17, and these would have to be OC Hebrew Israelites being referred to, as Moses was their Prophet sent by YAHWEH to bring them out of the bondage of Egypt. Thoughts?

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
Abraham vs Moses

LUKE 16:29 "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' "

LUKE 16:30 "And he said, "No father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
31 But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.'

 

[thegospel4all]

[/color][/size]I cannot speak for your friends but the Catholic Church teaches that we are justified through Faith. If you would agree that worship of God is necessary for Christians, then you might understand why the Church teaches the necessity of the sacraments. Scripture plainly states that we must be baptized to be saved.
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

Now we cannot say that all of the sacraments are need because marriage does not save us, nor holy orders, or anointing of the sick but baptism and Holy Spirit are needed. For those who sin, penance and through the Eucharist we receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Traditions are mostly misunderstood and there are many traditions. Holy scripture is Tradition and the Apostolic tradition handed down through the Bishops is tradition but we don't believe that tradition necessarily saves us.

[/color][/size]Which man made doctrines puts us in jeopardy? Which of your man made traditions put you in jeopardy?


Our souls are in no more jeopardy than yours. We worship Jesus Christ and I wouldn't consider the Gospel man made.

I'll try to ask and anwer, thanks for your responses.

Let me preface with this Yarddog; I believe there are clearly saved souls within Catholicism because The Lord can and will use all means and measures to save souls from hell. I was in a heretical church, which I didn't see as such until my soul was saved and I had this burning desire to study God's Word. I then saw error in that denominational doctrine, teaching and practices. I sat with my youth pastor, the son of the pastor of the church and tried to discuss questions I had, which turned into a debate, unanswered questions and out and out twisting of God's Word. I had to leave that church, now seeing what was clearly errant doctrine.

About your questions, Holy Scripture is not tradition, it is or it isn't the very word of God Almighty. Of course I know that it is God's Word.

Q?: Why are babies, that cannot possibly understand The Gospel message, baptized? Is there a second baptism after an age of understanding and accountability, understanding and acceptance is reached of what salvation is? How does that work in the Catholic church?

I've had conversations with people in Catholicism, that believe that their souls are secure because of being sprinkled as a baby and then completing the sacraments.

The problem rests in the thought and practice that their salvation is somehow tied directly into the Catholic Church and Catholicism's sacrements...when it is only founded on a personal relationship to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, who died for our sins, rose again on the third day and is seated at the right hand of The Father....and ever lives to intercede for us. He is our portion, our rock, our salvation.

Reference Mark 16:6...

He that beleiveth and is baptized shall be save but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned...

The point of that verse is that, those that believe will want to be baptized but those that DISBELIEVE are condemned...not those that aren't baptized.

I know I couldn't wait to be baptized when The Lord opened my eyes, showed me the truth of His Word and revealed Himself to me, as my one and only Savior!

Let me punctuate that with this question;

The thief on the cross, did he go to be with The Lord in paradise, that very day as Jesus said he would...or did The Lord lie to him?

The thief wasn't baptized.

There are many other issues in my first post that I'd like to discuss as well and many others I haven't brought up.

Let me end with this, my recently passed mother-in-law, whom I loved very much and was one of my best friends, was raised in Catholicism, yet had very little understanding of God's Word.

Over the years we discussed the traditions, repetitive prayers, the practice of the Nicolaitans, prayers to Mary, the Pope being "The Holy Father" etc.

She left Catholicism as she began to truly study The Bible, excluding the "Catholic Bible" and the "Catholic Study Bible" which was interlaced with traditions and explanations from a strictly Catholic point of view.

I want to be like The Lord, full of grace and truth but the truth cannot be excluded or suffer as a result of an emphasis on grace.

Finally, I still see there is significant deviation from God's Word within Catholicism, not the least of which are prayers to Mary, (Mary worship), prayers to saints, the hierarchy of leadership, "The Holy Father" and traditions overriding the unfiltered, truth of God's Word.

Romans 10:

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved

I look forward to talking again.

 

[Tzaousios]

...and traditions overriding the unfiltered, truth of God's Word.

Doesn't everyone bring some kind of filter to their reading of the text of God's Word? It seems to me that when anyone claims "I am only repeating what the Bible plainly says," they are either fooling themselves or being disingenuous.

 

[Albion]

I cannot speak for your friends but the Catholic Church teaches that we are justified through Faith.

By which you mean that we are justified BY Faith and Works both.

Why is it necessary, do you think, to shade the wording like this rather than simply come out boldly and say what the church teaches?

I don't mean this as personally as it sounds, but it comes up all the time, when there is a Catholic vs Protestant disagreement. Purgatory doesn't actually purge anything; oh no, it "purifies." Catholics believe the Bible, they just don't trust what it says to be the whole truth. Catholics don't worship the saints, it's said; then they explain that it is "worship" but not THAT kind of "worship." And so on.

 

[Standing Up]

Look what this says:
***Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

That is not a matter of chronology but as a matter of importance and preeminence to those folks. They were FIRST and so it was all through the Acts period such is the Romans passage you rendered. Likewise Galatians is but a cover letter for Hebrews. We are not Hebrews

It was chronology. The widening circle from Jerusalem to all nations.

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

The promises made to Abraham was to his literal blood descendants through Isaac and Jacob. They are the root and fatness of the Olive tree. The Good Olive Tree is Israel. That is plain. This promise was made concerning a Kingdom here on Earth with Christ as King. That is Israel. The seed of Abraham also includes Christ as well as Israel.-snip-

There was a covenant at Sinai and one at Zion. They are completely different.

Mt 7 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Mt. 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

That's what happened.

 

[Yarddog]

Absolutely YD.

We agree on something again. I think that I'm gonna cry.

God Bless

 

[Yarddog]

Look what this says:
***Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

That is not a matter of chronology but as a matter of importance and preeminence to those folks.

I quoted you Romans 4:16, not anything from ch. 1. The verse that I gave you clearly describes my original quote which you tried to show was incorrect. Stick with the program.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that Paul is writing a letter to the Christians at Rome "and" like Paul normally does when he first visits a territory, he goes to the Jews first and then the Gentiles. He does the same in Romans. He mainly addresses Jews.

They were FIRST and so it was all through the Acts period such is the Romans passage you rendered.

The passage that I rendered said that Abraham, "is the father of all of us".

 

[Yarddog]

Matthew 3:9 "and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as [our] father.'
For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

Well, you ain't heavy ole stone, your my brother.

 

[thegospel4all]

Doesn't everyone bring some kind of filter to their reading of the text of God's Word? It seems to me that when anyone claims "I am only repeating what the Bible plainly says," they are either fooling themselves or being disingenuous.

Tzaousios,

I disagree, we do not all bring a filter to our reading of God's Word. Not if we are really students, who then become serious students of His Word, that is part of the problem with Catholicism.

In the area I live, we have a "Catholic Channel" on tv. I've watched several times, intently, as Priest and Friars ramble on about texts they clearly don't truly know, understand or live...then spend substantial time quoting a Bishop, "Holy Father" / Pope or other extra-biblical "saint(s)" ...instead of teaching a line by line verse by verse break-down of His Word. I'm not saying that unfiltered teaching of God's Word is completely absent in Catholicism but it's clearly not wide-spread.

That said, I believe we live in days that Paul spoke of to Timothy:

2Timothy 4:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

I know these conversations can be hard, but only for those who are willing to re-evaluate where they stand, or thought they stood...based on an unfiltered, untwisted, unslanted, unaltered, reading and study of God's Word.

It's hard to address these things. But those who would rather stay right where they are, regardless of what Scripture has to say, set in an easy position, but it's like the frog in the pot.

 

[Tzaousios]

I disagree, we do not all bring a filter to our reading of God's Word. Not if we are really students, who then become serious students of His Word, that is part of the problem with Catholicism.

This still leaves many problems unexplained. How does being a student magically remove all of the trappings of language, culture, and historical context, not to mention the temporality of created existence, from one's approach to Scripture?

Thus, it becomes suspiciously a matter of judging all Protestant, anti-Catholic type interpretations as GOOD, and all Catholic-type (or what is perceived to be Catholic) as BAD.

In the area I live, we have a "Catholic Channel" on tv. I've watched several times, intently, as Priest and Friars ramble on about texts they clearly don't truly know, understand or live...then spend substantial time quoting a Bishop, "Holy Father" / Pope or other extra-biblical "saint(s)" ...instead of teaching a line by line verse by verse break-down of His Word.

Oh please, it is not as if one could not just as easily turn the channel to TBN or something similar and hear comparable eisegesis or abuses of Scripture, history, eschatology, and everything else. What you have said here sounds like you are faulting them 1) Because they are Roman Catholic; 2) Because they cite historical interpreters and do not rely on their own particular interpretations as being directly from God.

I'm not saying that unfiltered teaching of God's Word is completely absent in Catholicism but it's clearly not wide-spread.

So Catholics filter their teaching of God's word, but Protestant pastors do not and have a direct pipeline through which they receive God's own interpertation of Scripture? Or, do Protestant pastors not make any interpretations at all and "merely repeat what the Bible says"?

I know these conversations can be hard, but only for those who are willing to re-evaluate where they stand, or thought they stood...based on an unfiltered, untwisted, unslanted, unaltered, reading and study of God's Word.

This is very smug of you to say. Trust me, I have evaluated and re-evaluated where I stand. It is exactly how I arrived at the conclusion that those who claim "merely to be repeating what the Bible plainly says" and do not admit to interpretation are either fooling themselves or are being purposefully dinsingenuous. It is a façade that is thrown up to give the appearance of being ironclad while taking the opportunity to demonize the other side with which one disagrees.

 

[Yarddog]

Let me preface with this Yarddog; I believe there are clearly saved souls within Catholicism because The Lord can and will use all means and measures to save souls from hell.

God can do anything, but have no worry, Catholicism is just fine in the eyes of the Lord.

I was in a heretical church,

I certainly don't like to call anyone heretical but I was raised in the Baptist Church until I left as a teenager.

God baptized me in his Holy Spirit a few years later, in my bedroom late one night. God eventually brought me to the Catholic Church and began to reveal the wonders of the sacraments. I have received at least two miraculous healings and numerous events of the Holy Spirit during Mass.

About your questions, Holy Scripture is not tradition,

That is because you don't understand what Holy Tradition means in the Church. You seem to be applying your own understanding to what the ancient Church has established.

Of course I know that it is God's Word.

It is God's "written" word. Jesus is the "Word" of God.

Q?: Why are babies, that cannot possibly understand The Gospel message, baptized?

Because that is what the Apostles did.

Is there a second baptism after an age of understanding and accountability, understanding and acceptance is reached of what salvation is? How does that work in the Catholic church?

There is the sacrament of Confirmation but Catholics do not "re-baptize" anyone who has a valid baptism. Confirmation is the laying on of hands for the sealing of the Holy Spirit.Confirmation | Catholic Answers

I've had conversations with people in Catholicism, that believe that their souls are secure because of being sprinkled as a baby and then completing the sacraments.

It is impossible to know what they actually told you or even how much they actually understood about what they said. Regardless of what they do, if they have no faith, we cannot say that they are justified.

The problem rests in the thought and practice that their salvation is somehow tied directly into the Catholic Church and Catholicism's sacrements...

Jesus is tied to the Catholic Church so we can say that they are correct. I'm not saying that he is not also tied to you. Christ is in everything that we do, "but" just as in all Christian Churches, not every Catholic is a good Christian.

when it is only founded on a personal relationship to Jesus Christ as the Son of God,

We have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and experience Jesus in incredible ways through the sacraments.

who died for our sins, rose again on the third day and is seated at the right hand of The Father....and ever lives to intercede for us. He is our portion, our rock, our salvation.

Reference Mark 16:6...

He that beleiveth and is baptized shall be save but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned...

The point of that verse is that, those that believe will want to be baptized but those that DISBELIEVE are condemned...not those that aren't baptized.

And? If you believe you will get baptized, will you not? Mark says that it is necessary for salvation.

I know I couldn't wait to be baptized when The Lord opened my eyes, showed me the truth of His Word and revealed Himself to me, as my one and only Savior!

Let me punctuate that with this question;

The thief on the cross, did he go to be with The Lord in paradise, that very day as Jesus said he would...or did The Lord lie to him?

The thief wasn't baptized.

Catholics call that the baptism of desire which covers those who desire baptism but cannot have the formal rite.

Let me end with this, my recently passed mother-in-law, whom I loved very much and was one of my best friends, was raised in Catholicism, yet had very little understanding of God's Word.

That occurs in many Christian churches. If she regularly attended Mass, she should have heard the scriptural readings, 1 from the OT, 1 from the Epistles, and 1 from the Gospel, and how they apply to our everyday life and to each other. Usually these reading cover several verses from each section. If she had little understanding, it seems that she wasn't listening very well.

She left Catholicism as she began to truly study The Bible, excluding the "Catholic Bible" and the "Catholic Study Bible" which was interlaced with traditions and explanations from a strictly Catholic point of view.

It sounds like she should have joined a Bible study group at her Catholic Church before she left. She may have understood things better.

I want to be like The Lord, full of grace and truth but the truth cannot be excluded or suffer as a result of an emphasis on grace.

Truth cannot be given if someone doesn't want to hear it. You say that she didn't do the work before she left the Catholic Church. Any Bible study that she received after that would come with the man made traditions of the study group she got into after she left.

Finally, I still see there is significant deviation from God's Word within Catholicism, not the least of which are prayers to Mary, (Mary worship),

Words have several meanings so don't use "worship" in this case as is reserved for God. Do you pray for other people? We do. We also believe that those that God has taken to heaven also pray with us, so Mary and all Saints can pray with us. Asking Mary to pray with us, to God, is what this is.

prayers to saints,

See above.

the hierarchy of leadership,

Scriptures relates the hierarchy. Were there not elders and presbytery? Were there not apostles and teachers? But not all were called to be each.

"The Holy Father"

Are you not holy? What is wrong with calling the Pope holy? He is a Father in the since that he looks over God's children. Jesus called Peter to feed his sheep. There wasn't very many sheep then but he was talking about everyone in the Church including the other apostles. Holy Father is a title. Don't read too much into it. We don't worship the Pope or believe that he is divine.

and traditions overriding the unfiltered, truth of God's Word.

I have yet to find anyone who can prove that any of the traditions of the Catholic Church over riding any scripture.

Romans 10:

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved

I look forward to talking again.

Ettu.

God Bless,
YD

 

[Yarddog]

By which you mean that we are justified BY Faith and Works both.

No, we are justified through faith.

Why is it necessary, do you think, to shade the wording like this rather than simply come out boldly and say what the church teaches?

What shading? We are justified through faith. Now what exactly is faith? As scripture shows, faith is more than "saying" I believe. As James points out.

I don't mean this as personally as it sounds, but it comes up all the time, when there is a Catholic vs Protestant disagreement. Purgatory doesn't actually purge anything; oh no, it "purifies."

I don't know why one would say it?
Purge
1
a : to clear of guilt b : to free from moral or ceremonial defilement



Catholics believe the Bible, they just don't trust what it says to be the whole truth.[/quote]
Why would anyone believe that what scripture holds the only revelations of God?

Catholics don't worship the saints, it's said; then they explain that it is "worship" but not THAT kind of "worship."

Why should we be restricted to only one use of the word?

Worship-
chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2
: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence

3
: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual

4
: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem