Why does one hate the Catholic Church?

[elvisman]

This is where I ask:
What Sacred Tradition do Catholics have about Jesus that I need for my salvation that I don’t have?

Where is that Sacred Tradition documented?

Here you go:

The canon of the Bible - declared by the Catholic Church.
The Holy Trinity - declared by the Catholic Church.
The Hypostatic Union of Jesus’ divine and human natures - declared by the Catholic Church.
The Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed - declared by the Catholic Church.

---

NONE of these things were explicitly taught in Scripture and took the Authority of the Catholic Church - with the guidance of the Holy spirit (John 16:12-15) to bring it to light.

 

[elvisman]

I in fact challenge you to show us where in Scripture are the Immaculate Conception, The Assumption of Mary into Heaven, Papal Infallibility, the Supremacy of the Catholic church and being saved by faith AND works.

Oh . . . alright - ONE more:
The Immaculate Conception

The Greek word is kecharitomene* that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28)****,*****which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with permanent result. Thus it translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” [In comparison, the word used in Ephesians 1:6 and applied to the saints is charis]. **

Thomas Aquinas, a great medieval doctor of the Church, writes, "The Blessed Virgin Mary is full of grace both with respect to operation and to the avoidance of evil. Second, she was full of grace with respect to the overflow of soul to flesh or body. For it is a great thing for the saints to have enough grace to sanctify their soul; but*** the soul of the Blessed Virgin Mary was so full that from it graces flowed into her body, in order that with it she might conceive the Son of God******."***

The Fathers of the Eastern Church (Orthodox), who shared the same tradition with the Catholic Church until they split in 1054 A.D., refer to Mary as “the All-Holy” (Panagia)**** and the Church believes she* “remained free of every personal sin her whole life long”* by the grace of God.**

Protestants often use Romans 3 to prove that Mary to disprove the idea of Mary’s sinlessness. They point to the fact that Mary MUSThave been in need of a Savior because of the words she spoke in the presences of her relative, Elizabeth:
Luke 1:46-47
“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.”
This is one place where the Catholic Church agrees with the Protestant. We believe that Mary – as do all of us – needed a Savior. However, because of the special role she was about to play in salvation history, the Church teaches that Mary was saved from the time of her conception to be the fitting and proper vessel to carry God. One ancient analogy speaks of a puddle of mud that all believers fall into. God rescues us out of the mud, whereas, Mary was rescued before she fell in.

In Romans 3:10, 23, the idea that Paul was speaking literally about everybody is sometimes pointed to by those who twist the scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).

**Paul says: *“There is no one righteous, not even one; *For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.” **
Is that so? How about babies or toddlers below the age of reason? What about those who are mentally challenged and may not have full use of their intellect and will? What about Jesus? **
In this passage, St. Paul is actually quoting Psalm 14, where it says, "The fool (the evil) says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt…there is none that does good.’” Later in the same Psalm, we hear that “God is present in the company of the “righteous.”
**St. Paul was using inclusive language, as was the Psalmist. This would be similar to somebody saying that “everybody in town” came to the celebration. The mass of mankind is what is being referred to in these passages – not every individual human being ever born.

 

[elvisman]

continued…
The anti-Catholic will also point to Luke 2:22-24 as proof of Mary’s sinfulness:
“When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,” and to offer the sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord.”

Mary was a faithful, obedient Jewish girl that would have done everything that was required by the Law. This would include all of the dietary laws with their restrictions and observance of the Passover – just as Jesus did. It’s silly to think that she would have done otherwise.

 

[schaick]

WRONG. Bishops were NOT voted on by all of the believers - they were appointed by the Church - as they are today.

There were MANY more in the congregation, as you put it, than the 120 numbered here. 1 Cor. 15:4-6 tells us that he was seen by over people at one time.

I didn’t say it GOD’s Word did.

 

[elvisman]

I didn’t say it GOD’s Word did.

Ummm . . . NO - it didn’t.
Read the text again. The entire body of believers did NOT “vote” on the Apostles’ successors. You have twisted the Scriptures again.

---

1 Cor. 15:4-6 says Jesus was seen by over 500 brothers at once, which doesn’t include sistrers who also saw him.

Acts 1:15 only speaks of 120 brothers, which only represents a fraction of the Church at the time.

 

[schaick]

Here you go:

The canon of the Bible - declared by the Catholic Church.
The Holy Trinity - declared by the Catholic Church.
The Hypostatic Union of Jesus’ divine and human natures - declared by the Catholic Church.
The Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed - declared by the Catholic Church.

---

NONE of these things were explicitly taught in Scripture and took the Authority of the Catholic Church - with the guidance of the Holy spirit (John 16:12-15) to bring it to light.

The Holy Bible is available to all, on line even. There is a site that has all the early Church writtings. You can go to a library and pick up a copy.

Hypostatic Union- simply a label for the nature of Jesus -defined in the Bible.

The Nicene creed is completely Bible based and defines the Trinity.
prayerfoundation.org/nicene_creed_scripture_basis.htm

All Trinitarian Christians have all of those things. We don’t have to be members of the Catholic Church to have them. Everything we need for our salvation has been left for us by the Apostles…

We hear GOD’s Word - TRUTH - we believe it, have faith and the Holy Spirit is available to us to apply that TRUTH to our lives.

 

[Proallen]

Can you show me - using the Bible alone - where it says that the written word encompasses ALL of God’s word?

**I didn’t *think ***so . . .

But Elvisman, you cannot show me using Scripture that it gives only the Roman Catholic church the authority to discern truth from the Holy Spirit. In fact, Scripture DOES state that all that is needed for Salvation is Contained In Holy Scripture.

I believe it was Bonhoffer who said that anytime we put something else with Scripture to attempt to understand truth, we will go astray.

Try as you might, You also cannot get the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption from Holy Scripture. You MUST admit that those come from your magisterium.

 

[schaick]

Ummm . . . NO - it didn’t.
Read the text again. The entire body of believers did NOT “vote” on the Apostles’ successors. You have twisted the Scriptures again.

---

**1 **Cor. 15:4-6 says Jesus was seen by over 500 brothers at once, which doesn’t include sistrers who also saw him.

**Acts 1:15 **only speaks of 120 brothers, which only represents a fraction of the Church at the time.

I was talking about the different ways a replacement was chosen:

Originally Posted by schaick
Look at how the replacement was chosen all believers were involved in choosing. The Holy Spirit was involved-they prayed and cast lots.

Acts1
15In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.”

18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20"For," said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
" ‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and,
" ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

I should have added then a second way from the early church-

Bishops in the early Church years were voted on by all the people of that congregation.

74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:rIxHQRcg_REJ:www.newadvent.org/cathen/12270a.htm+Pope+Stephen+IV+(769)+that+decided+only+clergy+could+vote+in+elections&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

A brief historical review will show how the principle of election by the Roman Church has been maintained through all the vicissitudes of papal elections. St. Cyprian tells us in regard to the election of Pope St. Cornelius (251) that the comprovincial bishops, the clergy, and the people all took part in it:

…

In 769 a council was held under Stephen III to rectify the confusion caused by the intrusion of the antipope Constantine. This usurper was a layman hurriedly raised to priest’s orders to render his nomination to the pontificate possible. To make a repetition of the scandal impossible it was decreed that only members of the sacred college were eligible for election. The part of the laity was, moreover, reduced to a mere right of acclamation.

 

[pmcmp]

I would like to find out peoples opinion on why they don’t like the Catholic religion so much. As a Catholic I know other Catholics that do not believe in certain things such as for example confession to a priest, the presence in the Eucharist, etc… But yet they say they wouldn’t want to be any other faith. Some of them we simply call “practicing catholics” who are Catholic but don’t go to Church or do much associated with the religion, but these people are still Catholic. What I am trying to say is that Catholicism isn’t just about rules, rules and more rules, it is simply a faith of people who believe in the Lord and not just people that worship Mary and the saints and that every little thing they do they have to repent to a priest or they go to hell. After all, the Catholic Church doesn’t disagree that one may know they are saved.

Just like all Protestant Churches are somewhat different, so are Catholic Churches. The Church that I go to now, St.Francis Xavier is somewhat less traditional, they don’t mention prayer to Mary, Saints, and they also preach that salvation is only reached through Jesus Christ and his grace and not through anything else. When they mention sacraments, they mention it as something that is done only by Catholic people in order to receive the grace of God, and never say anything about it being something necessary to get into heaven. So I never understood why protestants would have a problem with such a thing as sacraments. And even if you don’t believe in them, why not just do them to better your relationship with Christ and nothing else, there isn’t anything to lose. Its kind of like telling an Atheist why not just believe in the bible since there is nothing bad the bible tells us to do (unless someone doesn’t want to do more then the bare minimum necessary for salvation) and either way he will still end up in the ground where he was planning.

Up until recently I didn’t really know much about the Protestant faith, it was just never mentioned ( I thank mostly this forum), I just thought that they believed the same things, only had different churches that they liked better. Why does it seem to me that so many Protestants, even on this forum would bet their lives that they know way more about a Catholics faith then the Catholic? And where does most of the hate come from? Do people study the Catholic faith for fun or to find something wrong with it? I also know of some Protestants that have been in their faith for generations and yet they disagree with Catholicism. How do so many know about our faith practices, and why would they even want to know about it? Is it to justify their faith or what? If someone I knew believed in Christ I wouldn’t care how they practiced their belief, I just looked at them as one of me. I think that there are many people in the world that want to do a little extra for God and would rather do many things that the Catholic Church has to offer for example, fasting. I never looked at things like this as something that would give you a first class ticket to hell.

I will try to answer something I said, but tell me if I am wrong. Just as I am on here to learn about Catholicism, Protestants search for the foundation of their beliefs on the internet or history books as well and maybe somewhere down the line of their belief their doctrine might have been given to them through the Catholic Church and then they decide to look further into this “Catholic Church” to try to disprove that teaching? And in turn they then change it around a little to appear more correct or further from the Catholic Church. And if so, why not just take this as something that connects us all.

So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Corinthians 1 - 13
Salvation is through our Lord. His greatest commandment is to love. If we truly believe in our Lord and his Mercy, there is only Love in our hearts. Satan is present in many forms. Hate groups that teach the opposite of Love are a manifestation of Satan and evil.

 

[elvisman]

The Holy Bible is available to all, on line even. There is a site that has all the early Church writtings. You can go to a library and pick up a copy.

Hypostatic Union- simply a label for the nature of Jesus -defined in the Bible.

The Nicene creed is completely Bible based and defines the Trinity.
prayerfoundation.org/nicene_creed_scripture_basis.htm

All Trinitarian Christians have all of those things. We don’t have to be members of the Catholic Church to have them. Everything we need for our salvation has been left for us by the Apostles…

We hear GOD’s Word - TRUTH - we believe it, have faith and the Holy Spirit is available to us to apply that TRUTH to our lives.

It was the Catholic Church who defined the Hypostatic Union at the Council of Ephesus in 431 to combat the Nestorian Heresy. It is not sufficiently explained in the Bible. IF it is - show me where.

It was the Catholic Church who WROTE the Nicene Creed at the Council of Nicea in the 4th Century to combat the Arian Heresy.

Much of what is written in the creeds is not explicitly based in Scripture and neither is the name “Holy Trinity”. That was defined by the Catholic Church.

As for your statement - "Everything we need for our salvation has been left for us by the Apostles" - well that’s just not very Protestant of you. Counds pretty Catholic to me.

Do you homework before you spew anymore ignorance.

 

[elvisman]

But Elvisman, you cannot show me using Scripture that it gives only the Roman Catholic church the authority to discern truth from the Holy Spirit. In fact, Scripture DOES state that all that is needed for Salvation is Contained In Holy Scripture.

I believe it was Bonhoffer who said that anytime we put something else with Scripture to attempt to understand truth, we will go astray.

Try as you might, You also cannot get the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption from Holy Scripture. You MUST admit that those come from your magisterium.

**Scripture says, *“Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable (useful) for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness” *(2 Tim. 3:16)." **
The Church agrees wholheartedly.
BUT - nowhere, does it say that it is sufficient. Oh, and guess what? He is speaking of the Old Testament. The New Testament had not been fully written yet.

As for the Immaculate Conception - Read posts 279 & 280.
I already explained it from Scripture.

 

[elvisman]

I was talking about the different ways a replacement was chosen:

Originally Posted by schaick
Look at how the replacement was chosen all believers were involved in choosing. The Holy Spirit was involved-they prayed and cast lots.

Acts1
15In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.”

18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20"For," said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
" ‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and,
" ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

I should have added then a second way from the early church-

Bishops in the early Church years were voted on by all the people of that congregation.

74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:rIxHQRcg_REJ:www.newadvent.org/cathen/12270a.htm+Pope+Stephen+IV+(769)+that+decided+only+clergy+could+vote+in+elections&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

A brief historical review will show how the principle of election by the Roman Church has been maintained through all the vicissitudes of papal elections. St. Cyprian tells us in regard to the election of Pope St. Cornelius (251) that the comprovincial bishops, the clergy, and the people all took part in it:
In 769 a council was held under Stephen III to rectify the confusion caused by the intrusion of the antipope Constantine. This usurper was a layman hurriedly raised to priest’s orders to render his nomination to the pontificate possible. To make a repetition of the scandal impossible it was decreed that only members of the sacred college were eligible for election. The part of the laity was, moreover, reduced to a mere right of acclamation.

WRONG again. You don’t read very closely, do you?

Read SLOWL*Y:
Acts 1 only speaks of 120 “brothers” being present during the vote.
This doesn’t include women and children.

1 Cor. 15:4-6 says that Jesus was seen by over 500 brothers at once, which doesn’t include women and children.

For the “entire” congregation to have voted for Judas’ replacement - Paul must have been lying in 1 Cor. 15:4-6.

Is THAT what you’re saying?
I can’t WAIT to hear this . . .

 

[elvisman]

But Elvisman, you cannot show me using Scripture that it gives only the Roman Catholic church the authority to discern truth from the Holy Spirit.

SURE I can: John 16:12-15.

Tell me - how many Churches did Jesus Christ establish?
MY Bible says ONE: Matt. 16:15-19.

 

[Proallen]

SURE I can: John 16:12-15.

Tell me - how many Churches did Jesus Christ establish?
MY Bible says ONE: Matt. 16:15-19.

And that one Church is the Roman Catholic church?? Hmmm, my Bible doesn’t say that.

 

[Proallen]

**Scripture says, *“Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable (useful) for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness” ***(2 Tim. 3:16)."
The Church agrees wholheartedly.
BUT - nowhere, does it say that it is sufficient. Oh, and guess what? He is speaking of the Old Testament. The New Testament had not been fully written yet.

As for the Immaculate Conception - Read posts 279 & 280.
I already explained it from Scripture.

Oh come on Elvisman. NOWHERE in those verses does it say anything whatsoever about Mary being born without original sin. Come on…

 

[T_More]

And where does it say how the Holy Trinity is to be understood?

 

[tweetymom]

And that one Church is the Roman Catholic church?? Hmmm, my Bible doesn’t say that.

Mine either,

 

[T_More]

Mine either,

So which one is it? And I thought you were Catholic, tweetymom?

 

[fbl9]

And that one Church is the Roman Catholic church?? Hmmm, my Bible doesn’t say that.

Fine tell us which church it is speaking of …oh yeah it clearly says that the true church wouldn’t exist till some 1600 or more yrs later:shrug:

 

[tweetymom]

So which one is it? And I thought you were Catholic, tweetymom?

It is the Church of all believers!