I think the bolded portion answers your question, 1beleevr! Why the “ostentatious” vestments worn by the Holy Father? It could be said that it really doesn’t matter if he’s ostentatious or not–it’s what’s in the heart of Pope Benedict that really matters.
But what I said is true. Why do you lament the truth? If without limits, you seek the truth and the Truth, you will become Roman Catholic. Otherwise, one is fooling themselves in one way or another. It takes humility to truly be a Catholic. We don’t get to make up our own religion, and tell God what He said. Instead, we listen to what He said, and seek to be obedient.Or you could get stuck on personal pride, and remain catholicI hope what MDK said, isn’t true; that if you honestly seek the truth, or is it TRUTH(Jesus)myou will become Roman catholic
It’s simply arrogant to say that others haven’t already understood the importance of what’s inside. It’s also missing the point to think that your complaints about the pope’s attire are somehow merited.
There’s people on this thread who have said that God cares mostly about what’s on the outside? Really?Because he’s a head of state. Just like I want Obama to look “presidential”. I want Pope Benedict to look “popish”!
Is the written word equal to or does it encompass completely the Word of God made flesh?
Certainly not all was recorded in the bible. Yet, if it was the will of the Lord it be used for doctrine, would he not include it in his Word?
Why do you desire to negate the importance of what is written? Have you ever told a person something and this person tells a person and this person tells a person. How much do you suppose would be exactly what you said after being passed verbally from person to person?
Is it not God who establishes kings and princes, presidents and czars?
Hope I did this correct for you.
How do you know this? Scripture does not tell you anything of the sort–that is, there is no verse in Scrpture that says that "all the things necessary for doctrine have been written down:
The majority of the writings were more of how the writer instituted them into his life and not so much as to be used as doctrine. In other words, the author would talk of what had already been written and comment on it. And also, alot of it was a history of current events in what was occurring in the church throughout the regions.
Acts 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: 39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
Jesus is the Word of God. The written word is only part of the Deposit of Faith. Scripture *and *Tradition must be the sources of divine revelation.
On the contrary. The Catholic Church preserved and canonized the written Word–“the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.” CCC 103
Amen!
Yes, He quoted the Old Testament. Does this mean that we should only accept the Scriptures that Jesus quoted?
I do agree with this, the problem is that our perceptions of what the Spirit is saying are contingent upon our own experiences and education (or lack of it). that is why He promised the Church that He would guide them into all truth.
He did! It was in the part He commited the the Church.
The fact that Catholics do not misuse the Holy Scriptures does not mean they are “negated”. They were never intended to exercise authority. That does not make htem unimportant. It is simply acknowleging that the exercise of authority requires intellect and will, qualities that the Sacred Writings do not.
Yes, of course, but in no case was the promise of the HS present to guard and keep what is said. God is able to preserve His word, whether it is oral, or in writing.
Well, yes, but Peter received His authority from Christ…
It is interesting, you seem to promote that you should be left alone in your ideas, yet you are here frequenting a Catholic forum.
Actually, a significant amount of what you profess is quite new. It constitutes a “different gospel”, and has no foundation in what the Apostles believed and taught.
It seems that you missed my post earlier when I addressed this issue of dress among catholics going to mass. I said at that time (forget which post) that people come to Church dressed in jeans all the time. In fact they come dressed even more casual than that.
The teachings that are taught by so-called Catholics (including priests
) that are contrary to God’s Word–such as: contraception is ok as long as your conscience tells you it’s ok, abortion is ok if you have a valid reason, premarital sex is ok as long as you love your partner, homosexual unions are ok as long as it’s within a loving monogamous relationship…etc etc etc!Hi 1beleevr,
)This cartoon is pretty off-topic, but noticed the contrast in clothing (particularly up-top).
Funny you should mention Moses – didn’t he take off his sandals at the Burning Bush? In fact, wasn’t he told to do so? (Not unlike how modern men remove their hats when they are in church, as a sign of respect.)
I simply LOVE the highlighted section here.
In this I think we can only point to the very real and, yes very concrete, promises that Jesus Gave to the Apostles and through them to His Church. That the Holy Spirit would Guide them, that He would lead them into All Truth, The The Church has Authority to Bind and Loose “Whatever”, That Peter and his successors hold the Keys to the Kingdom and so on.I do believe in what the Apostles said, and taught:thumbsup:What I and many other non-catholics have trouble wrapping our minds around, is, that these teachings have been kept intact, without addition or subtraction by any church.And once more, when did the practice of baptizing babies begin and why? Was this something that started after the deaths of the apostles?
No Catholic on this forum will condemn you, 1beleevr, as it is against our religion to condemn anyone.
