|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 10:29:50 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 679
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Dear Zhi,
You wrote: quote:
But they are your church authorities.
More accurately, the people in question may have governed a locality, but they are also accountable to higher authority. I'm curious why you assume every bishop is Doghouse's bishop? No Catholic Christian will deny our priests, bishops, and even our pope, are capable of sin. We do not believe the pope is impeccable; we do, however, believe Christ is quite capable of keeping His promise when He gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church....and here She stands, She can do no other. :)
The "infallibility" is rooted in Christ's promise and the Holy Spirit, not reliant on sinful men who happen to occupy the office, while the ecclesial communities formed since the "reformation" continue to divide and devour each other.
I think I know where I'll be worshipping next week.
Pax Christi,
gatolover
< Message edited by gatolover -- 4/15/2008 10:37:27 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 11:34:27 PM
|
|
|
JesKlu
Posts: 352
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gatolover
Dear Zhi,
You wrote: quote:
But they are your church authorities.
More accurately, the people in question may have governed a locality, but they are also accountable to higher authority. I'm curious why you assume every bishop is Doghouse's bishop? No Catholic Christian will deny our priests, bishops, and even our pope, are capable of sin. We do not believe the pope is impeccable; we do, however, believe Christ is quite capable of keeping His promise when He gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church....and here She stands, She can do no other. :)
The "infallibility" is rooted in Christ's promise and the Holy Spirit, not reliant on sinful men who happen to occupy the office, while the ecclesial communities formed since the "reformation" continue to divide and devour each other.
I think I know where I'll be worshipping next week.
Pax Christi,
gatolover
Hello gatolover and Happy Easter!
Are you familiar with this?
http://www.maryourmother.net/Eastern.html
This information on this website says there are 23 different kinds of Catholic Churches under the leadership of the Pope. How then, is this different from the Protestants where they have Scripture as their authority, which are the very words of Jesus Christ and the Apostles?
Your sister in Christ Jesus,
Jessica
< Message edited by JesKlu -- 4/15/2008 11:40:59 PM >
_____________________________
And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 11:52:25 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1063
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
More accurately, the people in question may have governed a locality, but they are also accountable to higher authority. I'm curious why you assume every bishop is Doghouse's bishop? No Catholic Christian will deny our priests, bishops, and even our pope, are capable of sin. We do not believe the pope is impeccable; we do, however, believe Christ is quite capable of keeping His promise when He gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church....and here She stands, She can do no other. :)
The "infallibility" is rooted in Christ's promise and the Holy Spirit, not reliant on sinful men who happen to occupy the office, while the ecclesial communities formed since the "reformation" continue to divide and devour each other.
There are many Catholic rites and sects as there are many Protestant denominations. There's not a lot of dividing and devouring going on that I've seen.
I don't assume every bishop is Doghouse's bishop, but he DID define what it takes, in his opinion, to be an authority on theological matters, and I would assume that all Catholic bishops, or at least the majority of Catholic bishops, have been through those requirements.
There's a difference between being capable of sin, and gleefully and unrepentantly indulging in it as often as possible. There are several popes who fit the latter description.
Yes, the church is still standing, but I really don't think that God's definition of the church is limited to those who claim to be Catholics. For us, it's the body of all believers, be they Catholic or Protestant. Just as God did not limit his grace to the Jews, He has not limited His grace to those who insist that they're holding the only keys. Even your current Pope has admitted that.
Incidentally, I've been to Catholic services with my great aunt. I didn't understand a word of it (it was in Latin) and they threw water at me. I was ten years old. I was not pleased.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 1:12:08 AM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 571
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello Brothers,
I wonder if the Pope is also passing on this good thing...
Galatians 6:1-6
Bear One Another’s Burdens
1Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 5For each will have to bear his own load.
6 One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches.
PeterD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 4:25:17 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1144
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
There are many Catholic rites and sects as there are many Protestant denominations. There's not a lot of dividing and devouring going on that I've seen. There are 23 rites within the Roman Catholic Church, 1 western and 22 eastern. Every one of these rites assent to the authority of the Church and are in full communion under that authority. As a Roman Catholic practicing in the western (Latin) rite, I may receive the Sacraments through any of the 23 rites that are in full communion within the Roman Catholic Church. In this case - the differences are liturgical alone, and not doctrinal or theological.
I see this as being entriely different than a Pentecostal receiving communion in a Lutheran Church. The Pentecostal does not share the same liturgy, nor Sacramental beliefs, nor theology, nor doctrine and practice as the Lutherans. A claim of "communion" in this case would be the Pentecostal leaving his Pentecostal congregation and joining the Lutheran congregation, and professing the faith of the Lutheran Church and acknowledging the authority within that Church to define and instruct practice and doctrine.
quote:
There's a difference between being capable of sin, and gleefully and unrepentantly indulging in it as often as possible. And humans are in a good position to render this judgment...
quote:
Yes, the church is still standing, but I really don't think that God's definition of the church is limited to those who claim to be Catholics. And I am not sure that Catholics limit this definition either. But, Catholics believe that the fullness, completeness and correctness of the Deposit of Faith given the Apostles by Jesus IS the faith instructed and defined by the Catholic Church. Anything else is less than full, less than complete, less than correct. How valid is "less than full" or "less than correct"? Not very - for those who are aware of the alternative, and choose to reject it. Most people hate the Catholic Church because they have been trained and socialized to do so; they really have no idea what is being instructed by her or practiced by her followers, or why. Their rejection of the Church is done so from a position of a lack of knowledge, being put in that position by another teacher. How responsible are we if we are wroking with bad data? Maybe we have a responsibility to investigate, scrutinize and question (as I have done with Protestant faiths over my lifetime) before rushing to judgment.
quote:
Incidentally, I've been to Catholic services with my great aunt. I didn't understand a word of it (it was in Latin) and they threw water at me. I was ten years old. I was not pleased. Thank you for illustrating my previous point...
_____________________________
I, then, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 5:06:09 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5030
Status: offline
|
quote:
Scripture does not define Scripture as the definition of anything cannot contain the definition itself (I can't tell you what a "carrot" is by using a sentence containing the word "carrot"...) And neither can your pope or magisterium explain to you what a "carrot" tastes like or make you to taste of it.....precisely the reason they are without real purpose. But, there is One who will make His people to taste of the feast.
For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper. Luke 14:24
quote:
So - I then question the authority chosen by many on this website - described by some as "Scriptural", but ultimately being "self-discernment of Scriptures". Authorities who are involved in "self-discernment of Scripture" and generally treat Scripture as simply a means to an end are in reality nothing but "authorities" unto themselves. The "end" being the perpetuation of their privately held beliefs for which they scour the Bible hoping to find some justification. There is ample reason to question such authority and thankfully many have and still do.
quote:
The only thing I have to know in my choice of this authority for my faith is that I have trained my whole life for the vocation in which I currently find myself, and this vocation is not discerning Scriptures,... Unfortunantly for you God disagrees with the decision you've made concerning the "training" of your life. He commands His people to "discern".
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. -1Corinthians 2:14
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, F15 even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. -Hebrews 5:14
A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself. -Proverbs 18:2
quote:
while noting that there are those who have dedicated their entire lives to this vocation and pursuit, and I am subjecting myself to the authority of their learning and their wisdom, There are many in all walks of life who have been "trained" in a pursuit nonetheless many of these are unqualifed for their positions. God never ever gives permission for His people to relinquish to others what is their own responsibility. The excuse of "subjecting myself to their authority" will be no excuse before God. It is no better than the ....."just following orders"...excuse.
quote:
We trust the airline and the FAA who tells us that this total stranger is fit to fly us from city to city. So - we are capable of submitting to authority. Submit so far to a self-proclaimed authority as to turn a blind eye when we see the pilot has been drinking his lunch? Or turn a blind eye to the passenger with a bomb because we're told the "authorities" have a security plan in place?
quote:
But somehow - when it comes to faith - everybody is the pilot. Regardless of the amount of training, the amount of simulator hours, the tests taken, etc., anybody can hop behind the controls, fire up the plane - and fly.
You may fight against what God has told His people, a sample of which is quoted above, as much, as often and as loud as you like; but, God still insists it is your responsibility and you are "without excuse" - it is written.
quote:
The RC appeals to empirical evidence to prove that some Scripture cannot be understood by some people. So? And you somehow think your "authorities" are the ones capable of understanding? Besides, there are actually very few biblical passages for which RC has any formal treatment so apparently they have very little understanding.
quote:
There was some empirical evidence of the fallacy of self-discernment before the Reformation -..... Which can be plainly seen from the history of RC as they "developed" binding doctrines and other practices based on nothing but personal preferences or greed. Precisely why the Reformation was a necessity.
quote:
...now there is oodles of it (snake handing and poison drinking...remember a few posts back...). As scriptually in error as those practices are, they are no worse than the error filled practices of RC. Therefore, your position of "authority" is without support.
quote:
Apparently - many are comfortable with flying in the plane piloted by a guy with no pedigree. We can talk about degrees of pedigree or authority, I suppose (a PhD from a top seminary has to be more authoritative than a guy who didn't finish the tenth grade in the local school system...) In response to your ultra elitist remarks, I'll leave you with the words of God since He addresses your beliefs best.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, -Romans 1:22
_____________________________
"We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word of the New Testament. To appeal to a tradition for authority when Holy God did not give it is futile."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 5:11:02 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5030
Status: offline
|
quote:
People seem to take this "Scriptural authoirty" thing for granted, without conceding the fact that somebody taught you that Scriptures were valid for defining your faith (your parents, your Sunday School teacher, your pastor...) My calin is that whoever you believed when they told you this - that's your authority.
You just don't get it and probably never will. GOD tells us Scripture is valid, He is the authority - not a pope, not a priest, not a pastor. And He tells us we are able to understand and discern His Word. So, who are we to believe...God or RC?
quote:
My point is - that through all of this - Catholics were not instructed dogma that was invalid or that effectively destroyed the Church. That is simply a personal belief you hold which does not make it true. There is ample scriptural evidence of the invalidity of many RC doctrines.
quote:
Except that there seem to be some variant readings of Scriptural instruction out there.So we can say for certain that some congregations possess heresy and some possess the truth. How do we decide? If one congregation baptizes infants and another believers, there is no heresy involved in that. The heresy occurs when a church teaches this water baptism removes sins which is a denial of Christ's atonement. That should be easy enough to decide - it's in The Book.
quote:
Catholics think this trust is reflected in receiving the Sacraments, attending Mass and practicing charity, while noting that others seem to either not trust these teachings, or disagree that they were actually taught, or believe that although they were instructed, they were merely optional. RC has no biblical support for their mass or for their doctrines of forgiveness of sins. So, why would anyone trust them? RC teaches their people to trust in RC - not in God. The revelation of Jesus Christ is found in Scripture - not in RC.
quote:
We have to believe (anyone who accepts 27 NT Books believes this) that the truth won out and is what is given to us through the Magisterium - reflected in Scriptures.
Actually, "we" don't have to believe any such thing. A reasoned case from Scripture cannot be made for either a papacy or magisterium. They remain simply a construct of men. So, obviously truth has not won out in many cases.
quote:
I see this as being entriely different than a Pentecostal receiving communion in a Lutheran Church. The Pentecostal does not share the same liturgy, nor Sacramental beliefs, nor theology, nor doctrine and practice as the Lutherans. You strain at gnats because you and your church lack understanding of what a "church" is. You concern yourself with "authority" instead of what actually makes a Christian or a church. God is not limited by the limitations of one denomination nor does He confine His revelation to one denomination.
quote:
But, Catholics believe that the fullness, completeness and correctness of the Deposit of Faith given the Apostles by Jesus IS the faith instructed and defined by the Catholic Church. The only "deposit" of faith is the Bible for the simple reason that there is no evidence Christ gave instructions for a papacy or magisterium.
quote:
Anything else is less than full, less than complete, less than correct. And anything "more" brings the condemnation of Jesus Christ as evidenced by Rev 22.
quote:
Their rejection of the Church is done so from a position of a lack of knowledge,... Maybe we have a responsibility to investigate, scrutinize and question.. Wishful thinking or perhaps just brainwashing. It is precisely because the teachings of RC are so well known and have been thoroughly investigated that so many reject it.
_____________________________
"We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word of the New Testament. To appeal to a tradition for authority when Holy God did not give it is futile."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 5:22:36 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5030
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
I tried fighting this one big time, but to catholic brethren all, who are not catholics are Protestants. Not that i mind be called that at all - just don't call me late for dinner 
- but the fact remains...
I never quite got that one, but agree to disagree with CCs ...
It's just their "us versus them" mentality.
quote:
quote:
By the way, did anybody see Bill Maher's prologue about the Catholic Church after his show last week? Holy smokes...it was really something. What did he say? He generally have a dirtiest mouth, i wouldt take that to heart. Not that i am a quiet one, but he and Sarah Silverman makes me feel ashamed of my nationality..
Ugh....this guy is the poster boy for bringing back public floggings...his remarks were truly despicable.
_____________________________
"We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word of the New Testament. To appeal to a tradition for authority when Holy God did not give it is futile."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 9:31:18 AM
|
|
|
Catholicandloveit
Posts: 672
Joined: 1/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
You just don't get it and probably never will. GOD tells us Scripture is valid, He is the authority - not a pope, not a priest, not a pastor. And He tells us we are able to understand and discern His Word. So, who are we to believe...God or RC?
I don't think anyone said that scripture was invalid only that it isn't the sol source of our authority. Scripture in itself says that it isn't - so in believing that it is the sol authority you disrespect that authority. 
Now if we are able to understand and discern his word why then should non-catholics who don't adhere to the doctrine of real presences attend services? There is no need for sermons, we are better able to discern scripture individually then pastors/elders.
quote:
RC has no biblical support for their mass or for their doctrines of forgiveness of sins.
By your own opinion that we all have the ability to discern and understand scripture - you can not judge anything as being unscriptural. If its personal, when you say "that isn't in scripture" about anything someone else thinks, you are (in your opinion) then judging God because He gave us this personal discernment and understanding.
Pax,
Mary
_____________________________
Eternal God, in whom mercy is endless, look kindly upon us and increase Your mercy in us, that in difficult moments we might not despair nor become despondent, but with great confidence submit ourselves to Your holy will, which is Love and Mercy itself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 10:20:20 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 774
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Say to you RCC's I hear that you still have a priest, who is working with the congregation in L.A.. In fact has quite a lot of power and was caught with his hands in the cookie jar.
This came up because your pope said that what happen was a atrocity behavior and should have never happen in the RCC church.
But this gentleman stiil has been in power and infact as I read moved around so that his sins have not caught up with him. So as to say paid a very little penatly for it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 10:59:41 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 3110
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The extra-curricular activities of Church leaders makes them horrible leaders; it doesn't make Apostolic faith invalid.
I give you that. Even.. well.. I am not sure I fully agree. From the common sense standpoint- even politicians, known dirtbags,are subject to severe public scrutiny and often lose their position if Eliot Spritzering or Get Out of the (water)closet – remember that gay boy, Larry whats-his-face, in MN..?
So even if secular people have standards for leaders – and may I mention, politicians job, unlike of religious shepherds is not to be moral leaders but keep gasoline prices under control – how much more should a Pope be expected to behave…
quote:
Protestants are not immune to these scandals. It seems that there are just some people you can't trust with being put in charge. I would also point out that for every case of bad behavior, there came a period of internal re-examination and reform.
That is what I starter the conversation with, and wish your direct opinion on.
We have black sheep but we admit it. We condemn, try to change and if nothing works, disassociate ourselves from evil , greedy, unbiblical church leaders.
CC is stuck with the hard work of pretending that Popes that contradict other Popes are still teaching the same theology.
_____________________________
Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you were you should go.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 11:07:53 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 3110
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Odel: DH, to me it looks like if CC were to denounce the infallibiliy they would help themselves majorly.
The Dog: Christianity would be a lot easier if someone were to denounce charity, as well.
Brother Dog,you are the only one who didn’t get the memo it seems like ..
Let’s not salt each other’s wounds, dear- Charity has been cancelled in modern organized Christianity(CC and Protestant) for quite some time, and substituted for hypocritical ministries, pseudo piousness, Jesus for sale, annulments of marriage by request and fake religiosity schemes.
That is were individual Catholics and Protestants have a great chance to unite for the fight to get charity that has been officially outed by religion, back again!!
We can start with agape love for brothers –and we do , that’s why moderator position has been established. 
_____________________________
Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you were you should go.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 11:19:44 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 730
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
...away from the Deposit of Faith. If this is Spirit-driven, don't you think the Spirit might have a vested interest in keeping everyone in the same playbook? The one Jesus placed in the Apostles? The one practiced by the early Chrisitians.
Jesus laid down a faith and deposited it with the Apostles, who passed it to their followers ...There are two Churches that lay claim to this Apostolic See (both with excellent cases). If Orthodoxy didn't break the bank on the Deposit, none of these other denominations would exist! That's the part you choose not to see...quote:
And then there are a bunch of others who abandoned that, and re-invented faith 1500 years after the fact of the Deposit of Faith... It HAD to be done! The deposit of Faith had been spent centuries before! Luther (and many others) could PLAINLY see this! Only the ignorant continued to trudge along the well-worn path of defective faith. They didn't (and still don't) want to see how badly the 'Church' had corrupted what had originally been entrusted to them. With that utter failure by the original Church to keep it straight, something had to be done!quote:
And it is up to each of us to choose between those alternatives to help us formulate, practice and live our professed faiths. Choose with wisdom and grace; the stakes are pretty high. EXACTLY... That's why I cannot even contemplate the LUNACY of following a system that has lost almost all resemblance to the Church that Christ established... quote:
By the way - if Scripture is the only authority, what is the validity of the Christianity practiced by followers of Christ between His resurrection and about 100 AD when Relvelations was beginning to circulate? Certianly there was an authority for Christianity, and it wasn't NT Scriptures as we know them, because these were not even completed until late in the first century (for the most part - the four Gospels, Acts and some of the Epistles).
Why in the world do you think God made it so imperative for the true followers to get it all written down? Originally, it didn't need to be written: The members knew what the church was and how it worked. Then, as in every aspect of human life in history, the 'leaders' got greedy and power-hungry. They started to change things to benefit themselves personally and the True Church became thoroughly corrupted. God made sure His Truth was put down in black and white while the Truth was still remembered. Thus He has protected it ever since, and has not ever gone back on His promise to protect it's factuality. So... even though the Orthodox Churches claim to be original, they are quite far from being what the original was(is), and we can be assured of the truth of this by studying the word He has provided us with. Hey, we may have a thing or three wrong in what we do, but it's INFINITELY better than being Orthodox and having only a thing or three RIGHT!!!
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 11:39:52 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1063
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
There are 23 rites within the Roman Catholic Church, 1 western and 22 eastern. Every one of these rites assent to the authority of the Church and are in full communion under that authority. As a Roman Catholic practicing in the western (Latin) rite, I may receive the Sacraments through any of the 23 rites that are in full communion within the Roman Catholic Church. In this case - the differences are liturgical alone, and not doctrinal or theological.
I see this as being entriely different than a Pentecostal receiving communion in a Lutheran Church. The Pentecostal does not share the same liturgy, nor Sacramental beliefs, nor theology, nor doctrine and practice as the Lutherans. A claim of "communion" in this case would be the Pentecostal leaving his Pentecostal congregation and joining the Lutheran congregation, and professing the faith of the Lutheran Church and acknowledging the authority within that Church to define and instruct practice and doctrine.
Most of our denominational differences are liturgical as well. There are a few that aren't so much, sure. But, considering some of the things I've watched on Catholic television about some of your Marian cults (I was bored) and what I've talked to your priests about (yes, I have some Catholic priest friends, half of my extended family is Catholic) you have some pretty serious theological difference depending on who you ask too. Your claim of unity is a lot shakier than you seem to realize.
Otherwise, the reason you've managed to keep your rites to a numeric minimum is probably the fact that your leadership kicks out anyone they disagree too strongly with (or dislike politically). Half the Protestant denominations you're so upset about were created by your church in the first place.
quote:
And humans are in a good position to render this judgment...
When you have a pope turning a basilica into a brothel it's a pretty easy thing to decide the morality of.
quote:
And I am not sure that Catholics limit this definition either. But, Catholics believe that the fullness, completeness and correctness of the Deposit of Faith given the Apostles by Jesus IS the faith instructed and defined by the Catholic Church. Anything else is less than full, less than complete, less than correct. How valid is "less than full" or "less than correct"? Not very - for those who are aware of the alternative, and choose to reject it. Most people hate the Catholic Church because they have been trained and socialized to do so; they really have no idea what is being instructed by her or practiced by her followers, or why. Their rejection of the Church is done so from a position of a lack of knowledge, being put in that position by another teacher. How responsible are we if we are wroking with bad data? Maybe we have a responsibility to investigate, scrutinize and question (as I have done with Protestant faiths over my lifetime) before rushing to judgment.
Well, of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be Catholic. This does not mean I have to agree with you.
Now, you can blow off all Protestants by claiming a lack of knowledge, but that's not really the case. I will not become Catholic for the following main reasons:
- The scripture tells me to pray directly to God. My Intercessor is the living Christ, not some dead guys who have been randomly named the saint of whatever.
- I do not ascribe to the Marian cults. I believe Mary was human, like me, which the Scripture supports. If she really were "Queen of Heaven" and the reason that Lucifer fell (because he refused to worship her) as one of your bishops claimed on Catholic TV and as one of your websites claim here: http://www.sacredheart.com/The_Mystical_City_of_God_Book_01_Chapter_03.htm, it would say so in the Scripture. Is she to be admired for her faith? Absolutely. But that doesn't make her queen of heaven and earth.
- I disagree with infant baptism. Scriptural baptism is shown to be a choice, done to adults, showing their decision to trust Christ. It is the decision to trust that saves people, not having a bath or shower, not being sprinkled with no say in the matter or understanding of what is going on when they are mere infants.
- I find it difficult to believe that the Apostolic Succession actually went through so many corrupt, depraved, and power-hungry people. Peter would not have called them his spiritual successors.
- I disagree with many of the traditions that have been put into place, such as priest celibacy, confession to priests and the resulting "penance", and rote chants in lieu of actual prayer.
- I do not believe in purgatory. I take Paul literally when he says "absent from the body, present with the Lord", and I take Jesus literally when He told the thief on the cross "tonight, you shall dine with Me".
quote:
Thank you for illustrating my previous point...
The fact that I had no idea what was going on when I was ten years old has nothing to do with my study and knowledge gained 20 years later. Nice try though.
I would guess that at least 80% of the people at that mass who WERE Catholic had no idea what was being said either. For them it was mostly a deep-knee-bends exercise.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 11:45:12 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 730
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gatolover
... Sorry... It was Paul who said it... Acts 17:11. But I do believe that he was fully authorized by Christ to do so, when in contrast, your popes have NOT been...
When do I get some of the verses I've been asking about for YEARS! Like the ones that even begin to substantiate this claim:(Oh... Unless they are too hard for us to understand without somebody telling me that it means something other than what it says, of course!)quote:
...we find St. Peter [the Church's first Pope] writing in his Second Epistle... You have used scripture to validate my stance! Thank you! Your 'popes' have found too many things too...quote:
...hard to understand [so]that the ignorant and unstable {Those popes} distort to their own destruction, JUST AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES." 2Pet. 3:15-16 Hence we now have the RCC... and we can thank instability and ignorance for it's evolution into it's present 'Glory'!
There is no disputing the fact that Christ and His 'Authorized Representatives' have written EXACTLY what I contend... Yet those persons you claim are the 'Authorized' persons to 'keep the keys of the Kingdom' cannot be trusted to keep the Truth!
I don't begrudge anyone their right to choose to remain blissfully unaware of this Truth, I'm just called to show them the what the real truth is...
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 11:48:05 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 730
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gatolover
I think I know where I'll be worshipping next week.
Yeah, but you can't be entirely sure of who or what you will be worshiping if you're headed to a Catholic church next week!
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 12:04:30 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 730
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeterD
Hello Brothers,
I wonder if the Pope is also passing on this good thing...
Galatians 6:1-6
Bear One Another’s Burdens
1Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 5For each will have to bear his own load.
6 One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches.
PeterD
Thank you, yet again, Peter! And with this reminder, I shall just bow out as gracefully as possible while one is walking with a foot in the mouth, and just observe as Kelman calmly (usually) and so effectively shows the RCC for the error that it has become...
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 12:11:17 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 12173
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
This thread is about "Why do we need a pope?" We have a variety of other threads to discuss other matters Catholic, you will find the complete list HERE
quote:
- The scripture tells me to pray directly to God. My Intercessor is the living Christ, not some dead guys who have been randomly named the saint of whatever.
Please discuss that HERE
quote:
- I do not ascribe to the Marian cults. I believe Mary was human, like me, which the Scripture supports. If she really were "Queen of Heaven" and the reason that Lucifer fell (because he refused to worship her) as one of your bishops claimed on Catholic TV and as one of your websites claim here: http://www.sacredheart.com/The_Mystical_City_of_God_Book_01_Chapter_03.htm, it would say so in the Scripture. Is she to be admired for her faith? Absolutely. But that doesn't make her queen of heaven and earth.
Please discuss that...um...HERE (I think)
quote:
- I disagree with infant baptism. Scriptural baptism is shown to be a choice, done to adults, showing their decision to trust Christ. It is the decision to trust that saves people, not having a bath or shower, not being sprinkled with no say in the matter or understanding of what is going on when they are mere infants.
Not really a Catholic/Protestant issue--please start a new thread to disuss this.
quote:
- I find it difficult to believe that the Apostolic Succession actually went through so many corrupt, depraved, and power-hungry people. Peter would not have called them his spiritual successors.
Please discuss that HERE
quote:
- I disagree with many of the traditions that have been put into place, such as priest celibacy, confession to priests and the resulting "penance", and rote chants in lieu of actual prayer.
Discuss that HERE and HERE . We do not have a thread about confession or penance. If you think one is necessary, please email your suggestion to community@salemwebnetwork.com
quote:
- I do not believe in purgatory. I take Paul literally when he says "absent from the body, present with the Lord", and I take Jesus literally when He told the thief on the cross "tonight, you shall dine with Me".
Please discuss that HERE
Thanks!
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 1:40:30 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1063
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
Those are not a matter of discussion. Those are simply a demonstration of the fact that I have studied Catholocism and have logical reasons for rejecting it.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 2:13:50 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 311
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Greetings,
I'd like to address some of the following comments. Just for the record, I am neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant at this point. Rather, I find my self being intensely drawn to Eastern Orthodoxy. So in a sense, I am doing my best to gauge these comments with an objective mind as much as possible.
quote:
Doghouse said: People seem to take this "Scriptural authority" thing for granted, without conceding the fact that somebody taught you that Scriptures were valid for defining your faith (your parents, your Sunday School teacher, your pastor...) My calin is that whoever you believed when they told you this - that's your authority.
Kelman responded: You just don't get it and probably never will. GOD tells us Scripture is valid, He is the authority - not a pope, not a priest, not a pastor. And He tells us we are able to understand and discern His Word. So, who are we to believe...God or RC?
Doghouse, I think the point you are trying to make is that we don't learn the Scriptures nor our faith in a vacuum. We are not islands unto ourselves. We don't just pick up the Bible one day and say, I've got the Holy Spirit so I can understand the Scriptures and don't need instuction from anyone. Of course, perhaps I should say we shouldn't do this. There are those on this forum who apparently do think that the above is true for them.
Kelman, if we are able to understand Sacred Scripture merely by virtue of being indwelt with the Holy Spirit, then why, why, why, are there so many different interpretations of that very same Scripture? Is the Holy Spirit confused, is He whispering different teachings to different people? Is He telling us that unity can be achieved through diversity in doctrine?
I have read many threads on Crosswalk dealing with a plethora of doctrines and teachings. The posters, all who claim Scripture as their guide, disagree with each other regularly, sometimes ferociously. Yet, all subscribe to Sola Scriptura.
quote:
Doghouse said: My point is - that through all of this - Catholics were not instructed dogma that was invalid or that effectively destroyed the Church.
Kelman responded: That is simply a personal belief you hold which does not make it true. There is ample scriptural evidence of the invalidity of many RC doctrines.
Doghouse, I understand where you are coming from. However, I do think that the Papacy has undergone radical changes especially within the last century. This is why we see Sedevacantists and Traditionalists who protest against the reforms of Vatican II, as they see these reforms as a departure from traditional Catholicism. Whether RC refer to these "developments" as dogma, doctrine, teaching, or discipline, it is quite evident that dramatic change has occured within the RCC. I wonder whether popes and bishops from the centuries following the Reformation would even agree with the current beliefs and teachings within the RCC.
Kelman, I was once vehemently opposed to the RCC. However, after undergoing much study and receiving counsel from a priest, I would have to say that there is quite a bit of orthodox teaching in the Roman Catholic faith. Yet, there are those doctrines which I believe cannot be supported either through the ancient apostolic teaching or Holy Scripture. The primacy of the pope, papal infallibility, Purgatory, and Indulgences would definitely come under this heading.
quote:
Doghouse said: Except that there seem to be some variant readings of Scriptural instruction out there. So we can say for certain that some congregations possess heresy and some possess the truth. How do we decide?
Kelman responded: If one congregation baptizes infants and another believers, there is no heresy involved in that. The heresy occurs when a church teaches this water baptism removes sins which is a denial of Christ's atonement. That should be easy enough to decide - it's in The Book.
Doghouse, you make a good point here. How do we decide? Should the Christian faith be continually re-interpreted with each successive generation? In my journey of faith over the course of the past several years, I have encountered this very question and found myself at an impasse. The opposing doctrines and teachings within Evangelical Protestantism have overwhelmed me.
I came to faith in Christ coming from an atheist/agnostic upbringing. To discover that God, the Creator of the universe exists was truly liberating for me. However, the first non-denominational fellewship I was involved with was very elitist. We had the true interpretation of the Bible while other Christians were ignorant and compared to Laodicea. We knew how to witness and preach the gospel while other Christians were judged as fearful, timid and ineffective in their witnessing. Eventually, like many para-church ministries, this one went off the deep end and became a dangerous cult.
Since then I have sat under the teachings of many faith traditions from Wesleyan, to Mennonite, to Assemblies of God, to Reformed Baptist, to Methodist and Lutheran. The Wesleyans believed in Entire Sanctification which was a heresy according to the Reformed Baptists. The Lutherans believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ in Communion while the AOG and Reformed believe it to be merely a memorial meal. The Anglicans (the faith my husband was raised in) and Lutherans believe in Baptismal regeneration while the Baptists and AOG considered that to be heresy. Some of these faith traditions consider baby baptism to be of no effect and rebaptize those who come into their congregation. The Reformed Baptists would go under this heading and yet they disagree with Calvin who said that all baptisms are effectual and no one should be rebaptized. Then there are the diverse beliefs of AOG and Reformed and the varying stances in between on such things as the gifts of the spirit, eschatology, the role of women, marriage and divorce, WoF teachings, free will and predestination, taking up arms, abortion and contraception. The list is endless. BTW Kelman, according to your comment, Lutherans teach heresy, since they believe as Martin Luther did, in regenerational baptism.
Lest anyone say that these various faith traditions agree on the core essentials, I would have you reconsider. Each define core essentials differently. So we have many from the Reformed tradition saying that the AOG teach heresy with regard to the gifts of the Spirit and free will. And we have the Lutherans who say that Evangelicals teach heresy when it comes to Baptism and The Lord's Supper and Confession. Then we have those who say that the Wesleyan's teaching on Entire Sanctification is heresy. And the infightings among AOG with respect to WoF teachings. Some AOG subscribe to WoF teachings and watch TBN regularly. Others say that most of those teachings are heresy. The controversies among Evangelical Protestants and the disunity that has resulted I believe, all comes back to Sola Scriptura, the belief that the Bible is perspicuous to all who possess the Holy Spirit and therefore is the sole rule of faith for the Christian. The result if anyone cares to open their eyes and be honest is disunity and chaos.
quote:
Doghouse said: Catholics think this trust is reflected in receiving the Sacraments, attending Mass and practicing charity, while noting that others seem to either not trust these teachings, or disagree that they were actually taught, or believe that although they were instructed, they were merely optional.
Kelman said: RC has no biblical support for their mass or for their doctrines of forgiveness of sins. So, why would anyone trust them? RC teaches their people to trust in RC - not in God. The revelation of Jesus Christ is found in Scripture - not in RC.
I think the main difference between RC's and Protestants is their view of the Church. Roman Catholics believe there is an ancient Apostolic Church which Christ founded on Peter and must be submitted to. After all, who decided on the Canon of Scripture, but bishops who believed their authority to make such a decision was directly given them by our Lord Jesus Christ?
Protestant Evangelicals however, have a very low view of the Church. It is a mystical body for sure, but not one which possesses the apostolic tradition. They do not in other words, think they have accountability to the Church but rather, only to God. I may get some flack on this, but I have been in Protestant circles long enough to know this is the case. So then, if I disagree with the Lutheran Missouri Synod Church, I can resign my membership and go find a church that teaches more in line with MY BELIEFS. Which again, I believe are based upon Holy Scripture, just like all the others who make the same claim. Hmmmm....something wrong with this picture?
quote:
Doghouse said: We have to believe (anyone who accepts 27 NT Books believes this) that the truth won out and is what is given to us through the Magisterium - reflected in Scriptures.
Kelma responded: Actually, "we" don't have to believe any such thing. A reasoned case from Scripture cannot be made for either a papacy or magisterium. They remain simply a construct of men. So, obviously truth has not won out in many cases.
I do think that history shows us that the Church had authority in Christians' lives prior to the Reformation. The ecumenical councils convened for the very purpose of combating heresy and defining the doctrines of the Christian faith based in the Apostolic teaching. These bishops who dealt with serious heresy which attempted to tear apart the Church were given their authority from Jesus Christ. These bishops could excommunicate those within the Church who were spreading heresy. I beg the question here, could any Christian attend those councils and claim to have the same authority from Jesus Christ to define Christian doctrine and condemn heresy? Could any Bible believing, Spirit-filled Christian claim they have just as much a right to this authority and therefore can make the same declarations merely because Holy Scripture is perspicuous to all believers?
Thus it is that we have "Christians" today who are defining for themselves what Christian doctrine is. These Christians think nothing of tearing down and bringing into question matters of doctrine and teaching that were already settled by the Church in her councils within the first thousand years of Christianity. Right here on Crosswalk we have those who unabashedly oppose the doctrine of the Trinity, claiming Holy Scripture as their guide.
quote:
Doghouse said: I see this as being entriely different than a Pentecostal receiving communion in a Lutheran Church. The Pentecostal does not share the same liturgy, nor Sacramental beliefs, nor theology, nor doctrine and practice as the Lutherans.
Kelman responded: You strain at gnats because you and your church lack understanding of what a "church" is. You concern yourself with "authority" instead of what actually makes a Christian or a church. God is not limited by the limitations of one denomination nor does He confine His revelation to one denomination.
No Kelman, Doghouse is not straining at gnats. Lutherans do not have open Communion because they believe in Consubstantiation which is considered heresy according to many Evangelicals. And they also believe in Confession like the Anglicans, which most Evangelicals consider to be heresy. Reformed Baptists do not allow speaking of tongues in their congregations and many reformed consider speaking in tongues "of the devil." I know many Reformed who do not even consider Pentecostals to be their brothers and sisters in the Lord. And likewise, there are those in the Bible Fellowship and Evangelical Free Churches who consider most Lutherans "unsaved." Why the very mover and shaker of the Reformation himself, Martin Luther, taught regenerational Baptism, of which you claim is a heresy.
quote:
Doghouse said: But, Catholics believe that the fullness, completeness and correctness of the Deposit of Faith given the Apostles by Jesus IS the faith instructed and defined by the Catholic Church.
Kelman responded: The only "deposit" of faith is the Bible for the simple reason that there is no evidence Christ gave instructions for a papacy or magisterium.
Doghouse, while I agree with you to a point, I do not see that the first several centuries of the history of the Church point to Papal Primacy or Infallibility. Instead I think history shows that Christians had a very high view of Church, that there was an equality among the Bishops which held to Apostolic teaching and tradition.
Kelman, history shows that Christians were submissive to an authority which was Bishops in each established Patriarchate. There was not a mentality among Christians in the early Church of "me and Jesus." Nor was there a mentality of Sola Scriptura. Individual Christians didn't even possess Bibles for centuries. Therefore, they "trusted" the teachings of their Bishops which proceeded from the Apostles' teaching, handed down through the centuries. This Apostolic tradition was held to and submitted to by all faithful Christians. No Christian would claim in those days to oppose the teachings of the Church in order to start their own faith tradition, claiming sole sufficiency in the Scripures as their defense.
quote:
Doghouse said: Their rejection of the Church is done so from a position of a lack of knowledge,... Maybe we have a responsibility to investigate, scrutinize and question..
Kelman responded: Wishful thinking or perhaps just brainwashing. It is precisely because the teachings of RC are so well known and have been thoroughly investigated that so many reject it.
I think each of us are responsible to God to be faithful to the light and revelation He has given us. One cannot do that merely by holding the Bible in one hand and claiming to have the Holy Spirit's leading. The myriad of denominations, which disagree on doctrine are proof of this. However, if one cares enough to study both the history of the Christian Church and Sacred Scripture, they just might discover there is indeed an Apostolic tradition and teaching which is universal and has been held to, defended, and protected by the Holy Spirit since our Lord breathed upon the Apostles and they received the Holy Spirit. St. Ignatius, a respected Church Father and martyr for the Christian faith said, "Where the Bishop of the Church is, there is Christ."
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/16/2008 2:25:39 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1063
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
I think you're throwing the word "heresy" around a little too liberally there.
The fact that I do not agree with a certain practice or interpretation does not necessarily mean that I think the other person is a heretic. Some of it is merely preferential (some people like rock music, some people like hymns). Some of it is in the realm of "how many angels fit on the head of a pin", which may make for interesting theological debate but does not prevent one from accepting the other as a brother or sister in Christ. Some of it is merely things that the Scripture does not explicitly say, but that is not salvic, and is again a matter of interesting theological debate.
I may not agree with a Pentecostal on the practice of tongues, but I do not believe that my Pentecostal friend is a heretic.
It mostly brings to mind Paul, when he's talking about how some people want to follow certain dietary restrictions and some don't, and both are fine. It's not a salvic issue. It's not a big deal. It's not heresy.
As for what St. Ignacius said... Jesus said "wherever two or more are gathered in My name, there I am also."
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
and 
and maybe a few 
and other unmentionables.. 
Thanks for the hug, Mary. Some days I *really* need it 
and 
and 
with quite a few 
too.
