Catholicism and the Bible

[Right Divider]

Why? Don't you think that Christ died for sexual sins?

And of course what those priests did, and what those bishops did to cover up those crimes and sins, is wickedness. No argument. This is a dark age for the Church.

So much for your "fine-tuning" theory.

I have another theory....

 

[Idolater]

So much for your "fine-tuning" theory.

I have another theory....

Yeah? Does it explain why you feel justified in rejecting the only authentic pastorate of the Church, according to Scripture? A bunch of Christians in the 1500s decided en masse to abandon their bishops, against what the Scripture plainly teaches, and began fulfilling Paul's prophecy, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Fables fabricated by non-bishops, like Martin Luther and John Clavin. And Dispensationalists.

 

[Right Divider]

Yeah? Does it explain why you feel justified in rejecting the only authentic pastorate of the Church, according to Scripture?

More BLUFF and BLUSTER. K:

A bunch of Christians in the 1500s decided en masse to abandon their bishops, against what the Scripture plainly teaches, and began fulfilling Paul's prophecy, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

That's hilarious. Read 1st Timothy before you move on to 2nd Timothy.

1Ti 4:1-3 KJV Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; (2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; (3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.​

Fables fabricated by non-bishops, like Martin Luther and John Clavin. And Dispensationalists.

The fabricators are the "Catholic" churches.

 

[glorydaz]

I think it is. When I take a few giant steps back, and ask myself what the best 'Good News' is in the whole of history, my answer is that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. It so happens that Paul writes that believing in His Resurrection constitutes saving faith (Ro10:9KJV), which must mean that it's tantamount to believing the Gospel, and he even in another place writes that His Resurrection is the 'sine qua non' of the Christian faith. The Catholic Church calls His Resurrection the 'central' and 'crowning' truth of Christianity.
I sum up the Gospel with 'He is risen' (Mt28:6KJV Mk16:6KJV Lk24:6KJV), but it's not the whole Gospel completely fleshed out. That'd be the whole Word of God, which covers every angle, and is the 'all encompassing message.'

Why do you give verses that include Christ's death, and then seemingly ignore His death? You're not the first Catholic I've seen do that. I'm curious.... :think:

Our faith is in His BLOOD.

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.​

 

[turbosixx]

Hypothetically, would you think that observing how a man manages his family would be a better judge of how a pastor will 'manage' the Church, or observing how he actually 'manages' a church?

To keep this from getting drawn out I would like to look at one comment to hopefully make my point clear. My point being that we need to follow the commands of Christ and not man.

Paul warns the first century church that as soon as he leaves men will be twisting the truth.
Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.

We know without a shadow of a doubt that Paul's clear and simple qualifications for elders of the church that Jesus purchased with His blood is from God. What is changing them based on? Speculation? Vague scriptures? A better way? That is what twisting looks like.

This makes me think of the story in 1 Kings 13. God gave a prophet clear instructions,‘You shall neither eat bread nor drink water nor return by the way that you came.’” An old prophet lied to him and told him that God said he could eat and drink. The prophet believed the old man and God killed him for his disobedience. He knew without a shadow of a doubt what God had told him yet when a man told him something contradictory he believed it and died.

We need to KNOW what is from God and what is from man. Our souls and the souls of our loved ones depend on it.

 

[Idolater]

To keep this from getting drawn out I would like to look at one comment to hopefully make my point clear. My point being that we need to follow the commands of Christ and not man.

Paul warns the first century church that as soon as he leaves men will be twisting the truth.
Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.

We know without a shadow of a doubt that Paul's clear and simple qualifications for elders of the church that Jesus purchased with His blood is from God. What is changing them based on? Speculation? Vague scriptures? A better way? That is what twisting looks like.

This makes me think of the story in 1 Kings 13. God gave a prophet clear instructions,‘You shall neither eat bread nor drink water nor return by the way that you came.’” An old prophet lied to him and told him that God said he could eat and drink. The prophet believed the old man and God killed him for his disobedience. He knew without a shadow of a doubt what God had told him yet when a man told him something contradictory he believed it and died.

We need to KNOW what is from God and what is from man. Our souls and the souls of our loved ones depend on it.

The Bishop is from God, you KNOW that. 'Without a shadow of a doubt.'

Whereas all the Apostles disappear in history after the first century, the Bishop continues on in the story, without interruption.

In "Paul's clear and simple qualifications for elders of the church," Paul writes that the Bishop must "take care of the church of God" (1Ti3:5KJV). He says that if a man "ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity," then it is a good indicator that he will "take care of the church of God."

Parish priests who actually "take care of the church of God," for many years, are the only men now considered for Bishop. The Church is 'flush' with men who are willing to "take care of the church of God" without being created a representative Bishop beforehand; they willingly "take care of the church of God" just on the chance that they'll rise to Bishop. And many of them are happy to "take care of the church of God" as priests, forever, if that is what's best for the Church.

 

[tieman55]

Discussing Catholicism . . . . starting at the beginning.

It looks to me that Jesus's first choice for apostle to the gentiles was Peter but it didn't work. Either Jesus decided not to pursue His conversion of the Jew Peter as it wasn't going smoothly to say the least. Or perhaps Peter was just not the right guy for the job . . . or a combination of things and Jesus went on to pursue Saul. And Jesus took a very different approach with Saul and this time it worked!

But Peter as far as we know, never really got what Jesus was trying to teach him, not getting it to the point of being the first Pope of what would become the Catholic Church, A Jew who was having a very hard time understanding Paul's gospel of faith alone.

I don't think that makes the Catholic church a cult at least in its foundation. Now they have taken on some very troubling and basically blasphemous doctrines over the centuries like Mary worship but I don't think you can blame that one on Peter and or a misreading of the Bible. It is just men over time will corrupt all institutions.

I have been to many Catholic churches over the years, some of them, mostly the ones in Mexico, Mary plays a far larger part in the service. But in the USA, I don't hear much about Mary, that is just my experience. And whenever at a pro-life event, it is only Catholics, hardly ever meet a Christian standing up for the unborn.

While institutions without fail become corrupt, their members don't axiomatically follow. While the leadership of most all corrupt institutions do. The leadership, mostly men, have taken so many public positions, that they are so invested in their institution that their pride will not allow them to separate themselves from their institution. Not so with the rank and file and or pew sitter. I am sure Peter would agree, he could not separate himself from being a Jew.

In closing, Catholics, Mormons, dare I say Calvinist , double dare that I say Jew's have problems in their institutions that are big and small, so let others cast the first stone, I can't or I will be pummeled by those who know me best. Had the post named an individual and not an institution, I would rethink my restraint. [/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

[turbosixx]

The Bishop is from God, you KNOW that. 'Without a shadow of a doubt.'

Whereas all the Apostles disappear in history after the first century, the Bishop continues on in the story, without interruption.

I know that bishop/elder is a church office from God and God gave us the qualifications in Timothy and Titus.

Parish priests who actually "take care of the church of God," for many years, are the only men now considered for Bishop. The Church is 'flush' with men who are willing to "take care of the church of God" without being created a representative Bishop beforehand; they willingly "take care of the church of God" just on the chance that they'll rise to Bishop. And many of them are happy to "take care of the church of God" as priests, forever, if that is what's best for the Church.

1, Priest is not a biblical church office. Where did/does it come from?
2, Can we ignore parts of scripture that we do not agree with or if we have a better way?

The first part of that verse says ruleth well his own house. A house that includes a wife and children. That is the requirement before he rules the church.
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

 

[Idolater]

I know that bishop/elder is a church office from God and God gave us the qualifications in Timothy and Titus.




1, Priest is not a biblical church office. Where did/does it come from?
2, Can we ignore parts of scripture that we do not agree with or if we have a better way?

The first part of that verse says ruleth well his own house. A house that includes a wife and children. That is the requirement before he rules the church.
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

It appears as if, along with Peter not having any kids, that neither Timothy nor Titus were even married.

I want to know what you think about that. Do you insist that they must have been family men? Do you think they were exceptions, and that everybody besides these men should be family men before they are consecrated bishops?

 

[meshak]

I don't know the last time you went to Mass, but you probably remember that there are three scriptures read each Mass, usually one from the Old Testament, usually one from Paul, and one passage from one of the Gospels. Following this pattern, in three years (a cycle), more than 90% of the New Testament is read, along with a much smaller fraction of the Old Testament, but Catholics hear the Scripture during Mass, even if they never crack a Bible themselves.

Hello idolater,

We are not in the dark ages anymore. Jesus' teachings are available to everyone. So there is no need anyone teaching them what the Bible says.

It is not just Catholics that leaders teach their congregation through bible study.

those denominational or organizational churches are following what their doctrine teaches, not necessarily what the Bible or Jesus says.

I think it is time to take heed of what the Bible says to come out of Babylon, meaning come out of denominational or organizational churches.

my two cents.

 

[Idolater]

Why do you give verses that include Christ's death, and then seemingly ignore His death?

I don't, not at all. His Passion and death are facts, but that 'a man died' is not news, wrt anybody who lived thousands of years ago. They all died.

But they didn't all rise from the dead. Of the ones who have risen, which is a small number, I focus on one of them to the exclusion of all the others, just for moment. It's the most important thing that's ever happened, because if it happened, then Christianity is true, no doubt about it.

My rosary has a crucifix on it, and I've yet to enter a Catholic parish church without a crucifix in it somewhere, usually right up front and prominent. The last people who could possibly forget about His Passion and death on the cross, are Catholics.

You're not the first Catholic I've seen do that.

I don't know anything about that. I know Catholics, but I'm not Catholic. I am Catholic, 'on the way to full communion,' which means 'not yet, but we are working on it (me and the Church).'

I'm curious.... :think:

Our faith is in His BLOOD.

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.​

Catholics drink it.

Catholics get to eat and drink of the offering made on the altar.

 

[glorydaz]

I don't know anything about that. I know Catholics, but I'm not Catholic. I am Catholic, 'on the way to full communion,' which means 'not yet, but we are working on it (me and the Church).'
Catholics drink it.

Catholics get to eat and drink of the offering made on the altar.

No you don't. That's one of the Catholic falsehoods.

John 6:35KJV
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.​

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.​

 

[Idolater]

Catholics get to eat and drink of the offering made on the altar.

No you don't. That's one of the Catholic falsehoods.

John 6:35KJV
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.​

And later on in that same chapter:

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

​

Let the reader decide. This is about the Eucharist.

And John, remember, wrote his Gospel account after Peter died, so this is written in the late 60s soonest. The Church was more 30 years old, and so when John takes pains to introduce something new from the Apostolic witness, and commit it to writing, there is an answer to our question, 'Why?'

In this case, as the 'Didache' indicates, there must have been some doubt over whether Holy Communion was literally the Lord's body and blood. John wrote chapter 6 to address this doubt, sharing with us a new account, something else that had happened during His earthly ministry, His feeding of the 5000, followed by His exposition on the then future Eucharist.

The other Gospels didn't have this, they just quoted Jesus as saying, 'This is My body,' and, 'This is My blood,' and left it at that.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.​

Indeed.

 

[glorydaz]

​

And later on in that same chapter:

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

​

Let the reader decide. This is about the Eucharist.

And John, remember, wrote his Gospel account after Peter died, so this is written in the late 60s soonest. The Church was more 30 years old, and so when John takes pains to introduce something new from the Apostolic witness, and commit it to writing, there is an answer to our question, 'Why?'

In this case, as the 'Didache' indicates, there must have been some doubt over whether Holy Communion was literally the Lord's body and blood. John wrote chapter 6 to address this doubt, sharing with us a new account, something else that had happened during His earthly ministry, His feeding of the 5000, followed by His exposition on the then future Eucharist.

The other Gospels didn't have this, they just quoted Jesus as saying, 'This is My body,' and, 'This is My blood,' and left it at that.
Indeed.

Then you're left with the simple statement that the "eucharist" gives eternal life.

Either that, or you have misinterpreted what Jesus is saying.

 

[Idolater]

Then you're left with the simple statement that the "eucharist" gives eternal life.

Either that, or you have misinterpreted what Jesus is saying.

Either that, or you have come to a false dichotomy. Nothing that John wrote in his Gospel subverted the bishops of the Church, he only committed to writing what had been til that point only oral Apostolic Tradition, but not Scripture. He made it into Scripture, by writing it down. The bishops are still tasked with teaching the Christian faith, and they teach it cogently, so that each part of it integrates together with every other part, just like the Body of Christ is composed of many individuals but is One. The bishops teach that salvation is by faith alone; they must, in order that Protestants are saved, and they definitely teach that Protestants are saved, and are bona fide Christians.

 

[glorydaz]

Either that, or you have come to a false dichotomy. Nothing that John wrote in his Gospel subverted the bishops of the Church, he only committed to writing what had been til that point only oral Apostolic Tradition, but not Scripture. He made it into Scripture, by writing it down. The bishops are still tasked with teaching the Christian faith, and they teach it cogently, so that each part of it integrates together with every other part, just like the Body of Christ is composed of many individuals but is One. The bishops teach that salvation is by faith alone; they must, in order that Protestants are saved, and they definitely teach that Protestants are saved, and are bona fide Christians.

Actually, it goes against the Gospel of Grace entirely. We don't need any bishop to tell us that. It is written plainly in Scripture.

Either the "eucharist" gives life or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then you are reading your idea of communion into John 6. Then begins the list of what you claim gives life: baptism, communion, commandment keeping, confession....etc.

 

[turbosixx]

It appears as if, along with Peter not having any kids, that neither Timothy nor Titus were even married.

I want to know what you think about that. Do you insist that they must have been family men? Do you think they were exceptions, and that everybody besides these men should be family men before they are consecrated bishops?

Do you have proof that they didn't have children or is it speculation?

Peter was definitely an elder because scripture tells us but I'm not aware that Timothy nor Titus were.

Do you believe Paul's writings are the commandments of Christ?

 

[Idolater]

Do you have proof that they didn't have children or is it speculation?

There's no proof that they did, there's no tradition that they did, and the stories in Acts about all their traveling with Paul suggests to me that they were not family men. So speculation, though I'd qualify it as reasoned speculation, but you're free to disagree with that.

Peter was definitely an elder because scripture tells us but I'm not aware that Timothy nor Titus were.

What office do you think they held then? Deacons?

Do you believe Paul's writings are the commandments of Christ?

I believe that everything in the whole Scripture is the literal Word of God, and that Scripture must be interpreted (I'm speaking as a Protestant) with Scripture, perspicuity is the operative word, every jot and tittle must be interpreted in the witness of the whole Scripture.

The Scripture plainly discusses Church offices, among them the Bishop, and the Deacon. You've asked about the priesthood, men who are ordained by bishops, but who are not bishops themselves, they can celebrate many of the sacraments, but not all. They cannot celebrate Holy Orders; they cannot consecrate new priests or new bishops.

We know that the priesthood began very early on, Ignatius writes about 'the clergy' multiple times in his epistles, and they are distinguished from the Bishop and from the Deacon, and it makes sense that it was because of the Church's growth; bishops just couldn't logistically celebrate Mass for all of the Christians in his city/diocese, so he needed assistants who could celebrate Mass in his stead within his diocese/city. Enter the priesthood.

And we know that every bishop was consecrated through the laying on of the hands of a bishop. And that the first bishops were consecrated through the laying on of the Apostles' own hands. And there exists an unbroken chain of bishops throughout history, that traces all the way back to the hands of the Apostles themselves. This chain exists both in the Catholic and in the Orthodox churches.

I understand that you reject Catholicism, do you know about the Orthodox, and why you reject them also?

 

[Idolater]

Actually, it goes against the Gospel of Grace entirely.

'It' being the Eucharist? I disagree.

We don't need any bishop to tell us that.

I don't disagree, and the fact is that the bishops tell us that anyway.

It is written plainly in Scripture.

The bishops endorse Scripture.

Either the "eucharist" gives life or it doesn't.

The rock upon which Christianity is built is faith; believing the Gospel. Nothing can disqualify someone who believes in Christ from citizenship in the eternal kingdom of God. But that doesn't suggest that there's nothing more beyond the rock. There is something built upon the rock, and it's there for all Christians. The Eucharist isn't a burden, and it is the visible sign of union of all the Body of Christ as One.

Faith is invisible, but it is the tie that binds us all together. The Eucharist is a visible, tactile, olfactory, perceptible to the senses sign of unity. And it was instituted by the Lord, and implemented by the Apostles, and has continued without pause from the beginning, by the bishops (and their assistants the priests).

If it doesn't, then you are reading your idea of communion into John 6.

Not at all. I'm merely showing that Catholicism believes and teaches precisely what John 6 appears to be saying. That's just a fact. You don't have to accept Catholicism to accept it. There's no mention of 'symbolism' in the words of Christ, and neither in Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. It is His body and blood.

Then begins the list of what you claim gives life: baptism, communion, commandment keeping, confession....etc.

All built upon the rock of faith, and faith alone.

 

[Idolater]

Hello idolater

Hello Meshak.

,

We are not in the dark ages anymore. Jesus' teachings are available to everyone. So there is no need anyone teaching them what the Bible says.

Before John wrote His Gospel, those accounts of Christ's teachings were only known by the Apostles and whomever they told about those accounts. And even at the end of John's Gospel, he writes that there are a lot more things that Christ did, that had not been written down.

It is not just Catholics that leaders teach their congregation through bible study.

those denominational or organizational churches are following what their doctrine teaches, not necessarily what the Bible or Jesus says.

I think it is time to take heed of what the Bible says to come out of Babylon, meaning come out of denominational or organizational churches.

my two cents.

There weren't any 'denominational or organizational churches' when Revelation was written Meshak. There was just the One Church. Your interpretation is wrong.