Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Incidentally also, the OP speaks of the challenge as being about PRACTICES, not doctrines.
You know for someone whose credibility has been in question, I would be more careful of my words, else we will start wondering if your mistakes are intentional and hate-motivated. The article you quoted stated this, "The report identifies by name more than 300 priests who face credible accusations of child sex crimes." So not bishops, but priests and not convicted but face accusations. This is a terrible thing and not one that should be condoned; but come on and state facts without trying to color them.That is NOT my opinion but is actual FACTS as seen recently in Pennsalvania with the conviction of over 300 Catholic Bishops IN JUST ONE STATE.
71 names of clergy accused of child sex abuse in Harrisburg diocese released
Most of these appear to be items that are simply labelled differently in some churches than they are in others.Some Unbiblical PRACTICES.
(1)Sunday School
(2)Altar Calls
(3)Accepting divisions & rebellions & Church "democracy"
(4)"Bible" studies.
(5)Accepting Jesus as your personal saviour
All good things in themselves (apart from 3.) but all unbiblical. They all spring from a "Tradition" that is in denial about "Tradition"
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?
You know for someone whose credibility has been in question, I would be more careful of my words, else we will start wondering if your mistakes are intentional and hate-motivated. The article you quoted stated this, "The report identifies by name more than 300 priests who face credible accusations of child sex crimes." So not bishops, but priests and not convicted but face accusations. This is a terrible thing and not one that should be condoned; but come on and state facts without trying to color them.
Some Unbiblical PRACTICES.
(1)Sunday School
(2)Altar Calls
(3)Accepting divisions & rebellions & Church "democracy"
(4)"Bible" studies.
(5)Accepting Jesus as your personal saviour
All good things in themselves (apart from 3.) but all unbiblical. They all spring from a "Tradition" that is in denial about "Tradition"
You did not write “This is my body” either, but you do not take those words literally now do you? So please spare me the lecture on rationalizing. This sort of lecturing does not advance the discussion. It is merely for boosting one’s ego and criticizing others.
Now if we can get back to substance, again, there no no evidence to suggest that sexual abuse is more prevalent in the Catholic Church than Protestant Churches, so your argument fails. You can say and believe whatever you want, but until you show me some proof, I reject your opinion.
And 300 bishops were not convicted of sexual abuse in Pennsylvania. There were zero convictions based off of the PA grand jury report. Do you know what a grand jury is or how it operates?
As far as your reading of Sacred Scripture, you are entitled to your opinion and that is fine and dandy. I and many others understand those Scriptures differently than you do, and you have not given me any substantive reason not to reject your opinion. So get over it.
Please feel free to answer my questions if you like.
Some Unbiblical PRACTICES.
(1)Sunday School
(2)Altar Calls
(3)Accepting divisions & rebellions & Church "democracy"
(4)"Bible" studies.
(5)Accepting Jesus as your personal saviour
All good things in themselves (apart from 3.) but all unbiblical. They all spring from a "Tradition" that is in denial about "Tradition"
Good day.WHEN you ask a question concerning the thread at hand then yes, I would be glad to.
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:
As Maj1 states here in post # 20 that I, Fidelibus stated!
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.
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:
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,
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."
Think that I'll just leave this be for now.
A Blessed Day to all
I'm out. It's mostly a chance for the same people to trot out the same silly anti-Catholic drivel answered a hundred times already.These threads by Major1 are a continuous line of what is essentially Catholic bashing. No other reason.
I am out of this thread. Too many times have I witnessed him stoking what is hatred against Catholicism.
The thread "Questions for adherents of the Bible only"...….comment #106.
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.
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."
HE said "teachings" but I said "Practices".
Personally I have no problem with "teachings".
But once we had it assembled, what is the argument for using something else when determining doctrine?Catholics also believe in Tradition. Protestants believe in "Scriptura Sola", that is Scripture alone. I don't remember where the Bible passage for this is, but I remember that the speaker was talking about scripture from the torah and from oral tradition. After all, the Bible was not assembled at that time. Where do you think that the Torah and the Bible Scriptures came from if they were not written? If memory serves me, the Torah was starting to be written during the time of Moses. The New Testament Scriptures of Bible were not written completely written and put together into a tomb form (a collection of books or a library of books). I think that it took about 350 years AD for the Bible to be like what we have today.
"Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach".
One thing many people forget is you cannot quote from Authority if that "Authority" isn't accepted by both parties in the discussion; debating 101. I think we can agree that all of us can accept the Bible as an Authority. The trouble is Catholics try to use other "authoritative sources" which aren't accepted outside Catholicism, hence they do not hold up in the discussion based on that.
Who do you think WROTE the Bible?
I will agree that none of the individual authors of the OT were Catholic. However, it was the Pre-Reformation Churches (At that time the One Holy Catholic/Orthodox Church that put all the volumes in order, who decided what was inspired, and what belonged IN the Word of God!)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?