Why do Catholics…

[Illuminator]

And there it is. What I knew all along. You are right until somebody can prove you wrong but only YOU decide if they have proven you wrong. Fascinating....

Would you "trust" the students of the Apostles to prove your understanding of Scripture to be wrong? What I am asking is if your understanding of Scripture is different than Clement of Rome, Ignatius or Polycarp would you side with them or tell me they are wrong?

curious Mary

How to Avoid Converting to Catholicism, in 8 Easy Steps -

3) Don’t Read the Early Church Fathers

A third mistake that I made was nearly fatal: I began to read the Early Church Fathers.

Understand, these are the apostles of the apostles, the Christians who were taught by the very first Christians that Jesus taught. These are giants of Christianity who had direct access to those who heard Jesus’s very words, and touched his flesh. As an evangelical I didn’t even realize that this material exists and when I did, I began to devour it.

Do not read the Early Church Fathers.

As a naive, curious Christian I began to read the Early Church Fathers only to find out that they were startlingly Catholic. The Fathers wrote about Jesus being really present in Holy Communion—not simply as a symbol. They wrote, endlessly, about the importance of submitting to Bishops and respecting the authority of the Church—a Church which, in their minds, Jesus began, the apostles continued, and then passed on to them, by appointing them into places of authority.

When I began to realize that the Early Church didn’t look like the evangelical tradition I had grown up in I was shocked, and then affronted. I was always told, as an evangelical, that “house churches” were biblical—that independent, small groups of Christians meeting in an “upper room” was what happened in the first centuries of Christianity.

Instead, the Early Church is decidedly Catholic in its doctrine and its hierarchical structure, and if you’re not careful, you may come to a similarly shocking conclusion as I did. And then what?
How to Avoid Converting to Catholicism, in 8 Easy Steps -

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I have made it VERY clear in my posts that I am biased to the Catholic Church. That is why I used the analogy of the pot calling the kettle black. You PRETEND you have no bias....but you do. However, you seem to be only biased against the Catholic Church even though there are some Protestant denominations that AGREE with The Church on MANY doctrines. When are you going to start calling those denominations out instead of just the CC?

Lyying is unbecoming of you! I never even implied I have no biases. that is you simply making things up based on your own prejudice against me.

Maybe instead of sinning teh sin of presumption by making assumptions of me, you should simply ask. I would tell you I have many biases. Everyone does!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I am biased against you...I thought that was clear? You admit that you are "not perfect in all studies" but the go on to suggest that the CC is wrong in it's teachings. How could you know this if you are not you are "not perfect in all studies"? You gave me a reason to be biased against you....

Well then how can we know the imperfect Catholic church is correct in anything? Seems you can't even trust yourself either! For you are imperfect. Must be tough living your life.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And there it is. What I knew all along. You are right until somebody can prove you wrong but only YOU decide if they have proven you wrong. Fascinating....

Would you "trust" the students of the Apostles to prove your understanding of Scripture to be wrong? What I am asking is if your understanding of Scripture is different than Clement of Rome, Ignatius or Polycarp would you side with them or tell me they are wrong?

curious Mary

If their teaching contradicts teh clear teaching of Scripture- then that teaching is wrong! Everyone believes they are right in what they believe. If they though they were wrong but believed anyway- that is a problem that medical science can help. You think you are correct in your beliefs I am willing to guess. You may not be 100% sure of all things, but believe you are correct.

that is a very very common attitude people have. If one has studied, pored over the material, compared many opinions and formed a conclusion, they believe they are correct. but honesty and humility allows for them to be wrong if one can show a better argument from Scripture.

Would you side with Origen in his heretical years?

Or how about the church leader Arius of Alexandria!

There is not one ante Nicene father that I have studied that I agree 100% with! Then again the ante Nicene fathers did not agree with all other fathers 100% either!

Teh same Holy Spirit that worked in them works in us! Pope Francis disagrees with dozens of other popes based on his public declarations!

Scripture is the final arbiter. And it is not as difficult to understand as you tend to make it to be. It becomes difficult because either saved men or wolves in sheeps clothing have sought to subtly reinterpret the whole counsel of NT. Teachings on an issue.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Clearly you believe that the Catholic Church is teaching a false doctrine. What criteria do you use to determine if a denomination (Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist etc.) is teaching a false doctrine? Do you study Scripture and you decide what a true doctrine is and any denomination that teaches opposite of your true doctrine is teaching a false doctrine? Or do you belong to a certain denomination that has given you true doctrine? Help me out here....:)

Well here is the post. I did answer but clearly not enough to satisfy you. so I will answer again.

1. All churches teach false doctrine to a measure. No church is perfect.
2. some churches teach more false doctrine than others.

What is my criteria?

1. 48 years of studying the scriptures.
2. Comparative studies of many sects of Christendom.
3. Exhaustuve studies of many systematic theologies comparing them to Scripture.
4. Some false doctrine is minor and not worht getting into a battle over.
5. some false doctrine has to be resisted intensely for they attack the core of salvation. these would be called the fundamentals of the faith.

But bottom line? I read the doctrine in question,
2. Their biblical reasoning's
3. If they use a more literal or more allegorical method of interpreting the scriptures they quote.
4. then compare it with the clear teachings off the NT. If it is in accord for the most part ( the corpus is accurate but appendages may differ) I have no problem
5. If their main conclusion disagrees with the clear teaching of teh NT- I disagree. The. level of error on the fundamentals is the level I will resist that teaching.

Now if you open a thread say about Lutherans, I will focus on Lutherans and disagree with the doctrines that I am convinced after 47 years of SCripture study ( and bible college and bible college teacher) .

Maybe I should use the word convinced instead of saying this is the doctrine for your benefit. I have changed my belief on issues untoil number of times over 47 years as I have learned more of the Scriptures and heard disagreeing arguments that appeared to apply the Scriptures better.

Are these all have a measure of subjectivity to them? Of course they do! NO individual or church is 100% objective in the declarations of all their beliefs. To think that is sheer foolishness.

Now you have a summary of how I come to the conclusions of SCripture that I do!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What church was that and do you still attend?

curiouis Mary

The original name of the church was called the bible speaks. We were loosely associated ( asister church) to the headquarters of the ministry in Lenox Mass.

We ended our formal relationship with Lenox and renamed ourselves by our legal name- Glorious gospel church. we were an independent church.

I started attending the church in 1974 when we were 60 people strong and left in 1995. The reason was we had several major schisms over what to do with a pastor who had a moral failing. and the elders decided that any one appointed to the senior pastor role would have to have his sermons approved and many other non biblical controls on the pastor without a prior cause. they agreed the restrictions were no biblical and so I told them I could not believe the Holy Spirit would continue to bless the church. and instead of fighting ( we went from a church of 500 adults down to 125 due to the schisms) and hurtng th echurch more ( I was an influential member) I simply tendered my resignation as a member.

I then joined First Baptist Church in a nearby town. It is an independent local baptist church affiliated with teh IBBF for supporting missionaries. I have been there since. I helped create a bible insitute, taught in the institute, and have taught bible college level classes since 1998. I have taught discipleship courses in multiple churches, done home bible studies and adult sunday school classes.

 

[theefaith]

Can you be saved without a priest?

 

[Happy Trails]

Why did Paul tell the Church at Cornith and Galatia to take a collection on "the first day of the week" (Sunday)?

“Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also. On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him” (I Cor. 16:1-2).

Curious Mary

He wanted them to do work on a day that was NOT the Sabbath.

 

[theefaith]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”


Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo:

"The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law *were abrogated* by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel. "

Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis:

"29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "*was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.*" [35]

30. *On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death*, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "

 

[Ronald Nolette]

He wanted them to do work on a day that was NOT the Sabbath.

Actually it was the day the church met to worship in the homes they met at!

 

[Marymog]

He wanted them to do work on a day that was NOT the Sabbath.

Lol Happy Trails....Taking up a collection for the good of The Church is not 'work" and one can do a good deed on the Sabbath......just like Scripture says:

• In Luke 4:31-37 he cast out a demon on the Sabbath
• In Luke 4:38-39 he healed Peter’s mother-in-law’s high fever on the Sabbath
• In Luke 6:1-5 he allowed his disciples to pluck grain on the Sabbath
• In Luke 6:6-10 he healed the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath
• In John 5:1-9 he healed the lame man on the Sabbath
• In Luke 13:10-17 he healed the woman who was bent over on the Sabbath
• In John 9 he healed the blind man on the Sabbath

When Paul wrote about taking up a collection on Sunday it was around 54AD, which was 20 years after the death of Christ. By that time it had been well established that the first day of the week (Sunday) WAS the new "Sabbath". That is the day they gathered to participate in the body and blood of Christ of which Paul also told us about (1 Corinthians 10:16) and read Scripture.

Keeping it real....Mary

PS: Which happy trails version do you prefer? Van Halen's or Roy Rogers?

 

[Marymog]

Well here is the post. I did answer but clearly not enough to satisfy you. so I will answer again.

1. All churches teach false doctrine to a measure. No church is perfect.
2. some churches teach more false doctrine than others.

Interesting theory Ronald. I guess John 8:32 and 17:20-21 will never be fulfilled. After all, if all churches teach a false doctrine then we will never KNOW the Truth and we will never fulfill His prayer. That is sad....

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Well here is the post. I did answer but clearly not enough to satisfy you. so I will answer again.

1. All churches teach false doctrine to a measure. No church is perfect.
2. some churches teach more false doctrine than others.

What is my criteria?

1. 48 years of studying the scriptures.
2. Comparative studies of many sects of Christendom.
3. Exhaustuve studies of many systematic theologies comparing them to Scripture.
4. Some false doctrine is minor and not worht getting into a battle over.
5. some false doctrine has to be resisted intensely for they attack the core of salvation. these would be called the fundamentals of the faith.

But bottom line? I read the doctrine in question,
2. Their biblical reasoning's
3. If they use a more literal or more allegorical method of interpreting the scriptures they quote.
4. then compare it with the clear teachings off the NT. If it is in accord for the most part ( the corpus is accurate but appendages may differ) I have no problem
5. If their main conclusion disagrees with the clear teaching of teh NT- I disagree. The. level of error on the fundamentals is the level I will resist that teaching.

Now if you open a thread say about Lutherans, I will focus on Lutherans and disagree with the doctrines that I am convinced after 47 years of SCripture study ( and bible college and bible college teacher) .

Maybe I should use the word convinced instead of saying this is the doctrine for your benefit. I have changed my belief on issues untoil number of times over 47 years as I have learned more of the Scriptures and heard disagreeing arguments that appeared to apply the Scriptures better.

Are these all have a measure of subjectivity to them? Of course they do! NO individual or church is 100% objective in the declarations of all their beliefs. To think that is sheer foolishness.

Now you have a summary of how I come to the conclusions of SCripture that I do!

Thanks Ronald for that very detailed account of how you decide what is false and what is not. I appreciate you taking the time to type that all out which helped me better understand why you are where you are with your walk in Christ.

A couple of times you used the words "clear teaching of the NT". If the NT were so clear then Christianity (denominations) wouldn't be debating, fighting or calling each other heretics by teaching false doctrines. But it seems you generally have it all figured out with your 40+ years of studying the scriptures, comparative studies of many sects of Christendom, exhaustive studies of many systematic theologies comparing them to Scripture.

Your statements leads me to 1 question based on Scripture and 1 logical question: Scripture says that The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. You are saying that no Church (denomination) has the truth. Why does your belief collide with what Scripture says?

Logic says if I find 2 men who have done the same things you have done but they have done it for 55+ years, I should believe them over you. Right?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Lyying is unbecoming of you! I never even implied I have no biases. that is you simply making things up based on your own prejudice against me.

Maybe instead of sinning teh sin of presumption by making assumptions of me, you should simply ask. I would tell you I have many biases. Everyone does!

Presumption is a sin? Hmmm....I guess I need to find that one in Scripture.

You say you have many biases but your bias that I have read only show toward the CC...IMO. That is why I said what I said....mary

 

[Happy Trails]

Lol Happy Trails....Taking up a collection for the good of The Church is not 'work" and one can do a good deed on the Sabbath......just like Scripture says:

• In Luke 4:31-37 he cast out a demon on the Sabbath
• In Luke 4:38-39 he healed Peter’s mother-in-law’s high fever on the Sabbath
• In Luke 6:1-5 he allowed his disciples to pluck grain on the Sabbath
• In Luke 6:6-10 he healed the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath
• In John 5:1-9 he healed the lame man on the Sabbath
• In Luke 13:10-17 he healed the woman who was bent over on the Sabbath
• In John 9 he healed the blind man on the Sabbath

When Paul wrote about taking up a collection on Sunday it was around 54AD, which was 20 years after the death of Christ. By that time it had been well established that the first day of the week (Sunday) WAS the new "Sabbath". That is the day they gathered to participate in the body and blood of Christ of which Paul also told us about (1 Corinthians 10:16) and read Scripture.

Keeping it real....Mary

PS: Which happy trails version do you prefer? Van Halen's or Roy Rogers?

Carrying ANY burden was forbidden on the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the day of rest.

Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. There is no prohibition against getting something to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus challenged the Pharisees regarding what they ADDED to the Law.

You are showing is that people can go to the synagogue on the Sabbath and get healed. That would be one of its chief functions.

No. It was NOT well established that the first day of the week is the new Sabbath. That is simply not true.

Jesus instructed His disciples that they should remember Him every time they ate bread and drank wine. Every meal that included them were considered communing with Jesus. It was not a ritual done by a priest on Sundays. 1 Corinthians 10:16 does not say it was Sunday.

But, if you want to quote Paul, 1 Corinthians 5:8 is a specific instruction to celebrate the feast of unleavened bread.

Colossians 2:16 is an instruction to not be intimidated by the heathens for observing the Sabbath, YHVH's feasts and his lunar calendar of new moons, and keeping a Kosher diet. Verse 17 tells us these things are shadows of Messiah. ONLY the days decreed by YHVH are shadows of Messiah. Changes made by men destroy the shadows. Ask Moses.

Acts 13:42-44, the Gentiles who were turning to Jesus wanted Paul to speak to them on the Sabbath.

Acts 17:2 and 18:4 It was Paul's custom to go to synagogues on the Sabbath.

P.S. Depends on my mood...

 

[Marymog]

Well then how can we know the imperfect Catholic church is correct in anything? Seems you can't even trust yourself either! For you are imperfect. Must be tough living your life.

Well, Scripture says that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth and that we are to go to the Church to settle our differences and the Church decides who is to be treated as a pagan or tax collector (ex-communicated). So that is how we can know that The Church is correct.....

I agree...I am imperfect. So are you. Whats your point? Just because you and I are imperfect that does not make The Church imperfect.

I have found the church that is the pillar and foundation of truth. You haven't. You think EVERY church is imperfect. I don't. You are still searching I presume? (never mind, presuming is a sin)

What you believe is opposite of what Scripture teaches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). If EVERY church is imperfect and teaches SOME false doctrine (according to what YOU think is false) then that means the gates of hell HAVE prevailed against ALL the churches. What YOU believe is OPPOSITE of what Jesus said. Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world” and “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means The Church is a visible organization.

So, what I am saying is that The Catholic Church is not imperfect because Jesus/God would not allow it. There are some men in The Church that are imperfect but The Church can't be since it is the pillar and foundation of Truth. I have found that Church. Have you?

 

[Marymog]

If their teaching contradicts teh clear teaching of Scripture- then that teaching is wrong! ..........

According to WHO? You?

 

[Cassandra]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”

If I'm reading this right, i am condemned because I keep the Sabbath!!!
Woo hoo! This is what I've been taught for years- the RCC would condemn Sabbath worship.

It has lumped Sabbath with circumcision. You guys might want to check yourselves to see if you are in compliance.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Can you be saved without a priest?

Absolutely!

Interesting theory Ronald. I guess John 8:32 and 17:20-21 will never be fulfilled. After all, if all churches teach a false doctrine then we will never KNOW the Truth and we will never fulfill His prayer. That is sad....

Mary

Jesus is teh Truth! and Jesus sets us free. We are still humans! Christians are one! we may disagree because of imperfection but we are one! We will know this in fulness when we go home to be with our Father and Jesus.

Iam free because I know HIm! I do not know HIm perfectly yet (no one evcer has) but I am free. It takes a lifetime to learn and gorw in our freedom.

It is like a man who inherited 1 million acfresa of land. He owna ll the land, but it will take a long time for him to see all the land!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

A couple of times you used the words "clear teaching of the NT". If the NT were so clear then Christianity (denominations) wouldn't be debating, fighting or calling each other heretics by teaching false doctrines. But it seems you generally have it all figured out with your 40+ years of studying the scriptures, comparative studies of many sects of Christendom, exhaustive studies of many systematic theologies comparing them to Scripture.

Teh biggest reason why different denominations and inner denomination squabbles and schisms doctrinally occur, is not because teh Scriptures are not simple, but because men complicate teh Scriptures, with either added teachings to "clarify" the teaching or allegorizing the Scriptures which is simply reinterpret the words of Scripture to subtly change what was written.

Augustine popularized the allegorical interpretation of Scriptures and we have grown in that mess since!

Another reason is that while Scriptures only have one interpretation- there MAY be many applications and then someone takes a personal APPLICATION and make it the only interpretation.

Another reason is that people misapply a passage that is not applicable! All Scripture is inspired by God but not all SCripture is equally applicable! The Mosaic Law does not apply to the Church! Teh prohibition of eating the tree of knowledge is no longer applicable, etc.

Another reason. We are now almost 1900 years from the last writing of the NT. We are an English speaking people and without study and learning of teh languages and the culture in which those languages were used- we easily make mistakes in understanding the passages in many cases. Heck many people misunderstand the KJV and that is from one form of English ion one culture to another form of English with another culture. It behooves us to learn how languag e was used by the authors and make sure our understanding is not in conflict with how they used language!

It takes a lot of work and study, but boy the enrichment of the soul is great!