Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible?

[BobRyan]

There is no evidence at all that a "Church organization" was establihsed in Rome with Paul at the lead or with Peter at the head as a "local" leader.

In both the case of Paul and Peter they were there either because they were imprisoned or because they were traveling and raising up churches in various places. Neither of them decided to "live in Rome" as in move to Rome and live there as your permanent home.

The Apostles were ALWAYS recognized as world-wide church leaders so you could go to Ephesus or to Jerusalem or ANYWHERE these guys lived for a time and "claim that as your church capital" if you were bent on distorting Church history.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by DHK:
For someone who has been stating things from a Catholic point of view thus far, it seems odd to me that you suddenly would change in mid-stream and become a hyper-dispensationalist.

That's because you aren't paying attention. I never said that Christ only had the apostles in view. I'm merely pointing out that he was addressing the apostles so what He had to say was applicable to them as well. You seem to prefer to ignore that part.

On another note: "the Apostles, the foundation of the Church," you say. Please define "church".

Yes, it's the visible body of believers that can trace itself back to the apostles and which has maintained the faith of the apostles. It's that same body to which Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against it,(Matt. 16) and that Paul called the ground and pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15). It is the Body of Christ, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.(Eph 1:23)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And yet this same Jesus Christ empowered the apostles to do the same. We have established this in John 20. If Christ had not so empowered the apostles, then I'd agree with you. But since it says that very thing right there in the text, I'm going to have to pass on agreeing with you.

Jesus did no such thing. I am sorry if you do not understand the Bible, but nowhere in the Bible did Jesus ever empower anyone to forgive sins. You have yet to demonstrate that to me. </font>[/QUOTE]I already have. It says it plainly right there in John 20:23. You're the one who appears to have a problem with the Bible, not me.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Nope, despite your leaps of illogic, it's still self-explanatory. The apostles are able to declare sins forgiven or retained by the power of God given to them by Christ Who is God. Seems like God can grant that power to whomever He desires. If He wants to forgive sins through the agency of men whom He has chosen, I have no problem with that. Afterall, He is God, and who are we to argue with God??? [/qb]

You have painted the typical god of the Catholic religion. He is a god that you can put in one pocket while you carry your sin around in your other pocket. Any time you need god you just pull him out of your pocket. Then put him back away when you want to continue in your sin. Very convenient. </font>[/QUOTE]So now you have to resort to straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks. But, I guess I shouldn't expect anything less...

Ask me of any Scripture you wish, and I will answer it for you.

No thanks. You're "answers" have turned out to be non-answers as you have repeatedly circumvented the plain meaning of the text to maintain your Protestant traditions of men.

I will say it again for you: He never empowered the Apostles to forgive sin. Only God forgives sin. If you have a problem with that take it up with God. It was Christ that said it. Do you call him a liar?

I'll say it again for you. In John 20:23, Christ said it Himself that if the apostles forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, and if the apostles retain the sins of any, they are retained. It seems you are the one calling Christ a liar in order to maintain your Baptist-ic tradition.

Because you can't understand what other Scriptures says is not my problem.

Pot...kettle...

If you have specific questions ask them. But don't make statements you can't back up.

Ask if I would need to ask you what Scripture means, since you have repeatedly demonstrated that you will ignore the plain meaning of Scripture when it suits your purposes.

]No, you haven't explained anything. Just quoting a verse without giving any explanation as to why you think it means what the Magesterium has indoctrinated you to believe is not good enough. Sorry, you will have to do better than that. It looks like you will have to resort to SS on this one.
DHK

I know it is easier for you to suppose that a "magisterium" has indoctrinated me as to what to believe. This is not true. I finally started taking certain Scriptures for their plain meaning after years of letting the Baptist "magisterium" try to explain them away. So, no thanks, DHK. Been there; done that.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] There is no evidence at all that a "Church organization" was establihsed in Rome with Paul at the lead or with Peter at the head as a "local" leader.

I never said that. I merely mentioned that, based on historical evidence, Paul and Peter ordained Linus as the first bishop of the church of Rome. You're assuming I'm a Roman Catholic, which I'm not.

In both the case of Paul and Peter they were there either because they were imprisoned or because they were traveling and raising up churches in various places. Neither of them decided to "live in Rome" as in move to Rome and live there as your permanent home.

You're right. They planted local congregations of the Church.

The Apostles were ALWAYS recognized as world-wide church leaders...

Right again. Rome was acknowledged, however, to have a primacy among the churched because of its dual "foundation" of Peter and Paul and because it had (at least at the time) a reputation for maintaining doctrinal orthodoxy.

 

[D28guy]

DoubtingThomas,

I said...

"Secondly, its a source a vigorous debate as to whether Peter even so much as set foot in Rome at any time in His life, let alone being some kind of leader."

And you responded...

"It's only a "vigorous debate" for historical revisionists."

Oh this is classic. This...the mention of historical revisionism...is coming from someone who is defending Catholicism.

CATHOLICISM!

An organisation who has...

* The murdered blood of the saints of God on her hands by the thousands if not millions.

* Has given "her" blessing to Adolph Hitler.

* Had a recently departed leader who entered into joint prayer with Sikhs, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, practitioners of Voodoo, and other demonic false paths to God and referred to them as "spiritual brothers."

* Has a history if simony, murder, adultery, and who know what else in its absurd claim of an unbroken chain of infallible Popes, supposedly going all the way back to...hysterically...Peter.

(who lived 300 or so years prior to the beginning of the religious/pagan/cultic organisation known as The Catholic Church.)

* Had a decades long practice of quietly (hush hush) shuffling pedophiles from parish to parish...knowing full well of course that more children will be sexually abused...in order to protect the repution of "Holy Mother Church".

And yet you bring up "historical revisionism".

It stuns the mind.

"The overwhelming testimony from history was the Peter did spend time in Rome on more than one occasion and was martyred there."

Maybe he did and was and maybe he didnt and wasnt. Its a source of legitimate debate. If he was in Rome he certainly was not in any way shape or form the 1st Catholic "pope".

Stunned,

Mike

 

[Rachel]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But it is being "born of God. You must be born of God. You must trust Christ as Savior. Ask Him to come into your heart, and by the power of his Holy Spirit dwell within you. This is an act of faith and faith alone.

Yes, I did that when I was 5.


But before then, I wanted to marry Jesus.

I was raised IFB. My mother told me that I would sleep with my little NT Bible from the time I was about 1 yr. old, I didn't want to sleep with a doll or a toy animal.

By the time I was 2 yrs old, I would walk around the house preaching Hell fire & brimstone and telling everybody that they needed to repent and get right with Jesus.

So yes, I have loved Jesus all my life. I didn't say the sinners prayer or make a public profession of faith until I was 5. Momma told me until then I only had a head knowledge of Jesus and not a heart knowledge because I haven't asked Him to forgive me of my sins. </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't know if others saw this or not. Sounds like a Christian to me.

I don't see how anyone can say ALL Catholic's are NOT saved. Yeah they believe alot of things we don't as non-Catholics but we should be able to talk with each other and not say they are going to hell for it. If they are born-again they are our brother's and sister's in the Lord. Amen? That means we will be with them in Heaven for eternity, so better get used to it now. lol

Rachel

 

[Living4Him]

D28guy,

Has given "her" blessing to Adolph Hitler.

Not true.

* Has a history if simony, murder, adultery, and who know what else in its absurd claim of an unbroken chain of infallible Popes, supposedly going all the way back to...hysterically...Peter.

1. Look at the problems that were in the early church. (Read Acts and many of Paul's Epistles.
2. It's apparent that you do not know what is meant by papal infallibility.

 

[D28guy]

Rachel,

"I didn't know if others saw this or not. Sounds like a Christian to me.
I don't see how anyone can say ALL Catholic's are NOT saved."

I dont think I know anyone who believes every Catholic is lost. I certainly believe there are some who are saved. I know some personally who are born again, and I'm glad they are.

Some Catholics are born of the Spirit and then...for any number of reasons...join the Catholic Church. Its a very sad thing to see, but they do it. Many times they "get over it" and come back out.

Others become saved while being a Catholic. They sort of *stumble* into saving saving faith, and most certainly in spite of the Catholic Church rather then because of it. Many times these brothers and sisters of course see the truth regarding the idolatries and falsehoods of the CC and come out. Others choose to stay in so as to witness from within. They just ignore the idolatries and falsehoods that are being taught or are going on around them.

I would venture to say that most of us on the side of truth on these threads feel the same way I do regarding the fact that there are born again Catholics. Our concern is with the idolatries, falsehoods, and cultishness of the organisation and Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, not Catholic people.

God bless,

Mike

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by D28guy:
1st, I couldnt care less about that. I'm talking about the 1st Pope.

Secondly, its a source a vigorous debate as to whether Peter even so much as set foot in Rome at any time in His life, let alone being some kind of leader.

There are tons of sources written that link Peter as the bishop of Rome and that he (Peter) was crucified in Rome.

Lactantius, The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5, AD 318, When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew.

Bishop Peter of Alexandria, Penance, Canon 9, AD 306, Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome.

Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, The Chronicle, AD 303, "[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [AD 42]: The Apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years."

Originally posted by D28guy:
He certainly had no type of "infallibilty" going on in his life in any way shape or form. He was even upbraided to his face by Paul due to his hypocricy. And there doesnt seem to be any sure evidence of Peter having any primacy at all among the 1st century christian community.

1st someone needs a lesson on what the term ifallibility does and doesn’t mean in the Catholic Church in regards to the Pope. Infallibility doesn’t mean that the Pope will be absolutely correct on everything that he talks about, nor does it mean that the Pope knows everything in the world either. Neither does infallibility mean that the Pope enjoys a personal freedom from sin. In fact every Pope in history has had a personal confessor.

What infallibility does mean is that when the Pope speaks officially (ex cathedra) as head of the Church on matters of faith and morals, he will not say anything that will contradict Christ’s teachings. Infallibilty does not cover everything a Pope says either. First before the Pope speaks officially as head of the Church the college of bishops ensures that everything humanly possible has been done to ensure that it is an accurate definition of what the Church has always believed and taught. So when the Pope speaks as a private person the Pope is own his own and his personal thoughts are never treated as sacrosanct.

So yes, Paul rebuked Peter for his conduct separating himself from the gentiles. Big deal, many Popes have been rebuked in the past by both Church hierarchy and by laymen, including St. Francis of Assisi and St. Bernard of Calirvaux to name a few and I am sure we Baptist know a few Protestant pastors who have been rebuked for something he has done. Does this make him any less of a pastor or Pope?

Originally posted by D28guy:
He certainly had no type of "infallibilty" going on in his life in any way shape or form…

And if he were in such great primacy, why would God thunder forth for the church his great new testament/new covenant doctrinal writings through the Apostle Paul, rather then Peter???

Peter wrote:

1 Peter
2 Peter

So your saying that 1 Peter and 2 Peter are not infallible?

 

[D28guy]

John 6:63,

You quoted me...

He certainly had no type of "infallibilty" going on in his life in any way shape or form…

And if he were in such great primacy, why would God thunder forth for the church his great new testament/new covenant doctrinal writings through the Apostle Paul, rather then Peter???

Peter wrote:

1 Peter
2 Peter

And then said...

So your saying that 1 Peter and 2 Peter are not infallible?

Your attempt at diversion wont work. There are 2 statements there. And you left some out that went in between the 2 statements.

Here is the entire quote:

He certainly had no type of "infallibilty" going on in his life in any way shape or form. He was even upbraided to his face by Paul due to his hypocricy. And there doesnt seem to be any sure evidence of Peter having any primacy at all among the 1st century christian community.

And if he were in such great primacy, why would God thunder forth for the church his great new testament/new covenant doctrinal writings through the Apostle Paul, rather then Peter???

The word "and" at the beginning of the 2nd statement should have made it pretty clear that the concept of "primacy" is referring to Peter only writing 2 books, while Paul wrote so many more, including the foundational doctrinal epistles that thunder forth for the church foundational New Covenant "church" doctrine.

God bless,

Mike

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by D28guy:
John 6:63,

You quoted me...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />He certainly had no type of "infallibilty" going on in his life in any way shape or form…

And if he were in such great primacy, why would God thunder forth for the church his great new testament/new covenant doctrinal writings through the Apostle Paul, rather then Peter???

Peter wrote:

1 Peter
2 Peter

And then said...

So your saying that 1 Peter and 2 Peter are not infallible?

Your attempt at diversion wont work. There are 2 statements there. And you left some out that went in between the 2 statements.

Here is the entire quote:

He certainly had no type of "infallibilty" going on in his life in any way shape or form. He was even upbraided to his face by Paul due to his hypocricy. And there doesnt seem to be any sure evidence of Peter having any primacy at all among the 1st century christian community.

And if he were in such great primacy, why would God thunder forth for the church his great new testament/new covenant doctrinal writings through the Apostle Paul, rather then Peter???

The word "and" at the beginning of the 2nd statement should have made it pretty clear that the concept of "primacy" is referring to Peter only writing 2 books, while Paul wrote so many more, including the foundational doctrinal epistles that thunder forth for the church foundational New Covenant "church" doctrine.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Therefore you are incorrect to say that “He (Peter) had no type of “infallibility” going on in his life any way shape or form.” since you acknowledge 1 and 2 Peter written by Peter as being infallible.

That's a matter of fact statement.

This ain't Burger King, you can't have your way.

 

[gb93433]

The infallibility of Peter is known by Jesus' words in Mt. 16:23, "But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."

 

[D28guy]

John 6:63.

"Therefore you are incorrect to say that “He (Peter) had no type of “infallibility” going on in his life any way shape or form.” since you acknowledge 1 and 2 Peter written by Peter as being infallible."

Sorry, wont work.

The point I was making remains accurate.

Mike

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by john6:63:
There are tons of sources written that link Peter as the bishop of Rome and that he (Peter) was crucified in Rome.

There was no reliable evidence to prove that Peter was ever in Rome, other than to die.
On another note consider this verse:

1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Paul was giving the qualifications of a pastor. The terms pastor, bishop, overseer, elder, are all used interchageably for the same office. They may refer to different aspects of that office, by they are the same office nevertheless. To call Peter the first bishop of anthing is not to elevate above any pastor whatsoever. There is no hierarchy in the Bible.
DHK

 

[Sirach]

Originally posted by west:
I went to a Catholic School from Kindergarden to 8 th grade .And all the Masses I went to from the age of 5 till 30 years old .I never heard anyone tell me to read the Bible .

West,

I went to Catholic school from six to about eight and a half... Every Mass had bible readings, check out www.DailyGospel.org

I know many Catholics that all read their bibles, do people need to tell you to eat?

Likewise, a Christian does not need to be told to read their bibles... but the Catholic Church does teach people to read the Scriptures.

Go to many of the Catholic websites, they're full of Scripture.

We must first understand others before we can hope to convert them... we cannot understand others by listening to rumors, we must learn from them.

God Bless,
Sirach

 

[Priscilla Ann]

Sirach:

The Catholic Church must have changed since I left it in 1996. At that time, my priest told me that there were no bible studies in my Catholic parish. Also, he informed me that I should read the bible only with a Catholic commentary so that I would understand it correctly.

PA

 

[TP]

Greetings,

When I give advice to help people to read through scripture: If it is a choice between a protestant commentary and a catholic commentary, I would encourage the catholic one. That is obvious.

If you were New the Study of the Bible a commentary is a good thing. If you come up to a specific name, it is nice to know what the name means. Since you do not Know greek, Hebrew or aramaic, you may miss stuff. Also, when you are reading and the passage is making an allusion to another passage, it is nice to know that. Is it possible he was trying to HELP you study the bible, and not hinder you.

peace

 

[Sirach]

Originally posted by Priscilla Ann:
Sirach:

The Catholic Church must have changed since I left it in 1996. At that time, my priest told me that there were no bible studies in my Catholic parish. Also, he informed me that I should read the bible only with a Catholic commentary so that I would understand it correctly.

PA

Pricilla,

Thank you for your reply. The Catholic Church teaches that it was built by Christ. We see in Scripture that men will distort the meanings of Scriptures, therefore, if the Catholic Church was built by Christ then you should read the bible with Catholic Commentary.

[bold]Acts 20:29 [/bold]
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
[bold]30 [/bold]And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

[bold]2 Peter 3:15[/bold]
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
[bold]16[/bold] speaking of these things 12 as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
[bold]17[/bold] Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.


"distort to their own destruction" these are some pretty powerful words, we need the proper instruction to understand Scripture, just as the Eunuch did...

Acts 8:30-35 - And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth.
33 In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth?
34 And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.


If someone who was not from the first Church talked to this eunuch, they could easily lead in into destruction.

I'm sure your priest was sincere in why you should read the Scriptures with a Catholic commentary because it is easy to get confused when reading them. The Scriptures are deep and without the right perspective on them, we could easily misunderstand them.

Something that I used to do is group all the scriptures that talk about a subject together, I took notes... but now with the Internet and computers, it's much easier to search the bible for any given subject and read it all... saves a lot of writing

God Bless!
Sirach

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Priscilla Ann:
Sirach:

The Catholic Church must have changed since I left it in 1996. At that time, my priest told me that there were no bible studies in my Catholic parish. Also, he informed me that I should read the bible only with a Catholic commentary so that I would understand it correctly.

PA

The same cannot be said of ALL Catholic parishes. You should know that. I attend a Fundamental Baptist Church that like your previous experience with tha Catholic Church has NO extra bible study other than a short 30-minute Sunday school lesson, which isn’t even meaty at that. All they promote is soul winning.

I went to speak with my pastor and he basically told me to come to his Bible College and take a seminary class, or he recommend a few bible computer studies to get. A bible study wasn’t even an option at his church.

BTW, my pastor also recommends a commentary to make sure I’m not in error in my studies (I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to guide me in truth?): J. Vernon McGee, which I have all his collections.

My wife and I went to a Methodist Church and got a 4-year disciple course. We met every Thursday night for a 2-hour study session!

And not all Baptist churches shun bible studies, just as not all Catholic parishes shun bible studies. I’ve been looking at a local Catholic parish in my area and judging from their websites calendar, they offer on average 3 bible studies a week.

 

[Priscilla Ann]

john 6:63:

All Catholic parishes may not be like mine. My grandmother, however, attended a parish about 25 miles from where I live. During one of our conversations, Grandma told me that she didn't need to read the bible because the priest told her what it said. Grandma was a devout Catholic who attended daily mass. She was also an avid reader; however, she was never encouraged to read to bible.

I am simply sharing my experiences and those of my Catholic family members. I do realize that all parishes are not the same.

PA

 

[Sirach]

Originally posted by Priscilla Ann:
john 6:63:

All Catholic parishes may not be like mine. My grandmother, however, attended a parish about 25 miles from where I live. During one of our conversations, Grandma told me that she didn't need to read the bible because the priest told her what it said. Grandma was a devout Catholic who attended daily mass. She was also an avid reader; however, she was never encouraged to read to bible.

I am simply sharing my experiences and those of my Catholic family members. I do realize that all parishes are not the same.

PA

At every Mass they read the bible, a passage from the OT, a Psalm, a letter from the NT, and a Gospel passage. Then the priest gives what they call a Homily, which you would call a Sermon, that is relative to the readings.

You can see their daily readings here: http://www.usccb.org/nab/index.htm

Every day the Catholic Churches have Mass, from my understanding they read almost the entire bible in a year from reading it every day. Their selection of Scripture is nice because it is normally relative to the other readings.

They look at the Mass as a time of worship, they typically have other study classes, but it seems that alot of Catholic Clergy assume that people read their bibles because it's just expected. You don't have to tell people to eat, likewise, I don't think you have to tell Christians to read their bible. It's just something Christians do. Also, God inspires some to read sooner than others.

God Bless,
Sirach