A
anon91549587
Guest
Before my revertion , i actually criticised christians for wearing wedding rings because it isnt biblical , in fact i was taught it was a pagan tradition in regards to the moon.
- Status
A
al2o3
Guest
By the faith you express here, you are catholic - Welcome Home! I am sure everyone who posts here does not understand everything about the Church. The Church is a revelation. As I have written elsewhere, To have faith one must encounter Him who IS. Everything else flows from that encounter. You are seeking to have an “informed faith”. That is itself a gift from God. It is OK to ask questions and as you have seen here there are many who can and do provide sound and insightful responses. We only have 2 commands - Love Him: which is prayer and worship - and Love others: which is our actions to serve others with compassion. The theoretical and theological understanding of doctrine and practice is only required so that our actions are not taken with culpable ignorance. This is a life long learning process of our Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Holy Traditions - shepherded by the the authority handed to the apostles and their successors.
With a prayer that you will continue to discover the richness of the faith and the faithful.
God Bless
A
AlNg
Guest
Since the tradition of the rosary is deeply rooted in Scripture, why is it that Baptists and many other Christians do not make use of the rosary?
Also, consider the tradition of decorating a Christmas tree and placing it inside the Church. Is that deeply rooted in Scripture.
If priestly celibacy is deeply rooted in Scripture, why did Jesus choose a married man to be the first Pope? And married men were allowed to be priests in the Eastern Church.
Last edited:
M
midori
Guest
You’ve never said a rosary, I see.
It starts with the Apostles’ Creed-- scholars can argue the date of composition-- and otherwise consists of a series of meditations on Jesus’ life— thirteen of fifteen of which are scriptural, or eighteen of twenty, if you like the current count. The prayers said in between are either Our Fathers-- which are scriptural-- or Hail Mary’s-- half of which are scriptual, the other half being a petition-- or Glory Be’s-- yeah, usually the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit aren’t grouped so obviously closely in the Bible, but it’s Trinitarian praise, so if you want to be grumpy about praising the Trinity as unscriptural, that would be its own thread. 
The 150 represents the 150 psalms, because the educated people could recite the 150 psalms, but the common people could merely keep track of 150 prayers and meditations.So by calling the rosary scriptural, no one’s saying that Noah and Moses and Elijah were running around with rosaries, but rather, it’s a prayer that’s pretty much permeated with scripture throughout.
Any denomination that doesn’t pray the rosary is generally going to be a denomination that doesn’t recognize the power or the importance of the King’s Mother, or the importance of the last two mysteries. Because in ancient Hebraic culture, who was the Queen? It wasn’t the King’s Wife-- because he might have several-- but it was the King’s Mother. And all of Mary’s significance comes from the graces she was given to serve that role— but she also gets the honors attached to it as well as the work. And what was her work? Her work entirely consists of bringing people closer to her Son— she’s not a destination unto herself, but is a signpost pointing in the right direction. There’s nothing that she keeps for herself— everything is God’s. And she does a far better job than any of the other scriptural Queen’s Mothers we could read about-- and the mothers of the ordinary kings were so important, we’ve got the names of every single one of them.
But, yeah. That goes back to being careful about being sure about the value of “all the other baggage” you’re discarding, before you discard it. So it’s more of a reflection of the priorities of the people making their walk without certain tools, rather than a reflection on the value of the tool itself.
Last edited:
M
midori
Guest
We know Peter had a mother-in-law. But there’s never any mention of his wife.
There’s never any mention of any of the Apostles’ wives.
So while they may have been married-at-some-point-in-the-past, there’s nothing scriptural anyone can point to that shows any of them had a living spouse.
If the Pope wanted married men as priests, he could have them tomorrow. Because priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. It’s something people take on to allow them to focus on their flock as their family, rather than being distracted by their six-year-old’s baseball practice or their twelve-year-old’s algebra homework or how to pay for college tuition for six kids on a priest’s salary, let alone their wife wanting to spend a quiet evening in, but oops, there’s three emergencies and only one of him.
So having a biological family is something that priests sacrifice in order to not split their focus a thousand ways— and in return, they get a much greater spiritual family.
But there’s nothing that would prevent that from being changed if the need arose— and in some cases, it is changed on an individual basis. (ie, an Anglican minister who’s ordained a Catholic priest isn’t prevented from doing so as long as he’s married; some missionaries to cultures where single men are looked on as suspicious and weird are allowed to be married; and so on.)
P
PatK63
Guest
Your example is a current event that is being hotly debated as we speak in the church. You and I probable agree on what the final conclusion should be. As I see it Pope Francis is searching for a way to ease pagans into the church! Not a bad goal. Withhold judgement at least until an official pronouncement is made.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
The Church will do no such thing. Further if some faction of churchmen tried to do that Catholics would not accept it and would not have to.
H
historyfan81
Guest
Catholic things that had no basis in scripture
Old ones :
Still think made and unity of cruch and state
And the pope as a religious Cesar over the kings of Europe
This filled the Curch with materialism and political gain seeing the various scadals and decrepency we will see in the middle ages .
2 ) endulgances, the idea of going to a crusade and killing people would be a remission of sins death penalty to apostates, homosexual, heretics and blaphemers
( You kinda mess up when you imitating Islamic law and theology)
Modern
The doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries.
Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.
Also I even heard the argument that
Since the rich man asked Abraham’ something therefore we the living can pray to the dead
Old ones :
- making the pope head of a government and and king of the papal states .
Still think made and unity of cruch and state
And the pope as a religious Cesar over the kings of Europe
This filled the Curch with materialism and political gain seeing the various scadals and decrepency we will see in the middle ages .
2 ) endulgances, the idea of going to a crusade and killing people would be a remission of sins death penalty to apostates, homosexual, heretics and blaphemers
( You kinda mess up when you imitating Islamic law and theology)
Modern
- morden undestating of apostolic succession .
The doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries.
Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.
- veneration And prayer of people still living of dead saints .(key word dead)
Also I even heard the argument that
Since the rich man asked Abraham’ something therefore we the living can pray to the dead
- this a parable
2)there both dead , there is no living dead communication here
Last edited:
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
This is very much Biblical. And more importantly, this was practiced universally by Christianity (yes the Eastern Orthodox also practice it) for over 1500 years until Luther came along. So there is no history that can trace back to the Apostles to support Luther’s innovation.
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
‘Then under the tunic of each one of the dead, they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason these men had fallen. So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out.’ - 2 Maccabees 12:40-42
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Matthew 8:
14 And when Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.
1 Cor 9: 5:
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?
M
MHawbaker
Guest
In 1 Corinthians 5:9 St Paul seems to indicate that all of the other Apostles including Peter were married and that their wives accompanied them in their work.
“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”
Last edited:
A
adf417
Guest
You left out a very big one and it is very old also.
*** what constitutes scripture itself and who gets to decide this highly contested conundrum.
Peace!!!
A
AlbMagno
Guest
You can read the writings of Saint Irenaeus of Lyon and Saint Ignatius of Antioch, both bishops and disciples of the Twelve, or disciples of disciples of the Twelve, and then you will see that apostolic succession was practiced from the begining.
The Apostles acted as episkopos (supervisors, or, as we translate now, bishops) of the communities (proto-dioceses) they founded, and, when they had to go to other place or got martyred, they left another man as episkopos of the community.
The Apostles acted as episkopos (supervisors, or, as we translate now, bishops) of the communities (proto-dioceses) they founded, and, when they had to go to other place or got martyred, they left another man as episkopos of the community.
Last edited:
H
historyfan81
Guest
have to desagree here
while the early curch did teach apostolic suceesion (this is 100% true) they just didnt teach the modern meaning of it , lets take for example Iraenus
[Polycarp] departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true . -ibid, 4
Again, the definition of “apostolic succession” is detailed as handing down that truth which was learned from apostles. Those teachings alone are true.
MODERN APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
so The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.
In other words, even though Catholics and Orthodox differ
on major theological doctrines, may still define itself and Orthodox as having “apostolic succession” by virtue of a claim to a type of sacerdotal priesthood.
somewhere along the historic line, the shift was made from adhere to those who teach the same apostolic truth to obey your priest and bishop who can offer a continuous sacrifice for you.
To have “apostolic succession” as it was defined and practiced in the earliest Christian years, one simply must “teach the same” as apostles.
by that logic you and i are all also succesors of the apostoles , not just bishops and the popes
even terutlian agreed, its not till the third century that we see hird century this “concern for propriety” begins to be displaced by the concept of ‘power’ to do so of apostolic succession and the things that bisphos and priest can do
while the early curch did teach apostolic suceesion (this is 100% true) they just didnt teach the modern meaning of it , lets take for example Iraenus
Irenaeus is contrasting the false teachers who taught things unknown with and apart from what apostolic churches were teaching, which was handed down in succession. There was no room for innovation or tradition.
[Polycarp] departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true . -ibid, 4
Again, the definition of “apostolic succession” is detailed as handing down that truth which was learned from apostles. Those teachings alone are true.
MODERN APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
so The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.
In other words, even though Catholics and Orthodox differ
on major theological doctrines, may still define itself and Orthodox as having “apostolic succession” by virtue of a claim to a type of sacerdotal priesthood.
somewhere along the historic line, the shift was made from adhere to those who teach the same apostolic truth to obey your priest and bishop who can offer a continuous sacrifice for you.
To have “apostolic succession” as it was defined and practiced in the earliest Christian years, one simply must “teach the same” as apostles.
by that logic you and i are all also succesors of the apostoles , not just bishops and the popes
even terutlian agreed, its not till the third century that we see hird century this “concern for propriety” begins to be displaced by the concept of ‘power’ to do so of apostolic succession and the things that bisphos and priest can do
Last edited:
W
Wife.of.Gabriel
Guest
*Gospel of John chapter 6 in it’s entirely & pay close attention to verses 52-71. 1 Corinthians 10:16. Matthew 26:26-27. Mark 14:22-24. Luke 22:19-20.
*James 5:17, Revelation 7:9-17, 1 John 5:16
*2 Maccabees 12:46
*1 Corinthians 3:15
*Thessalonians 2:15
M
midori
Guest
That’s really interesting.
So, when I looked at the Vulgate version, because I don’t do Hebrew—
Unless we want to use that as a basis to translate it as, “Do we not have the right to take along a mistress, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephus?”
So then I checked the Greek. It refers to ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα. ἀδελφὴν is sister; γυναῖκα is woman, but can also be wife, depending on context. Is anyone’s Greek better than mine, and able to detect a possessive?
But ultimately, look at who wrote 1 Corinthians 9.
Douay-Rheims translates it as–
So, when I looked at the Vulgate version, because I don’t do Hebrew—
It was an interesting word choice, sororem. Who would pick soror over uxor when talking about a wife?
Unless we want to use that as a basis to translate it as, “Do we not have the right to take along a mistress, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephus?”
So then I checked the Greek. It refers to ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα. ἀδελφὴν is sister; γυναῖκα is woman, but can also be wife, depending on context. Is anyone’s Greek better than mine, and able to detect a possessive?
But ultimately, look at who wrote 1 Corinthians 9.
Paul’s speaking. And we know scripturally that Paul wasn’t married at the time of 1 Corinthians, because he just got finished telling us that two chapters earlier. So why is he asking about his right to take along a believing wife, if he’s a single guy? Wouldn’t it be more realistic that he’s talking about not shooing away devout women who wished to follow Paul, as we know were in the habit of following Jesus? He’s comfortable being single, but he’s not shunning the company of women, especially useful, competent women who are interested in the faith and are able to help out with the practicalities of daily life.
Douay-Rheims translates it as–
The KJV has it as–
Knox did a nice job with–
So, yes, it can be argued either way. Either Peter had a living wife at the time, and she was terribly lax in her duties, because she didn’t make an appearance once during the illness of her own mother; or she had already died. If she was alive and followed Peter around during his missionary work, that’s fine; and if she was dead and not around to follow Peter around, that’s fine too— because it’s a discipline, not a doctrine, and is capable of changing with time, place, and culture. Whereas we have no authority to change doctrine.
M
midori
Guest
OK, so why not look at John 6?
So, what did Jesus spend his time drilling into the people in this chapter?
and then the Jews said:
and then Jesus said “Stop grumbling.” And continued–
and
and then the Jews start arguing in verse 52 about “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
and then Jesus sez:
and then the people say–
and then Jesus sez:
And then the people went all–
So Jesus had so many chances to say, “Oh, I’m so sorry, y’all totally misunderstood what I was saying. Come back over here and let me try to put it a different way.” But instead, he doubled down over and over and over and over again— seven times, I think.
So people who have trouble with a literal Body and Blood fall into a lot of good company with a lot of other people in verse 64.
Because if Jesus takes the time to say a thing seven times in a row---- and then bothers to institute that thing on his last night on earth, along with the commandment to “do this in memory of me”— presumably there’s something more behind it than just not-forgetting-he-was-a-great-guy-who-said-important-stuff.
G
GraceJ
Guest
Has anyone else noticed that that verse, where people turn away from Jesus due to a hard teaching, is John 6:66?
It might not mean anything, but I thought I’d point it out anyway…
It might not mean anything, but I thought I’d point it out anyway…
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
Iv memory serves, it was Constantine who convened the council (and thus the “Ecumenical” label . . .)
- Status