Why does one hate the Catholic Church?

[elvisman]

Prod, Father didn’t actually say divinely. He only said no one is holy. And that we can try to live holy lives but without perfection.

But have a most Blessed Holy Week Prod and Easter. God bless!

WRONG.
We here on earth are called to be saints (literally translated as “holy ones”).

Ephesians 1:1
**Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the holy ones who are (in Ephesus) faithful in Christ Jesus: ****grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. **

Stop leaning on your own flawed interpretations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No Prod, I actually was listening to a homily at Mass. Of course I believe in the sacredness of Christ’s Universal church founded in Apostolic times by Him. The founder Christ is HOLY afterall and the gates shall not prevail in the end.

I’d suggest you approach your priest and see what his opinion is of referring to the Pope as the Holy Father. You might want to also ask him what is meant by one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. You’re not expressing your full belief, but it certainly appears to conflict with some teachings, in my honest opinion.

 

[CMatt25]

WRONG.
We here on earth are called to be saints (literally translated as “holy ones”).

Ephesians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the holy ones who are (in Ephesus) faithful in Christ Jesus: **grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. **

Stop leaning on your own flawed interpretations.

Elvis, I was merely pointing out something my priest said.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis, I was merely pointing out something my priest said.

Okay, then HE is wrong.
Don’t lean on HIS flawed interpretations.

The Church will not be led into error but individuals can be. It is up to us to glean the truth from the teachings of the Church and to make sure that what our individuals priests and educators are teaching is in harmony with Church doctrine. It is unfortunate that some priests will teach falsehoods. That is why it is so important for US to be educated about our faith.

After all - the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth - not your priest or mine.

 

[Cinette]

I have more faith in my own (God-given) fallible judgment than I do in the judgment of a hierarchy which proved itself incapable of carrying out so basic a Christian duty as protecting innocents.

So your own fallible judgement is correct of practically condemning an entire church? Based on what? A few bad apples and poor decisions? You want the church to protect the innocent,but you have the power to judge it? Nice double standards there

**The notion that a man in such an office has any authority from God to bind me to do anything is patently absurd. **

You seem to be doing the exact thing.

We Catholics are to worship God,NOT men. Your convictions seemed to be wired wrong.

Consider this:

Peter denied Jesus THREE TIMES and this AFTER HE HAD WITNESSED Jesus’ divinity which was revealed to him at the Transfiguration!!!

And yet…Jesus still forgave him and appointed him as his representative “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church…” Amazing.

The priest has the power of consecration - his hands have been annointed at his ordination. Whether the priest has sinned or not the power vested in him is still valid.

You see Jesus thought of EVERYTHING!

How blessed we are.

God love you
Cinette

 

[tomylee1]

i am not hate.

 

[schaick]

I do not think that Prodigal Son was saying that the Holy Spirit comes only to the Apostles - I understand that to be in regard to Apostolic Succession and the Deposit of Faith.

The Holy Spirit is for all of us and in all time. I believe that the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit. I believe that we are ALL sinners and it is a constant battle between good and evil. The teachings of the Church are protected and inspired by the Holy Spirit but we the people and the clergy are all sinners and we need to reach out to God through the Sacraments to help us.

Cinette

More then just the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit, but many of your Catholic brethren believe that the Holy Spirit is only available to Catholics and not mere Christians.

 

[schaick]

Christ made those promises to the men He chose, appointed and commissioned. I have also used the verse above in my repeated explanations. He promised to be with them until the consummation of the world, knowing these were mortal men who would not be here at the consummation of the world, these promises were to the offices He appointed them too.

Reading scriptures, within scriptures, we know that those men He appointed, appointed others to offices within the Church. Those men understood the fulfillment of scripture required an office be filled with another, if that office was vacated.

I agree that these promises were made to men and offices were held. Decentralized offices-local elders, presbytrs, bishops governing local Churches.

**The universal Church has grown beyond what is simply the Catholic Church. ** I agree that the universal Church will prevail - not all of the universal Church is wrapped up in the Catholic Church. So if the Catholic Church were to fall there would still be the Church that Jesus is building.

While we are all called to share the good news which is within us, we are not disciples in the way the disciples were chosen, appointed and commissioned. There is a clear authority in the Church. Show me in scriptures, where Christ spoke those words to the mulititudes. While you’re at it, show me in scriptures, where Christ addressed the multitudes with the instructions to ‘teach’ or ‘preach’. Everytime I see those commands, He’s speaking to those He chose, appointed and commissioned.

Again your arguement could easily be taken that the commission stopped with the Disciples.

You are missing the fact that after Jesus spoke to the Disciples, the Disciples in turn made disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

We are all Disciples of Jesus - not just one select line of people.

Yes, there is proof, in scriptures and in FAITH.

Below are scriptures of things Christ ‘instructed’ and promised. Read them in context of who He was speaking too. The passage from Matthew 23 was spoken to everyone, the multitudes and those He chose and appointed authority too. The other passage examples were spoken ONLY to those He chose and appointed authority too.

Did you read about binding and loosing-sitting in Mose’s seat - the people in authority are not making up their own rules. They are simply making ruling according to GOD’s rules.

The Catholic Church has made up some of their own rules, requiring from people what GOD never required.

I have never said that all the traditons of the Catholic Church are bad. My point has always been it is when you say you must follow these for your salvation - that is bad, but if you need it to be faithful then ok read Romans 14.

John wrote a story that indisputably ONLY happened between Christ and those He chose and appointed authority too. He ended that story with the following verse.

Now, if you sat down and read the Gospel only, they are the only ones to tell us what Christ spoke, how long would it take to read? Christ’s ministry was approximately 3 years. Is everything written that He did or spoke? Those He chose and appointed, walked, talked and lived with Him for 3 years.

There is an exception besides the Gospels of things Christ said.

St. Luke wrote Acts. He was not an eyewitness to Christ. He wrote what he learned from the oral tradtition.

I have no problem with this it is very close to the original source - maybe just 1 -2 people removed.

I will ask again:

Please tell me what Jesus said that is not in Scripture. Please show me the lines of transmission - how this information came down to Catholics.

John 21
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Please tell me what other things Jesus did.

 

[schaick]

continued

Ok here’s the danger of believing such a contrived story as that. That Church gave us the scriptures we have today. If we believed the Catholic Church took over, how can we trust the scriptures at all?

You can’t have it both ways. The Catholic Church cannot be trusted, but we can trust the scriptures they copied over and over, and translated into many languages over and over.

The Catholic Church made into canon at a later date what was already recognized by Paul and the early Church fathers, even before the mention of the “Universal” Church.

Very cool:
british-israel.ca/manuscripts.htm
The idea of late authorship for the NT had become entrenched over time and intolerance, even arrogant dismissal, of the straightforward belief that St. Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke, Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, and St. Paul actually wrote the Pauline epistles, has become widespread even at nominally Christian seminaries and universities. However, for more than a century archaeologists and papyrologists have been recovering ancient manuscripts of the NT that contradict the assumptions of mainstream academia. The belief that large gaps of time passed between the time of Christ and the writing of the NT is no longer tenable, and all conclusions based on such speculation (no matter how dogmatic or clever) must now be rejected.

Chester Beatty Papyri 200 A.D. Much but not all of NT on papyrus.
Codex Vaticanus 325-350 A.D. A codex is a book, as opposed to a papyrus scroll.
Codex Sinaiticus 350 A.D.
Codex Alexandrinus 400 A.D.
Codex Ephraemi 400 A.D.
Codex Bezae 450 A.D.+
Codex Washingtonensis ca. 450 A.D.
Codex Claromontanus 500’s A.D.

*In addition to the NT MSS themselves, we have the writings of the Church Fathers, early Christian writers who quoted from the NT. To quote extensively from books and epistles (letters) of the NT those books and letters must already have been written and be in circulation.

The number of such quotations of the Bible known from early Christian literature is vast - over 36,000 quotes are known from before the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. (McDowell, p. 52). Sir David Dalrymple once asked himself the question, “Suppose that the New Testament had been destroyed, and every copy of it lost by the end of the 3rd century, could it have been collected together again from the writing of the Fathers of the second and third centuries?”

His answer? “…as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and up to this time I have found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses.” (McDowell, pp. 50-51*

historycart.com/EarlyNTManuscripts.htm

What was made into canon was what GOD made into canon- not what the Catholic Church wanted made into canon.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I agree that these promises were made to men and offices were held. Decentralized offices-local elders, presbytrs, bishops governing local Churches.

**The universal Church has grown beyond what is simply the Catholic Church. ** I agree that the universal Church will prevail - not all of the universal Church is wrapped up in the Catholic Church. So if the Catholic Church were to fall there would still be the Church that Jesus is building.

Where is your example, from scritpures, of a ‘universal Church’ acceptable; Churches with different doctrines, interpretations and practices?

**Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.**

Again your arguement could easily be taken that the commission stopped with the Disciples.

You are missing the fact that after Jesus spoke to the Disciples, the Disciples in turn made disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

You appear to be ‘adding’ to scriptures. Where does it state ‘make’ disciples of all nations? They did use their authority to appoint others, but not to multitudes in general. Can you give and example of where they did?

Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

.

The commission stopped with the disciples? Not according to the scriptures.

**Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

1Ti 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.

1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner: chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:

1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed. **

We are all Disciples of Jesus - not just one select line of people.

Show me the scriptures of anyone that appointed themself, of themself?

Jesus spoke to the Apostles and He spoke to the multitudes. Show me the example of Christ telling the multitude that they were appointed, or to go ‘teach’ and ‘preach’?

We are called to share the good news, Gospel, that is within us, but we have no authority unless received through His plan.

Did you read about binding and loosing-sitting in Mose’s seat - the people in authority are not making up their own rules. They are simply making ruling according to GOD’s rules.

The Catholic Church has made up some of their own rules, requiring from people what GOD never required.

We are all Disciples of Jesus - not just one select line of people.

I have never said that all the traditons of the Catholic Church are bad. My point has always been it is when you say you must follow these for your salvation - that is bad, but if you need it to be faithful then ok read Romans 14.

Then it is on you to prove rules were ‘made up’. You keep saying that, without any examples or proofs or explanations whatsoever.

God gave us a Church, then through that Church, God gave us scriptures, in that order. Why is it we only need be faithful to the latter that God gave us?

I will ask again:

Please tell me what Jesus said that is not in Scripture. Please show me the lines of transmission - how this information came down to Catholics.

John 21
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Please tell me what other things Jesus did.

Go to the Church with the Apostolic successive authority, given to it by Christ and seek the answers.

Aren’t you the one who asked, ‘Why does God’s word have to say it’s the final authority?’ That’s a double standard you hold Catholicism too. Let me explain the difference between our points. Scriptures tell us plainly that Christ did many other things, in the sight of His disciple; that are not written.

**Joh 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. **

We know Christ commanded them to ‘teach’ and ‘preach’ us all things whatsover He commanded them. We know that before that, He chose and appointed them. Scriptures tell us that. Scriptures show an Apostolic authoritative Church. Scriptures do not make themselves authoritative.

Maybe Christ told them to write scriptures, maybe that’s one of the things not written. But accepting them as inspired by God, we have to wonder why it wasn’t important to identify the scriptures as the ‘final authority’? Because Christ established an authority before scriptures. Can we improve on what Christ did? Can we say, oh the Church was important, but the scriptures were? That’s not the order that Christ did, or taught things…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

continued

The Catholic Church made into canon at a later date what was already recognized by Paul and the early Church fathers, even before the mention of the “Universal” Church.

Ok, let’s go to the ‘final authority’ you’re trying to convince us of. Show us where scriptures defined the canon of the New Testament?

If the scriptures are the final authority, they will tell us the defined canon of scriptures.

Truth of the matter is, scriptures does not define the canon of the New Testament. That action came from the Apostolic authoritative Church.

You realize there were many more writings that had to be discerned before defining a canon; Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, etc. etc. It was the Church that went through all the writings, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to define the canon, decide which was authentic and did not conflict with the chosen writings.

**Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.**

 

[elvisman]

The Catholic Church made into canon at a later date what was already recognized by Paul and the early Church fathers, even before the mention of the “Universal” Church.

**This is *preposterous *- even for an anti-Catholic like you. It is also extremely ignorant. **The NT wasn’t even fully written in Pauls’ lifetime, so he couldn’t have approved of ANY canon of Scripture.

You also state that it was recognized BEFORE any mention of the “Universal” Church. This is ludicrous, in that, we have the last writings of Ignatius at the beginning of the 2nd Century referring to the Catholic (Universal) Church as if it was already a long-established name.**

**You can’t even make up a semi-believable lie.

 

[Cinette]

More then just the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit, but many of your Catholic brethren believe that the Holy Spirit is only available to Catholics and not mere Christians.

This is simply not true.

I was born into a Catholic family and attended convent schools throughout my school life. I belong to a Catholic Charismatic group and we believe that the Holy Spirit has no favourites. The Holy Spirit acts in all human beings. I know of an extreme act of kindness towards a Catholic friend of mine by a group of Muslims and we are convinced that it could only have been through the Holy Spirit.

We are not exclusivists - we are inclusive and believe that Jesus died for ALL humankind and that God loves us ALL.

You really need to get your facts straight.

God bless you
Cinette

 

[Nicea325]

:

**What was made into canon was what GOD made into canon- not what the Catholic Church wanted made into canon. **

LOL! How easy to rebuke. It is not a question of God being involved,but it is a question HOW he did it. He GUIDED BISHOPS to determine the canon.

:tiphat:

 

[CMatt25]

i am not hate.

Me neither. God bless you.

 

[schaick]

Where is your example, from scritpures, of a ‘universal Church’ acceptable; Churches with different doctrines, interpretations and practices?

You keep adding non-trinitarians into the equation-drop these and the same interpretatons are basically the same with a different aplication of those interpretations.

You appear to be ‘adding’ to scriptures. Where does it state ‘make’ disciples of all nations? They did use their authority to appoint others, but not to multitudes in general. Can you give and example of where they did?

The commission stopped with the disciples? Not according to the scriptures.

I know it didn’t stop with the Disciples, but that is how your arguement could be taken.

Matthew 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Show me the scriptures of anyone that appointed themself, of themself?

People are called by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus spoke to the Apostles and He spoke to the multitudes. Show me the example of Christ telling the multitude that they were appointed, or to go ‘teach’ and ‘preach’?

We are called to share the good news, Gospel, that is within us, but we have no authority unless received through His plan.

So none of your Popes, Priests, Bishops were called into service of the Lord?

Then it is on you to prove rules were ‘made up’. You keep saying that, without any examples or proofs or explanations whatsoever.

I have!

It is obvious that nothing is mentioned in Scripture about Pope infallibility, Mary remained a perpetual Virgin, that one must pay their way out of purgatory, cash for indulgence, etc.

AND I keep asking: are these the Catholic Church’s Sacred Traditions?

God gave us a Church, then through that Church, God gave us scriptures, in that order. Why is it we only need be faithful to the latter that God gave us?

Go to the Church with the Apostolic successive authority, given to it by Christ and seek the answers.

My church and I are faithful to the Church Jesus is building. My Pastor knows what to preach because he was told by the Apostles, through Scripture. And I as Christian know what to teach and spread

Aren’t you the one who asked, ‘Why does God’s word have to say it’s the final authority?’ That’s a double standard you hold Catholicism too. Let me explain the difference between our points. Scriptures tell us plainly that Christ did many other things, in the sight of His disciple; that are not written.

Yes-it is obvious.

But I see Catholics want a man to have final authority even though they have no idea where he got his Sacred Traditions.

Yes and I ask again What were those things?

We know Christ commanded them to ‘teach’ and ‘preach’ us all things whatsover He commanded them. We know that before that, He chose and appointed them. Scriptures tell us that. Scriptures show an Apostolic authoritative Church. Scriptures do not make themselves authoritative.

My church has given my Pastor - he was a Christian first, was called, studied years and was ordained.

**Scripture is authoritative in that you can not preach anything other then what is in Scripture. **

Maybe Christ told them to write scriptures, maybe that’s one of the things not written. But accepting them as inspired by God, we have to wonder why it wasn’t important to identify the scriptures as the ‘final authority’? Because Christ established an authority before scriptures. Can we improve on what Christ did? Can we say, oh the Church was important, but the scriptures were? That’s not the order that Christ did, or taught things…

Jesus was always siting Old Testament Scripture- He held it to great importance.

Who is saying Church is not important? Church s very important. I go to Church.

I want to know what Scared Traditions Catholics have and the chain of transmission from the Apostles.

 

[schaick]

**This is *preposterous ***- even for an anti-Catholic like you. It is also extremely ignorant. **The NT wasn’t even fully written in Pauls’ lifetime, so he couldn’t have approved of ANY **canon of Scripture.

You also state that it was recognized BEFORE any mention of the* “Universal”* Church. This is ludicrous, in that, we have the last writings of Ignatius at the beginning of the 2nd Century referring to the Catholic (Universal) Church as if it was already a long-established name.

**You can’t even make up a *semi-***believable lie.

I have said this repeatedly. Paul recognized the Gospel anmd he quoted from Luke. The early Church Fathers recognized the New Testament.

Please read some of the information I have linked to.

There is new thought that the Gospel was being written the year Jesus was crucified!

Which would be cool if they could prove-this is one of the arguments Muslims use against Christians all the time.

Well this is something we will continue to disagree on Ignatius was referring to the universal Church.

 

[schaick]

This is simply not true.

I was born into a Catholic family and attended convent schools throughout my school life. I belong to a Catholic Charismatic group and we believe that the Holy Spirit has no favourites. The Holy Spirit acts in all human beings. I know of an extreme act of kindness towards a Catholic friend of mine by a group of Muslims and we are convinced that it could only have been through the Holy Spirit.

We are not exclusivists - we are inclusive and believe that Jesus died for ALL humankind and that God loves us ALL.

You really need to get your facts straight.

God bless you
Cinette

Have you read through the entire thread? Please let your Catholic brethren know this.

According to many Catholics the Catholic Church is only inclusive if one bow to the Pope. Catholics say our Pastors can’t consecrate the Bread and Wine so that at my communion I’m not even receiving real presence.

I keep getting told that my Church has none of the Sacred Trtaditions-, yet no one can tell me what the Sacred Traditions are.

Do you know what the Sacred Traditions are? Are they needed for ones salvation? Is there a recognized chain of transmission?

 

[schaick]

We seem to be going in cirlces on this Sacred Tradition issue.

I am going to make a thread about them.

 

[Cinette]

Have you read through the entire thread? Please let your Catholic brethren know this.

According to many Catholics the Catholic Church is only inclusive if one bow to the Pope. Catholics say our Pastors can’t consecrate the Bread and Wine so that at my communion I’m not even receiving real presence.

I keep getting told that my Church has none of the Sacred Trtaditions-, yet no one can tell me what the Sacred Traditions are.

Do you know what the Sacred Traditions are? Are they needed for ones salvation? Is there a recognized chain of transmission?

If there are Catholics who do not believe that the Holy Spirit acts in all people of God then they need to learn about their faith by studying the Catechism.

The Pope is the successor of St Peter to whom Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom. Jesus established one Church and after 1500 years there was a “reformation” which split the Church and since then the breakaway Protestants have mutated into about 45 000 denominations or more. They are therefore no longer part of Apostolic Succession since they do not have men who have been consecrated to the priesthood and they are not in communion with the Pope and the Magisterium.

Jesus told his Apostles to go into the world and spread the Good News. There was no New Testament in those days but the Apostles had been instructed by Jesus over a period of 3 years and so they had what is called “Oral Tradition”. Over the years the leaders studied among themselves and wrote down their beliefs as they were inspired by God. In other words the New Testament emanated from Oral Tradition and is called Written Tradition - the Scriptures. Sacred Tradition/Scriptures is a combination of Oral and Written Tradition. Not all of Oral Tradition was incorporated into the scriptures - it is woven into the liturgy and life of the Church.

Also doctrine was developed over the years. For instance there was no mention of the Holy Trinity but as the elders of the Church (the Church Fathers) studied their Faith they realised that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one - the Trinity.

God bless you
Your sister in Christ
Cinette