The Catholic Church

[ckempston]

I’m not letting you off that easy, friend.
This was from your previous post #23 - which has nothing to do with “bad fruit”:

I’m asking you to clarify St. Paul’s words. Where does he say that we can have differences among ourselves? Show me. I’ll bet you can’t.

I think you may have replied to the wrong message then, because that’s what I thought you quoted. In any case, you couldn’t have asked for an easier task. The entire chapter of Romans 14 is where Paul explicitly allows for differences in many areas:

Romans 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

The Catholic church has constantly passed judgment on disputable matters.

Romans 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Wow, individuals having liberty to believe different things.

Romans 14:13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.

Such as forcing belief in all kinds of extra-biblical doctrines that “go beyond what is written.”

1 Corinthians 11:19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

 

[ralphinal]

Yes. Either the Catholic church is right, or Jesus lied:

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

If Truth continues to be revealed to this day, Jesus was mistaken.

Well, that would be a good one to use on Mormons.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is no more public revelation being unloaded on us. That ended when John died.

Take John 16:13 and put it with Matt 16:18. THe Spirit will lead us to all truth and the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. DOes this not seem to say that the Church founded by Christ cannot be in error when it comes to faith and morals?

 

[elvisman]

I think you may have replied to the wrong message then, because that’s what I thought you quoted. In any case, you couldn’t have asked for an easier task. The entire chapter of Romans 14 is where Paul explicitly allows for differences in many areas:

Romans 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

The Catholic church has constantly passed judgment on disputable matters.

Romans 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Wow, individuals having liberty to believe different things.

Romans 14:13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.

Such as forcing belief in all kinds of extra-biblical doctrines that “go beyond what is written.”

1 Corinthians 11:19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

Wrong**, my friend.**
That’s the problem with anti-Catholics. When condemning from scripture, they usually don’t read the passages in context.

Here, in Romans 14, St. Paul is telling them not to judge a person’s personal practices – he is not referring to their spiritual practices. Read verse 1 with the next verse – in context:
***“Welcome anyone who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. ***
***One person believes that one may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.” ***

On the contrary, in If you bother to read Philippians 2:1-2, he says emphatically that we are to be of like mind and united in our practices:
“If there is any encouragement in Christ, any solace in love, any participation in the Spirit, any compassion and mercy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing.”

**In 1 Corinthians 11:19, (which you quoted - wrongly, I might add) he is referring to a specific problem within the Church at Corinth. He is telling them that there are factions because some are right and some are wrong, He then goes on to tell them why. **
As a matter of fact, in the following verses, he tells them that they are eating and drinking the Lord’s body and blood unworthily – a very Catholic teaching.

Try again . . .

 

[grampben]

Wrong**, my friend.**
That’s the problem with anti-Catholics. When condemning from scripture, they usually don’t read the passages in context.

Here, in Romans 14, St. Paul is telling them not to judge a person’s personal practices – he is not referring to their spiritual practices. Read verse 1 with the next verse – in context:
***“Welcome anyone who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. ***
***One person believes that one may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.” ***

On the contrary, in If you bother to read Philippians 2:1-2, he says emphatically that we are to be of like mind and united in our practices:
“If there is any encouragement in Christ, any solace in love, any participation in the Spirit, any compassion and mercy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing.”

In 1 Corinthians 11:19, (which you quoted - wrongly, I might add) he is referring to a specific problem within the Church at Corinth. He is telling them that there are factions because some are right and some are wrong, He then goes on to tell them why.
As a matter of fact, in the following verses, he tells them that they are eating and drinking the Lord’s body and blood unworthily – a very Catholic teaching.

Try again . . .

Ah but the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible has many ways to be read, as well as the contextual there is also the meaning in between the lines, such as the separation of the red sea foretelling baptism etc…

 

[elvisman]

Ah but the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible has many ways to be read, as well as the contextual there is also the meaning in between the lines, such as the separation of the red sea foretelling baptism etc…

**It also teaches that the Church is the custodian of the scriptures and the deposit of faith. **

It also teaches that the Church is the pillar and foudation of truth - as scripture does, so I don’t really see your point - whatever it was supposed to be.

 

[grampben]

**It also **teaches that the Church is the custodian of the scriptures and the deposit of faith.

It also teaches that the Church is the pillar and foudation of truth - as scripture does, so I don’t really see your point - whatever it was supposed to be.

Well all condescending aside, you said an interpretation of verses was wrong because of context, which goes against your church’s teaching on how to read the Bible. A catholic here posted a list once of the ways of reading the Bible.

 

[ckempston]

Well, that would be a good one to use on Mormons.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is no more public revelation being unloaded on us. That ended when John died.

Take John 16:13 and put it with Matt 16:18. THe Spirit will lead us to all truth and the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. DOes this not seem to say that the Church founded by Christ cannot be in error when it comes to faith and morals?

No. It applies to the Catholic church just as well. No new doctrines after the Apostles died. Period. Nothing else is necessary.

 

[ralphinal]

No. It applies to the Catholic church just as well. No new doctrines after the Apostles died. Period. Nothing else is necessary.

Alright. Let’s see what “new doctrines” you have in mind.

 

[ckempston]

**It also **teaches that the Church is the custodian of the scriptures and the deposit of faith.

It also teaches that the Church is the pillar and foudation of truth - as scripture does, so I don’t really see your point - whatever it was supposed to be.

I’d agree. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It just happens to not be the Catholic institution, which is not what “church” meant in the Bible. Besides, when the custodian stops doing his job and starts performing all kinds of other “duties” you find a new one.

 

[ckempston]

Alright. Let’s see what “new doctrines” you have in mind.

Sigh. Perpetual Virginity and Sinlessness of Mary. Transubstantiation. Forcing people to be celibate if they want to serve in a certain capacity.

 

[grampben]

Alright. Let’s see what “new doctrines” you have in mind.

The promotion of a philosophical idea from a heathen to describe the Biblical idea of ‘Real Presence’ has already been mentioned, has it not?

 

[ckempston]

Well all condescending aside, you said an interpretation of verses was wrong because of context, which goes against your church’s teaching on how to read the Bible. A catholic here posted a list once of the ways of reading the Bible.

And what is “my church’s teaching on how to read the Bible”???

 

[ralphinal]

The promotion of a philosophical idea from a heathen to describe the Biblical idea of ‘Real Presence’ has already been mentioned, has it not?

So new termenology cannot be used to describe Biblical doctrine?

 

[grampben]

So new termenology cannot be used to describe Biblical doctrine?

See it’s more than terminology!

Bear with me here:
The Real Presence can be easily proven from scripture. Transubstantiation can’t.
Saying transubstantiation is mere terminology doesn’t work, as it is a philosophical concept, used by the church to describe the Real Presence.

It’s like saying the Bible proves God exists, then accepting the pagan idea that he manifests himself in all creation.

 

[grampben]

And what is “my church’s teaching on how to read the Bible”???

I didn’t mean it like that. Is it not that when one reads a passage, there are multiple things to consider? ie the separation of the red sea pointing to baptism while also recording an historical event?

 

[elvisman]

Well all condescending aside, you said an interpretation of verses was wrong because of context, which goes against your church’s teaching on how to read the Bible. A catholic here posted a list once of the ways of reading the Bible.

Show me how I was wrong, insted of simply claiming that a "Catholic here posted a list once".
The Church always considers the context of scripture so your point is moot.

 

[cfrancis]

See it’s more than terminology!

Bear with me here:
The Real Presence can be easily proven from scripture. Transubstantiation can’t.
Saying transubstantiation is mere terminology doesn’t work, as it is a philosophical concept, used by the church to describe the Real Presence.

A fascinating position.
I suppose you disapprove of, maybe even disavow, the use of the word and doctrine of the ‘Trinity’ to describe the nature of God?
I would also imagine you are equally critical of the term ‘hypostatic union’?

It’s like saying the Bible proves God exists, then accepting the pagan idea that he manifests himself in all creation.

So, God cannot be found in all He creates?

 

[elvisman]

I’d agree. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It just happens to not be the Catholic institution, which is not what “church” meant in the Bible. Besides, when the custodian stops doing his job and starts performing all kinds of other “duties” you find a new one.

Hmmm . . .
Can you show me where - in scripture - that we are instructed to leave the Church and find a new one when the Church fails? Until you can - you shouldn’t make such non-biblical statements, hmmm?

Jesus founded only one Church - the Catholic Church.

 

[ralphinal]

See it’s more than terminology!

Bear with me here:
The Real Presence can be easily proven from scripture. Transubstantiation can’t.
Saying transubstantiation is mere terminology doesn’t work, as it is a philosophical concept, used by the church to describe the Real Presence.

It’s like saying the Bible proves God exists, then accepting the pagan idea that he manifests himself in all creation.

So would you use the same argument against the Trinity definitions?

 

[elvisman]

I’d agree. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It just happens to not be the Catholic institution, which is not what “church” meant in the Bible. Besides, when the custodian stops doing his job and starts performing all kinds of other “duties” you find a new one.

ckempston -
Are you ever going to answer my post #83?

**

Wrong

, my friend.
That’s the problem with anti-Catholics. When condemning from scripture, they usually don’t read the passages in context.

Here, in Romans 14, St. Paul is telling them not to judge a person’s personal practices – he is not referring to their spiritual practices. Read verse 1 with the next verse – in context:
***“Welcome anyone who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. ***
***One person believes that one may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.” ***

On the contrary, in If you bother to read Philippians 2:1-2, he says emphatically that we are to be of like mind and united in our practices:
“If there is any encouragement in Christ, any solace in love, any participation in the Spirit, any compassion and mercy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing.”

In 1 Corinthians 11:19, (which you quoted - wrongly, I might add) he is referring to a specific problem within the Church at Corinth. He is telling them that there are factions because some are right and some are wrong, He then goes on to tell them why.
As a matter of fact, in the following verses, he tells them that they are eating and drinking the Lord’s body and blood unworthily – a very Catholic teaching.

Try again . . .

**
PS - Your profile says “Reverting”. May I ask what you’re reverting to?