Catholic?

[ralfyman]

Please folks.....look beyond the personal attack on the messengers.

When anyone can not debate or converse on any subject where there is obvious error, the only recourse then is to attack the messenger instead of the object of the conversation.

I for one have not said for single word toward any Catholic believer. I have only questioned the fact that the RCC's doctrines and teachings are NOT found in the Bible.

Several of those doctrines and teachings appeared before the canon of the Bible was completed. Some of them were used in forming the canon of the Bible.

 

[ralfyman]

It was in the books that were already being used by the churches, however--the same ones that later were collected into what we call The Bible.

Of which the final selections were made only by the fourth century, and guided by various doctrines and practices.

 

[ralfyman]

In my view members of the RC church would choose to obey the teachings of the church over the teachings of Jesus. For example the list that Major1 posted a while ago. And to me that would make me run as far as I could away from that church. Jesus has to be number one, he has to be at the heart and head of any church group, and I'm sorry but in the RC church Mary seems to be more highly honoured than her son. To me that is just plain wrong. Also the RC church won't let non-Catholics partake of the bread and wine, even though they are Christian.

A good few years ago now God spoke into my spirit and told me to pray for the RC church and I have done so. My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will blow through the corridors of power and bring light into the dark places and open peoples eyes and ears to the truth and to see that they have been deceived. Now why would God tell me to do that if it that sort of prayer wasn't needed. I know there will be some who say I've done it off my own bat, so to speak, but I know and believe what God said to me.

The teachings of the Church stem from Scriptures and the magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, its teaching are the teachings of Jesus.

 

[TKA_TN]

Good question. I'm no expert but as far as I can ascertain there are certain ideas that might have some basis in scripture that are debated and thought about over the centuries and it eventually goes to Rome and the pope defines using the fullness of his authority some idea as a dogma, which means that it must be belived for salvation. One example is the Immaculate Conception.

This is what I have a hard time with Catholicism. Why does believing in the Immaculate Conception matter in my salvation? I have great respect for the Blessed Mother, but don't believe her conception is dependent on my salvation (even if I could come around to the idea of it being true).

 

[Albion]

No it does I gave it earlier. I said it didn't need biblical backing not that it didnt have any.

Well, you are right that exactly how these things are worded does matter, but Purgatory is not named, identified, or taught in Scripture. There is a word or phase here or there that the church SAYS refers to Purgatory, but these could just as well refer to a number of other concepts, so sketchy are they.

Meanwhile, "Purgatory" as it was defined by the Church is actually rather complicated as to the who, why, under what conditions, etc.--all of which make Purgatory what it is. If all of that is absent from the Bible, it cannot be said that Purgatory is Biblical.

Of course, if that is NOT ones singular guide to doctrine (as has already been explained on this thread), it isn't critical. If the Bible IS one's determiner of doctrine, however, then it does.

 

[Albion]

They are practices followed by Jesus and His apostles (which makes them sacred) and passed on to others (which makes them part of tradition) before the Bible was formed.

That is what the theory of Sacred Tradition says--or to be more precise, that is what the churches which follow it say that it amounts to.

The facts of history are quite to the contrary, however.

In short, not much can be gained in a discussion like this one simply by stating the storyline used by ones denomination, whether that is Mormons claiming that the golden plates were real and ancient, Jehovah's Witnesses claiming that the church apostacized with the death of the last Apostle, or the Catholic Church saying that Jesus chose a line of bishops of Rome to head his one and only church throughout time.

Those are just what those churches want their people to believe. But it is the actual history that matters.

 

[Albion]

Of which the final selections were made only by the fourth century, and guided by various doctrines and practices.

First, the selection wasn't made by the Roman Catholic Church. Second, it is wrong to say or insinuate that the contents of the Bible were produced through the canonization process when what that action of a council did was to formally accept as true the books that the churches were already using and considering to be divinely inspired.

 

[Major1]

Who selected the books of the Bible that you now use.

It Is really sad to me to see anyone who is a Catholic be so misinformed that they would believe such a statement.

I know that your local church has told you such a thing but it is not so my friend.

What is even more sad is that so many people believe what you said and the real fact is they do not read the Bible to know the difference.

In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever.

The way you are believing is almost as if the Catholic church created God.

If you had read the Bible itself you would have seen in 2 Tim. 3:16 . ………..
"All scripture is inspired of God...".

Then Peter said in his 2 epistle, 1:21...……...
"...Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

Then Jesus said in Matt. 24:35...…….
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

Then in 1 Peter 1:24-25...….
"The grass withered, and the flower has fallen--but the word of the Lord endures forever."

Just so that you will know, the Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.

 

[Major1]

It doesn't have to be. Catholics don't believe in sola scriptura.

But there is Mathew 5:26

Sola Scriptura????

What about just believing the Bible ?

 

[Major1]

Really? I've been a practising Catholic most of my 60 years and I somehow missed that teaching!

That is a long time. Do you now read the Bible?

Do you find this statement to be true or false...…….
"In Catholicism, we believe that God has given the ‘teaching authority’ (that is, the ‘magisterium’) to the leaders of the Church in order to teach faith and morals infallibly. Protestants tend to believe that this grant of correct interpretation is given to all, through the Holy Spirit."

From ….https://catholic.com/t/can-only-priests-interpret-the-bible/385334

 

[Major1]

Then I will pray for you.

My dear friend......pray for all of us because the facts are that there is not one single word about Purgatory in the KJV of the Bible. NO NOT ONE!

Purgatory is strictly a RCC teaching from men and has no Bible basis whatsoever.

In fact, the idea is repulsive to most believers as the act would say in essence that what Jesus did to save us was not enough so we must then do something to be cleansed and acceptable to enter heaven.

 

[Major1]

Nonsense. For starters, Jesus says don't call "ANYONE ON EARTH your father" - so does this mean a child cannot call its biological father, "Father"? Of course not! Jesus wasn't talking literally, obviously.

Jesus also says in the same passage (Matt 23), don't call anyone "teacher". What? So a student can't say "There goes Mr. Brown; he's my teacher at school"? Quite obviously, Jesus wasn't talking literally.

Read your Bible - it's describes the apostles addressing the Jewish elders as "Fathers". Explain that.

You are well trained in RCC apologetics.

Now when we actually do read the Bible instead of RCC apologetic web sites we see......
that it would be confusing for God to give the fifth commandment in Ex. 20:12 …..
“Honor your father and your mother”.

Then later tell us from calling our earthly father “father.” is wrong.

Matt. 23:9.........
“And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and He is in heaven.”

So then what is going on?????

The context of Matthew 23:9 tells us that referring to one’s biological father as “father” is not what Jesus is speaking about.

Jesus is denouncing the Jewish scribes and Pharisees for rejecting Him as their Messiah, in particular for their hypocrisy in elevating themselves above others with titles such as “teacher” and “master.” The Jewish teachers affected those titles because they supposed that a teacher formed the man or gave him real life. They sought, therefore, to be called “father,” as if they were the source of truth rather than God. Christ taught that the source of all life and truth is God, and no one ought to seek or receive a title that properly belongs to Him. No one should be as revered as God is.

This denunciation is equally relevant today. In no way should any person look up to, follow, or elevate a human leader in any religious or church organization above Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Head of the Church, which is His body. He alone is the author of our salvation, source of comfort in difficulties, and strength to live the Christian life. He is the only One to whom our prayers should be directed. No one else has the right to say, “Look to me to meet your spiritual needs.” Jesus’ warning against calling men “father” is a caution against ostentation, pride, and hypocrisy.
Did Jesus mean that we should never refer to our earthly father as “father” (Matthew 23:9)? Is it wrong for Catholics to refer to their priests as “father”?

 

[Major1]

Not Biblical according to YOU. Also, as you very well know, the Catholic faith is both, Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. Its NOT Sola Scripture!!!

YOU are absolutely correct.

Just a simple question. Not a trap question in any way, just a question to cause thinking.

Since Christianity is found only in the Bible, Does it not bother you at all to be a Catholic and accept so many practices and doctrines which are non-biblical?

 

[Major1]

Mary interceded at Cana. In Revelations the Saints offered up prayers.

Jesus spoke to Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration. They were supposedly dead?

Plus, Catholicism is NOT Sola Scripture based! It relies on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Holy Spirit, through, Apostolic succession.

God love my sister but can you take the time to read the Bible and post the Scripture that validates "Apostolic Succession"?????

 

[Major1]

OK

Very well, but our task is to inform our inquirer who has a decision to make, and most of those points you listed are of little concern to people who express an admiration for Catholicism but are still reluctant. If he had said that he felt attracted to the Baptist churches but just wasn't sure about it, that would have been a different challenge.

My point is and always has been that anyone pondering a choice must base that choice on what is true and what is not true....IMO.

If a person is made aware of what is Bible truth as compared to what is man made dogma, it should help him to make a right choice.

 

[Augustus_33AD]

My dear friend......pray for all of us because the facts are that there is not one single word about Purgatory in the KJV of the Bible. NO NOT ONE!

Purgatory is strictly a RCC teaching from men and has no Bible basis whatsoever.

In fact, the idea is repulsive to most believers as the act would say in essence that what Jesus did to save us was not enough so we must then do something to be cleansed and acceptable to enter heaven.

Lol kjv

 

[prodromos]

Lol kjv

Haven't you heard?
They've unearthed an ancient manuscript of the KJV in Mesopotamia from which it is believed the Masoretic text was originally translated.

 

[Augustus_33AD]

Haven't you heard?
They've unearthed an ancient manuscript of the KJV in Mesopotamia from which it is believed the Masoretic text was originally translated.

Guess I'm Protestant now lol.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

Does it not bother you at all to be a Catholic and accept so many practices and doctrines which are non-biblical?

No, because the Catholic Church and it's practices and doctrines - handed down from the apostles - existed well before the NT did. The early Christians were taught and led by the Church, not the Bible.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

That is a long time. Do you now read the Bible?

Yes, but only to practice reading Italian. Otherwise, I have no need to read the Bible - the Church gives me all the Bible I need - ie, the verses that are read out to the congregation every Sunday.

Do you find this statement to be true or false...…….
"In Catholicism, we believe that God has given the ‘teaching authority’ (that is, the ‘magisterium’) to the leaders of the Church in order to teach faith and morals infallibly. Protestants tend to believe that this grant of correct interpretation is given to all, through the Holy Spirit."

That sounds true to me ... but it has nothing to do with your silly claim that the Catholic Church teaches that "only priests can understand the Bible" - some of the Church's most respected theologians aren't priests, but laymen.