A question for some Protestants who feel it is necessary to proselytize Catholics

[guanophore]

The children of Isreal constantly drifted into idolatry. Paganism is the worship of other “gods” Catholics no matter how hard they try cannot “baptise” and transform “other gods” and idolatry. Idolatry is whatever you hold up in the presence of God that is not God.

People constantly drift into idolatry daily,money, sex, power, materialism, etc. It is the nature of man to do this.

You misunderstood my post, hisalone. I stated that Christians baptized and transformed pagan symbols and practices. That is not the same as transforming 'other gods".

I agree about idolatry, but what you seem to be confused about is the customs and externals. You are judging the hearts of those engaged in these practices according to your prejudices.

you never answered my question, did you? is that man in the photo linked above ‘bowing down’ to that kleenex box? If not, why not?

 

[guanophore]

Actually he is not ill informed. Catholics continually practice revisionist history. Anyone ( I wont do it for you) can see how the RCC has changed its stand on this issue (and others) throughout the years.

It is true that we understand events better when we have more knowledge.

However, the Catholic Church has never changed it’s stance on salvation. The Apostles taught that there is no salvation outside of the Church. The Church has always taught this, and still does today. Modern events such as the Reformation have forced us to understand this eternal teaching in the light of current experience. The teaching has not changed, only our perceptions of how it applies.

People, places and things and even imaginations can be idol. What someone holds up higher (that which is more important) (those opinions whom one values more than) God can be an idol. God is Spirit. When instead of turning to the Spirit of God to pray or to worship we turn to an object to pray in front of we have made that object an idol.

This is certainly true. However, it is only your prejudice that leads you to believe people kneeling in front of an object are actually worshipping the object “instead” of God.

One can and will have a relationship with the body if they have a relationship with the Head.
However one can have a relationship with the body but not the Head.

How can you do that? How does one become a member of somthing that can only occur by relationship to the Head?

By haveing that relationship does not make one “saved” nor “born again”

Perhaps you are trying to say that being on the membership roster of a local church is a 'relationship to the Body"?

For Catholics, membership means being born again of water and Spirit. Being on a list in a parish office does not make one a member of the Body of Christ.

What does it mean to be saved or born again. Scripture is fairly clear on the subject. If someone is does not fullfill the scriptural requirements then it is not a judgement on my part. The failure is for that person not to meet the requirements that God Himself has outlined.

Actually, what you are saying is that they don’t meet your perception of what is written.

the fact is that we perceive scripture differently because we understand it in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught, and you are in a spiritual tradition that is separated from that.

You say one cannot be a Catholic unless one believes in Jesus Christ and have accepted Him as Lord and Savior and earnestly attempt to follow Him and still remain a Catholic. Yet Catholic churches are full of these folks (Protestant churches also)

I agree. There are plenty of pew warmers out there. However, I submit that they are not Catholic in belief and practice. Nominal Catholics, most of which are actually Protestant, and don’t even know it. Everyone that refuses to accept Church teachings is no longer in right relationship with the Body. they have separated themselves through sin,and if they are not reconciled before death, are destined for the wide and easy way.

 

[guanophore]

Everytime you pick up a rosary you are turning to Mary instead of God.

No Hisalone. You are mistaken.

Perhaps this was the case for you, when you prayed the Rosary? Perhaps you did not understand it, or maybe still don’t and that is why you sat such things.

If you cannot pray the Rosary without committing idolatry, then it is best if you do not do so. Those of us who are able to say the prayers, and glorify God in so doing, who are you to judge us?

The Bible is Gods word. God places His word higher than His name.

The Rosary is the prayer of the Scriptures. This is why it is not idolatrous prayer.

As Luther so elequantly stated No pope nor church council has the authority of the bible.

Luther was in error. The Bible cannot wield authority, The exercise of authority requires a will, intellect, discernment, and the ability to take responsibility. this is why authority belongs to persons, not objects, however Holy. Luther tried to push the Holy Writings into a role they were never meant to play. His error has created gross division in the Body.

 

[guanophore]

LOL! Since there were no “non-Roman Catholic Christians” at the times that those documents were written, to whom do you think they were being addressed?

There were plenty of non-Roman Christians, just as there are today. The Latin Rite is only one of 23 Rites in the Catholic Church. All the others are non-Roman. The Orthodox Christians have never been Roman, and are not less Christian because they have different language and culture.

These documents were specifically addressed to those who departed from the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, which is why they emphasize the “Roman”. In the East, there was never the corruption that spawned the Reformation, and the Eastern Rites do not suffer from Protestantism as does the Latin Rite. The Reformation is the spawn of corruption and sin among the Latin clergy in Europe only.

 

[guanophore]

So much of the dialoguing on CAF seeme to be between fundameantalists - Catholic fundamentalists who believe the Church is infallible and Protestant fundamentalists who believe the Bible is infallible.

This might easily be solved with a better understanding of infallibilty. In order to be fallible, it must be necessary to act, and be in error. Since scripture cannot act, it is not possible for it to be infallible.

The Apostles taught that scripture is inspired, and inerrant, but that people are infallible, or can engage in infallible acts, such as writing Scriipture.

 

[guanophore]

I CAN find it in the Bible that adultery is a sin. I CAN NOT find it in the Bible that eating meat on Friday is a sin. In fact, I showed you a verse that says that no one should be told NOT to eat what God has provided.​

God can tell us what is sin and what is not sin. God doesn’t change. Eating meat on Friday was a sin and now it is not a sin. Comparing eating meat on Fridays with adultery is like comparing apples with oranges, instead of comparing apples with apples.

You have misunderstood, Doki. Scripture says that all disobedience is sin.

It is not wrong to fast in order to improve one’s spiritual life. Fasting is not the same as condemning eating. It is refraining from eating certain things at certain times for spiritual enrichment.

Those who participate in fasting according to whatever guidelines (the Eastern Rites are quite different than the Latin) do most certainly receive all the foods from which they have fasted with great joy and thanksgiving after the fast is complete.

are you suggesting fasting is not biblical?

I agree that comparing eating meat on Friday to adultery may not be the best analogy. The fasting guidelines are spiritual disciplines that change over time and culture. Adultery is one of the seven deadlies.

Disobedience to the authority appointed by Christ is sinful.

 

[guanophore]

No hate; just questions that an inquiring mind has and would like an answer.

Are you telling me that eating meat on Friday was not considered a sin in the 1950’s and 60’s?

Guidelines for the solemn fast were designed by the authority appointed by Christ. Those who disregard or disobey this authority are out of order, as “he who hears you, hears me”.

The eating of meat on Friday was never considered a sin for everyone, only those to whom the discipline of fasting applied. Those who kick against the goads are missing the mark.

It is impossible to “force” anyone to fast. Fasting is a spiritual discipline in which one consecrates oneself to God by denying the appetites of the flesh. No one can be forced into devotional practices, because they are a matter of the heart.

 

[guanophore]

Sorry I wasn’t clear enough. My ‘argument’ has been the same, IMO, and that is that forcing people to fast is not permited in the 1 Timothy verse I quoted. My reference is to the practice by the CC of saying it was sin to eat meat on Friday’s until that rule was changed.​

I have somewhat of a clue what fasting is. Jesus did not eat any food for 40 days and nights at least once. There are other combinations that I’m sure is acceptable to God. Forcing by calling it sin is not permissable to God, IMO.

Well, we have different ideas of what God permits, do we not?

In the book of Acts, we see that Peter was presiding over the offerings to the Church when Ananias and Sapphira decided to be dishonest about their offering. Peter was clear with them that they were not “forced” to give the whole amount. However, they came forward pretending to be something other than they were (holding back part). This is the same thing Catholics do when they do not follow the fasting guidelines. They purport they are in communal prayer and devotion with the Church, but secretly are holding back.

We see what happened to the two in Acts, don’t we?

 

[guanophore]

According to the 1 Timothy verse in question, God holds those who force abstaining from food God’s given more responsible than those who disobey the directive not to eat meat on Fridays. Shepherds are always held to a higher standard. Do a Bible search for shepherd.

I agree. But, since fasting is a personal decision to abstain from a food for a period of time devoted to spritual enrichment, it is impossible to “force” this. A person can be deprived of food, but that is not a fast. Fasting is when a person CHOOSES not to partake of a certain activity for spiritual benefit. Fasting can be from sex, or TV, or any type of entertainment, or a favorite food, or any manner of appetites of the flesh.

If one pretends that one is participating in a communal fast, but is really not, then it is a form of lying to the HS. It is also disobedient.

 

[guanophore]

Here’s a truth that should be changed:

1 Timothy 4:
3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

No Doki. this is not a truth that should be changed. It is an eternal truth, and will be this way until the earth passes away, and marriage and eating no longer happen.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not sure how this answers my point from 1 Timothy 4.

I’d think any church and leaders would want to be VERY careful to **only ** call things sin the God says is sin. Seeing how the taking of innocent life (murder) is sin, playing with an unborn very well could fall into the catagory of sin, IMO.

Indeed they are. I think you will be hard put to find anyone more careful about this than the Roman church.

All disobedience is sin.​

-BTW, is abortion an issue covered under doctrine or practice? I think those were the words used to describe the different types of rulings in the CC.

Both. Is that why you think Catholics need to be proselytized?

i’m still confused; seems were going around and around and gettin nowhere.​

BTW, ‘abstain’ is in the present tense which might indicate that it only refers to what’s happening now. Telling someone the can’t eat meat on Friday’s falls into that understanding, IMO.

It certainly does seem that you have difficulty understanding the difference between fasting for a period of time from meat, and mandating that every Catholic be a Vegan.

 

[guanophore]

This is where all Catholic polemics breaks down. If Jesus were alive today (He is) and walking the earth (He is) and Mary was following Him around in His ministry (she is not for she can be in only one place at one time where Jesus can be in all places) Catholics would say Im going to Mary so I can meet Jesus but they stay with Mary. Instead of sitting at Jesus’ feet learning from the Master they continually turn to Mary (not all Catholics thank God) and sit with her rather than with Jesus. Jesus paid the price that we can go boldly to the throne of grace. Would you ignore such a high price?

Mary is the first recipient of the high price He paid. Mary’s soul “magnifies” the Lord. That means her whole being acts as a magnifying glass to make Him bigger in our awareness.

She is with Him, so to fellowship with her is to be with Him. She has followed Him from the time He was born all the way to the cross. We cannot get lost or separted from Him when we are with her.

When they had problems at the wedding feast in Cana, where did they go with their problem?

What was the solution to the problem?

It is not “rather than” in any way. Such a formulation clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the relationship that Mary has with her Divine Son.

Luther lived at a time where tradition and ecclesiastical authority was placed above the word of God. Luther restored the word of God to its rightfull place.

Psalm 138:2
I will worship toward Your holy temple,
And praise Your name
For Your lovingkindness and Your truth;
** For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.**

Granted there was much corruption in the clergy in Europe at the time of Luther. However, Luther attempted to force scripture into a role it was never intended to fill, and this has split the Church, and continues to do so.

The Sacred Scriptures should never be read in isolation from the Teachings that produced them.

 

[guanophore]

I know what you believe.

I think not so much. You know your own ideas, but that is a far cry from what we actually believe.

What you believe and what you understand is not what Jesus taught. It is not what the bible taught.

I am sure it seems that way to you, since your spiritual tradition has been separated from the Apostolic Teachings for 500 years. Every generation departs further and further from what He taught.

The bible does not “teach”. Teaching is an activity that requires a person. Teaching is a gift that Jesus has given to persons. People who think they are “taught” by the Holy Scripture are actually making their own conclusions, usually in isolation from the teaching authority appointed by Christ.

Can you name 10 things outside of mass that are in scripture.
Thou art Peter…doesnt count

Do you think that Catholics need to be proselytized because they don’t know their scriptures well enough?

Why does “thou art Peter” not count?

I believe Jesus is God manifested in flesh to bear our sin and die so that we may be raised with him to everslasting life.

It is very Catholic of you to say this.

 

[guanophore]

There were groups (such as the Eastern Orthodox) who were not Roman Catholic at the time that a number of those documents were written. Those groups/individuals were labeled as heretics and/or schismatics by the RCC–and popes stated that such people could not go to heaven, i.e., were not Christian. That is the only way that you can say that there were “no non-Roman Catholic Christians” when the documents were written.

No, the Orthodox were never labeled as heretics, nor were the Eastern Rites. The documents are specifically directed toward Roman Catholics who were in danger of abandoning the faith to embrace heretical teachings.

The reason no one can get to heaven outside the Church is because there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved but that of Christ. He only has One Body, and all those who are joined to Him as Head are members of the One Body.

The documents were not addressed to Catholics (or Orthodox) but to Protestants, and those in danger of falling into Protestant heresies

 

[PRmerger]

There were groups (such as the Eastern Orthodox) who were not Roman Catholic at the time that a number of those documents were written. Those groups/individuals were labeled as heretics and/or schismatics by the RCC–and .

Can you cite a source for this, please?

 

[Hisalone]

I think not so much. You know your own ideas, but that is a far cry from what we actually believe.

I have believed as you now believe. I have studied as you have studied. I now look past and have come to a different understanding.

I am sure it seems that way to you, since your spiritual tradition has been separated from the Apostolic Teachings for 500 years. Every generation departs further and further from what He taught.

This is why many say that what the RCC is now does not look anything like the 1st century church.

The bible does not “teach”. Teaching is an activity that requires a person. Teaching is a gift that Jesus has given to persons. People who think they are “taught” by the Holy Scripture are actually making their own conclusions, usually in isolation from the teaching authority appointed by Christ.

That is why Jesus has sent us The Helper. He does not lie.

Do you think that Catholics need to be proselytized because they don’t know their scriptures well enough?

I think that those Catholics that dont know God need a knowledge of Him.

Why does “thou art Peter” not count?

For many Catholics bible study begins and ends with those verses that they believe justifies them.

It is very Catholic of you to say this.
Yes very catholic indeed

 

[Hisalone]

Mary is the first recipient of the high price He paid. Mary’s soul “magnifies” the Lord. That means her whole being acts as a magnifying glass to make Him bigger in our awareness.

Does your soul magnify the Lord? Is not Mary the example we all should follow? Did she not say "Do whatever He tells you? At anytime did Jesus tell you to ask Mary for help? Jesus always taught us to be directed to the Fatherfor our help. Why do you dishonor Mary by not following her example and doing as Jesus has taught?

Granted there was much corruption in the clergy in Europe at the time of Luther. However, Luther attempted to force scripture into a role it was never intended to fill, and this has split the Church, and continues to do so.

What split the church was pridefull men disregarded Gods word and attempted to lead Gods people from a position of their own sin.

The Sacred Scriptures should never be read in isolation from the Teachings that produced them.
Lectio Divina begs to differ.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Originally Posted by guanophore View Post
I think not so much. You know your own ideas, but that is a far cry from what we actually believe.

HisAlone in red, mine in Blue

 

[Metamorphoo]

I am sorry, but I am unable to wrap my brain around this. From a Catholic perspective, one who does not have a personal relationship with the Lord cannot be a member of His Church. One must be joined to the Head in order to be part of the Body.

I absolutely agree with your statement, although I would not agree with the idea that the RCC = the Church of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that Roman Catholics are not Christian (and don’t interpret my words that way). What I am saying is that the Church is bigger than the Roman Catholic Church. From the perspective of non-Catholic Christians (except for those who don’t think you can be Catholic and Christian!), Catholics comprise part of Christ’s Church, not the totality of it. That is a major rub between us.

You said that you couldn’t “wrap your brain” around my question. The problem I have with the idea of someone like Pope John XII, for example, being the Vicar of Christ: a person who lives the kind of lifestyle that he did has no business being in any position of spiritual authority. Even Catholics will go so far to state that the man probably went to hell, as his sins were so grievous.

Jesus said that we will know men by their fruits. John XII’s fruits were wicked in the extreme. That man bore no fruit whatsoever that he was a follower of Christ, and unless he repented before his death, I don’t see how he could possibly go to heaven. As we both have agreed: If you are not a follower of Christ, you are not a part of Christ’s Church. And yet John XII occupied an office that the RCC states makes that person Christ’s representative on earth–and that he was a lawful successor to Peter. *I can’t “wrap my brain” around that. * How can a person who is not a member of Christ’s Church legitimately be the Vicar of Christ? Did holding an office suddenly make the man part of Christ’s Church? Or does the Catholic Church believe that even a person who is not a part of Christ’s Body (i.e., is not truly a Christian) can legitimately hold spiritual authority over true Christians?

Yes, if God can speak through a donkey, he can speak through any human being, at any given point in time. And that means that He can even speak through an ungodly pope. But that does not mean that we should put a donkey in a position of spiritual authority and regard him as though he were God’s chosen vessel to lead His people.

I am not stating that all popes (or even most popes) have been ungodly people. But during the period that the RCC held political power, there were too many that were corrupt. I am not going to go so far as to say that all of them were not Christian; but at the very least, they were not fit to hold a spiritual office. I can understand why a disgusted Savanarola called the Chair of Peter “vacant” during the rule of the ungodly Pope Alexander VI. I simply don’t understand why the Catholic Church doesn’t share Savanarola’s perspective on the matter.

 

[KathleenGee]

These popes that you have condemned…did they teach anything contrary to faith and morals?..it is the teaching office of faith and morality that is protected by the Holy Spirit.

My Baptist girlfriend also thought we believed that all popes go to heaven.

Protestants have a hard time understanding our boundaries with ecclesiastics – where their office of ministry ends and God begins.

The focus is the apostolic faith that is supported by the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ in spite of the failings of those called. The laity is supposed to pray very much for the clerics, but if they are all caught up in daily life, then the church suffers as well from them.

The Church is mystical. That is the area to look at. The mystical life of Jesus Christ is what feeds us in spite of the sins of the clerics.

St. Catherine of Siena said the greatest sin is for laymen to persecute the clergy because of their sins. That is the work of the Lord Himself. The Lord Himself is given to us through the ministers, whether they are worthy or not. Their sins do not affect the fullness of the sacraments we receive. No one can give us the Eucharist, can sacramentally absolve of us grave sin except the priests…so that we may return to the reception of the Eucharist. This confession is not necessary in the context of Eucharistic reception because protestants do not believe there is a Eucharist in this world. No loss to them – they think.