Non-Biblical Practices done by Catholic believers

[wilts43]

Incidentally also, the OP speaks of the challenge as being about PRACTICES, not doctrines.

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"

 

[Not David]

Can we also stop saying Catholics and others worship Mary and the Saints?!

 

[tz620q]

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

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.

 

[Albion]

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"

Most of these appear to be items that are simply labelled differently in some churches than they are in others.

 

[Halbhh]

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?

Having addressed an important problem earlier, let's address the even more important problems throughout pretty much every kind of church -- almost any kind you pick seems to do some things clearly different than Christ and/or the apostles taught, and I'm not being picky about small stuff. I emphatically think small things like trying to divide or maintain a divide over something like how the Spirit proceeds -- things we cannot even know, mysteries like this one -- this just does not matter because it doesn't matter for faith and faithfulness. It is not required of us to know.

Churches, every one of them it seems, get some doctrines or practices wrong. Sometimes terribly so.

But, what matters are big things that are central to salvation.

And there are only a very few of those.

That we must believe in Christ, born of the virgin Mary, risen -- the miraculous reality of God and Christ being for real. Real belief. (Such as summarized in the old apostle's creed, which even the last lines of which hardly any can disagree with once they know 'catholic' means 'universal', meaning all that belong to the Body of Christ, by true faith (which shows over time in real change and real love)).

That He commands us to love one another, and warns us in Matthew 7:21-27, and in Matthew 25:31-46, that obeying: loving one another -- this is not an extra bonus, or optional, but the real outcome of actual faith, and if we refuse then the outcome He says will happen awaits those that don't follow His words.

 

[Major1]

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.

Then YOU do the work for yourself my friend. No need to use me.

YOU google "Sex offences by the Catholic Clergy".

Here is another one...…..By The Numbers: The Catholic Church's Sex Abuse Scandals

If you are upset about these news situations I suggest that you contact the source I posted instead of making personal comments about me.

And YES, there are many, many sex abuses by Protestant clergy as well and all of them are terrible.

 

[Phil 1:21]

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"

Interesting theory. Perhaps you could start a thread about it and stick to the topic of this one? Thanks.

 

[Major1]

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.

WHEN you ask a question concerning the thread at hand then yes, I would be glad to.

 

[Major1]

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"

1). Sunday School:
2 Tim. 3:16-17 …………
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Because Scripture is "breathed out by God," it is important for Christians to study and understand what it says.

Acts 2:42...……..
"And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."

Over time, the apostles and their associates wrote down many of these teachings in what became the New Testament.

The Old Testament is also important for study. Deut. 6:6-7...…….
"And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise."

Scripture was important to know, to memorize, to teach, to discuss, and to apply in the lives of God's people. Throughout their history, the Jewish people have conducted the Yeshiva, a school that teaches the Torah. Instruction usually begins at a very young age.


2). Alter Calls.
Matthew 10:32.........
"So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven."

3). Accepting divisions & rebellions & Church "democracy".
Actually I do not know what you are saying here, but I will say that A democracy is put in place to serve the will of the people. A theocracy is put in place to do the will of God. The church of Christ is not a democracy. It is a theocracy!!!

4). Bible Studies.
2 Timothy 2:15...……….
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. "

5). Accepting Jesus as your personal savior.
Romans 10:9...…….
"If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is LORD," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

John 3:16...……
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Acts 2:21...……...
"But everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

John 1:12 ………..
"But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God."

 

[Afra]

WHEN you ask a question concerning the thread at hand then yes, I would be glad to.

Good day.

 

[Mountainmike]

I've given up debating major too: After several such dialogues months ago in which he puts words into the mouths of Catholics , conveniently twisted to his opinion of what catholics think and why: it's a shame people don't ask us first, before spreading myths about what we think and why.

The definition of a straw man is:
"an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument"
Which is a representative statement of anticatholic posting generally - and most of what major says about Catholicism.

As my post #82 showed, on which I chose but one of his fatuous assertions - in this instance calling a human religious leader " father" is entirely scriptural and historic, even God did it! so the thread title is not honest , and that title / Majors arguments are a complete straw man. But even repeated proof that that is so will not stop them being repeated again. And again. And again.

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

 

[Lost4words]

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.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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.

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.

Suppose they gave an anti-Catholic thread and nobody showed up?

Those seekers who want to hear the other side can ask a sincere question in OBOB.

 

[Dave B]

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".

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.

 

[Albion]

Can we also stop saying Catholics and others worship Mary and the Saints?!

Well, that wasn't actually part of the OP but was a comment made later by another poster.

 

[Albion]

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.

But once we had it assembled, what is the argument for using something else when determining doctrine?

 

[PatrickR]

A wonderful episode of the Relevant Radio show Fr. Simon Says (from August 15th, 2018) helped me to understand our custom of Priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.
According to Father Simon (this is paraphrased):
There was celibacy among some of the Jews. This continued in the Church, as they continued to be Israelites. So it is reasonable to think that some of the clergy in the early Church were married and some were not. However, monastic clergy (when monasticism came about) were not married, having taken vows of chastity and celibacy. Eventually, the West fell to barbarians, but the Roman empire continued in existence in the East until Constantinople fell. Thus, the Eastern tradition of married clergy survived. In the West, however, the only place to find clergy was in the monasteries. So the custom of celibate clergy developed out of this.
It is also customary for clergy (applicable nowadays in the Eastern rite of the Church) to fast from intimate relations with his spouse before celebrating the liturgy. Since, in the West, our clergy were coming from monasteries, they were able to fulfill the requirements of this fast due to their vows of celibacy. The custom of Priestly celibacy developed from this as a matter of practicality. As Father Simon puts it, "In the West, we got used to the Daily Mass". Father Simon asserts that we've maintained Priestly celibacy because of how we've developed the Priesthood, with the function of the Parish and the duties of the Priest, celibacy is useful.

Here is the link to the show's podcast. He starts on this topic around 29 minutes in.

https://relevantradio.com/2018/08/father-simon-says-for-august-15-2018/

God bless you all!

 

[Monk Brendan]

"Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach".

That does NOT say that the priest or bishop MUST be married. Rather, it IS saying that if he has a wife he should be faithful to her, and not running around like many Evangelical preachers I have seen.

 

[Monk Brendan]

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!)

 

[Hazelelponi]

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!)

I've heard this before and it really bothers me because it misrepresents God and His Word. Catholics didn't decide what was inspired by God, God did. Do you honestly think the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with it?

It seems God has no place in your churches as none of you appear to believe in a living (and active) God. Don't you think that what was grafted into the tree can be removed from that same tree just as easily?

I'd have a lot more fear of God than this..