Do Catholics ignore these scriptures?

[anthony022071]

Awesome! Never heard this one before…

catholicevangelism.org/

 

[valient_Lucy]

teachccd;3003126:

Probably a forgery.
Or an interpolation
But in no way did they have the same practices, no way.

What evidence do you have for these statements?

 

[inthecloud]

Well, if you must know, I was not always a…Christian. Let us leave it at that.

Judging for your “prove me behavior” I guess you were a non theist before.

Before the applogists here try to make you Catholic and Orthodox I would like to see the limitations of your approach.
You said that your Church was started by a former atheist and that you are trying to follow the Bible. In my opinion you are just rehashing protestant fundamentalism again. Sola Scriptura all over again. (But I guess you had not given your goods to the poor or preached the Gospels to every living creature). Even your handle sounds fundamentalistic. And the “I do not belong to any denomination” I just follow the Bible sounds like a claim most fundies do. So is the if it does not fit my belief it must be a forgery or a evil conspiracy.

If you want to be really scientific.
Why do not go further? Why do not study with a clear mind and a clear heart all the early christianity issues. Not only the Bible but how the Bible came to us, and the early church that was in a way very Catholic, Orthodox in most things but in other like the images and serving in the army were not. So if you can find that the Early Church traditions were unnecessary developed by the latter church or casted out, you end up reconstructing the early church, not just using the Bible but also the Early Church
writings and even data from secular historians.
What you are doing know is just classical american fundamentalism.

 

[Metaron]

…and the early church that was in a way very Catholic, Orthodox in most things but in other like the images and serving in the army were not.

So says the lapsed Catholic (Roman, I presume). There are sculptures, paintings, and most of all, mosaics found and refered to in writings, dating from the earliest centuries of Christianity. I do not see how the early Church differed in regard to images to the Roman/Eastern understanding of images. And the view of Christians serving in the army has always been allowed I think, as the Roman soldier convert was not told by St. Paul to get a new job because serving in the army is “sinful”.

 

[lak611]

And the view of Christians serving in the army has always been allowed I think, as the Roman soldier convert was not told by St. Paul to get a new job because serving in the army is “sinful”.

Jesus didn’t tell the centurion to quit his job after healing his servant.

 

[Pete_1]

Maybe you should ask an apologist they will probably answer your question and the answers normally really help.

 

[peary]

How does the papal tierra, mitre and so forth not violate what Paul is teaching

The lowest of the three crowns appeared at the base of the traditional white papal headgear in the ninth century. When the popes assumed temporal power in the Papal States, the base crown became decorated with jewels to resemble the crowns of princes. A second crown was added by Pope Boniface VIII in 1298 to symbolize spiritual dominion. Very soon after, in or around 1314, a third crown and lappets (cloth strips) were added; Pope Clement V was the first to wear the triple tiara. It was discontinued by Pope Paul VI immediately after the Second Vatican Council closed. None of the popes since that time has worn it.

Do Catholicwomen pray with their head uncovered

Catholic women pray either with their head covered or uncovered.

Do Catholic men have long hair?

Catholic men either have long hair, short hair, or no hair at all.

Do Catholic women cut their hair

Catholic women cut their hair and may not cut their hair.

 

[wanner47]

Rightlydivide, could you show me where it says in the Bible that you (personally) are an infallible interpreter of Scripture? Thanks.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide, could you show me where it says in the Bible that you (personally) are an infallible interpreter of Scripture? Thanks.

I am not an infallible interpreter of scripture.
I am out of this thread and moving on to others but I HAD to answer that. How did you come to your infallible interpretation of scripture and history to arrive at the decision to believe in the infallibility of Catholic doctrine?

 

[jimmy]

• How does the papal tierra, mitre and so forth not violate what Paul is teaching
• Do Catholicwomen pray with their head uncovered
• Do Catholic men have long hair?
• Do Catholic women cut their hair

You must remember that Paul is offering his opinion on the matter and he makes this clear. He specifically says:
16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

 

[wanner47]

I am not an infallible interpreter of scripture.

See, I’m confused because you said in this post:

I have looked at John 6 extensively and do not think it is talking about the Last supper.

You are interpreting John 6 to mean that it is not talking about the Last Supper. What makes your interpretation superior to that of the Catholic Church? Unless the Bible specifically lists you as an infallible interpreter, isn’t your interpretation of it fallible?

I am out of this thread and moving on to others but I HAD to answer that. How did you come to your infallible interpretation of scripture and history to arrive at the decision to believe in the infallibility of Catholic doctrine?

When I do interpret Scripture, I assume that my interpretation is fallible since I am a fallible human being. That’s why I follow the Church’s guidance when it comes to interpreting Scripture, because the Church was given the authority to do so by Christ himself. (Matthew 16:18-19)

 

[Rightlydivide]

See, I’m confused because you said in this post

:
You are not confused. You understand I was giving my interpretation of scripture. That occurs often around here.

You are interpreting John 6 to mean that it is not talking about the Last Supper. What makes your interpretation superior to that of the Catholic Church?

 

[Metaron]

I have told you I am fallible. Lots of groups claim infallibility, that is nothing new. I do not believe them either.
But you avoid the point. YOU had to look at history. YOU had to look at scripture to decide that the Catholic church is infallible.
I had to look at history. I had to look at scripture.
I do not think the Catholic church is an infallible interpreter of scripture. You do.
This seems like a very odd exchange. You have to see that I would think…

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;3033001:

Since some issues (contraception, just-war doctrine, life at conception, gay marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, animal cloning, etc., etc…) cannot be explicitly, or even implicitly, found in the Bible (aSola Scripturist’s only infallible source) how can they determine these issues? The difference is whether or not mortal sin is being committed. These are important issues; Without an infallible source in the modern world, without an infallible Church to rule on these matters… how, then, can they be determined?

I do not believe “mortal sin” as you do.
The phrase “mortal sin” is not in the Bible.
If you are referring to the Catholic belief based upon 1 John 5:17, that would be another discussion.
I can do no more than what the Bible teaches:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[wanner47]

I believe my interpretation of John 6 is correct.

 

[Metaron]

I do not believe “mortal sin” as you do.
The phrase “mortal sin” is not in the Bible.
If you are referring to the Catholic belief based upon 1 John 5:17, that would be another discussion.

Mortal sin is from the Bible. In some translations it is called “sin unto death”.

I can do no more than what the Bible teaches:

So that’s it, then. A Sola Scripturist can never know, then, huh? This is one of the reasons I left Protestantism. No one seems to know where Absolute Truth about moral matters can be found.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Another odd one. People are usually secure in matters they have studied extensively. I would not think that most people who study something go around thinking they are wrong. I suppose there are people on this forum who are wishy washy about this matter. I do not think that is preferable.

Then why should I, or anyone else, listen to or believe your interpretation of Scripture?

You do not have to listen. If you choose to listen(ie read) you will. I do not understand your confusion. You seem like you are always around people who agree with you.

I don’t think it’s an odd exchange. I think that the Catholic Church has a better claim to the authority to infallibly interpret Scripture than you do,

At the risk of sounding like a complete moron, of course you think that or you would not be Catholic. That seems self evident. If you believed like me you would not be a Catholic.

so I’m trying to understand why you think that I (and everyone else on this board) should accept YOUR interpretation – an interpretation that you have admitted is fallible.

Why should I accept your fallible belief that scripture and history point to the truth of the Catholic church?

Christ changed my life. Do you really expect me to shut up about it?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Mortal sin is from the Bible. In some translations it is called “sin unto death”.

Those translations are wrong.
There is a word for mortal, it is thnētos.
That word is not used.

So that’s it, then. A Sola Scripturist can never know, then, huh? This is one of the reasons I left Protestantism. No one seems to know where Absolute Truth about moral matters can be found

 

[jimmy]

I know that I believe the Bible is absolute truth. Certainity is the appeal for people who join groups like the Catholic church and some other groups

 

[exoflare]

I know that I believe the Bible is absolute truth. Certainity is the appeal for people who join groups like the Catholic church and some other groups

Now we’re getting somewhere at least. So anyway, what are you basing your belief that the Bible is absolute truth in?