C
- Status
G
greggy53
Guest
Says you. Where in the scriptures is any mention of Apostolic, and Episcopal College?
The Catholic Pope is the descendant of St Peter by virtue of unbroken apostolic succession. Your leaders broke away from the one true Church when you allowed your adulterous king to become the head of your Church.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Contraception was condemned by all branches of Christianity until the early 1930’s when the Anglican church permitted it.
E
erikd
Guest
This was not a law that was “passed” it was a law that had always existed. To say that God Himself had changed His own law between Genesis and Deuteronomy, would put the burden of proof on you, not me. When following the text, it is reasonable to say that the law had always existed and was passed down to the people, and explained to the people by Moses, starting in chapter 4. By saying that the law was passed, you are either saying that it was passed like a law today, by humans, or that God changed His mind. Either way, the burden of proof remains with you.
There are two events that happen here, that offend the Lord. First, Onan disobeying the law, as presented by Moses in Dt. 25:5-10, and Onan spilling his seed on the ground. Both are despicable in the eyes of the Lord, though one of them only carries with it the penalty of shame (Dt. 25: 5-10) while the other, according to this passage, carries with it the penalty of death. As I said above, if you are to say that the law went into effect with Moses in Deuteronomy, and did not exist before, you are saying that God’s people were lawless and therefore could not possibly disobey the Lord. And yet Onan, and his brother Er were both slain by the Lord for having offended Him.
Again, my friend, the burden of proof is on you. I’ve already quoted you Church Fathers, who lived much closer in time to that society than you and I do. Based on their analysis, which I showed you several posts ago, the process of procreation cannot be interrupted by man, as it was set in motion by God. While sexual relations can have other purposes (between man and wife only) they have to be open to life and cannot interfere when life happens by the Grace of God. Song of Songs gives us a vivid picture of pleasure but does not say anything about interrupting what God set into motion. If pleasure was not involved, many of us would not be here today.
S
soflochristmas
Guest
If you were using your intellect you’d be Catholic.
S
soflochristmas
Guest
Shock.
M
MDK
Guest
The “fresh air” you crave is rejoicing in what you see as wrong? What does that say about you, and how God’s mercy and love is working in your life if you revel in what you deem as sinfulness of man. In doing so, your spiritual father is not God. I get no pleasure out of your sin, and ask you to please stop and come to our Father who can heal you.Fresh air; coming up for air before going back down…thanks!
B
Bengoshi
Guest
What an arrogant and rude post!
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Oh, I WAS Catholic…until I used my intellect and really studied Scripture myself instead of just blindly following what the priests and Rome say.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
You are the one who is saying that artificial contraception is prohibited by God and not me. So the burden of proof is on the prosecutor and not on the defense. The quotes you posted are not biblical. They do not have the authority of Scripture. Besides, as I have said, people during those times did not have such a high view of sex, they looked upon it as a mere necessity for procreation but otherwise, it was an act of the flesh for them. Man was appointed by God to be the stewards of the Earth, therefore, we must be responsible. It is highly irresponsible for us to keep on populating the Earth in spite of out exponential population growth rate, not to mention the scarcity of resources. Yes, most of it is because of greed of some people, but still, we must not add to the causes of misery by producing children we are unable to take care well.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
By the way, I would just like to share that I have just found and bought the a book that has been so hard to find! It’s CATHOLICISM by Fr. Richard McBrien. I learned about it from a co-faculty who graduated from a Cahtolic Seminary but did not pursue priesthood. It was the book they used. I also got QUESTION TIME by Fr. Flader, the CCC, CFC, THEOLOGY FOR MINISTRY by Dr. Margaret Lavin, among other Catholic books. So far, I have seen a lot of good stuff which are in agreement with Evangelical theology except those about the usual papacy, infallibiblity, tradition, magisterium, etc. Otherwise, it was okay. Moreover, I also found Pope Benedict’s homily on November 19, 2008 on the Doctrine of Justification:From Works to Faith to be in agreement with what the reformers have been teaching all along about justification by faith and not by works. The end result would still be that good works are supposed to be done by Christians, but not to earns merits for salvation but instead, as a RESULT of their genuine faith as well said by the Apostle James.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
CATHOLICISM - a book that (also) gained condemnation by the Church hierarchy through its misprepresentation of the Faith. Not to discourage you from reading.
The Catholic Church is catholic; there’s ‘right-wing’, ‘via media’, and ‘left-wing’: All claim to be right. Keep reading, it narrows the mind bringing it to an *understanding *of Truth. At seminary we don’t learn answers, hopefully we learn to ask questions (we learn to better frame our thought).
Pope Benedict is the Pope, he is also a private theologian, his thoughts are not necessarily Catholic dogma.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Really?! How come the book is still being used in Catholic seminaries? I have only read the first chapter though, during vacant hours in the faculty room when I borrowed my friend’s book. Then I decided to buy one for myself. I bought my copy from the Society of St. Paul. I heard that as the former prefect, Pope Benedict is a very good theologian. Do you have any comments on that? I plan to buy his books when I get the chance and the money (It’s kinda expensive buyt I guess worth it). I am also still reading Dr. Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology as it is the textbook we use in bible school together with the Purple Book. I have also been reading Foundations of Pentecostal Theology by Dr. Guy Duffield and Nathaniel Van Cleave.
J
Jason_1977
Guest
I WAS Episcopalean, but I left that & the whole lot of protestantism because of my own intellect. I swallowed everything because I was young & was raised that way. I gained my own curiosity & did my own research. Between bishops marrying each other in cathedrals & gaining a clearer understanding of everything in general, I made the right decision. There was nothing alluring about the RCC, I was even asked, what was it about the RCC that aided in making my choice. My answer was nothing. It was everything wrong I saw in protestantism. I’m not bashing anyone, I’m just saying that intellect you speak of was the driving force that pushed me away from the church of england, & I keep thinking to go in the opposite direction would just be insane in my opinion. I cant imagine myself going back. Not knowing what I know now, there’s no way.
Very Respectfully,
Jason
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Hi there! Isn’t the Anglican/Episcopalian Church more closely similar to Catholicism than Evangelicalism? What do you mean bishops marrying other bishops? We don’t have female pastors or bishops in our church, and neither do I subscribe to the idea. The Bible provides that only men should be pastors and bishops. So I agree with the RCC on their stand of no female clergy. One of the things that i don’t like about the RCC is its religious ritualism. Instead of the people having a personal relationship with God, they become engrossed with rituals which may not have a deep impact on their spiritual lives. I think this is what the RCC should improve teaching on. In practice, it just becomes vain religion without any meanig and effect on a person’s life. It only produces outward righteousness and religiosity like the paharisees, sadducees, and other religious leaders during the time of Christ. Charismatic Catholic fellowships are doing good in this rea as I have seen Catholics who have developed this genuine passion and love for Jesus and produces a personal relationship with Him. Sadly, most Catholics just go through the motions of religion without it penetrating into their souls and everyday lives. In fact, most don’t even read their Bibles, instead, they just rely on the homily of the priest for their feeding of the Word. Lastly, belief in the superstition is rampant, especially during feasts of some saints and images.
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
**I find it sad, that a character who belongs to a Church that had its genesis in the formation of a Robber Council at Trent in 1564, should attack a Catholic Communion whose provenance was in the Upper Room in Jerusalem some few years after Christ’s birth!
Adulterous King is a good definition of Henry, but when we remember that at least one pope had sexual relations with his own mother, it seems to me that it isn’t a very good or profitable road for Catholics, especially Roman ones, to go down!
Further, Every bishop is a descendant of Peter and indeed of every apostle. Again I repeat the question you didn’t answer in my previous mail. Where in scripture is the history of the papacy or of the pope written? Where is the papacy in Holy Tradition?
The Apostolic College is oftimes shown in Acts and the Episcopal College is refered to when we talk about the Ecumenical Councils and the ,‘true’, synods of the Church! It is in these that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church exists.**
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Nothing of what you write negates my comments. From what you write I understand you are emotionally attached to CATHOLICISM & the wrtings of Pope Benedict. The Catholic Church is a large oasis giving sustainance to many. There is much to be admired in what you read, but Catholic theology can never (not in our minds) have Q.E.D. written after it. The mystery continuously unfolds in our lives and enfolds us in it. Pope Benedict is a very good theologian, and I restate not everything he says or writes is infallible. If you want to buy his books, read them. Dr. Wayne Grudem writes in the forward to his book, Bible Doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith, ‘The study of theology is not merely an intellectual or mental exercise…We cannot read this subject as if our hearts and lives are uninvolved!’…
‘…it is also helpful to read related sections, if any can be found in, in several systematic theology books. This provides a useful check against error and oversight, and often makes one aware of other perpectives and arguments that may cause us to modify or strengthen our position.’
E
erikd
Guest
Hi, Bengoshi:
The burden of proof I spoke of referred to two topics. First one was the law and its penalty. You claimed that the law and penalties were “passed” in Deut. while I made the argument that they were merely presented in Deut. while existing in Genesis. The law of lying with your dead brother’s wife is explained for the first time in Deut. along with the penalty for disobedience. Yet, in Genesis, Onan is asked to follow this law, indicating that it existed back then. If the law existed, the punishment for disobedience would have existed as well, and, though presented by Moses in Deut. already existed in Genesis. To say otherwise is to claim that:
1: The law did not exist in Genesis: This would not make sense as Onan was asked to follow this law, showing that it must have already existed
2: That the penalty did not exist or was somehow changed: This would also not make sense since if the law exists one would assume the penalty exists as well.
3: That the penalty was changed between Genesis and Deut.: This would also not make sense since God does not change His mind or make mistakes, and a change in the law would indicate one of those circumstances.
So which one of the three above are you subscribing to?
The other burden of proof I presented to you was by showing you that the early Christians believed what I believe, and they were much closer in time to the writings of Genesis and Deuteronomy. I know they were over 1000 years apart but we are over 3000 years apart.
There is, however, another way of looking at this issue. God provides us with our offspring, they do not come from ourselves (Gen. 30:2, Luke 1:13-17) and it is therefore not prudent of us to prevent that which God provides.
In regards to your overpopulation argument, you have to keep in mind how populations work. Currently, you are paying into a social security system that provides social security to our elderly. Any payment you make does not add to your own account, it adds to the accounts of those currently on social security. When you will retire, and require social security, others will be paying for you. The same is true for our pension systems and many different retirement plans. Not all, since 401 and IRA plans are of our own doing and saving. Nevertheless, societies throughout the world have been built on reliance of reproduction. Our government is counting on children because they are future tax payers. This practical argument cannot be avoided since a depletion of population will inevitably cause economic hardships.
E
erikd
Guest
Okay, now you know that that’s not true. Pope Benedict stated that if the reformers would have qualified the meaning of “faith” as including “good works” as is explained to us in James 2, than faith alone would have been correct. Faith and good works go hand in hand, and therefore true faith includes good works. In this respect, Sola Fide would have been correct. That is not, however, what the reformers taught.
- Status