C
confused145
Guest
Stephen have you ever seen a catholic in adoration or a religious sister. You cannot get any happier! Also catholics are human too. They have bad days too, but you shouldn’t judge a person or even faith off that.
- Status
C
Catholic13
Guest
**Why Someone Should NOT Become Catholic **
Because they worship Mary.<-----sarcasm]
Sorry, I saw some other Catholics joining in.
Because they worship Mary.<-----sarcasm]
Sorry, I saw some other Catholics joining in.
D
drac16
Guest
They aren’t loving.
B
benjohnson
Guest
My best reason not be be Catholic…
You may run into the Worship IV hymnal by GIA Publications
You may run into the Worship IV hymnal by GIA Publications
B
benhur
Guest
The body has structure just as sure as the physical world does. But there is something to be said for the invisible . Some have called it the power of nothing. The Earth spins on nothing that can wear out . There would be chaos in the universe but scientists say there is something invisible holding it together, even down to the nucleus of the atom . We know Jesus holds all things together, in the universe, and how so much more in His Body, visibly and invisibly.
B
benhur
Guest
Reminds me of a Bazooka Joe comic. Joe is looking for a lost silver dollar under a street light. He tells a passer by that, who asks, “Where did you lose it” ? Joe says way over there (in the dark area). The passer by asks, ''Then why are you looking over here ?" “Because there is more light over here”, Joe answers. …I guess the reverse applies here. We have plenty of light on some things and why we venture into the grey or even unlit areas is to be questioned. We are told to walk in the light with good reason.
B
benhur
Guest
So perfect is not to be free from mistakes but to be worried over them, to fix them ?
Yes I can.
Let’s see, she stood as best she could, in tears maybe, silent. Were we told something else ? What other manner of support are you talking about that would differ from many mothers ? How does this show “utter belief” ? Many mothers have unconditional love for their son, making it hard to determine what they think otherwise. As far as the words spoken to her, they can be the love of a son , even the Almighty, of an unconditional love, speaking more of the giver of the well wishing than of the receiver.
What “all her glory” and “love for Our Lady” covers a wide spectrum, with or without IC and Assumption.
Yes, after two millennia.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Ok House…
You need to provide some evidence of a Pope actually Teaching error.
So far, we have St Peter behaving in contradiction to his own Teaching, and St Victor being persuaded to reverse his apparently legitimate attempt to excommunicate those not conforming to a universal practice. Which practice was won over in the end. Far from teaching error!
I dont think there is any problem for the Catholic Church to acknowledge bishops to give their “argument” to Rome. If anything, it seems evident that there was a common understanding which all held that the Bishop of Rome held authority over the whole Church. There was much resistence on account of “tradition” which Victor was pursuaded to not allow the dispute to be cause for such division, just as his predicessor had. IOW, it was a delicate sitiuation of conflicting traditions which the Bishop of Rome tolerated for the greater end of peace. Yet, it was because of the lack of the higher rule of observing Victor’s decree which caused some to resist, and hold to the lesser rule of observing a tradition of days.
In the end, what was the resolve? Was it not that a council needed to support the Popes desire to celebrate Easter on Sunday? The First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea finally came to settle the controversy of two different dates, and the tradition of “Asia” was dissolved (or condemned, as Victor initially attempted) so as to have one universal celebration.
“Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.”
As the bishops of the West did not deem it necessary to dishonor the tradition handed down to them by Peter and by Paul, and as, on the other hand, the Asiatic bishops persisted in following the rules laid down by John the evangelist, they unanimously agreed to continue in the observance of the festival according to their respective customs, without separation from communion with each other. They faithfully and justly assumed, that those who accorded in the essentials of worship ought not to separate from one another on account of customs.[7]
On receiving the negative response of Polycrates, Victor attempted to cut off Polycrates and the others who took this stance from the common unity, but reversed his decision after bishops that included Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, interceded, recommending that Victor follow the more peaceful attitude of his predecessors.
C
clem456
Guest
Right, so if his Incarnation is to be more than a theory it must permeate our lives.
This is not just about visible vs invisible, it’s about what is real. Gravity is invisible, but it is real. The Church’s unity is invisible, but it is real. Authority is invisible, but it is real. These invisible things affect our world in real ways.
Christ really, truly, substantially entered the human condition. We must admit, Christ became human, and we are humans. We can’t base our lives on the purely invisible, because Christ was not purely a spirit. We don’t live in a purely invisible world, at least not yet. Christ, in his life on earth, started something that is real. He did it in a specific way, with specific people, and gave them specific gifts. We are called to work with what he gave us, yes? What is the other option? To work with something of our own creation? That would be something truly invisible and disconnected from reality.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Perhaps a better understanding of what was going on between Peter and Paul will clear up your misunderstanding.
On Peter, Paul and Hypocrisy
In their effort to deny the primacy of Peter and the doctrine of papal infallibility, many non-Catholics point to Paul’s rebuke of Peter over the issue of eating with Gentiles as recorded in the Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
In this passage, we see that Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Although Peter may have been wrong to draw back from eating with the Gentile believers, we must note that is apparently James, and not Peter, who was the leader of the “circumcision group” in Jerusalem. Thus, those who assert that it was James, and not Peter, who was the real leader of the Church must answer for this error. However, Peter’s actions do not constitute formal teaching, and the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Peter’s private opinions or behavior. Therefore, this passage does nothing to disprove either Peter’s primacy or the doctrine of papal infallibility. Peter, like his successors, was not above reproach nor impeccable.
However, it must also be noted that Paul was not above taking prudent measures out of fear of those who held to the tradition of circumcision, either. One such measure is found in the following passage:
Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Moreover, in the same letter in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and boasted of having opposed Peter to his face, he writes the following:
Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
Imagine how Timothy must have felt when he first heard these words. He had let himself be circumcised by the very man who condemned the practice. Was Christ of no value to Timothy at all as a result of being circumcised?
This was not the only time that Paul had acted out of fear of the Jews. Later in the book of Acts, we find the following:
Acts 21:17-26
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” 26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
Clearly, the brothers in Jerusalem were concerned that some harm might come to Paul from those who knew that Paul taught against circumcision. Paul agreed to purify himself according to Jewish customs and to pay the expenses of those who were purified along with him rather than openly admit that circumcision was of no value. Was this a wise course of action? Assuredly as subsequent events indicate.
However, it cannot be denied that Paul was preaching one thing (at least in private to Gentile Christians) while practicing another—the very thing he accused Peter of doing.
In his subsequent letters (1Cor 8: 9-13, Romans 14:13), Paul backtracks and admits that one might avoid controversial behavior for the sake of the “weaker brethren.” Thus, he vindicates Peter’s actions in retrospect.
In short, Peter and Paul both had valid points. Paul was right in principle whereas Peter was right pastorally.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I will be happy to do so if you provide a link to the passage that you think is relevant.Not to sound like a crazy radical, but hopefully sometime you guys will read what Vatican I actually said.
Man, I tried not to sound like a crazy radical. :sigh:
And thanks!
R
rcwitness
Guest
House,
Your better argument would be the case of Honorius I (625-38)
Your better argument would be the case of Honorius I (625-38)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And I will be ready to shoot that down, too.House,
Your better argument would be the case of Honorius I (625-38)
npatrol:
R
rcwitness
Guest
And I will be ready to shoot that down, too.
G
gachristian
Guest
As someone who was raised Catholic, I can give why I left. I began reading the Bible and could not find anything about the Catholic doctrines of Mary and purgatory. As a result I find it difficult to recite prayers toward Mary. I read in scripture, there is one mediator between man and God and that is Jesus. As far as purgatory, I don’t see it in scripture. That is just a couple of things.
F
friardchips
Guest
This was not the point of the original question.
Go on then…?
Well, you can ignore the Bible all the way through if you want. And thorough exegesis.
Incorrect. There are plenty of sources out there for you to correct your what you know.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Hey bro, welcome to the forum. You honestly dont see a description of Purgatory in these Scripture passages?
**1 Corinthians 3:15 **(RSVCE)
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
**Matthew 18:33-35 **(RSVCE)
34 And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers,[a] till he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”
**Luke 12:40-48 **(RSVCE)
The Faithful or the Unfaithful Slave
41 Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. 44 Truly, I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions. 45 But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish[a] him, and put him with the unfaithful. 47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. 48 But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.
Just in these passages part of our judgement is compared to a purging fire, jail and beating.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
If I showed these things - IN SCRIPTURE - to you, would you consider returning?
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Polycarp claimed that his view came from the Apostle John. Perhaps John had never taught Polycarp that the Bishop of Rome is to be obeyed without question?Ok House…
You need to provide some evidence of a Pope actually Teaching error.
So far, we have St Peter behaving in contradiction to his own Teaching, and St Victor being persuaded to reverse his apparently legitimate attempt to excommunicate those not conforming to a universal practice. Which practice was won over in the end. Far from teaching error!
I dont think there is any problem for the Catholic Church to acknowledge bishops to give their “argument” to Rome. If anything, it seems evident that there was a common understanding which all held that the Bishop of Rome held authority over the whole Church. There was much resistence on account of “tradition” which Victor was pursuaded to not allow the dispute to be cause for such division, just as his predicessor had. IOW, it was a delicate sitiuation of conflicting traditions which the Bishop of Rome tolerated for the greater end of peace. Yet, it was because of the lack of the higher rule of observing Victor’s decree which caused some to resist, and hold to the lesser rule of observing a tradition of days.
In the end, what was the resolve? Was it not that a council needed to support the Popes desire to celebrate Easter on Sunday? The First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea finally came to settle the controversy of two different dates, and the tradition of “Asia” was dissolved (or condemned, as Victor initially attempted) so as to have one universal celebration.
“Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.”
As the bishops of the West did not deem it necessary to dishonor the tradition handed down to them by Peter and by Paul, and as, on the other hand, the Asiatic bishops persisted in following the rules laid down by John the evangelist, they unanimously agreed to continue in the observance of the festival according to their respective customs, without separation from communion with each other. They faithfully and justly assumed, that those who accorded in the essentials of worship ought not to separate from one another on account of customs.[7]
On receiving the negative response of Polycrates, Victor attempted to cut off Polycrates and the others who took this stance from the common unity, but reversed his decision after bishops that included Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, interceded, recommending that Victor follow the more peaceful attitude of his predecessors.
F
friardchips
Guest
Come to think of it…have many Protestants in general studied Mariology? Isn’t this a contradiction in terms…
- Status