Non-Biblical Practices done by Catholic believers

[Afra]

Good question.

Look at how many law suits and broken lives could have been spared if the clergy was allowed to marry.

There is no evidence to suggest that sexual abuse is a greater problem in the Catholic Church than Protestant Churches, so that argument goes out the window.

 

[chevyontheriver]

NOPE. JUst didn't see a need to respond as the Bible clearly says in 1 Timothy 3:2 words that are easily read and need no twisting or explination or manipulation...……
"Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach".

It is real hard to manipulate or spin those words....IMO.

So Paul disqualified himself?

 

[Fidelibus]

The thread "Questions for adherents of the Bible only"...….comment #106.

This post is not so much directed towards Major1, but towards the rest of the participating posters of the thread.
Yes...... I would like everyone to go to the post mentioned above, and read it very....very carefully. It is very important that you do, and I'll explain why.

Now..... for those of you that did, you will see that Maj1 is not being 100% truthful for I "Did Not" say on post #106:

"If you would like to discuss any Catholic teaching that IS NOT IN THE BIBLE such as Purgatory or the Rosary, or calling men FATHER or the inability of the laity to marry, please ask me and I will be glad to give you the Bible response."

As Maj1 states here in post # 20 that I, Fidelibus stated!

Fidelibus stated...……..
"If you would like to discuss any Catholic teaching that IS NOT IN THE BIBLE such as Purgatory or the Rosary, or calling men FATHER or the inability of the laity to marry, please ask me and I will be glad to give you the Bible response.

Now... to back up my claim of his (Maj1) untruthfullness? Please go to the "Questions for adherents of the Bible alone" thread that I started, go to page 5, post # 93, read the last paragraph, and then scroll up the see who excactly wrote this post. (hint: Major1) Matter of fact, l'll repost the paragraph for you all here now.

If you would like to discuss any Catholic teaching that IS NOT IN THE BIBLE such as Purgatory or the Rosary, or calling men FATHET or the inability of the laity to marry, please ask me and I will be glad to give you the Bible response.

Looks a bit familiar wouldn't you say? Except for one big difference. Take note of the word "Father" (in caps) in the paragraph he claims I said. Then look at the word "Father" (in caps) in post # 93. Do you all see the difference? Noticed how Maj1 even went as far as correcting his spelling of "FATHET" on post #93 to FATHER" on this thread. Now if it wasen't for this full knowledge in spelling correction, I might have dismissed it as honest mistake. But no.... this correction shows he was fully aware in what he was doing, claiming something I was supposedly to have said which clearly I did not.

I hold no animosity towards Major1, and actually have prayed on it and for him, and have already forgiven him, and ask the same from the rest of you. Thank you.

Now, I did say on post #106:

Start a thread on what you believe are Catholic teachings that are not explicitly or implicitly in Scripture, and I'd be more than happy to go over them with you one by one, or how many others you think there are."

Huge difference from:

""If you would like to discuss any Catholic teaching that IS NOT IN THE BIBLE such as Purgatory or the Rosary, or calling men FATHER or the inability of the laity to marry, please ask me and I will be glad to give you the Bible response."

That Maj1 claimed I said.


I would like to add to what I do admit saying above, for I thinks its important to clear up any confusion,

Start a thread on what you believe are Catholic teachings that are not explicitly or implicitly in Scripture, and I'd be more than happy to go over them with you one by one, or how many others you think there are."

with some help from EWTN:

"Sacred Tradition should not be confused with mere traditions of men, which are more commonly called customs or disciplines. Jesus sometimes condemned customs or disciplines, but only if they were contrary to God's commands. He never condemned sacred Tradition, and he didn't even condemn all man-made tradition.

Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways the Church hands on the gospel. Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity, infant baptism, the inerrancy of the Bible, purgatory, and Mary's perpetual virginity have been most clearly taught through Tradition, although they are also implicitly present in (and not contrary to) the Bible. The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2).

Sacred Tradition should not be confused with customs and disciplines, such as the rosary, priestly celibacy, and not eating meat on Fridays in Lent. These are good and helpful things, but they are not doctrines. Sacred Tradition preserves doctrines first taught orally by Jesus to the apostles and later passed down to us through the apostles' successors, the bishops."

HE said "teachings" but I said "Practices".

Personally I have no problem with "teachings".

Think that I'll just leave this be for now.


A Blessed Day to all

 

[Chris V++]

I found a history channel network article on the history of celibacy in the church. When Did the Catholic Church Decide Priests Should Be Celibate?

Here's an excerpt
'The first written mandate requiring priests to be chaste came in AD 304. Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira stated that all"bishops, presbyters, and deacons and all other clerics" were to"abstain completely from their wives and not to have children." A short time later, in 325, the Council of Nicea, convened by Constantine, rejected a ban on priests marrying requested by Spanish clerics.

The practice of priestly celibacy began to spread in the Western Church in the early Middle Ages. In the early 11th century Pope Benedict VIII responded to the decline in priestly morality by issuing a rule prohibiting the children of priests from inheriting property. A few decades later Pope Gregory VII issued a decree against clerical marriages.

The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy.'

If this is true, I find it interesting they started the switch over to celibate priesthood by prohibiting married priests form being intimate with their own wives and procreating.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I have been challenged/encouraged by my Catholic friend, @Fidelibus to start a thread concerning the practices of Catholic believers which are not found in the Bible. He is convinced that there are no such happenings.

Now before you attack the messenger, please remember, this was not my idea at all but I am glad to accommodate my friend.

I do hope that all who respond can be civil and friendly and most of all BIBLICAL.

#1. Bishops are not married.
So then, the Catholic practice for all of its CLERGY is that they all be celibate. In other words the RCC does not allow its Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests to be married.

But the Bible says just the opposite in 1 Timothy 3:1...……
"This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...…".

In plain English, a Bishop MUST be a married man.

Yes, I am aware that many will say that is a warning against "polygamy". Bit that does not answer the question of being married to a woman. A Bishop MUST be married to only one woman.

#2. Calling a man FATHER.

It is the practice of the RCC to refer to its laity as "FATHER". However the Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 23:9 ...…
"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

Now there are probably 30 or more of these kind of examples but just to start, the question must be.........….Why does the RCC obviously reject these two Bible passages?

Actually, Eastern Catholic deacons and priests may be married. The same applies to the Orthodox. Many bishops of both are widowers.

Now, let's talk about the non-Biblical practices of Protestants:

1. Having revivals.
2. Invitation Hymns
3. Altar calls.
4. Collections of money taken up during services.
5. Many NOT having bishops.
6. Having flags in the front of their buildings.
7. Hymnals.
8. Musical instruments, mentioned NOWHERE in the NT.
9. "Special music."
10. Having Choirs--again nowhere in the NT.
11. Not having Communion every Sunday.

Shall I go on, Major1?

 

[Afra]

If this is true, I find it interesting they started the switch over to celibate priesthood by prohibiting married priests form being intimate with their own wives and procreating.

Can't sleep with your own wife?! Now that is a downer if I have ever heard of one.

 

[Chris V++]

Can't sleep with your own wife?! Now that is a downer if I have ever heard of one.

And how in the world was that enforced?

 

[Chris V++]

So Paul disqualified himself?

I think Paul had a crush on that rich lady who sold fabric. If memory serves, immediately after he left her city he shaved his head and took an oath. Read between the lines.

 

[Not David]

Can we all just get along?

 

[Fidelibus]

Agreed.

Fidelibus said in comment #106...…………
"If you would like to discuss any Catholic teaching that IS NOT IN THE BIBLE such as Purgatory or the Rosary, or calling men FATHER or the inability of the laity to marry, please ask me and I will be glad to give you the Bible response.

Not true......Major1, these are your words on the "Questions for adherents of the Bible alone" thread. Page #5..... post #93. (come on Maj1.... Bold font?)

If you would like to discuss any Catholic teaching that IS NOT IN THE BIBLE such as Purgatory or the Rosary, or calling men FATHET or the inability of the laity to marry, please ask me and I will be glad to give you the Bible response.

Not Mine! See post #44 if this thread.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think Paul had a crush on that rich lady who sold fabric. If memory serves, immediately after he left her city he shaved his head and took an oath. Read between the lines.

I prefer reading the lines to reading between the lines. Paul disqualified himself if he required all bishops to be married.

 

[Fidelibus]

"Teachings" is the word Fidelibus used.

Well....... you did get this part right.

 

[Chris V++]

I prefer reading the lines to reading between the lines. Paul disqualified himself if he required all bishops to be married

I think I'm wrong anyway. I think Paul's oath was before he met her. Doesn't matter anyway, I was just joking.

 

[Fidelibus]

It is real hard to manipulate or spin those words....IMO.

You did not just say that??? Lol!

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think I'm wrong anyway. I think Paul's oath was before he met her. Doesn't matter anyway, I was just joking.

One never knows.

 

[Fidelibus]

Just to clarify...…...Fidelibus was the one who used the word "Laity" in his asking me to start this thread. (Comment #106).

Clarify??? I used the word "Laity?" Again.....Not true......Major1, these are your words on the "Questions for adherents of the Bible alone" thread. Page #5..... post #93.

If you would like to discuss any Catholic teaching that IS NOT IN THE BIBLE such as Purgatory or the Rosary, or calling men FATHET or the inability of the laity to marry, please ask me and I will be glad to give you the Bible response.

Not Mine! See post #44 if this thread.

When I copied and pasted HIS comments I did not catch his mistake. I have now gone back and changed it "CLERGY".

My comments???? My mistake?????


Once again.....Not true......Major1, these are your words on the "Questions for adherents of the Bible alone" thread. Page #5..... post #93.

If you would like to discuss any Catholic teaching that IS NOT IN THE BIBLE such as Purgatory or the Rosary, or calling men FATHET or the inability of the laity to marry, please ask me and I will be glad to give you the Bible response.

Not Mine! See post #44 if this thread.



You know Maj1, I'm really, really trying to forgive you, but, Man.... you are making it very hard to do so when you continue on with this deceitfulness. Please stop!

 

[PaulCyp1]

1. Rules can change over time, as needs change, just as they do in any organization, including Protestant churches. This isn't a matter of teaching or belief.

2. Huh? So I have to call my male parent MOM?

Let's talk about some REAL issues. The plainly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers was and still is "That they all may be ONE, even as I and my heavenly Father are ONE. He knew that truth can exist only in unity because truth cannot conflict with truth, and conflicting beliefs/teachings therefore necessarily mean false beliefs/teachings. So why are there more than 6,000 registered Protestant denominations, each claiming to be teaching the truth "right out of the Bible", yet the beliefs/teachings of each denomination contradicting the beliefs/teachings of the others, in direct opposition to the will of Jesus Christ? And that doesn't even include the 20,000+ so-called "non-denominational" Protestant churches! Total doctrinal chaos, untruth being taught thousands of times over, exactly the opposite of the will of Jesus Christ for His followers. Now THERE is something worth criticizing!

Incidentally, if you read the Bible you would know that Paul called himself FATHER to those to whom he preached the gospel message, and Peter referred to himself as FATHER to Mark. Which only makes sense since they were both priests of the one Church Jesus Christ founded. They both understood the concept of spiritual fatherhood subject to the supreme Fatherhood of God. Oh ... they also referred to "Father Abraham".

 

[Afra]

And how in the world was that enforced?

Well I am guessing that the presence of children would be a big tip off.

 

[Fidelibus]

Good questions. As for what the friend actually said, I can only take the OP's word on that unless the friend decides to show up and dispute it.

Take OP's word on it? See my post #44 for what I really said and didn't say. It just may change your mind.

 

[Vicomte13]

So then, do you still say that the Bible does not say that a Bishop should be a married man?

I do. That Scripture means that IF a man is married, he can only be married to one woman (not polygamous), and he cannot be divorced and remarried. It does not say that he has to be married.

And even if it did, Paul is inferior to Jesus, and Jesus said that some men make themselves "eunuchs" for God - giving up all sexual relations. Jesus trumps Paul, so that's that.