Catholic?

Albion said:

Was it said somewhere that the IC was necessary FOR SALVATION?

Click to expand...

Given this crowd, it's good to get the facts out.

It looks actually like there have been three different takes on the meaning of necessary since this arose.

Major1 said:

"Making Sense" to me or you is not and has never been something that we should consider.

The Word of God gives NO direction whatsoever to Apostolic succession my dear friend. There is NO Bible direction for the practice. It was all done by the Catholic church.

Click to expand...

Hang on, let me get this straight ... it doesn't make sense to you that the apostles would appoint successors to lead and teach the Church after they die? You can't be serious!

If the apostles didn't appoint successors, they would be not only grossly irresponsible, but complete morons! Furthermore, Jesus appointed the apostles to lead and teach his Church after he left this world, so it only makes sense that the apostles would also appoint successors.

I can't find any verse that says, "When interpreting the words of Scripture, don't use basic common sense."

Major1 said:

Major did not attack anyone or anything. He only asked why the RCC believers accepted traditions of men over the Word of God by practicing non-Biblical things and still calling itself Bible Christianity.

As of this day, not one single person has answered that question. WHY is that do you think?

Instead of speaking to that question every Catholic believer has attacked the messenger.

Again, why do you think that is the case?

Example...….
The Roman Catholic Church argues that the Immaculate Conception is necessary because, without it, Jesus would have received His flesh from one who was herself a slave to the devil, whose works Jesus came to destroy. Mary, as the mother of the Redeemer, needed for her flesh to be free from the power of sin, and God gave her that privilege. From her time in the womb, Mary was sanctified because of her special role in bringing the Son of God incarnate into the world.

The problem with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it is not taught anywhere in the Bible. Even Catholics admit that Scripture does not teach the Immaculate Conception. The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now would you care to speak to this example or would you prefer to say something personal toward me for stating the facts?

Click to expand...

Because, as explained to you several times, traditions driven by doctrines and other factors led to the selection of the books that would make up the Christian Bible. Choices differed across nearly three centuries, followed by multiple councils, and even some groups separating from the Church and considering more revisions seven centuries after!

Anthony Edgar said:

Hang on, let me get this straight ... it doesn't make sense to you that the apostles would appoint successors to lead and teach the Church after they die? You can't be serious!

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is more a question of what such appointments were supposed to convey or mean, and whether or not these successors were somehow the equal of the Apostles themselves in authority just because they were ordained by Apostles or sent out as missionaries, etc.

Anthony Edgar said:

Hang on, let me get this straight ... it doesn't make sense to you that the apostles would appoint successors to lead and teach the Church after they die? You can't be serious!

If the apostles didn't appoint successors, they would be not only grossly irresponsible, but complete morons! Furthermore, Jesus appointed the apostles to lead and teach his Church after he left this world, so it only makes sense that the apostles would also appoint successors.

I can't find any verse that says, "When interpreting the words of Scripture, don't use basic common sense."

Click to expand...

Again...…….it has nothing to do whatsoever with "making sense". If you just read the book you would know the answers to your questions.

The facts is that there are NO Scriptures in which Apostles appointed successors to the office of Apostle. There are NO Scriptures that even "suggest" such a thing.
I do not know how else to say this to you that there are No biblical evidence exists to indicate that the apostles were replaced when they died. NONE!

Even if they wanted to they could not have done so as one had to be an eyewitness the life and death of Jesus Christ to be an apostle.

Jesus appointed the apostles to do the founding work of the Church, and foundations only need to be laid once. After the apostles’ deaths, other offices besides apostleship, not requiring an eyewitness relationship with Jesus, would carry on the work.

Acts 1:21-22...……..
‘So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.’

On repeated occasions, the apostles gave witness of their personal observations of Jesus, making such statements as, Acts 10:39-40...……
“We are witnesses of everything Jesus did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen”.


"When interpreting the words of Scripture, “if the scripture makes plain sense, you should seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense” "

ralfyman said:

Because, as explained to you several times, traditions driven by doctrines and other factors led to the selection of the books that would make up the Christian Bible. Choices differed across nearly three centuries, followed by multiple councils, and even some groups separating from the Church and considering more revisions seven centuries after!

Click to expand...

Explaining false doctrines does not validate them as Bible Doctrine my friend.

If a Church doctrine is NOT in the Scriptures then it is a false doctrine.....Period!

Today, The Roman Catholic church rejects both scripture and tradition (as recorded in the apostolic fathers) and claims that truth is determined only by the current practice of the living Pope. When scripture contradicts Catholic teaching and liturgy, they claim we misinterpret scripture. When the tradition of the Church Fathers contradicts Catholic teaching and liturgy, they claim we misinterpret history.

Very much like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics believe that the current church organization is inspired and guided by God into truth. Before reading the quote below, make sure you are sitting down with your seat belt on!

Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, 1865, p 227-228...………………...

"But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church? ... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. ... The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour."

concretecamper said:

Given this crowd, it's good to get the facts out.

Click to expand...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting in part the Second Vatican Council, explains the Immaculate Conception by saying:
#508 ...........
From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace”, Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.

But since all redemption comes to mankind through the Cross, it was the Cross itself that made the Immaculate Conception possible.

Why Is the Immaculate Conception Important? – Jimmy Akin

chevyontheriver said:

You are mixing two things here. The Immaculate Conception was not necessary for Jesus to have come out right, but it was indeed fitting. That is Catholic teaching.

OK. It is true so should be believed. In that sense necessary. In the sense of being necessary for Jesus to be sinless, no. But that is one of the commonest Protestant misunderstandings of the Immaculate Conception and I discovered this morning that it was perpetuated by gotanswers.

I'm going sailing now.

Click to expand...

From Jimmy Akin at
Why Is the Immaculate Conception Important? – Jimmy Akin

"By preserving Mary from all stain of original sin, God thus redeemed her. He redeemed her in an even more spectacular way that he does us, for he preserved her from falling into sin rather than pulling her out of it after she had fallen into it".

The point is......there is NOT ONE single Bible Scripture that says that or infers that comment.

However the Scriptures say something completely different.

Romans 3:23...…….
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

Romans 3:10-12...……..
" As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

So then, who is right.....the Bible or the Catholic church?

chevyontheriver said:

I will do both.
1.) you contributed to the ruining of this thread within the first 20 posts. It was a question by a seeker until you made it polemical. Go back and read the first 20 posts to see that.
2.) you lie about the Immaculate Conception of Mary being necessary. It is not 'necessary' but 'fitting'. If your examples are lies, what does that say about the point you make?
3.) you did not provide the source of your 'example' above, which you cut and pasted without attribution.
4.) you didn't respond to my calling out your false dichotomy between Scripture and pope. Your dichotomy was shown to be false. So you cook up #2 above instead.
5.) you don't know when to quit a ruined thread. One you ruined more than any other person who posted to the thread by attacking with scant understanding or charity. Do you think that glorifies God somehow?

Click to expand...

1).
Nope. I did that and I do not agree with you. What you said IMO is something one of my grandchildren would have said....

2).

One of the things that a computer screen has given men is "Ambiguity".

If you were standing in front of me when you called me a LIAR, do you really think that you would say that? I have tried to live a Christian life now for 50 years or more but turning my check to a bully has never been something I was very good at.

"Necessary" or "Fitting". Isn't that like "POtato or PAtato"? If I was LOOKING for a reason to disagree on a doctrine, this one would not be my choice for you.

From the Catholic web site at...……...https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2012/12/08/catholics-protestants-and-immaculate-mary/.......we read theses words-------
"The feast of Mary’s Immaculate Conception celebrates the very first act of salvation by Christ in the world. Redemption is made possible for all by his precious blood shed on the cross. Yet Mary’s role in the Savior’s life and mission is so critical and so unique that God saw it necessary to wash her in the blood of the Lamb in advance, at the first moment of her conception."

Then from the Catholic web site at...…..
The Immaculate Conception and the seamless garment of doctrine

"The 1854 dogmatic definition of Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus, where we read:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

Is that Necessary or is it Fitting or is it open ended for anyone to believe whatever they want to believe?

3).
So WHAT? Does that somehow make it a false statement? Of course not. It just gave you a handle to make a personal attack without any basis.

This forum site as well as every other one has the same thing happen. If that is all that bothers you then you have a lot more going on in your life than attacking me over my understandings of the obvious.

4).
Another time of calling me a liar. Do you actually think that I speand my entire day reading stuff from people on a computer. I have no idea when or how you "called me out".

IF the Pope agreed with the Scriptures then he is correct in his theology. IF he however rejects The Scriptures, or alters them in some way then he is incorrect and is a false teacher. If you do not like that answer, then go read your Bible and find that answer for yourself.

5).
I ruined the thread. Over 600 posts and 31 pages but "I ruined the thread".
Are you kidding me?

I submitt to you that I and several others have ruined your idea of what you believe the Catholic faith actually is and instead of being able to discuss those difference YOU attack me with personal comments which are not appreciated in any way and actually are non-Christian from you.

Now then.....YOU called me a LIAR 3 times in an open forum and then have the nerve
to aske me.......... "Do you think that glorifies God somehow?"

Allow me to be perfectly clear with you. The “actions” that glorify our Father in heaven are those that bear much fruit. This is, in fact, how we show we are His disciples. Indeed, the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control —should be the hallmark of Christian behavior, especially love. Yet your tendency and actions were one of ANGER, ANOMOSITY, and ATTACK.

Is that your example of what God expects from us?

Just my 2 cents here....

To me, when Jesus commanded the woman to go and sin no more, he meant that she should sin no more, as in the rest of her life....!

the only way to be sinless is to repent of sin on a daily basis

we Catholics do a daily self examination of our walk and reflect upon where we went wrong on that day, repent of committed sins and also for unknown sins committed that day and we ask God to help us do better.

if we die with unrepented sin on us,

we cannot enter into the most holy presence of God

who sees our sins as filthy rags

we try and keep holy and work on this in a committed and loving way, each and every day.

such love and beauty I have never known before

@chevyontheriver keep up the good fight brother

Lord have mercy

Christ have mercy

The Sun said:

Hi
Im wondering if i should become catholic. I like so much about it and agree with a lot of things. BUt how can i know those missing books are really taken from the bible, if its ok to pray to saints, purgatory...and being in the church but not 'active'? I just wanna know your thoughts/ And this is the church apparently that peter founded and the true church

Click to expand...

"BUt how can i know" ...

by diligently studying the Word of God yourself.

Psalm 119:105
105 Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.

Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Teaching regardless where it comes from needs to be measured with the Word of God.

May the Lord direct your paths. Amen

going to confession......

peace