Former Catholics become anti-Catholic

[Mickey]

Xavier:

Again Luther had his shortcomings (personal sin) The corporate sin He fought against was more grevious.

**All **people sin! However, sound doctrine does not sin! What’s your point? Did you know that Luther murdered the anabaptists? But let’s back up here. Since you say that some sins are more grievious than others, does that mean that you believe in mortal and venial sin?

 

[Xavier]

reggie:

xavier, since you just won’t give it up, I will respond once again to the very lame point that Peter was married when Jesus called him.
You seem to think that this one point is enough to say that priestly celibacy is unbiblical.

ONCE AGAIN, yes Peter was married. The CC accepts into the priesthood men who are married. But they have to have been married beforethey become a priest.

*Note that Peter was married before Jesus called him and not after.

*Note also, that there is no mention of any of the Apostles marrying after they are called.

It was the practice of the church in the early times to allow both married and unmarried priests. If a priest took the vow of celibacy, he was expected to remain chaste. If a priest was married, he must have been married only once and if his wife died, he could not remarry. I notice that you make no mention of what may have happened to Peter’s wife. The Bible doesn’t mention it either. But, there is one passage where the disciples say they have left all behind. Did Peter perhaps leave his wife behind?

The point is that different Scriptures can be used to support both sides of this issue. But, after years and years, the Church came to see that it is better if her priests remain unmarried. Candidates for the priesthood understand and accept this when they begin their journey to ordination. It is such a peripheral issue, why does it bother you so much?

I have no issue with the Catholic church deciding who should be or not be priests----HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO SAY THIS?

I notice too that you refer to yourself as an ex-Catholic. It appears from your posts, you are one of the ones who leaves and then bashes. So I guess in a way, you have answered the original question.

I have given my answer but you have presummed to know the answer differently.

 

[Church_Militant]

Xavier:

You have assumed Im Sola Scriptura, wrongly.

Why do you continue to mock me?

Sounds like a lot of bitterness to me.
Catholics refuse to take responsiblity in the schism. It was sin, corporate sin that caused the break. Again Luther had his shortcomings (personal sin) The corporate sin He fought against was more grevious.

2 points here…She has NOT mocked you though you have been insulting in many of your posts. She has stated many facts and her opinion, which she entitled to do. Quit trying to make us out the bad guys here… You are such a crybaby and I think it’s just a tactic to imply that we should not defend our faith while you feel free to allege lies and historical inaccuracies at our expense. NOT HAPPENIN’
**
Also…Catholics DID and DO take responsibility for the deformation. That’s what the Council of Trent was all about though not to your personal satisfaction, which is too bad…**

One more thing comes to mind…After all the stuff you’ve posted…I doubt very seriously that ANY of us have the faintest idea WHAT you believe…You say you are not sola scriptura? Peachy keen. What is that then when you allege that the Bible is the only source of authority for what Christians believe? I’ve seen you post that any number of times or variants thereof. If it’s not SS…then just what is is becasue by your own definition that is just what you say that you believe?

 

[Genesis315]

Xavier:

For the most part the bible is very straight foward and easy to interpret, that is why God desires all should read it.
Jesus has promised to send the Spirit of Truth to lead us unto all truth. You must have faith in Jesus’ promise. Can disagreements arise between good intentioned people, yes. How are these settled.
By trusting in the Lord.

Many people do read it and many people come to totally different conclusions. If it was so straightforward and easy to intepret, why do some people intepret literally and some allegorically or symbolically on such basic fundamental issues as salvation. Philip had to help the Ethiopian to understand the Scripture; he couldn’t do it in his own. (Acts 8:30-31). I have faith in Jesus’ promise that He founded His Church which the gates of Hell would not prevail against. People are not trusting the Lord though. He gave Peter the keys so that he could settle these differences, but many people do not trust Jesus’ decision to do so. They believe that they personally should have been given the keys. Trust in Jesus’ plan. He didn’t want us to flounder alone in the wilderness. He established His Church to guide us and protect us as it is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Xavier:

For the most part the bible is very straight foward and easy to interpret

Which Bible? Which translation? Which interpretative-skill-set? What about the Septuagint? Is that easy to interpret?

Xavier:

that is why God desires all should read it.

So are you saying that, if the Bible were not very straightforward and easy to interpret, then God would not desire all should read it? Hhhm. If this is true – and by your own words it appears to be what you are inferring – then God would have to come up with some other means of communicating with His Church. Gee, I wonder what means those could be? Ooh! Ooh! Do you think it could be

Tradition?

At least until the advent of the Guttenberg printing press, over 90% of the Church were illiterate. If all were to read the Bible, then how were they supposed to obtain Bibles to read? Before Guttenberg, Bibles were hand copied. The ratio of Bibles to Christians was miniscule. It was virtually impossible for the vast majority of Christians either to be able to read the Bible or to obtain Bibles to read.

Or are you only talking about the wealthy, educated members of the Church, whoever they are? Do you think God wanted to communicate with only the wealthy, educated members of the Church?

If God wanted all to read the Bible, then he would have made sure Guttenberg was born at a more appropriate time than he was born. But Guttenberg ended up being born at his appointed time.

To ensure that people learned the Gospel and were saved, God entrusted his instructions to people. Those people were the Church.

Oh and please allow me to conclude this post by saying:

Zing! cache.corbis.com/thumb/11/55/40/11554003.jpg

 

[Xavier]

Ani Ibi:

The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

Didn’t you just finish promoting the study of Church history? what happened?

The bible is also often refered to the word of God. It was the second Vatican Council amoung others that upheld that the bible is the inspired inerrant word of God.

Dennis had sent me a message asking me to join that thread a month ago. I just now recieved that message.

 

[Church_Militant]

Xavier:

You have found it neccesary to shout again?

Anything to avoid having to give a staright answer…
And quit trying to accuse me of something that everyone else on here knows is just a large font (Not all caps…which is considered shouting.) Besides…all caps on occasion for simple emphasis is not wrong.

Now…answer my post.

 

[Genesis315]

Xavier:

The bible is also often refered to the word of God. It was the second Vatican Council amoung others that upheld that the bible is the inspired inerrant word of God.

I’m glad you’ve finally come to terms with what authority lets you know the Bible is the word of God. :yup: :clapping: :tiphat:

 

[Xavier]

Ani Ibi:

Which Bible? Which translation? Which interpretative-skill-set? What about the Septuagint? Is that easy to interpret?

**I would suggest a good word for word translation using the majority text. **

So are you saying that, if the Bible were not very straightforward and easy to interpret, then God would not desire all should read it? Hhhm. If this is true – and by your own words it appears to be what you are inferring – then God would have to come up with some other means of communicating with His Church. Gee, I wonder what means those could be? Ooh! Ooh! Do you think it could be

Tradition?

At least until the advent of the Guttenberg printing press, over 90% of the Church were illiterate. If all were to read the Bible, then how were they supposed to obtain Bibles to read? Before Guttenberg, Bibles were hand copied. The ratio of Bibles to Christians was miniscule. It was virtually impossible for the vast majority of Christians either to be able to read the Bible or to obtain Bibles to read.

Or are you only talking about the wealthy, educated members of the Church, whoever they are? Do you think God wanted to communicate with only the wealthy, educated members of the Church?

If God wanted all to read the Bible, then he would have made sure Guttenberg was born at a more appropriate time than he was born. But Guttenberg ended up being born at his appointed time.

To ensure that people learned the Gospel and were saved, God entrusted his instructions to people. Those people were the Church.

Oh and please allow me to conclude this post by saying:

Zing! cache.corbis.com/thumb/11/55/40/11554003.jpg

LOL you are a trip.

The Roman Church threw out all tradition (Jewish) when all the apostles and Jesus upheld the Jewish traditons. You may talk about the importance of tradition yet the RCC threw out all tradition.

 

[Church_Militant]

Xavier:

---

**I would suggest a good word for word translation using the majority text. **

LOL you are a trip.

The Roman Church threw out all tradition (Jewish) when all the apostles and Jesus upheld the Jewish traditons. You may talk about the importance of tradition yet the RCC threw out all tradion.
**
This is bunk…again. The early church departed from the way of the Jews in Acts of the Apostles when they ceased meeting in the temple and began to meet on Sundays in honor of the resurrection. Your allegation is only true in that that same early church was indeed Catholic.**

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Xavier:
**I would suggest a good word for word translation using the majority text. **

LOL you are a trip.

The Roman Church threw out all tradition (Jewish) when all the apostles and Jesus upheld the Jewish traditons. You may talk about the importance of tradition yet the RCC threw out all tradion.I thought you used to be Catholic?If so you have amnesia.God Bless
PS I think they become anti-catholic to vent their anger at the Church that wouldn’t take their relativism.God Bless

 

[Curious]

For the most part the bible is very straight foward and easy to interpret, that is why God desires all should read it.

But how do you account for 2 people, both well-meaning, God-loving, God-fearing people who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit who come to two different conclusions about what a scripture means?

Is it the whole “well it means different things to different people” thing?

I agree that God desires us to read the Bible. But the million trillion different denominations resulting as everyone interpreting things differentlly, is not, I think, what He had in mind.

 

[Xavier]

Church Militant:

This is bunk…again. The early church departed from the way of the Jews in Acts of the Apostles when they ceased meeting in the temple and began to meet on Sundays in honor of the resurrection. Your allegation is only true in that that same early church was indeed Catholic.

Yes the Church of Christ is universal, praise God!

 

[wcknight]

Xavier "
For the most part the bible is very straight foward and easy to interpret, that is why God desires all should read it.
"

Why is it that Prots all think that Catholics never read the Bible ???

The only ‘problem’ with Catholics is we have a COMPLETE Bible with all the books intact. Books like James and Macabees I and II.

You just have be really suspicious about a religion based on scriptures will a few chapters removed !!

Why not get the complete story, not one just half baked ?

WC

 

[Curious]

Ihave noticed that when protestants convert to Catholicism, they remain very charitable to their former protestant roots. They are grateful for the foundations that were laid before they converted.

whoops…sorry about that. thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Church_Militant]

Lisa4Catholics:

I think they become anti-catholic to vent their anger at the Church that wouldn’t take their relativism.God Bless

Lisa, I have to agree with you there. I was really angry at the Prot churches that I used to be part of because I feel that they either didn’t know what they were talkin’ about or intentionally deceived me. Either way, it took a long time to forgive that, and I still can’t understand why they do that. It’s like they choose to turn a blind eye to anything that will show them that the Catholic Church is correct. (Pretty much the same way that Xavier here tries every trick he can to avoid acknowleging the evidences that I offer him.)
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Xavier]

Lisa4Catholics:

I thought you used to be Catholic?If so you have amnesia.God Bless
PS I think they become anti-catholic to vent their anger at the Church that wouldn’t take their relativism.God Bless

God bless you Lisa,
I still believe that Im part of the universal church

 

[Church_Militant]

Xavier:

Yes the Church of Christ is universal, praise God!

Cheapshot diversion that does not answer my point. Why are you dodgy and dishonest? answer my posts above…
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Xavier]

Curious:

But how do you account for 2 people, both well-meaning, God-loving, God-fearing people who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit who come to two different conclusions about what a scripture means?

Is it the whole “well it means different things to different people” thing?

I agree that God desires us to read the Bible. But the million trillion different denominations resulting as everyone interpreting things differentlly, is not, I think, what He had in mind.

Remember the Tower of Babel?
It is only in Christ that we can be in unity.
It is imperative we all know the Living God, not know about Him, not know what the Church teaches about Him but to know Him, to walk with him to trust in Him.
Im not saying that Catholics dont know God or walk with Him.
What Im saying is if you do it doesnt really matter that you are Catholic or Baptist or whatever.
Just stop worshipping idols

 

[Xavier]

Church Militant:

Cheapshot diversion that does not answer my point. Why are you dodgy and dishonest? answer my posts above…
Pax vobiscum,

My friend I wish you no more discord.
I have not dodged your answers, you have not listened to my answers.
Love God with all your heart.
Peace.