Catholic?

[Major1]

No one ever said they remitted sin. If that is what you think, may i suggest more study.

As was stated earlier, Jesus gave the binding and loosening power to Peter specifically, and to the Church.

The Catholic Encyclopedia 1987 says...…….
"The remission of the temporal punishment due for sins and hence, the satisfaction owed to God for one's sins...The Church grants such indulgences after the guilt of sin and its eternal punishment have been remitted by sacramental absolution or by perfect contrition...".

The Roman Catholic Church started around 50 CE with St. Peter. The gospels were defined around 130 years later, the letters of the NT 70 years after that, followed by acceptance of the Book of Revelations.

Do not confuse your opinions with historical fact.

Again....this is a false comment.

The Catholic Church was not founded by any one person or any two people. Instead, its foundation was a process that lasted centuries and does not have any firm single date for its founding.

Constantine sought to impose a unified theology at the Council of Nicaea by forcing the adoption of the Nicene Creed in 325, nearly 300 years after Jesus's death.

Though it was largely ignored initially, in 381 the Roman Emperor Theodosius made the Nicene Creed the official core of Christianity,

 

[concretecamper]

From my library, here is a link for those who wish to learn about the historical and biblical case for indulgences.

Primer on Indulgences

 

[concretecamper]

"The remission of the temporal punishment due for sins and hence, the satisfaction owed to God for one's sins...The Church grants such indulgences after the guilt of sin and its eternal punishment have been remitted by sacramental absolution or by perfect contrition..."

Thank for making my point.

 

[Major1]

Which Scripture authorizes Christians to play tennis?

2 Timothy 2:5
"Similarly, if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not receive the victor's crown unless he competes according to the rules."

 

[Major1]

Thank for making my point.

The point is correct undewrstanding of the question in view.

 

[Major1]

I can't find any such prohibition in the Bible, which is just a silly distortion of Matt 23, in which Jesus says to not address any "man on earth" as "father" (Matt 23) - yet...

- in Acts 22;1, Paul addresses the Jewish religious leaders as “fathers”;

- in 1Cor 4:15, Paul says “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel”;

- in Philemon 10, Paul says he has become a spiritual “father”;

- in Acts 7:2, Stephen addressed the Jewish religious leaders as “Fathers” in Acts 7:2;

- there many places in Acts where the Jewish
ancestors are called “fathers”;

- Jesus describes the rich man calling out to “Father Abraham” in the parable in Luke 16:24.

Furthermore, If Jesus forbade Christians calling any man “father”, then (in the same passage from Matt 23) He also forbade calling any man “teacher”. So I hope you don’t refer to anyone as a “teacher”, or indeed a “doctor” (since “doctor” comes from the Latin for “teacher”).


So what? Where does the Bible say the leader of the Church can’t insist that priests be celibate?

This is the perfect example why there are so many Catholics believing what EVER A MAN SAYS INBSTEAD OF READING THE bIBLE.

This is an astounding question IMO.

1 Timothy 3:2...……….
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”

Read the Bible my dear friend!!!!!!

Asa for the calling of FATHER, with just a little BIBLE study you will be able to understand that
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.

 

[Major1]

Jesus commanded us to listen to the Church. If there is a scriptural passage that tells us to listen to the bible, then PLEASE, someone please show us all. Until then, I'll follow the bible, not some man made innovation.

I am sorry to say this but I do not believe you. No disrespect to you but your past expressions do not lead to believe you would do such a thing.

However 2 Timothy 3:14-17 comes to my mind 1st.....
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Joshua 1:8......….
This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

1 Timothy 4:13......….
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.

If you need more to help you in your change please ask but I think these will be enough for you to do as your said. I can hardly wait to see how you explain this away!!!!!!!

 

[concretecamper]

I am sorry to say this but I do not believe you.

And this is surprising how?

No disrespect to you but your past expressions do not lead to believe you would do such a thing.

What?

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures,

this can be only referring to the Tanakh

If you need more to help you in your change please ask but I think these will be enough for you to do as your said. I can hardly wait to see how you explain this away!!!!!!!

I've been waiting for years for a compelling argument. Havent seen one yet.

 

[Not David]

Or it could also be following the directions and being obedient to the Lord Jesus Christ who said in
Matthew 23:9......….
"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

I read the thread with Fidelibus and how everyone explained to you how the Bible mentioned Paul calling himself and others "father" and "teacher", how Abraham is "father", and how you don't avoid calling others "father" and "teacher".

Where do you get that literalism with "baptism saves"? Then, we shouldn't be that literalists, right?

 

[Major1]

And this is surprising how?

What?
this can be only referring to the Tanakh

I've been waiting for years for a compelling argument. Havent seen one yet.

No problem mate. This is exactly what I suspected you would say.

 

[Major1]

I read the thread with Fidelibus and how everyone explained to you how the Bible mentioned Paul calling himself and others "father" and "teacher", how Abraham is "father", and how you don't avoid calling others "father" and "teacher".

Where do you get that literalism with "baptism saves"? Then, we shouldn't be that literalists, right?

I do not know why anyone would say that the majority makes the rules.

Roman Catholics call their priests “father,” and the Pope is the “holy father.” Abbots take their title from the Aramaic word abba, which means “father.” This is clearly unbiblical. The priest as “father” is problematic.

In the case of “holy father,” there is no doubt this title is unbiblical. No man can take on the title of “holy” anything, because only God is holy. This title gives the Pope a status that is never intended for any man on earth.

Even the apostle Paul made no claim to holiness, referring to himself as the chief of sinners. Although as Christians we have exchanged our sin for the righteousness of Christ, holiness will not be attained until we are in heaven and have left the last vestiges of our sin natures behind. Until then, the Pope has no more holiness than the average Christian and is not entitled to be called “holy father.”
Stated in 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”?.

Just as there is nothing wrong with using the word father metaphorically, there is nothing wrong with calling our earthly parents “father” and “mother.” In doing so we are not giving our parents an elevated title or position that belongs only to God. Our earthly parents are worthy of honor, and we are to honor our parents.

 

[Not David]

I do not know why anyone would say that the majority makes the rules.

Roman Catholics call their priests “father,” and the Pope is the “holy father.” Abbots take their title from the Aramaic word abba, which means “father.” This is clearly unbiblical. The priest as “father” is problematic.

In the case of “holy father,” there is no doubt this title is unbiblical. No man can take on the title of “holy” anything, because only God is holy. This title gives the Pope a status that is never intended for any man on earth.

Even the apostle Paul made no claim to holiness, referring to himself as the chief of sinners. Although as Christians we have exchanged our sin for the righteousness of Christ, holiness will not be attained until we are in heaven and have left the last vestiges of our sin natures behind. Until then, the Pope has no more holiness than the average Christian and is not entitled to be called “holy father.”
Stated in 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”?.

Just as there is nothing wrong with using the word father metaphorically, there is nothing wrong with calling our earthly parents “father” and “mother.” In doing so we are not giving our parents an elevated title or position that belongs only to God. Our earthly parents are worthy of honor, and we are to honor our parents.

According to that idea, we shouldn't call ministers "Pastors" since Jesus is the Shepherd and we only have one "Shepherd".

 

[ralfyman]

The four gospels, Pauline epistles, and 1 John were accepted by 180 at the latest (the date of the Muratorian Canon), but they are quoted as Scripture long before that (e.g. by Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp).

The point is that it took place long after the Catholic Church began.

The present NT canon was listed by Athanasius in 367. It's essentially the same list as that given by Eusebius, but accepting books Eusebius had expressed doubts about.

Same point here.

So you're agreeing that the dogma wasn't the factor that determined the acceptance?

Actually, the opposite. The dogma was expressed centuries later but its development involved the same centuries, together with the first two.

 

[ralfyman]

The church at Rome started about then. That is not the same as saying that the denomination/communion that is called the Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church started then.

If it were the same, however, a bunch of other denominations would be older and would presumably be eligible for the title of "the one true church."

The church in Rome is the Roman Catholic Church. You are referring to the other Catholic Churches, and they are in full communion with the RCC.

 

[ralfyman]

Again....this is a false comment.

The Catholic Church was not founded by any one person or any two people. Instead, its foundation was a process that lasted centuries and does not have any firm single date for its founding.

Constantine sought to impose a unified theology at the Council of Nicaea by forcing the adoption of the Nicene Creed in 325, nearly 300 years after Jesus's death.

Though it was largely ignored initially, in 381 the Roman Emperor Theodosius made the Nicene Creed the official core of Christianity,

Its foundation is part of an ongoing process but it started with St. Peter. That process included the Council of Nicea and others.

 

[Albion]

The church in Rome is the Roman Catholic Church. You are referring to the other Catholic Churches, and they are in full communion with the RCC.

It is today. But it is wrong to say that when Peter came to the city of Rome from Antioch, his work amounted to the founding of the Roman Catholic Church or any other denomination. Any such concept, or the idea of Popes, or anything else of that sort came much later. That is why it is referred to as the era of the Undivided Church. But in time, the Oriental Orthodox separated, then the Roman and Greek churches had their falling out, etc.

You are referring to the other Catholic Churches, and they are in full communion with the RCC.

No, I was not. Most of those came much later anyway.

I was referring to other centers of Christianity such as Alexandria, Antioch, Ethiopia, etc. which existed at the time of the early Roman church but were independent of her (as they are today).

 

[Major1]

According to that idea, we shouldn't call ministers "Pastors" since Jesus is the Shepherd and we only have one "Shepherd".

I am sure you mean well and had a point but to me That makes no sense.

 

[Major1]

Its foundation is part of an ongoing process but it started with St. Peter. That process included the Council of Nicea and others.

I am sure that you are educated in the history of the Catholic church as the Catholic church has told you.

I would only say to you that the history you were told may just be flawed.

The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who spoke against "being lords over God's heritage" in I Peter 5:3.

Popes do not marry, although Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5).

The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans.

In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter's first epistle he stated that he was simply "an apostle of Jesus Christ," not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1).

In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).
The Plain Truth about the Roman Catholic Church

 

[ralfyman]

It is today. But it is wrong to say that when Peter came to the city of Rome from Antioch, his work amounted to the founding of the Roman Catholic Church or any other denomination. Any such concept, or the idea of Popes, or anything else of that sort came much later. That is why it is referred to as the era of the Undivided Church. But in time, the Oriental Orthodox separated, then the Roman and Greek churches had their falling out, etc.


No, I was not. Most of those came much later anyway.

I was referring to other centers of Christianity such as Alexandria, Antioch, Ethiopia, etc. which existed at the time of the early Roman church but were independent of her (as they are today).

Notice the contradiction in your argument. At the start of your post, you argue that the Bishop in Rome did not lead to the Roman Catholic Church, and yet at the end argue the other Churches were independent of it.

And this still does not disprove that the Church appeared, with its traditions and practices, almost two centuries before the Christian Bible was put together.

 

[ralfyman]

I am sure that you are educated in the history of the Catholic church as the Catholic church has told you.

I would only say to you that the history you were told may just be flawed.

The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who spoke against "being lords over God's heritage" in I Peter 5:3.

Popes do not marry, although Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5).

The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans.

In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter's first epistle he stated that he was simply "an apostle of Jesus Christ," not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1).

In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).
The Plain Truth about the Roman Catholic Church

It's not found in the Bible because it's part of Church tradition, which also led to the formation of the canon of the Bible.