Protestants, how can this be possible?

[PJM]

=luke1_28;5832231]Not yet. I am a big fan of Fr. John Hardon. Can you tell? Right now, I am a future Oblate of the Community of St. John. communityofstjohn.com/ If you click on the link, the man shaking hands with the Holy Father is Fr. Marie Dominique Phillipe. Intense spirituality in his writings.

I am fortunate to have the Priory near in Princeville. Beautiful place and the atmosphere is one of holy reverence for Christ truly present in the Eucharist. I love it!

Peace be with you Pat. I hope you don’t get tired of my rambling all over your thread. I feel called to engage and bring a Eucharistic vision which gives Life to the debates rather than quibble over dates or argue over scripture passages. Had there been more faith in the Eucharist, there wouldn’t have been a reformation. The Holy Eucharist is our reason for living - and the Way to the Truth and Life. I believe that the answer to how healthy the Catholic Church is, is in direct correlation with how strongly the members of the Body of Christ believes in the Eucharist. We cannot have Life without the Eucharist.

God bless,
luke1_28

I Love you man:thumbsup:

Know that you continue in my prayers, keep up the excellent work!

Love and prayers, Pat

 

[jblake]

luke1_28;:

the reformers never finished their job. They never did come back to the Church when the errors they formed as a basis were corrected or explained.

It is much easier to breakup, than make up.

Their power they gained to leave the Church and start their own was more seductive than the Power Christ gave His Apostles in the only Church He established.

You assume that the Catholic Church rectified all of errors that were found, and the purged itself of the false doctrines it taught. From the POV of those reformers, the Catholic Church is still adhering to false practices, doctrines, and theology.

Even a superficial reading of the Bible reveals practices that are current within the Catholic Church, that are in profound conflict with the plain meaning of the Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic text.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

PJM;:

My question, yet to be answered is on what grounds, what authority did the Revolutionist. Luther, Calvin Ect. Have to remove seven entire books from the Divinely

The only book that Luther can be credited from removing from the Bible was one that is not recognized as canonical by either Catholic or Protestant Christianity.

Calvin’s removal of the Catholic Deuterocanonical material was based on the fact that were not found in Hebrew manuscripts, and their usage in Jewish worship was unknown.

We have the Seven Sacraments all instituted by Christ,

Which explains why various Popes have taught that Christ instituted two sacraments, or ten sacraments or forty sacraments. (To use the most common, but not only numbers.)

jonathon

 

[PRmerger]

Even a superficial reading of the Bible reveals practices that are current within the Catholic Church, that are in profound conflict with the plain meaning of the Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic text.

jonathon

Perhaps that is the problem, then. Why would a “superficial” reading of the Bible be a standard for objecting to anything?

Could you give an example of a Catholic practice that you feel is contrary to this superficial reading of Scripture?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You can’t be Catholic if you can’t believe what Christ’s Church - THE Catholic Church teaches.

Certainly it sounds like a rational statement. But I’ve been told more than once in this (and other threads) that rationalizing does not equate with God’s word on the subject. And I would counter that you can’t be catholic without recognizing the entire body of Christ as being equal members of the Church of Jesus Christ… “in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others” (Romans 12:5).

 

[PJM]

=jblake;5843391]It is much easier to breakup, than make up.

You assume that the Catholic Church rectified all of errors that were found, and the purged itself of the false doctrines it taught. From the POV of those reformers, the Catholic Church is still adhering to false** practices**, doctrines, and theology.

Even a superficial reading of the Bible reveals practices that are current within the Catholic Church, that are in profound conflict with the plain meaning of the Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic text.

jonathon

One assumes that you can articulate these for us:shrug:

False, stupid and seriously erred practices YES! I don’t recall any Doctrinal or Dogmatic issues in my reading of Luthers Nintyfive Thesis.

BUT friend, I challange you to point out in your words**,“false Doctrine or Dogma.”**

The Infallibility issue applies to ONLY and exclusively, Morals and Faith. So if you have insight where the Catholic Church has erred in either or both of these BROAD areas so key to ones personal salvation, here is your opportunity to prove it.

Love and prayers friend. Please back up with facts what you seem so certain of.

God Bless you!

Pat

 

[jblake]

Perhaps that is the problem, then. Why would a “superficial” reading of the Bible be a standard for objecting to anything?

The in depth analysis will simply provide irrefutable proof that Catholic practices are a profound departure from what scripture teaches

Mandatory celibacy is just one example of where catholic teaching is a violation of what the Bible teaches.

jonathon

 

[PRmerger]

The in depth analysis will simply provide irrefutable proof that Catholic practices are a profound departure from what scripture teaches

Mandatory celibacy is just one example of where catholic teaching is a violation of what the Bible teaches.

jonathon

What superficial readings of what verses will tell us that mandatory celibacy is contrary to God’s Word? Does it contradict this one: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:30)?

BTW, did you know celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests?

 

[PRmerger]

The in depth analysis will simply provide irrefutable proof that Catholic practices are a profound departure from what scripture teaches

Oh. Now you’re changing your statement.

I thought we’re talking “superficial” analysis, not 'in-depth".

 

[PJM]

=jblake;5844374]The in depth analysis will simply provide irrefutable proof that Catholic practices are a profound departure from what scripture teaches

Mandatory celibacy is just one example of where catholic teaching is a violation of what the Bible teaches.

jonathon

Friend, you’re understanding of things Catholic seems to be lacking.

The Catholic Church position on celibacy in what we term “Church Practice.” That means three things.

1. It is not a Doctrine
2. It is not a Dogma
3. It is ONLY a Church Practice. It COULD be changed , and after today’s announcement about the Traditionalist Anglican infusion back into the CC, who knows?

The reason the Church currently insist on this practice is based on Tradition, experience and the FACT that is voluntary, in that while it remains a condition to the Catholic Priesthood, no one is FORCED to become a Catholic priest.

Like St. Paul, one freely offers this up in order to better serve our Lord.

So now that is is debunked, what is the next on on you "absolutely sure list?"

I’ll be happy to address each and every one.

God Bless you friend!

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[rev_kevin]

Have you heard what the Pope is doing? The number of married Catholic priests could grow sharply as the result of the Vatican’s epochal dicision to welcome thousands of disaffected Angelican and Episcopalians into the Catholic church.Vatican officials announced that the church would set up a special canonical structure that will ease the conversion of members of the Anglican communnion without having them to give up what the Vatican called “the distructive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony.” That means not only a body of prayers and hymns, but the tradition of married priests and Bishops. This decision will allow for many more married clergy in the western Churches.
This is from the world news. Posted on AOL Oct. 20th 2009. By James Graff, world editor.
I know it off the subject but I thought is worth mentioning.

 

[gmcbroom]

Dear Rev Kevin. I’ll bet the Pope will allow the priests to be married but those that are won’t be able to be Bishops. So the current married Bishops may have to step down and be married Catholic Priests, where as the non married Bishop(s) may be allowed to be re ordained as a Catholic Bishop but the Celibacy rule would apply. Atleast that would make the most sense.

 

[system]

Folks,please check out this site at www.johnthebaptist.us hosted by a Catholic man.

 

[jmcrae]

Certainly it sounds like a rational statement. But I’ve been told more than once in this (and other threads) that rationalizing does not equate with God’s word on the subject. And I would counter that you can’t be catholic without recognizing the entire body of Christ as being equal members of the Church of Jesus Christ… “in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others” (Romans 12:5).

“The entire body of Christ” is the Catholic Church, subject to the Pope.

By means of their Baptism, persons outside the visible Church are in partial communion with it, and can in a certain sense be called Christians, but these are not who St. Paul was referring to, in Romans 12:5.

 

[PRmerger]

Have you heard what the Pope is doing? The number of married Catholic priests could grow sharply as the result of the Vatican’s epochal dicision to welcome thousands of disaffected Angelican and Episcopalians into the Catholic church.Vatican officials announced that the church would set up a special canonical structure that will ease the conversion of members of the Anglican communnion without having them to give up what the Vatican called “the distructive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony.” That means not only a body of prayers and hymns, but the tradition of married priests and Bishops. This decision will allow for many more married clergy in the western Churches.
This is from the world news. Posted on AOL Oct. 20th 2009. By James Graff, world editor.
I know it off the subject but I thought is worth mentioning.

Interesting and newsworthy to be sure.

However, I always have a bit of healthy skepticism when I hear a secular news source report on anything Catholic. Inevitably, they get something miserably wrong.

The report that you cited above raises my eyebrows about the number of married Catholic priests growing “sharply”. That does not sound mathematically plausible–it would be like saying “the number of illegal immigrants is declining sharply because Jehovah’s Witnesses are returning to the country of origin.” I mean, really, how many is that and how would that affect the situation?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

“The entire body of Christ” is the Catholic Church, subject to the Pope.

Two questions:

By means of their Baptism, persons outside the visible Church are in partial communion with it, and can in a certain sense be called Christians,

1. So you would admit that there are those who are (at least in a certain sense) called Christians that you do not include as part of the Catholic Church, and yet you would call the Catholic Church catholic?

… but these are not who St. Paul was referring to, in Romans 12:5.

1. To whom do you believe that Paul was referring to in Romans 12:5?

 

[system]

Folks,please check out this site, www.johnthebaptist.us. It is hosted by a Catholic man.

 

[jmcrae]

Two questions:

1. So you would admit that there are those who are (at least in a certain sense) called Christians that you do not include as part of the Catholic Church, and yet you would call the Catholic Church catholic?

They are separated from Christ’s estabished Church, and in order to be fully considered catholic or Catholic or Katolikos, or any variation thereof, they need to repair the rift and come home to Mother Church.

One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.

1. To whom do you believe that Paul was referring to in Romans 12:5?

To those who were in full communion with himself and the other Apostles - the lawful successors of whom are the Pope and his loyal Bishops.

 

[jmcrae]

Folks,please check out this site, www.johnthebaptist.us. It is hosted by a Catholic man.

WOW.

Thank you, I needed that little boost.

 

[rev_kevin]

Dear Rev Kevin. I’ll bet the Pope will allow the priests to be married but those that are won’t be able to be Bishops. So the current married Bishops may have to step down and be married Catholic Priests, where as the non married Bishop(s) may be allowed to be re ordained as a Catholic Bishop but the Celibacy rule would apply. Atleast that would make the most sense.

Thats not what the artical said. Bishops are included in this.