Personal interpretation

[GreggAlvarez]

In your personal interpretation of RCC teachings, what is the Catholic position on divorce?

You are being really childish. But, I will answer in hopes that you might actually become reasonable. And I see that my last proof of the Catholic Church was so good that you could not respond to it. I will post again though in hopes that you might bring something other than complaining “you cannot know that.”

To answer your question… First of all, it is not my “personal interpretation” of Catholic teachings. The Catholic Church teaches that it will not recognize secular divorce. Again, this is not my interpretation. The Church is clear on this. Anybody who has relations with anybody “divorced” in the secular world is in a state of mortal sin.

What is the Catholic teaching on artificial forms of birth control?

The Church is clear that artifical birth control is contrary to the dignity of human life. Its use is a mortal sin.

What is the Catholic teaching on masterbation?

The Church is clear that this is mortal sin.

What is the Catholic teaching on abortion?

The Church is clear that abortion is also against the dignity of human life and against the individual’s right to life.

In view of the perfect RCC UNITY on these teachings, is the RCC less chaotic and more in UNITY than the alleged 30 thousand Protestant denominations?

Yes… Reality confirms my “view”.

What if Christ really did fulfill His promise to protect His church, but not in the way that you seem to think?

Then Christ is deceiving.

Keep in mind this is not necessarily what I think. The way I think about unity and Christ’s promise is exactly as the Epistles taught. St. Paul himself mentions his own authority over the people in the Corinthians.

If you think the thousands of denominations are in unity, then have fun “being in unity” with denominations who do not believe in the Trinity, the inerrancy of the Bible, the infallibility of the Bible, Christ’s divinity, hell, free will, predestination, one God, reason, going to church, etc… And have fun “being in unity” with denominations who believe in one God, three gods, Trinity, no Trinity salvation by faith alone, salvation by faith and works, Christ as prophet only, Purgatory, no Purgatory, Real Presence of Jesus’ Body and Blood, no presence of body or blood, authority outside Scripture, no authority outside Scripture, Baptism as sacrament, Baptism as mere symbol, etc…

Yeah… Does not sound so “united”, does it? If you are right, then Christ has miserably failed. If the Catholic Church is right, then Christ has, is and will continue to fulfill His promise. The latter statement is the correct one. I have proved it also. But, I will post my proof again.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Doggg,

I will give this evidence until you make a legitimate reason. If you make an excuse, I will continue to degrade myself and repeat until you make a plausible argument as to why the Catholic Church is wrong and one of the thousands of Protestant denominations is right.

This is substantial evidence of the Catholic Church. She is the only one who continues to teach these things. Peter as Pope, Peter and Apostles as foundation, Christ as builder, Holy Spirit’s inseparability from Church, Church as Christ’s Bride… This is scriptural, rock-solid and biblical proof of the Truth of the Catholic Church. This is not my doing. Although I pasted them together like this, this is what the Bible teaches about the Catholic Church

Revelations 22:17 - The Spirit AND the bride say, “Come.” Let the hearer say, “Come.” Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water.

The Bride is the Church. As Saint Paul explains in one of the Corinthians, wives must be subordinate to their husbands as the Church is subordinate to Christ. Husbands must be willing to lay down their life for their bride as Christ did for the Church. The Holy Spirit and the Church are inseparable.

The Catholic Church is the only one who recognizes this and actually lives by it!

This is even MORE proof that the Church is FOR us and not us for the Church.

Need more proof?

Revelations 21:14 - The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles, of the Lamb.

This city is the New Jerusalem. Revelations 21:2 says “I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”

Matthew 16:19 - “And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my Church… I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.”

This is even more proof for the “alleged” papal doctrine that Peter is the “rock” on which Christ built the Church. We consider Peter and the Apostles as the foundations of the Church.

Need more proof?

 

[PRmerger]

No. I do not believe (not yet) that the CC proclaims that Catholics worship the “vicar of Christ.”

Very good then.

However, your “not yet” comment still shows great ignorance of Catholicism. The entire deposit of faith has been given, once and for all, to the CC. There will be no new or further revelation.

Thus, the Church could not ever proclaim a new revelation. Not that it would ever proclaim that we must worship the “vicar of Christ.”

We worship God alone.

And the only reason you worship God alone is because the CC has provided you with the Scriptures which provide you with the revelation with which to know this God in whom you worship.

Unless you can provide us with a reference that there was a different church–other than the CC–that discerned this Scripture for you. A church that wasn’t Catholic, but had bishops, popes and met in ecumenical councils.

 

[benedictus2]

As I said earlier, the canon is determined by God, who, by the Holy Spirit, breathed the Scriptures into the church by causing certain writers to write exactly as the Spirit led them. The church merely recognized God’s “voice” speaking through the written word.

As for the proof of which church God founded, and has protected by His word, there is only one universal church which consists of hundreds of denominations and so-called “non-denominations” that seek to worship God alone, draw close to Him through His word, under the guidance of His Holy Spirit, and desire to live by faith in the completed work of Jesus.

There are numerous false “churches” who are extremely authoritarian, heavy handed, and legalistic, that all end up practicing self-glorification because they MUST. The Mormons and the JW’s, like the RCC, MUST waste most of their time in the vain task of apologetics because so many of their bold claims lack any objective support, exactly as I’ve so thoroughly demonstrated here in this discussion.

False religions always have an uphill battle. They MUST continually persuade their followers and their potential followers that their own claims to authority are genuine. The real followers of Jesus don’t worry about such things. It isn’t a religion that they worship and serve, it is Christ Himself that they worship and serve. The bride of Christ worships Christ alone, and not herself.

You’re not very honest Dogg. First you ask for proof. Then when you are supplied with proof you ignore it.

You are right, God determined the Canon but who did God guide to determine the Canon? The Catholic Church.

And here’s another thing, how do you know that God did indeed guide the Catholic Church in determining the Canon? Can you prove that God did determine the Canon?

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t follow your reasoning at all. Can you explain?

Also, is the above your personal interpretation of the verse ?

Go back to Ben’s reasoning and you will understand what I mean.

What I am showing here is that Ben’s analysis is not exactly correct.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

There is no document that will convince you to believe what you are not willing to believe.

This means nothing. I am not “willing” to believe in Hell but it is a reality that I have to face. It is abot Truth, not “willingness” to believe.

Apparently, there is no document that will make you believe that Christ’s Church is supposed to be one in Truth, not even the Bible

You are accusing me of contempt for YOUR religion.

Because that is all you have been doing! You are calling us religion-worshippers and comparing us to Muslim extremists! Yes, you do have contempt. Any denial, I will not believe because your words imply contempt.

If you were a Muslim extremist, how would your attitude toward your religion be any different?

In many ways… We will not kill for the sake of glorifying God… We respect other beliefs… We will not kill those who leave the Church… You are being completely unreasonable… No surprise there… How is YOU attitude against us any different from them? You are the one spilling out hatred and contempt based on the absurd idea that we cannot know what the Truth is to believe!

Is religion–any religion, what we ought to worship? If so, why?

No. Who the hell said they worship Catholicism?! This is YOUR nutty conjecture!

I do not care what you say we do Doggg. So, we respect the Catholic Church and submit to God’s authority inside her. That does equate to “worship of religion”. Mary is by my side asking me to hold my tongue, so to speak.

You have given insult after insult with absolutely zero substantiating evidence other than the usual complaint, “Well, you are wrong. How do you know your Church is right?”

I do not understand what is so wrong with believing what God has taught us through His own Church, which He built with Peter and His Apostles as the foundation.

The “New Man” has brought about a “New Creation” which the gates Hades shall not prevail against. This “New Creation” is the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks but this just proves how hopelessly ignorant of scriptures you are. I mean… Isn’t it obvious that the verse you use in your example Is speaking of me ?

Huh. Your wife told me it was Job 19:17 that reminded her of you.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

As I said earlier, the canon is determined by God, who, by the Holy Spirit, breathed the Scriptures into the church by causing certain writers to write exactly as the Spirit led them. The church merely recognized God’s “voice” speaking through the written word.

Why would the Holy Spirit lead St. Paul to “write exactly” the things that Paul himself seemed to forget In 1 Corinthians 1:16, he forgets if he even baptized anyone else! Why would the Holy Spirit lead them "write exactly that? That would be decieving. Just say that Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. This keeps God as the Sacred Author and the writers as just that, writers.

As for the proof of which church God founded, and has protected by His word, there is only one universal church which consists of hundreds of denominations and so-called “non-denominations” that seek to worship God alone, draw close to Him through His word, under the guidance of His Holy Spirit, and desire to live by faith in the completed work of Jesus.

I agree that there are honest people seeking God and that there is a universal church. This is the Catholic Church as I and others have demonstrated. All you do is say, “well, you are wrong. How do you know your interpretation is right, religion-worshipper?”

There are numerous false “churches” who are extremely authoritarian, heavy handed, and legalistic, that all end up practicing self-glorification because they MUST.

Agreed. The multitude of Protestant denominations is prime evidence of that.

The Mormons and the JW’s, like the RCC, MUST waste most of their time in the vain task of apologetics because so many of their bold claims lack any objective support, exactly as I’ve so thoroughly demonstrated here in this discussion.

Few things here, Mr. Hypocrite:

1. If you will notice, scroll up and you will see that your own thread is in the “Apologetics” section.
2. You accuse us of “lacking objective support” when you have given ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, 0, NONE, etc… reasons for insulting us!
3. Your “thorough demonstrations” are demonstrating that you cannot give thorough demonstrations. You have given zero explanations why you hate the Church, much less do not believe in the Truths she teaches.
4. You are the one “defending” your thousands of contradictory denominations with bolder-than-can-be claims with absolutely NO demonstrations, much less objective support. Everything you have said so far is subjective and anti-Catholic.
5. Your own “apologetics” is laughably vain.
6. Protestants engage in the same thing.
7. You are basing your misconceptions on your personal interpretations

“Always be prepared to give an explanation to anyone who asks for a reason for your hope.” 1 Peter 3:15

Defending God’s Church is hardly considered vain. Defending her is what I am made to do. In fact, the priesthood and/or apologetics are things I might be called to do. If you hate us, then hate us. “If the world hates you, know that it hated me first.” This is

False religions always have an uphill battle. They MUST continually persuade their followers and their potential followers that their own claims to authority are genuine.

As you are doing… Jesus is the one who gave us authority. Not us… We have proved it many times and you just ignore it and cry that we are wrong. You expect us to believe you as if you have some kind of authority over us.

The real followers of Jesus don’t worry about such things.

Mr. Hypocrite, when we say something to you, you defend. If you say something to us, we defend except we have the Truth on our side.

Are you saying we are not “real followers”? If not, then stop name-calling. If so, then how? Because we believe God has appointed authorities to teach? Because we worship God and God only? Give a reason for your false claim

It isn’t a religion that they worship and serve, it is Christ Himself that they worship and serve. The bride of Christ worships Christ alone, and not herself.

I will not be surprised if I get martyred someday defending the Truth or just speaking the Truth.

You are dishonest, derisive, judgmental, hateful, hypocritical, hard-headed and very stubborn.

Why do you hate the Church so much? Why do you think she worships herself if though you know that is not true? Why will you not listen to us?

 

[SemperReformada]

Go back to Ben’s reasoning and you will understand what I mean.

What I am showing here is that Ben’s analysis is not exactly correct.

I understand what you are trying to show but I still don’t understand what it is you see.

Can you explain further?

 

[gtrenewed]

I will not be surprised if I get martyred someday defending the Truth or just speaking the Truth.

What circumstances do you envision that would lead to this?

If your answer leads too far off thread, how about starting one for this is an interesting topic.

 

[Doggg]

Office of the Papacy Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson.

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko) my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

This is an amazing and novel theory! Only Peter was given instructions to feed the sheep. The other apostles were never given any such instructions from Jesus, so when the other apostles went around feeding the sheep and doing other tasks to care for the rapidly growing flock, they were doing what was only supposed to be done by Peter!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension.

Where do you find this teaching, that Peter was to be the stand-in vicar?

 

[Doggg]

Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

It’s too bad that you weren’t there to stop all the other apostles from feeding and tending the sheep. They must not have heard that only Peter was supposed to feed and tend to the sheep.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.

Then it should follow that none of the other apostles were supposed to be doing what was supposed to be done only by Peter.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

In verse 24, we read that a dispute had broken out among the apostles as to which of them was the greatest. If Jesus had wanted to, He could easily have told them it was Peter. Instead, Jesus uses that very dispute among the apostles to place Peter in a rather lowly position as compared to the other apostles. Peter would deny Christ three times! Yet by the grace of God, Peter was not to fall away. Peter’s faith would not ultimately fail. Peter would be restored as one of the apostles. None of this even hints at a papal office for any of them, much less for Peter.

 

[Doggg]

If you think the thousands of denominations are in unity, then have fun “being in unity” with denominations who do not believe in the Trinity, the inerrancy of the Bible, the infallibility of the Bible, Christ’s divinity, hell, free will, predestination, one God, reason, going to church, etc… And have fun “being in unity” with denominations who believe in one God, three gods, Trinity, no Trinity salvation by faith alone, salvation by faith and works, Christ as prophet only, Purgatory, no Purgatory, Real Presence of Jesus’ Body and Blood, no presence of body or blood, authority outside Scripture, no authority outside Scripture, Baptism as sacrament, Baptism as mere symbol, etc…

Yeah… Does not sound so “united”, does it? If you are right, then Christ has miserably failed. If the Catholic Church is right, then Christ has, is and will continue to fulfill His promise. The latter statement is the correct one. I have proved it also. But, I will post my proof again.

So, if I understand you, Catholics are in complete UNITY on all of the things I mentioned: divorce, artificial forms of birth control, masterbation, abortion. It is really great to know that Catholics all agree on everything that the RCC teaches! And as PRmerger says, those Catholics who get abortions, use artificial forms of BC, and who masterbate, etc, are actually not Catholics; they are called Protestants! According to PR, a Protestant is apparently any Catholic who does things that are not supposed to be done by Catholics!

 

[Shannon9791]

It’s too bad that you weren’t there to stop all the other apostles from feeding and tending the sheep. They must not have heard that only Peter was supposed to feed and tend to the sheep.

Then it should follow that none of the other apostles were supposed to be doing what was supposed to be done only by Peter.

In verse 24, we read that a dispute had broken out among the apostles as to which of them was the greatest. If Jesus had wanted to, He could easily have told them it was Peter. Instead, Jesus uses that very dispute among the apostles to place Peter in a rather lowly position as compared to the other apostles. Peter would deny Christ three times! Yet by the grace of God, Peter was not to fall away. Peter’s faith would not ultimately fail. Peter would be restored as one of the apostles. None of this even hints at a papal office for any of them, much less for Peter.

But you are fallible, so your personal interpretation could be wrong and the interpretation that’s been around for 2000+ years could be right, right?

 

[Doggg]

But you are fallible, so your personal interpretation could be wrong and the interpretation that’s been around for 2000+ years could be right, right?

Which interpretation are you referring to?

 

[wanner47]

Doggg, where did anyone say that the other apostles weren’t supposed to feed His sheep? In fact, they are, and that’s why Catholic bishops are the successors to the Apostles.

Jesus gave the responsibility for overseeing the apostles to Peter. Note that Peter is the only one of the apostles to get a name change. Throughout the Bible, one’s name is changed by God if one has been given special work or a significant mission, or a special promise (e.g., Abram → Abraham).

Peter’s leadership of the apostles is quite evident in the New Testament:

Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

Also, if you are able to respond to this post, I would appreciate it.

 

[Shannon9791]

So, if I understand you, Catholics are in complete UNITY on all of the things I mentioned: divorce, artificial forms of birth control, masterbation, abortion. It is really great to know that Catholics all agree on everything that the RCC teaches! And as PRmerger says, those Catholics who get abortions, use artificial forms of BC, and who masterbate, etc, are actually not Catholics; they are called Protestants! According to PR, a Protestant is apparently any Catholic who does things that are not supposed to be done by Catholics!

You are judging the teachings of the Catholic Church by those who are supposed to adhere to it. Does your church teach that somethings are sins? If you committ those sins, are you no longer a member of that church?

If someone disagrees with the teachings of the Catholic Church, no, they are not Catholic. Your silly argument holds no water.

 

[wanner47]

So, if I understand you, Catholics are in complete UNITY on all of the things I mentioned: divorce, artificial forms of birth control, masterbation, abortion. It is really great to know that Catholics all agree on everything that the RCC teaches! And as PRmerger says, those Catholics who get abortions, use artificial forms of BC, and who masterbate, etc, are actually not Catholics; they are called Protestants! According to PR, a Protestant is apparently any Catholic who does things that are not supposed to be done by Catholics!

That’s right, Doggg. A Protestant is one who protests against the authority of the Catholic Church. Anyone who claims to be a Catholic but does does the things above, unrepentantly, is a dissident Catholic (in essence, a Protestant), not a faithful Catholic.

Let me ask you a question. If a Mormon went around proclaiming that Joseph Smith was the devil, would you still consider him a faithful Mormon in good standing with the LDS church?

 

[Shannon9791]

Which interpretation are you referring to?

Well, you gave your personal interpretation of Luke verse 24, Is it infallible?

 

[Doggg]

Well, you gave your personal interpretation of Luke verse 24, Is it infallible?

No, my personal interpretations are all fallible.