Catholics... Just As Bad As Protestants?

[dumspirospero]

The following scriptures clearly defines Peter as the head of the Church that Christ started…i.e., he is the first Pope of The Catholic Church. Secondly, the next quotes show Christ’s promise to Peter and the other bishops (apostles) of infallibility in matters of doctrine, etc.

“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.”–Matt. xvi. 18.

“And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world can not receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you…But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.”–John xiv. 16,17,26

“But when the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall show you.”–John xvi. 13.

 

[Eden]

Singinbeauty:

Yes, catholic means universal and to that I agree. But I don’t agree that the catholic church we have today is the catholic that they were talking about way back when. The RCC has many adopted practices that, as of yet, I have not found ANY biblical evidence of. Practices that Paul and Peter never heard of.

Which practices in particular do you think are not biblical?

By the way, I didn’t see you refute that the Church compiled the inspired New Testament books in the 4th century. If the Church had the authority to compile the Bible, why do they not have the authority to interpret it?

Also, do you recognize the early Church Fathers as having written a fair representation of what the early Church was like? Some Protestants recognize the early Church Fathers and some do not.
I wasn’t sure on which side you fall.

 

[yochumjy]

Singinbeauty:

The Holy Spirit in both instances spoke to the individual and they were encouraged to listen. It didn’t say that the Holy Spirit will speak to the church and the church will tell you what to do…

Okay, so back to Revelations that DID say the Spirit talks to the Church and the individual listens. This goes back to the WHOLE bible must make sense. There can be no contridictions. That being said, of course the Holy Spirit can guide you in your personal life, but we are talking about doctrine. You, yourself even mentioned that we think we hear God saying things (KKK, etc), so how do you know that your interpretation of doctrine is correct? Your view appears to be the individual trumps the church, correct me if I’m wrong. Where does it say in scripture that the individual’s interpretation overrules that of the church. Even St. Paul, who many protestants love to quote, as they believe he was the original independant, bowed to the views of the church.

 

[dumspirospero]

You dont’ understand the concept of a living, breathing Church…which is what The CAtholic Church is…We have always maintained the same Dogma and Doctrinal Beliefs, etc…the Deposit of Faith has never changed. As far as their being new novenas, The Rosary, Devotionals, etc…they are not required and do not effect our Dogma…These are tools to help us grow closer with God. If someone grows in their relationship with God via a Rosary…how is that going against Peter, Paul and the early Church??? What teaching have we changed by doing that? CHrist said he had much to tell the Apostles, but it would have to come through The Holy Spirit, because it would be too much for them to handle and understand…but not to worry because he would be with us until the consumation of the world and that through The Holy Spirit, his Church, The Catholic Church and the successor of St. Peter would have truths revealed to them when the time was right…so with that in mind, why do you believe it is not practical for new types of prayers, practices, or devotions to be added to an ever evolving Church, as long as we don’t alter our dogma or doctrine???

Singinbeauty:

Yes, catholic means universal and to that I agree. But I don’t agree that the catholic church we have today is the catholic that they were talking about way back when. The RCC has many adopted practices that, as of yet, I have not found ANY biblical evidence of. Practices that Paul and Peter never heard of.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Philthy:

Interesting. Why would you consider that lucky? Do you have a motive for wanting to agree with him? I don’t understand why, in the absense of a bias, you would want to agree with him. It seems like you are saying that “no man tells me what to believe” but at the same time you want to believe whatever it is he tells you. Im probably just confused - care to explain?

Phil

I keep forgetting people don’t know me here… I was saying that it was good that I hadn’t heard anything he said that disagree’d with what I believe at the core. Of course I want to believe what he preaches. That way I am listening to somone I feel has a right to be up there and is sent by God. If his core beliefs are the same as mine then I am more likey going to be happy to be at church and learning. Take for example a church here in Washington that I attended a little over a year ago. The pastor spent the whole time trying to first convince his attendee’s to give all they have to his church (which is big and gaudy) and God will reward them beyond their wildest dreams (monitarily speaking) and second to the non-believers visiting he was telling them that if they just believe that Jesus died for their sins they will have wealth beyond imagination. And he meant physical wealth. He made that abundantly clear. I did not agree with this pastor so I chose to never go again. When a pastor arrives to church in a helicoptor and then is escorted in by body guards it makes me wonder where the church’s money is going. So I do not agree with this pastor thus I don’t attend his church.

 

[dumspirospero]

What is wrong with a man who dies to the world and gives his life to God in order to better lead you…a man who gives up all his wealth, chooses celibacy as a discipline…and who commits to a lifelong job that 24 hours a day, seven days a week…a man who ask you to give what you are able to give financially, but not to worry if don’t have the money because you can perform an act of charity or piety if that is all you are capable of…a person that ask you to give everything you have, not in the form of money, but spritually…A man who will factually teach The Word of God…A man who you don’t have to be concerned with his political views or his opinions, because none of this ever effects the way he sheperds his flock…This person truly sounds chosen and sent by God…who am I talking about? Catholic Priests.

Singinbeauty:

I keep forgetting people don’t know me here… I was saying that it was good that I hadn’t heard anything he said that disagree’d with what I believe at the core. Of course I want to believe what he preaches. That way I am listening to somone I feel has a right to be up there and is sent by God. If his core beliefs are the same as mine then I am more likey going to be happy to be at church and learning. Take for example a church here in Washington that I attended a little over a year ago. The pastor spent the whole time trying to first convince his attendee’s to give all they have to his church (which is big and gaudy) and God will reward them beyond their wildest dreams (monitarily speaking) and second to the non-believers visiting he was telling them that if they just believe that Jesus died for their sins they will have wealth beyond imagination. And he meant physical wealth. He made that abundantly clear. I did not agree with this pastor so I chose to never go again. When a pastor arrives to church in a helicoptor and then is escorted in by body guards it makes me wonder where the church’s money is going. So I do not agree with this pastor thus I don’t attend his church.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello again Singinbeauty;

Singinbeauty:

As I have stated before this does not prove that the catholic church is the one that Jesus started… He started the CHRISTIAN faith. Christian = Christ. Christianity’s basis is set on Christ himself hence CHRISTianity. We are not called catholics we are called to be christians even in the bible. The divisions of the church (or denominations) were brought on by MAN. Even catholocism…

No. He started more than Christian faith, he founded a real and tangible Church with bishops and presbyters. Your conclusion that the church is a mystical link between fellow Christians of all ‘denominations’ does hold some truth but is not the fullness of truth from a Catholic perspective. Catholics believe that all who are baptized are part of Christ’s church - the Catholic or universal church led by Peter’s successor. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (a good source for Catholic studies) states:

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

320 LG 13.
321 LG 14.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.

 

[Eden]

Singinbeauty:

But I don’t agree that the catholic church we have today is the catholic that they were talking about way back when.

I forgot to answer this part. If St. Ignatius of Antioch was not describing the Catholic Church that exists today, what Church was he describing and when do you believe the Catholic Church of today was founded?

Here are some quotes from Ignatius describing the early Christian practices in that “Catholic” Church:

Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Philad., c. iii); the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii;. Trall., .c. iii);the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi;Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii);the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii);** the infallibility of the Church** (Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist and the Real Presence (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase “Catholic Church”, used to designate all Christians; the Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); the primacy of the See of Rome (Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters’ of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation.

This sounds Catholic like the Catholic Church to me. What Church are you saying this is?

 

[Singinbeauty]

Ok, I have a request to make… We have, like, 5 discussions going on here and they all involve asking ME all the questions. WHAT DO I BELIEVE? WHAT DO I BELIEVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO BE? WHAT DO I BELIEVE IS WRONG WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HISTORY? WHO FOUNDED THE CHURCH IF IT WASN’T THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF TODAY? WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CHURCH IF NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? I can only answer what I know. There is much I do not know but I cannot keep up this dizzying conversation. It’s just too much. I would love to address each and every question and comment but with 5billion catholics bombarding you with questions on several different subjects it is kind of hard. I apologize to those that have not gotten an answer but my brain is kind of full right now. I want to keep this thread to what I originally posted on. And also to introduce what I believe. Not so much defend it, just lay it out. I have not asked any of you to defend or even give evidence just yet as to what you believe so please back up just a little… I don’t want this to get out of hand and leave people frustrated. Thank you for understanding!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Singinbeauty:

Ok, I have a request to make… We have, like, 5 discussions going on here and they all involve asking ME all the questions. WHAT DO I BELIEVE? WHAT DO I BELIEVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO BE? WHAT DO I BELIEVE IS WRONG WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HISTORY? WHO FOUNDED THE CHURCH IF IT WASN’T THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF TODAY? WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CHURCH IF NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? I can only answer what I know. There is much I do not know but I cannot keep up this dizzying conversation. It’s just too much. I would love to address each and every question and comment but with 5billion catholics bombarding you with questions on several different subjects it is kind of hard. I apologize to those that have not gotten an answer but my brain is kind of full right now. I want to keep this thread to what I originally posted on. And also to introduce what I believe. Not so much defend it, just lay it out. I have not asked any of you to defend or even give evidence just yet as to what you believe so please back up just a little… I don’t want this to get out of hand and leave people frustrated. Thank you for understanding!

It’s your thread. Narrow the discussion as you see fit and I will not be offended. If you want to explore another topic, feel free to start another thread. There’s no need to tackle all of the issues at once.

 

[Eden]

Ha! Sorry about that! Hey, at least your thread wasn’t a dud. Your thread has definitely been popular.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Ok, I have started a few threads of stuff I wanted to basically hit on. Please check them out! Thank you for all of your answers!

 

[Detroit_Sue]

Singinbeauty:

First of all, no where did I say I simply can dismiss whatever the pastor teaches. But I do have the right to delve into what he says and preaches and determine whether I believe it was from God or not.

Next, how do you think that the first ‘church’ met? They met in eachother’s houses not a big building. They discussed scripture and the letters Peter and Paul wrote them. They worshipped God and would spend hours doing so. They did not meet on Sunday in the local cathedral that is so overly ornate and gawdy(sp?) in some places. And listen to someone drone on about what they SHOULD believe blindly - then stand then sit then stand again - while holding a piece of jewlery - and pray to Mary for intercession. Again, there are certain practices I don’t understand so maybe it will come into light later…

I thought this may have been a fruitful thread until I read this. This post is designed to inflame and antagonize. Why do anti-Catholics always deteriorate in their conversations with Catholics? Because they cannot defend the stuff they privately interpret. I know many Catholics who deal in the same trade of hate under the “guise” of Christianity. :banghead:

SinginBeauty, you have thrown the gauntlet. Making snide comments about that which you do not understand will not win you any allies. You lost me when you said the rosary is just a piece of jewelry. :nope:

 

[Singinbeauty]

SinginBeauty, you have thrown the gauntlet. Making snide comments about that which you do not understand will not win you any allies. You lost me when you said the rosary is just a piece of jewelry.

I apologize if I have offended you. I was speaking out of frustration because I was being attacked by some of the posters here and I was getting a million questions all expecting that I would answer each and every one of them. I was also frustrated because I felt as if I was answering the same question over and over. It was not the best response. Please don’t think I am like that all the time. I am human but I hope that even when frustration is shown we can still move on and push through by having patience.

 

[MEP]

Ummm… as a cradle Catholic, the rosary is just a piece of jewelry. Well, not jewelry so much as an abacus on a string. The beads themselves are not the important part of the rosary. It’s the act of meditative prayer that those beads facilitate (by freeing the mind from the mechanical act of counting) that is the real rosary. I prefer my rosaries to be as plain as possible because I feel anything else distracts from the true purpose of praying the rosary, which is to engage in a truly meditative form of prayer and Marian devotion.

The prayer of the rosary is the real rosary and it can be said with or without beads (or heck, use an abacus instead, I don’t care). The beads are just a tool used to make keeping track of decades easier and to prevent your mind from wandering away from the act of prayer. They evolved from the old Pator Nastors that were used by early monks to keep track of how many Our Fathers they were praying (150, corresponding to the 150 psalms that literate monks recited instead, only the new and/or illiterate monks used Pator Nastors to pray Our Fathers as part of their daily meditations until they could learn to recite the Psalms).

 

[Philthy]

Singinbeauty:

I keep forgetting people don’t know me here… I was saying that it was good that I hadn’t heard anything he said that disagree’d with what I believe at the core. Of course I want to believe what he preaches. That way I am listening to somone I feel has a right to be up there and is sent by God. If his core beliefs are the same as mine then I am more likey going to be happy to be at church and learning.

Thanks for taking the time to respond - its always difficicult because we Catholics outnumber our guests…
You seem like a genuinely nice person, but you are correct that we do not know you. You seem to have a big heart and lean towards “feelings”. Its important that you understand that about yourself when you get into discussions regarding theology. I am somewhat different - I tend to be very analytical. I don’t want to criticize you in any way, but I want to make you aware of how you have presented your feelings above. And remember, its only my opinion! That much being prefaced, heres my observation:
You say that you “want to believe what he preaches” so that you “feel” ( I sense the weight of that word for you :yup: ) he has" a right to be up there and is sent by God" But what exactly do you use as your criterion for “what he preaches”? Well you told us - its what you yourself come to believe from your own bible studies! Doesnt that seem a little odd? You hold a belief, and then “want” him to preach that very belief so that you can then feel confident he was sent by God? Again, just my analytical mind doing its thing. I understand how that would make you feel “happy” but how do you conclude that you are “learning”? You both hold the same views! There is no learning from listening to your echo! You should really broaden your reading a bit. I visited your churchs’ web site and looked at the declaration of faith page - its less than one page long! Rather shy on specifics I would say.
You looking to know someone was sent by God? Look to people who have given their lives for the Church - martyrs. Listen to what they believed about the Church, Baptism, the Eucharist, Authority, the Bible, contraception, etc. That last topic especially, demonstrates how easy it is for a “church” to change its doctrine of faith when there is no true authority. All self professed Christian churches described contraception as a dispicable sin. Luther, Wesley, Calvin AND Catholics were all vehemently opposed to it as an affront to God. But then in 1930 the Lutheran Church caved in and said it was OK in some instances and gradual ALL the other churches followed suit EXCEPT the Catholic Church. Can it possibly be that the proper interpretation of the bible didn’t occur for over 1900 years? Or is it probable that the truth remains the truth and we should follow those who are unafraid to hold it up for all to see?

Again thanks for your time,

Phil

 

[Detroit_Sue]

MEP:

Ummm… as a cradle Catholic, the rosary is just a piece of jewelry. Well, not jewelry so much as an abacus on a string. The beads themselves are not the important part of the rosary. It’s the act of meditative prayer that those beads facilitate (by freeing the mind from the mechanical act of counting) that is the real rosary. I prefer my rosaries to be as plain as possible because I feel anything else distracts from the true purpose of praying the rosary, which is to engage in a truly meditative form of prayer and Marian devotion.

The prayer of the rosary is the real rosary and it can be said with or without beads (or heck, use an abacus instead, I don’t care). The beads are just a tool used to make keeping track of decades easier and to prevent your mind from wandering away from the act of prayer. They evolved from the old Pator Nastors that were used by early monks to keep track of how many Our Fathers they were praying (150, corresponding to the 150 psalms that literate monks recited instead, only the new and/or illiterate monks used Pator Nastors to pray Our Fathers as part of their daily meditations until they could learn to recite the Psalms).

Technically, you are right. However, the rosary itself is an outward sign of an interior devotion. To see it be used or considered as just a vulgar decoration is offensive to me, and to most Catholics who love the Blessed Mother and the Rosary.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Philthy:

You say that you “want to believe what he preaches” so that you “feel” ( I sense the weight of that word for you :yup: ) he has" a right to be up there and is sent by God" But what exactly do you use as your criterion for “what he preaches”? Well you told us - its what you yourself come to believe from your own bible studies! Doesnt that seem a little odd? You hold a belief, and then “want” him to preach that very belief so that you can then feel confident he was sent by God? Again, just my analytical mind doing its thing. I understand how that would make you feel “happy” but how do you conclude that you are “learning”? You both hold the same views! There is no learning from listening to your echo! You should really broaden your reading a bit. I visited your churchs’ web site and looked at the declaration of faith page - its less than one page long! Rather shy on specifics I would say.

I think something is not being conveyed in my posts when it comes to this subject. It’s not that I am SET IN STONE in what I believe although there are some core beliefs that I have that I do NOT waiver from. I tried to convey my point in that example I gave but it must not have come off as intended. By not necessarily agreeing with my pastor does not mean I think he is wrong. It just means that I need to do a little research and praying. This is how I learn. Often if I question something he says I will go to my bible, a trusted christian who has been studying longer than I, and God… And more often than not I find he is right and I was wrong in my assumption. But do you see how I do not allow someone to tell me what to believe? I did the work myself to find the answer… I didn’t just accept it so now I am more confident in what I believe. Does this make ANY sense?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Singinbeauty:

I think something is not being conveyed in my posts when it comes to this subject. It’s not that I am SET IN STONE in what I believe although there are some core beliefs that I have that I do NOT waiver from. I tried to convey my point in that example I gave but it must not have come off as intended. By not necessarily agreeing with my pastor does not mean I think he is wrong. It just means that I need to do a little research and praying. This is how I learn. Often if I question something he says I will go to my bible, a trusted christian who has been studying longer than I, and God… And more often than not I find he is right and I was wrong in my assumption. But do you see how I do not allow someone to tell me what to believe? I did the work myself to find the answer… I didn’t just accept it so now I am more confident in what I believe. Does this make ANY sense?

It makes SOME sense, and that type of thinking plays a HUGE role in why there is so much division among Christians today. I would rather have Christ, through His Church, tell me what the Truth is, instead of trying to use my own intellect [and pride] to determine for myself, especially when I know that the Adversary [devil] is smarter than any man and will lead us into deception.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Singinbeauty:

I think something is not being conveyed in my posts when it comes to this subject. It’s not that I am SET IN STONE in what I believe although there are some core beliefs that I have that I do NOT waiver from. I tried to convey my point in that example I gave but it must not have come off as intended. By not necessarily agreeing with my pastor does not mean I think he is wrong. It just means that I need to do a little research and praying. This is how I learn. Often if I question something he says I will go to my bible, a trusted christian who has been studying longer than I, and God… And more often than not I find he is right and I was wrong in my assumption. But do you see how I do not allow someone to tell me what to believe? I did the work myself to find the answer… I didn’t just accept it so now I am more confident in what I believe. Does this make ANY sense?

Hello Singinbeauty;

So, in addition to the bible, you go to others for instruction, including trusted christians who have been studying longer than yourself. That’s good. But ask yourself what institution has been studying the Bible longer than any individual. The Catholic Church. And isn’t that institution’s interpretation of scripture and doctrine at least worth *some * consideration in your personal process of ascertaining truth? I suppose that’s why you are here, right?