Catholic teaching not found in the Bible

[someotherguy]

Individual “Roman Catholics” may not know the history of a teaching or be aware of its scriptural component. But it is there

Evidently not because this is, what, the third time I’ve asked you where it is found? And you still can’t tell me.

It is difficiulte to dialogue about the Catholic teachings that are supposedly “not” in Scripture with people who fail to see the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is concretely spelled out in Our Lord’s very own words.

Nice cop out.

 

[sandusky]

It is difficiulte to dialogue about the Catholic teachings that are supposedly “not” in Scripture with people who fail to see the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is concretely spelled out in Our Lord’s very own words.

Non sequitur, anyone?

 

[mercygate]

Evidently not because this is, what, the third time I’ve asked you where it is found? And you still can’t tell me.

I gave you links. To say I “can’t tell you” is just a way of vindicating your own unwillngness to look at them.

Nice cop out.

So you DO believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Great. That will get you started on the rest.

 

[someotherguy]

I gave you links. To say I “can’t tell you” is just a way of vindicating your own unwillngness to look at them.

I didn’t ask you what somebody else thinks. You’re the one who said that they’re in the Bible, so you’re the one with the responsibility to show that they’re in the Bible.

So you DO believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

No, I believe the Bible.

 

[mercygate]

I didn’t ask you what somebody else thinks. You’re the one who said that they’re in the Bible, so you’re the one with the responsibility to show that they’re in the Bible.

I have acquitted my responsibility by giving you links.

No, I believe the Bible.Clearly, you do not believe the Bible. If you do not believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, you do not believe “the Bible.”

 

[someotherguy]

I have acquitted my responsibility by giving you links.

OK. I understand. It can be embarrassing to make a claim and not be able to back it up so I won’t press you any further.

Clearly, you do not believe the Bible. If you do not believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, you do not believe “the Bible.”

I believe the Bible when it describes the Lord’s Supper and does not indicate in any way that Jesus turns into a wafer.

 

[mercygate]

OK. I understand. It can be embarrassing to make a claim and not be able to back it up so I won’t press you any further.

I believe the Bible when it describes the Lord’s Supper and does not indicate in any way that Jesus turns into a wafer.

Read the links and then come back. Start a thread on any of the topics you find insufficiently supported.

You are sniping. Moreover, you are sniping with blanks.

 

[someotherguy]

Read the links and then come back.

I’m not interested in reading the links. You’re the one who made the claim so it’s up to you to back it up. It’s not up to me to do your homework for you.

Start a thread on any of the topics you find insufficiently supported.

Why? Neither you nor any of the Roman Catholics here can show where they’re found in scripture. I’ve started threads like that on other forums and all it is is just page after page of Roman Catholics making excuses.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi

I don’t see anything bad in my above passage quoted by you.

It contains no references. It’s just a declarative statement, with no support.

It would be improved if you would say, "I read in [name of book, author, publisher] that [statement] and I believe it to be true because [other reason].

In other words, show some authority for your statements. Don’t sound like you’re making stuff up as you go along.

I again explain it.

And you are … ?

The situation in Judea during and after the event of crucifixion was very precarious. Jesus survived a cursed death on Cross by mercy of GodAllahYHWH by showing sing of Jonah to the adulterous Jews.

Jesus decided to go on exile towards India to spread his teaching to the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel settled there. His minitry was for the Jews only.

In his absence Paul wanted to start a new religion; which he did using name of Christ or Jesus by telling stories in his name , though Jesus had warned about it timely.

This is what I believe with reasons; you are welcome to differ with me with reasons.

And your scholarly evidence for any of this is … ?

 

[mercygate]

I’m not interested in reading the links. You’re the one who made the claim so it’s up to you to back it up. It’s not up to me to do your homework for you.

That’s my line. The fact that you choose not to take this simple step indicates a lack of sincerity.

Why? Neither you nor any of the Roman Catholics here can show where they’re found in scripture. I’ve started threads like that on other forums and all it is is just page after page of Roman Catholics making excuses.

Other forums? That doesn’t count, and moreover, I do not believe that you have never received answers. All you have to do is search these threads and you will find volumes.

Does the word “contumely” mean anything to you?

 

[someotherguy]

That’s my line. The fact that you choose not to take this simple step indicates a lack of sincerity.

If I wasn’t sincere, then I wouldn’t be giving you opportunity after opportunity to show me where these things are found.

Other forums? That doesn’t count

Right, because they’re not “real Roman Catholics” like you are.

and moreover, I do not believe that you have never received answers. All you have to do is search these threads and you will find volumes.

If there are “volumes”, then why can’t you even come up with one?

Does the word “contumely” mean anything to you?

Yes, it means rude. Please explain what I’ve said that is rude.

 

[ibkc]

Yes, it means rude. Please explain what I’ve said that is rude.

For starters, insisting on calling us “Roman” Catholics is extremely rude. Demanding proof of something and then refusing to look at links provided is also rude.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, it means rude. Please explain what I’ve said that is rude.

Refusing to look at the links provided, which will give you the baseline for discussing any Catholic teaching YOU think is not in the Bible is contumely in action.

You are simultaneously posting in a similar way on more than one thread, and thus not thoughtfully responding here. When you are ready for a real discussion, come on back.

 

[Stephen_C]

Here you go…Here is the starting date of the Catholic Church. (The Roman as you put it is the Catholic Church latin rite on of the 22 or so rites which makes up the Catholic Church)
Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Note: Jesus did not tell Simon that he is Peter and upon this rock I will wait at least 1500 or so years to build my Church’s…or “thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, but hey come to think of they don’t need You (Peter) or the Church. All they need is me…They will just have to figure it all out on thier own…”

 

[someotherguy]

Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

As usual, taken out of context. What is it about this passage that frightens Roman Catholics so that they can’t bring themselves to post the whole thing?

 

[jmcrae]

As usual, taken out of context. What is it about this passage that frightens Roman Catholics so that they can’t bring themselves to post the whole thing?

 

[Stephen_C]

As usual, taken out of context. What is it about this passage that frightens Roman Catholics so that they can’t bring themselves to post the whole thing?

Taken out of context of you own personal interpretation is what you mean. Actually us Catholic’s (to include those of us who are of the latin rite flavor) view our holy bible as a whole. Not just snipits pasted together to mean something other what was intended. We form our will to God. Not trying to form God’s will to ours.

 

[someotherguy]

Taken out of context of you own personal interpretation is what you mean.

No, I mean cut in half because the meaning of the portion you quoted is dramatically different if the first half of the passage is included and that frighgtens Roman Catholics to no end.

Actually us Catholic’s (to include those of us who are of the latin rite flavor) view our holy bible as a whole. Not just snipits pasted together to mean something other what was intended. We form our will to God. Not trying to form God’s will to ours.

So then why did you take that passage out of context?

 

[eagertolearn]

Second, yes, there are many Roman Catholic doctrines that disagree with the Bible, such as Purgatory, praying to the dead, worship of Mary, etc.

Here you go concerning “Purgatory” and the Bible:

Purgatory

Mt 5:48 - be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect
Heb 12:14 - strive for that holiness without which cannot see God
Jam 3:2 - we all fall short in many respects
Rev 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven
Jam 1:14-15 - when sin reaches maturity gives birth to death
2Sam 12:13-14 - David, though forgiven, still punished for his sin
Mt 5:26 - you will not be released until paid last penny
Mt 12:32 - sin against Holy Spirit unforgiven in this age or next
Mt 12:36 - account for every idle word on judgment day
2Macc 12:44-46 - atoned for dead to free them from sin
1Cor 3:15 - suffer loss, but saved as through fire
1Pet 3:18-20; 4:6 - Jesus preached to spirits in prison
2Tim 1:16-18 - Paul prays for dead friend Onesiphorus
1Cor 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people baptizing for the dead.

Catholic does not worship Mary. We venerate and honor her very highly. She is the Mother of the Church, helping us to be in communion with her Son.

Pray to the death:

The intercession of fellow Christians—which is what the saints in heaven are—also clearly does not interfere with Christ’s unique mediatorship because in the four verses immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something “good and pleasing to God,” not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator.

Enjoy.

ETL.

 

[jmcrae]

No, I mean cut in half because the meaning of the portion you quoted is dramatically different if the first half of the passage is included and that frighgtens Roman Catholics to no end.

What in the wee man are you blathering about?