Roman Catholic..anything wrong with it?

[Goatee]

Ah, so you're a preterist. I'm a futurist, in fact, a historic premillennialist. We all have our views.

Partial, not full preterist

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Ah, most preterists believe the end of Revelation to be in the future nevertheless.

 

[Meowzltov]

The RC's are the largest denomination..but they do not follow the Bible in many instances, is that wrong?

I just got here. I'm assuming that by now you've managed to give examples of what you mean, since we have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Meowzltov]

Mat 23:8 As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’ You have but ONE teacher, and you are all brothers.

And you should not call anyone FATHER either. So don't call your dad FATHER anymore.

 

[GingerBeer]

What Luther allegedly took away had been included in Bible editions only provisionally

Only provisionally?

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

I notice a lot of CAPITALISATION on this thread. Makes your case stronger?

 

[Albion]

Maybe we should have some ground rules about what colors, boldface, underlinings and/or CAPS are supposed to mean to the reader--especially when all of them appear in the same post.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Maybe we should have some ground rules about what colors, boldface, underlinings and/or CAPS are supposed to mean to the reader--especially when all of them appear in the same post.

We're all in a spitting match here. Blech.

 

[Albion]

I hope that is not the case. I am sympathetic to what bcPaul wrote, to the extent that many of us, me included, use a lot of those things for emphasis...but what are they supposed to mean and how many is too many? I suppose there's no answer to that.

 

[Erose]

This is rather a circular argument, if you include explicit and implicit. Anything can be considered implicit to Scripture, given enough imagination.

A far better measure, imo, is integrity of belief with Orthodoxy. On this basis there are indeed Catholic teachings which the Orthodox church does not recognise, and which it is probably fair to regard as pious constructions upon what is written. Every single church, every denomination has such pious constructions.

None of which really bothers me; none of us gets to eternity because of the purity of our doctrine. We get there because of our love of God and our neighbour.

Catholics are not responsible for the theological innovations of the Orthodox.

 

[Erose]

The RC's are the largest denomination..but they do not follow the Bible in many instances, is that wrong?

It seems that from this thread that you don't know enough about the Church to make such a claim.

 

[kepha31]

It seems that from this thread that you don't know enough about the Church to make such a claim.

The OP is a set up, drawing non-Catholics to assert the same false assumptions, preconceptions, and misrepresentations. I have been doing this for 20 years and the anti-Catholic lunacy just keeps repeating itself. The "call no man father" charge is the epitome of biblical illiteracy.

"Catholics don't follow the Bible in many instances" is a classic example of a false assumption. We follow the whole Bible, we just don't isolate it from the Tradition that produced it in the first place.

​

 

[prodromos]

Catholics are not responsible for the theological innovations of the Orthodox.

Eastern Catholics might take issue with what you are implying.

 

[kepha31]

I hope that is not the case. I am sympathetic to what bcPaul wrote, to the extent that many of us, me included, use a lot of those things for emphasis...but what are they supposed to mean and how many is too many? I suppose there's no answer to that.

If a post is cluttered and hard on the eyes, then the formatting is overused. Minimal use is more effective IMO, but bold and CAPS, strategically placed, make it possible to scan a wall of text and till get the basic idea.

 

[Jeepneytravel]

The OP is a set up, drawing non-Catholics to assert the same false assumptions, preconceptions, and misrepresentations. I have been doing this for 20 years and the anti-Catholic lunacy just keeps repeating itself. The "call no man father" charge is the epitome of biblical illiteracy.

"Catholics don't follow the Bible in many instances" is a classic example of a false assumption. We follow the whole Bible, we just don't isolate it from the Tradition that produced it in the first place.

​

Purgatory, celibacy, veneration of Mary, calling pope holy father and priests father are a few failures of the Roman church to follow the Bible, while following these traditions they pursue.

 

[dcalling]

The RC's are the largest denomination..but they do not follow the Bible in many instances, is that wrong?

The only big issue I have with Catholics is that the assumed infallibility of the pope. It is not a clear cut issue (as in this Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers), but this is easily lead people astray as it can put Pope equal to the Bible, and the Bible tell us all humans sin, there is not one good one.

 

[Erose]

Purgatory, celibacy, veneration of Mary, calling pope holy father and priests father are a few failures of the Roman church to follow the Bible, while following these traditions they pursue.

Hum, actually every one of these charges are found in Scripture, what isn't found in Scripture is the man-made concepts such as Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Believers baptism, among others.

 

[kepha31]

Purgatory, celibacy, veneration of Mary, calling pope holy father and priests father are a few failures of the Roman church to follow the Bible, while following these traditions they pursue.

That's 5 topics, a rant. Cut it down to one at a time in question form and then I will do my best to answer you. But with your blind prejudice, I don't think that is possible.

 

[Erose]

The only big issue I have with Catholics is that the assumed infallibility of the pope. It is not a clear cut issue (as in this Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers), but this is easily lead people astray as it can put Pope equal to the Bible, and the Bible tell us all humans sin, there is not one good one.

Infallibility does not imply impecibilty. No doctrine of Catholicism claims that the pope cannot sin. In fact we are the first to admit that we in the past have had our fair share of pontiffs that were less than righteous.

The purpose of infallibility has never had the function of supplanting the Deposit of Faith, which includes the teaching of Scripture. The only function that infallibility of Peter has is to safeguard the Deposit of Faith, never to supplant the Deposit of Faith. This is why you will never ever find a papal ex Cathedra proclaimation that proclaims something new. It always confirms a doctrine of Faith, and never invents.

 

[dcalling]

Infallibility does not imply impecibilty. No doctrine of Catholicism claims that the pope cannot sin. In fact we are the first to admit that we in the past have had our fair share of pontiffs that were less than righteous.

The purpose of infallibility has never had the function of supplanting the Deposit of Faith, which includes the teaching of Scripture. The only function that infallibility of Peter is to safeguard the Deposit of Faith, never to supplant the Deposit of Faith. This is why you will never ever find a papal ex Cathedra proclaimation that proclaims something new. It always confirms a doctrine of Faith, and never invents.

That is why I said it is not a clear cut matter and provided a link basically said what you said.

However the danger here is this claim can be easily used to mislead, and in the middle ages this is why people use gold to buy out their sins.