G
guanophore
Guest
THE Apostles taught that we are to be of one mind, one heart, one faith. We are to have unity in the Truth. What is not scriptural is to depart from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith.
A question for some Protestants who feel it is necessary to proselytize Catholics
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
This explains why you state you will not become Catholic. I don’t think this is uncommon. I think authority problems comprise the vast majority of reasons people avoid embracing the successors of the Apostles.
The responsibility to be hearers and doers of the Word is belongs to the individuals who are members of the Church. The authority to define exactly what needs to be preached and how the faithful are to be “doers” belongs to the church.
Yes. This is why the authority given to the Apostles is authentic. It came from Christ Himself. This is clearly stated in scripture when He says “all authority has been given to me…go therefore”. The Church “goes” under the authority given to her by Christ. The Aposltes understood that they had this authority, and they passed it on to their successors, the Bishops.
Yes, it is always ethical to tell the Truth.
No. By all means they should stop sinning, and that will eliminate their risk.
It sounds like you are saying “well, the people are going to sin, so why don’t we try to protect them from the consequences of their sins?”
There is no need for any of us to “answer for God”. He has already revealed His Truth to His Church. It is incumbent upon us to obey that which He has revealed.
If you cannot find a way to be firm on moral issues, and stand against sin, then God forbid that you ever find yourself in a position to stand up for your faith. Most of us are not called to give our lives for our faith.
This statement confirms what I stated above. It represents moral relativity. You admit that irresponsible sexual practices shatter lives, create disease and unwanted pregnancies, yet you seem to think that supporting these behaviors is some kind of “safety net”. There is no safety net for people living in sin, except the Truth of the Gospel, and total repentance. They will die in their sins if they do not repent and embrace the cross. This is the only safety net between them and eternal damnation.
What you seem to be saying is that your faith is of more value to you than what God has revealed to humanity.
“well being”???
You think Jesus shed His blood on the cross for us so that we could support a life of sin?
This statement sets up a false dichotomy. No one but a pagan idolater turns to a human being “instead of God”. Mary prays with us and for us. Her soul magnifies the Lord. No one who seeks her aid does so "instead of " going to God.
G
guanophore
Guest
My dear misguided sister in Christ. You have either misunderstood Jesus, or Paul, or both.
There is nothing in his doctrine that is not completely in harmony with Christ.
There is nothing in Paul’s writing that is “anti-woman”.
It was God that elevated Mary above all other humans, not man. We just acknowledge what He has done.
Honor IS veneration. they are the same thing!
I hope you can stay on CAF until you can learn about the Catholic faith.
Why would the Truth lead to any of these character defects? I think you are mistaken.
The unfortunate conflagration of the faith with secular politics has nothing to do with the Church being the One, True faith founded by Christ. Human beings getting confused abuot how to live out their faith does not equate to the faith being false. That is like saying that, since Judas betrayed Christ, then what he was teaching was wrong.
The house with many rooms is not a justification to depart from the Apostolic teaching.
I am glad that you have encountered faithful Catholics here on CAF that do not cave into moral relativism and “feel good” dilution of the faith. it is NOT a proper Christian attitude to dilute the Truth in order for everyone to “get along”. True ecumenism does not mean falling away from the Truth.
Further, Christianity is not a demoncracy. Whatever the “most” may believe or feel is not what defines the Truth. Only Jesus does that.
Jesus did not guarantee that the Church would be led into all Truth to satisfy the human ego. He did it so that we would have a sure guide and anchor to save our souls. The Truth does not serve as an excuse for people to feel spiritually superior. We know that other denominations are lacking because their creation resulted from leaving some part of the Apostolic faith.
You are creating another false dichotomy. That answer was based entirely on the doctrines given to mankind by God in the ten commandments. We cannot adequately love our neighbor without adherance to the Truth.
If we depart from the Truth, we will find ourselves trying to love our neighbor by tolerating sin. I think you have illustrated this quite well in the above post. It is not loving to confirm people in their sins.
Samaritans, just like Protestants of today, cannot be charged with heresy. The vast majority have been born into a situation where they are separated from the Apostolic Truth. They have never received the fullness of the faith, or had a chance to reject it.
There is no need to quarrel, Rita. It is easier just to accept what God has revealed. Why kick against the goads?
I am glad that you are enjoying expressing yourself. It is not our intention to fight with you. However, it is our duty to stand up for the Truth. We cannot affirm moral relativism. Wide and easy is the path upon which it lies.
Harmony will never result from tolerance of error and sin.
Unity exists in adherance to the Truth. I do agree, though, we will not be an adequate witness to the world until we have unity amongst ourselves. We need to get back to the Apostolic teaching, which is that there is One faith, one church.
G
guanophore
Guest
God does not separate faith from the Truth (doctrine). He will judge us according to the Truth that has been revealed to us, and how well we responded to it. Persons such as yourself, who discover the claims of the Catholic Church to be the one true Church, yet fail to investigate this claim, will be held eternally responsible for this refusal.
This is one of the lies of moral relativism. Our sins stand against us. It is the nature of sin. God does not set aside the penalty of sin, which is eternal separation from HIm.
We are created to live without sin, and it is possible, by the grace of God, to live without sin. Excusing sin by appealing to “a moment of weakness” is no excuse. if one breaks one part of the Law, one violates the whole law. One who belongs to Christ does not continue to walk in sin.
It is not arrogant to belong to the Truth. Knowing that one is in communion with the Truth that God has revealed is not something that needs to be forgiven.
Rita, the heavens do declare the glory of God, and gazing upon them does remind us of our limitations. However, our smallness is not the issue in the Truth revealed by God. We are just as obligated to live in obedience to what He has shown us. This is not arrogance, or spiritual pride. It is our duty and responsibility to follow the commandments of He who created us.
What is arrogant is to rationalize sin, pretend that the divisions man has created in the Body are unimportant, and to accuse the Holy Bride of Christ of wrongdoing.
U
ufamtobie
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
That is actually NOT TRUE at all. When the young lawyer asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life he responded : YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, **AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND."Originally posted by Rita (but since she doesn’t post in way that allows us to quote her posts you can’t refer to it here)
When he was asked how to inherit eternal life - remember, the young lawyer asked him? - he cited love God and love one’s neighbor. Not a word about doctrine.
**Doctrine is the part about loving God “with all of our MIND.” It is the part where we contemplate and digest all that He has revealed to us.
If we love God just with our heart (which is what it sounds like you’re suggesting) we are disobeying Jesus. :sad_yes:
E
eucharisteo
Guest
Many Protestants and “Christians only” would argue that the gates of hell didn’t prevail against it simply by the fact that they are now back in control and quietly lived among Catholics to avoid persecution. As a means of being charitable towards them the problem with this is the lack of knowledge they hold within their pool of academics totally aniolates this idea. The problem is that education or catechesis was so poor in years past that what happened to Martin Luther really doesn’t surprise me. Martin Luther was educated in scripture and the duties of a priest. He was not well educated in apologetics rooted deep in history. It was probably not available to him back then. The same thing is very apparent even to this day.
I remember what I was taught in Catholicism while practicing my former Christian faith (Campbellite). I brought up probing questions really in to form of the Socratic Method because I knew that were not quite restored as they claimed to really be I discovered later on. Some Campbellite Christians realized that there was more but didn’t quite know how to deal with the apostacy so close to the first century church and thus dealt with it that way. If they said one thing that contradicted what they believed scripture taught then they rejected it as “apostacy”. I would bring up obviously Catholic points watered down enough to see how they dealt with those questions. It’s probably why they finally ended up disfellowshipping us. The approach is “where scripture is silent, so too must be be silent”. They draw from the last chapter of the book of Revelations and a passage in Deuteronomy …“adding or taking away” with much warnings towards those that would create their own “manmade religion” which is apostate and not Christian, according to their teaching.
So, we must be careful when we point to simply history. But we must refer to it and then tie into that history the scriptural passages that help us understand the possiblity of it being true. You see, scripture does not contradict the true Christian faith. Let me carry that a bit further. Scripture or the Holy Bible does not contradict Oral Tradition (Sacred Tradition) and visa versa, Oral Tradition does not contradict the Holy Bible. The real question we must contend with at this point is ask ourselves “where does the bible come from?” Understanding the fact that the sacred tradition was unfolded even gradually in scripture points to the possibility of maybe development of doctrine is not a matter of making up stuff but a matter of realizing or better explaining that which was always taught. The entire Christian faith could not have been completely written down. Back then it was presumed that the authority sat with the Church leadership, and they passed it down. Later. Son just woke up for breakfast.
W
wmscott
Guest
***AGAIN ***with the 1 Timothy 4 citation. Why did you not read my post explaining this in detail. are you so closed to the truth that you refues to see any view point but your own. this is the problemn when repeated again for your edification. This is the problem when you have those out there that continually apply their personal interpretations to Sacred Scripture and really have no clue as to what they are interpreting. This is why some non-Catholics get the 30K+ different Protestant churches thrown at them. This is a classic case, you cite 1 Timothy 4 totally out of context and totally incorrect. Go two blocks down the street to (fill in the blank) Church and get something entirely different. You cannot even agree amongst yourselves what Sacred Scripture is supposed to say.
So again and for your edification, I have taken an excerpt of my post so that you can see and hopefully understand the error in you interpretation and argument. It is OK you are allowed to admit a mistake.
1 Timothy 4
1 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions
2 through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences.
3 They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving,
Now let’s look at the footnotes associated with this citation:
[1-5] Doctrinal deviations from the true Christian message within the church have been prophesied, though the origin of the prophecy is not specified (1 Tim 4:1-2); cf Acts 20:29-30. The letter warns against a false asceticism that prohibits marriage and regards certain foods as forbidden, though they are part of God’s good creation (1 Tim 4:3).
Further, let’s understand the definition of asceticism:
as•cet•i•cism
–noun
- the manner of life, practices, or principles of an ascetic.
- the doctrine that a person can attain a high spiritual and moral state by practicing self-denial, self-mortification, and the like.
- rigorous self-denial; extreme abstinence; austerity.
Ver. 3. Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, &c. Here says St. Chrysostom[1] are foretold and denoted the heretics called Encratites, the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. who condemned all marriages as evil, as may be seen in St. Irenæus, Epiphanius, St. Augustine, Theodoret, &c. These heretics held a god who was the author of good things, and another god who was the author or cause of all evils; among the latter they reckoned, marriages, fleshmeats, wine, &c. The doctrine of Catholics is quite different, when they condemn the marriages of priests and of such as have made a vow to God to lead always a single life;
E
eucharisteo
Guest
The Church does not forbid marriage. It clearly defines what a marriage is and sticks by it. So a divorced person can not simply remarry. Yes, early church fathers did have wives and lots of children. How many children do you have now and are all believers. The qualifications for an elder is to be the man of but one wife and have believing children. Define believing children. What does that mean? My wife is the baby of 8 children. Her oldest brother is old enough to be her father and mine technically speaking. My father in law died when she was 38 at the ripe old age of 88. He was an elder before she was born. People did not live as long back in the early church days as they do today depending on many conditions.
If you are arguing against church leader marriages then you are arguing all wrong about this. Bishops are not to marry now because of confusion of debts and inheritance problems once incurred in history. Celibate priests volunteer their abstinance form sex by remaining chaste as single men. Deacons are usually married and are also church leaders, unlike those in Protestant or Christian only faiths, like yours. You deny some things I find interesting. By claiming to be Christian only you are saying you really adopt Church of Christ dogma. You may be part of one of the other sects from Alexander Campbell’s attempt to “restore the church”, which can’t be done for many reasons I won’t go into right now.
I do believe that all non-married priests should be also part of a religious order for their sake. Being a leader and single is very difficult as I know from my own history. I didn’t marry until I was 28 years old after deciding to marry a protestant woman instead of returning to the Catholic seminary. He family was much like you profess and ended up creating enough doubt in me to convert to their faith in the Church of Christ. It didn’t take long to figure out how wrong they were as well and just as deeply sinful among their church leaders as what I experienced in the Catholic Church. People are people no matter where you go.
The difference is that Catholic Church leaders are all ordained. Not even lay Catholics are true Church leaders. they may be program administrators, but ultimately they fall under a deacon or priest or maybe even directly under a bishop. But priest and deacons are expected to be humble and submissive to the authority over them, their ordinary, the bishop. That is historical and is very clear not only in scripture but also in early Christian writings, not to mention sacred tradition. Celibacy is a noble vocation. Latin Rite Catholic men are also required to have a vocation to celibacy. Those that are not called to celibacy are also not called to become ordained priests, but they may be called to become deacons, also a noble office in the ancient Church.
Christians do not understand the role of the leaders in office as well as their authority. Even on the local level in the independent congregational churches the elders are in higher authority and make decisions they hold bound on members of the congregation. They do not tell them they can move to another congregation if they don’t want to be submissive to them, but if you attend their church you must be respectful of their authority or face expulsion or disfellowshipping from the congregation. I’ve never seen a Catholic denied access to a local congregation, ever. I know of historical cases. If the local elder tells a preacher he must be married, is that binding?
BTW: 20% of Catholic priests are in fact married. 90% of Catholic Deacons are married. That means there is a huge disparity in how you prop up your objections. Was Paul married? Was Paul a bishop? Was Timothy and Titus Bishops? The Catholic Church can clearly tell you they all were bishops eventually. Back then elders or priests to be more precise were selected by the local people, but under the authority of their bishops. Look it up. Not all of them were married. But those that were married were not permitted to marry once they were ordained. Not that I know about. If you make claims other than that you must prove it to be so to be take seriously. But it is still the authority of the bishop that dictates what can and can not be done under his leadership…
D
Dokimas
Guest
‘Not permitted’ sounds like ‘forbidden’ to me.
Paul taught that biships could be married but to one woman.
How do you know that Timothy and Titus were unmarried?
I’m sure their lives would be easier being single, with all the travel they did.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
There is a difference but there is none so blind as he who will not see. . .
"Could be’ married. Not ‘had to be married’. Furthermore, the practice common at the time St. Paul wrote, where men could ‘divorce’ their wives and simply marry another, is reprobated here.
For centuries after, when Christians were ‘solid’ in the practice, men could no longer just ‘divorce’ and remarry, for the Church does not permit it.
Nowadays many “Christian” churches have no problem marrying people, spouse after spouse after spouse.
The culture of the times changed. And the Church no longer had to worry about having a man be the husband of ‘only one wife’ 'against the culture. And so the DISCIPLINE arose (based on the oral tradition and example of Jesus Himself, as well as St. Paul, St. John, etc.) of having men 'make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom.
You do remember that Scripture? I think I asked you about it earlier, might have missed your answer. WHO do you think that passage applies to?
If Christ commends this–and He does–then CHRIST HIMSELF is giving APPROVAL to those who 'make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom." Or celibate.
If Christ has approved this, who are YOU to complain???
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I’m going to put the relevant Scripture passage right here and open this up to everybody.
In Matthew 19 Jesus says:
And doesn’t Jesus APPROVE this?
In Matthew 19 Jesus says:
Now just exactly who do YOU think Jesus was speaking of in this passage?
And doesn’t Jesus APPROVE this?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Dokimas, you are ignoring the full context of this matter in the New Testament.
Look at this article on my blog for a complete treatment of it all.
Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!
D
Dokimas
Guest
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Gee, guess your interpretation overrides the actual Word of God as shown in the article I linked above.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Take a look at the difference in the time of your post and mine: 3 minutes. Is it possible that I did not see you post because I was thinking about the one I was writing???
I guess you being so militant toward me my be a bit premature.
E
eucharisteo
Guest
Now that’s a new one. Are biships between a priest and a bishop?
How do you know that Timothy and titus were married? You do not. Assuming my memory is serving me well on such a trivia matter, I do believe it is taught through oral tradition. I’m not against bishops, priests or deacons marrying. But the bishop does have the authority to say “no” or “yes”. Paul, if that is how what he meant, was saying that to particular people, in my lame opinion. But that is not even the issue. The issue is that you simply don’t get it because you want to prove heresy that does not exist because you hate hate the Catholic Church. It’s really that simple, isn’t it.
The old arguments are being drug out on this every time this comes up. I personally would love to see the discipline [not doctrine] were lifted for a time in this culture of hate against the Catholic Church. Most Catholic priests are happy in their vocation. They voluntarily choose it. If they are trying to circumvent it just to be called a priest, then that is not very holy. I know it happens. That’s sad to us when it is revealed. There are those religious and priests that leave the priesthood and religious life for many different reasons. But its the scandalous ones that give us a bad name.
Just think that if protestants were raked over the coals for not being open to life. So many Protestants marry seemingly for the “benefits” these days compared to 50 years ago. Catholics too, might I add. This is part of the culture of death we speak about on here. Being open to life means that you are not trying to prevent God from creating life within our marriages. Yet I know so many sterilized Protestants these days. I heard the ladies talk about contraception like it was pain medication. It’s out right nauseating.
E
eucharisteo
Guest
You do know the the 3 levels of saints:Take a look at the difference in the time of your post and mine: 3 minutes. Is it possible that I did not see you post because I was thinking about the one I was writing???
I guess you being so militant toward me my be a bit premature.
Church Militant: you, me and all Christians
Church Triumphant: those in heaven with our Lord
Church Suffering: those being purged of impurities from sin after death
So that is the reason for his name, not that he is being militant towards you but rather against evil.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Matthew 19:
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given:
12 “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”
Could you please highlight above where Jesus mandated celebacy? Thank you.
1 Corinthians 7:
6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.
7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am;
9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Could you highlight above where Paul mandated celebacy? Thank you.
Revelation 14:
1 ¶ Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father’s name written on their foreheads.
2 And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps.
3 They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth.
4 These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.
5 And in their mouth was found no deceit, for they are without fault before the throne of God.
Could you show me where this verse applies to anyone but the 144,000 male Jews during a future time in human history, most likely during the Great Tribulation and their job is to witness to fellow Jews.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I assumed nothing about the marrital situation of Timothy or Titus.Now that’s a new one. Are biships between a priest and a bishop?
How do you know that Timothy and titus were married? You do not. Assuming my memory is serving me well on such a trivia matter, I do believe it is taught through oral tradition. I’m not against bishops, priests or deacons marrying. But the bishop does have the authority to say “no” or “yes”. Paul, if that is how what he meant, was saying that to particular people, in my lame opinion. But that is not even the issue. The issue is that you simply don’t get it because you want to prove heresy that does not exist because you hate hate the Catholic Church. It’s really that simple, isn’t it.
The old arguments are being drug out on this every time this comes up. I personally would love to see the discipline [not doctrine] were lifted for a time in this culture of hate against the Catholic Church. Most Catholic priests are happy in their vocation. They voluntarily choose it. If they are trying to circumvent it just to be called a priest, then that is not very holy. I know it happens. That’s sad to us when it is revealed. There are those religious and priests that leave the priesthood and religious life for many different reasons. But its the scandalous ones that give us a bad name.
Just think that if protestants were raked over the coals for not being open to life. So many Protestants marry seemingly for the “benefits” these days compared to 50 years ago. Catholics too, might I add. This is part of the culture of death we speak about on here. Being open to life means that you are not trying to prevent God from creating life within our marriages. Yet I know so many sterilized Protestants these days. I heard the ladies talk about contraception like it was pain medication. It’s out right nauseating.
- Status