Catholic Question ???

[DHK]

And, although there are sinners in the Church, that does not eclipse the truth that the Church teaches.

The RCC doesn't teach the truth. That's why I left. Its teachings damns people to hell.

Also, much is being done to correct what caused certain seminarians to be accepted in their seminaries. I understand prospective seminarians go through a battery of psychological testings before being admitted to a seminary. The Church has been through a lot since her beginnings, and has survived. She will survive this as well.

What you mean by "Church" is not a church, but a business organization spreading false propaganda.

And, it seems that the rate of abuse by protestant ministers is higher than that of Catholic priests, and the rate among teachers was even higher. A quote:
"Finally, in the authoritative work by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests, it was determined that between .2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent."

So, pot meet kettle!

I am not a Protestant and I don't speak for them or defend them. I am a Baptist. Like I said previously I have never witnessed anything even remotely close to what I read and then posted about the RCC. Not in the Baptist churches I am involved in. But you don't understand Baptist churches do you? Most are independent. What the RCC does is atrocious, and reflects badly on both of the last two popes.

 

[KJVRICH]

The RCC doesn't teach the truth. That's why I left. Its teachings damns people to hell.

What you mean by "Church" is not a church, but a business organization spreading false propaganda.

I am not a Protestant and I don't speak for them or defend them. I am a Baptist. Like I said previously I have never witnessed anything even remotely close to what I read and then posted about the RCC. Not in the Baptist churches I am involved in. But you don't understand Baptist churches do you? Most are independent. What the RCC does is atrocious, and reflects badly on both of the last two popes.

I AGREE, I was raised in the RCC, and I never felt right,(once I was old enough to see what was going on). After I gave my life to Jesus Christ and started to really read and study the Bible, it is VERY clear to me that catholic teaching goes against what is in the Bible.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The RCC doesn't teach the truth. That's why I left. Its teachings damns people to hell.

What you mean by "Church" is not a church, but a business organization spreading false propaganda.

I am not a Protestant and I don't speak for them or defend them. I am a Baptist. Like I said previously I have never witnessed anything even remotely close to what I read and then posted about the RCC. Not in the Baptist churches I am involved in. But you don't understand Baptist churches do you? Most are independent. What the RCC does is atrocious, and reflects badly on both of the last two popes.

Could you explain how it damns people to hell? Since you've been Roman Catholic, I'm especially interested in your perspective on this.

 

[KJVRICH]

Oh, please! That is doublespeak. If you want to be an ordained minister, you are forbidden to marry. You cannot follow your calling and be married at the same time in the RCC. Not only is this a primary cause of all the sexual shenanigans in the RCC, it is an evil and vain tradition of men which is anti-scriptural.

See, this and other such bull is the reason I could never be a Roman Catholic. There are too many commandments of men in place of the scriptures, and you have to surrender your conscience to a man-made hierarchy. None of this has anything to do with God; it is evil.

I just cannot swallow all the bull, not even if I cut it up into little pieces and took one small bite at a time. It's still bull, and my system wouldn't digest it even if I could get it down.

YES, too many commandments of "men"........
and that is the reason the catholic catechism is thicker than the Bible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

OK, here's a question............since by your posts here, you appear to be a catholic, why do you list yourself as "baptist" in your profile?

When I first joined this site I was baptist attending a Southern Baptist Church but after joining and in my faith Journey I was lead to the Catholic Church. If you pull up post when I originally became a member I had some not so nice things to say about Catholics though I never believed they weren't Christian. Because I was in some respects of a similar mind many of those here were.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

His OP is extermely valid, as there are NO scriptures that support that the dead intercede on our behalf, and WHAT can Mary./peter/pope do for us that the Lord Jesus and the Holy spirit cannot be able to do?

We ALL: who are saved have immediate and full access to the throne of God, so why need any one else to intercede, isn't God enough?

Why is it then that Moses who died in Duet. Speaks to Jesus who had not yet died about his upcomming trials? Also why did the corinithians get baptized for the dead? Unless there was a connection they held between those in the Church in heaven and those in the Church on earth?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Oh, so in those churches that have bishops, they settle disputes and this is assured by Jesus to be true. Why? Because of a mythical apostolic succession? And you suppose there are no liberal bishops in the RCC like in the Episcopal Church? Just think, before he retired, Episcopalians could go to Bishop John Shelby Spong and get the answers to their questions assuredly answered by a man who had a direct line to Jesus.

Sorry, but I had rather trust the scriptures and the Holy Spirit within me to get the truth from rather than some third party who might or might not even be a Christian. That's what happens when you turn your conscience over to someone else.

Yet you trust those same men to compile the holy scriptures as you have now and call them canon? As we know there is no divinely inspired table of contents for the bible thus you must have trusted the men who claimed the canonisity of which books were to be included in scripture. Strange.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And this is what happens when you have a hierarchy of men who forbid their ministers to marry. This is not just unbiblical, it is anti-biblical.

That is erroneous. As it has been proven that Married ministers are just as guilty of commiting sexual assault on others. Its the heart of the man that commits these sins not the celebacy requirement. Also you promote the propaganda of the sexual revolution suggesting that men should freely express their sexuality with out restriction. Thus if you have same sex attraction you should go for it or if you want to commit adultry you should go for it or if you want to fornicate you should go for it. I'm certain you unknowingly do this but that was the argument proffered during the start of the Sexual revolution. Celebacy has nothing to do with the abuse. The sexual disorder (who were homosexual men) is.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

YES, too many commandments of "men"........
and that is the reason the catholic catechism is thicker than the Bible.

It is clear you haven't read the catachism. Its a quick breakdown of Catholic basic teaching. And follows the outline of the Nicene Creed.

 

[KJVRICH]

It is clear you haven't read the catachism. Its a quick breakdown of Catholic basic teaching. And follows the outline of the Nicene Creed.

I have read alot of it, enough to know that it is a FALSE church,
for example, from the catachism;
1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.51 “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior. (1257, 2003, 460)

where in the Gospel does Jesus teach us about the sacraments being
needed for salvation ?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have read alot of it, enough to know that it is a FALSE church,
for example, from the catachism;
1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.51 “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior. (1257, 2003, 460)

where in the Gospel does Jesus teach us about the sacraments being
needed for salvation ?

Well, I'm impressed that I'm wrong about you and you've read at least some of the Catachism. Well lets take a look at specifically what you are suggesting. Connection between the sacraments and salvation. Well first off the Catholic Church does not have as you do a forensic view of Salvation which is at a single point in time and only Judicially based. The basic problem with this forensic view is that God doesn't proceed to "make us righteous" but only "legally declares us so" When we are not in actuality righteous. We are just declared so. Basically its a legal fiction. And only clears our guilt before the law of God.
When Catholics consider salvation we see it first as a free gift offered to us by God's grace. In that we are saved by grace in the sense that God's goodwill and mercy has now freed us. Catholics see what needs saving is not just our guilt but but the destruction of our heart and life from the presence of sin and death. We believe there needs to be an ontological change. So we include in Salvation not just freedom from our guilt but the transformation of our lives into the image of Christ. Thus Grace for the Catholic is the very life of God given to men to transform their lives. And so at once Salvation is instentaneous (God gives you Faith and you accept and believe which is the entry point of salvation thus a person is saved) and progressive (in that transformation into the image of Christ happens over a period of time. Thus I am being saved.) and a future hope (Remaining in Christ, He remains in me and I have the Hope of an eternity with him in glory. Thus I will be saved.) I had to lay that ground work of the Catholic mind set to then say that the Sacraments are the grace (life of God given to men to transform them) given. Where does scripture allude to this? Well upon reciept of faith our first response is believe and to follow Christ into Baptism which Peter says

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

There by recieving grace to forward your ontological change (Roman 8:29). We see how healing is involved with confessing your sins

Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed

These things are done with magical thinking but it reflects the Christian participation in living within the grace of Christ from whom comes our salvation.

 

[church mouse guy]

Well, your starting off with a bang with your very first post on this board. There are only three Catholics allowed on this board so know that answers may not come as quickly as questions. I will do my best though....

Walter, for the record, I think that they should allow more Catholics on this board.

:type:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Yet you trust those same men to compile the holy scriptures as you have now and call them canon? As we know there is no divinely inspired table of contents for the bible thus you must have trusted the men who claimed the canonisity of which books were to be included in scripture. Strange.

So, you claim that Catholic bishops compiled the scriptures? That is hilarious! It's this sort of subterfuge that makes it very difficult to have a conversation with some Catholics.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

That is erroneous. As it has been proven that Married ministers are just as guilty of commiting sexual assault on others. Its the heart of the man that commits these sins not the celebacy requirement. Also you promote the propaganda of the sexual revolution suggesting that men should freely express their sexuality with out restriction. Thus if you have same sex attraction you should go for it or if you want to commit adultry you should go for it or if you want to fornicate you should go for it. I'm certain you unknowingly do this but that was the argument proffered during the start of the Sexual revolution. Celebacy has nothing to do with the abuse. The sexual disorder (who were homosexual men) is.

I don't know what to call that but an absolute lie. That bull is unworthy of you. Where are you getting that crap from?

Mandatory celibacy is evil. it is a contrivance of a power structure seeking to control men, having zero to do with the scriptures.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Well, I must say that up until now, I have thought that Roman Catholics, though in grievous error on some things, were still orthodox Christians, based on their adherence to the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. But after reading many Catholic posts on here, I am becoming convinced more and more that this is not the case. There is so much bull and so much stuff that is not just unscriptural but diametrically opposed to scripture that I cannot call Roman Catholicism orthodox. I was about to say that I would put it on par with the Seventh Day Adventists, but the RCC goes so much further beyond scripture than does the SDA that it makes the SDA look pale in comparison to all the man-made additions and superstitions that are antithetical to scripture.

I am convinced that to be a Roman catholic, a person has to allow his reason, conscience, common sense, and scriptural knowledge to be taken captive; he must surrender all of this and more an unbiblical, man-made hierarchy.

No, Roman Catholicism is not the faith of the New Testament or the early churches. It is a combination of some Christianity, paganism, superstition, and the unholy alliance of the church with the Roman state.

How any knowledgeable person could be a member of this man-made monolithic monstrosity is beyond me.

I still appreciate the RCC pro-life stance, as I do that of the LDS, but that's as far as it goes with me.

 

[Walter]

Why is it then that Moses who died in Duet. Speaks to Jesus who had not yet died about his upcomming trials? Also why did the corinithians get baptized for the dead? Unless there was a connection they held between those in the Church in heaven and those in the Church on earth?

:applause::applause: I have repeatedly asked this question with no response.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So, you claim that Catholic bishops compiled the scriptures? That is hilarious! It's this sort of subterfuge that makes it very difficult to have a conversation with some Catholics.

I can site the Church Councils which determined Canon if you would like.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't know what to call that but an absolute lie. That bull is unworthy of you. Where are you getting that crap from?

How is it an absolute lie? Which aspect? Please provide your specific refutation.

Mandatory celibacy is evil.

It is only manditory for the priest of the roman rite. Roman Catholicism is compiled of 22 rites. But explain how requiring only priest to be celebate to perform their duties is evil? Remember this requirement is not placed on every Catholic. If a man doesn't want to be celebate he can still serve the Church in a different capacity.

it is a contrivance of a power structure seeking to control men, having zero to do with the scriptures.

Do you understand the history behind the Celebacy of the Priesthood? There is evidence of it going back before the middle ages. However, at one point Priest who were married where giving their title (preist) and lands as priest to their children. This obviously led to abuses which caused the Chruch to make a diffinitive decision about it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, I must say that up until now, I have thought that Roman Catholics, though in grievous error on some things, were still orthodox Christians, based on their adherence to the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

Clearly you are confused about what Orthodoxy is. We as Catholics adhere to the Nicene Creed. And you can find many agreements between Catholics and Orthodox Christianity in beliefs. I think you need to review history and follow Orthodox teachings of the faith.

But after reading many Catholic posts on here, I am becoming convinced more and more that this is not the case. There is so much bull and so much stuff that is not just unscriptural but diametrically opposed to scripture that I cannot call Roman Catholicism orthodox.

The fact that you don't specify the Bull or what your specific objection makes one question how carfully you consider the topics. Clearly from your historical point of view it is clear you read into it your own theology rather than understanding what it is being said by the people who lived the history. Have you ever read the Patristics?

I was about to say that I would put it on par with the Seventh Day Adventists, but the RCC goes so much further beyond scripture than does the SDA that it makes the SDA look pale in comparison to all the man-made additions and superstitions that are antithetical to scripture.

And you make another assertion. You may not like me or even my arguments but why don't you actually try following Christian thought down through the ages to see for yourself?

I am convinced that to be a Roman catholic, a person has to allow his reason, conscience, common sense, and scriptural knowledge to be taken captive; he must surrender all of this and more an unbiblical, man-made hierarchy.

This just isn't so. We believe reason plays a role in our thought and beliefs.

No, Roman Catholicism is not the faith of the New Testament or the early churches. It is a combination of some Christianity, paganism, superstition, and the unholy alliance of the church with the Roman state.

First of all there is no Roman-State. Rome died out a long time ago. There is only The Catholic Church which its administrative leadership reside at the Vatican which is its own nation on 1 hill.

I still appreciate the RCC pro-life stance, as I do that of the LDS, but that's as far as it goes with me.

At least there is some charity with you.

 

[Walter]

Oh, please! That is doublespeak. If you want to be an ordained minister, you are forbidden to marry. You cannot follow your calling and be married at the same time in the RCC. Not only is this a primary cause of all the sexual shenanigans in the RCC, it is an evil and vain tradition of men which is anti-scriptural.

See, this and other such bull is the reason I could never be a Roman Catholic. There are too many commandments of men in place of the scriptures, and you have to surrender your conscience to a man-made hierarchy. None of this has anything to do with God; it is evil.

I just cannot swallow all the bull, not even if I cut it up into little pieces and took one small bite at a time. It's still bull, and my system wouldn't digest it even if I could get it down.

So, in the entire Catholic Church, if you feel called to be a priest, then you can go through the process but then are 'forbidden' to marry. Is that what you are claiming? Do you know that the only rite of the Catholic Church which requires a celibate priesthood is the Latin Rite. I had the same discussion with DHK once and he would never admit he was wrong. Always insisting that ALL priest in the Holy Catholic Church are 'forbidden' to marry.
As TS stated, there are 22 rites in the Catholic Church and ONLY the Latin Rite requires celibate priests. A person is not FORBIDDEN to marry in that rite, as TS said, they can serve the Lord in many different ways. Married men can become Deacons.