Why does one hate the Catholic Church?

[schaick]

So you are saying that Jesus said the Holy Spirit is not available to mere Christians-only Catholics?

 

[schaick]

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.

I actually read the Catholic Catachism about 10 years ago. really not too much I didn’t agree with or see as a challange.

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.

Where you see mutation I see vibrant growth.

Where Trinitarian Christians see unity in the one faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and diversity in celebrating that faith, Catholics simply see division and confusion.

Luther was consecrated to the priesthood and he passed that down to all the following Pastors. I have read that the Orthodox Church has a lineage also.

Luther was excommunicated because he questioned false teachings of indulgences. He said if you can prove me wrong then I will stop- no one was able to prove him wrong. The easy thing get rid of him.

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

Yes I understand the idea of Oral Traditon. We know that Paul was refencing the Gospel and he quoted Luke.

I understand Doctrine- based on Scripture- concepts are there but not necesarily labeled [Trinity] or put into a statement of faith[Nicene Creed]

There is a growing thought that the Gospel was written the same year Jesus was crucified- very cool thought.

You say: 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.

I have been told that Sacred Tradition has no bases in Scripture by Catholics on this forum- but hey I have started a new thread to try and get to the bottom of this Sacred Tradition issue.

 

[schaick]

Well yes it does- You are saying that my Pastor doesn’t have the ability to call down the Holy Spirit when consecrating the Bread and Wine.

The issue here might be that Catholics believe that the Priest has the power to call the Holy Spirit down, at will.

We believe the Holy Spirit arrives at HIS will and it is HIS power doing all the work.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Show in scriptures where it was acceptable to have ‘different applications’.

People are called by the Holy Spirit.

But they are not ordained, or appointed, without the authority set by God. It’s that simple. You repeat the same statement as if it proves something. Show in scriptures where someone was called by the Holy Spirit and appointed themself as an authority over His Church.

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

Through the authority set by God and passed, with authority, by those of Apostolic succession, with the promises that the Holy Spirit, Spirit of Truth, would be with them and guide them, until the consummation of the world, they have.

You are avoiding the authority of the Church with each argument.

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?

You have proven you disagree with the interpretation. You have not provided any scriptures that make scriptures the ‘final authority’ or that scriptures teach people to interpret scriptures for themselves. People say, ‘The Holy Spirit interprets scriptures’, yet we have many interpretations. There is only ONE Holy Spirit.

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

Why do so many Pastors preach different messages? Are you saying you and you’re Pastor are infallible? Did you, or your Pastor, receive your authority through the Apostolic succession, by the imposition of hands from those in Apostolic succession, set by God?

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

An old and obvious tactic, to make a false statement when you cannot produce scriptures to support your view. You deliberately say ‘Catholic want a man…’, after I’ve shown you the scriptural argument that God gave authority to men and is the head of those men, in His Church. There is only one ‘final authority’ and it’s the same message, not multiple ‘applications’. That doesn’t even make sense.

Yes and I ask again What were those things?

Why not share with us what those things are? You know there were things Christ did that are not written and want them listed specifically. If you wan the answser, go to the Church that Christ built; chose and appointed men over.

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

Ordained of the Apostolic succession, or a succession of men who built their own Church since the 1500s?

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

Provide the scriptures that teach that. Show us in the authoritative scriptures where it states scriptures are the final authority. Show us in the authoritative scriptures where people are taught to interpret scriptures for themselves. Show us in the authoritative scriptures where people are allowed to use different application of the one teaching. Show un in the authoritative scriptures the definition of the canon of the New Testament.

If those things are not in scriptures, you preaching something other than what is in scriptures.

Quit answering questions with questions and provide some answers for a change.

 

[schaick]

LOL! Yes I know!

I am so glad to see that we agree, very good we agree that the Priest doesn’t call the Holy Spirit down.

Firstly to deal with some of the more er, mistaken assertions in this last post. There is massive diversity within the Church itself, try going to a Melkite or Maronite Church to name just two. You are broadcasting an idea of the Church as some monolithic unit with homogenised traditions throughout. That is not the Catholic Church, although it’ is a version of it that seems to exsist in some’s mind.

Yes and don’t forget the Old Catholics I think it is called.

The Orthodox of course have valid apostolic succession and their sacraments are valid. However Schaik before you bring them into the equation be aware an Orthodox priest is forbidden generally speaking (although some exceptions exist) from knowingly allowing a Catholic to receive the Eucharist. That does not offend me as the Orthodox priest is simply acting in adherence to his faith and in obedience to it. As a further point my house is a mixed Orthodox and Catholic one, yet I would not dream of receiving the Eucharist in an Orrthodox Church and nor I am offended when an Orthodox believer explains why I could not if I ask him.

**What is offensive is Catholics saying that my Eucharist is invalid doesn’t have the real presence. **

You have no way for knowing.

You are saying that the Holy Spirit will come to an immoral Priest [not showing fruits of the Spirit] during the consecration of the Eucharist, but not to my Pastor dripping with the fruits of the Spirit.

Also, Luther was indeed validly ordained however he was expected to obey his superiors in a spirit of humility and respect. Some of his complaints indeed had validity but his approach was to deny the authority placed over him in a spirt of rebelliousness.

Luther was obeying his superior- the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.

He was disobeying a Pope teaching another Gospel- Salvation through buying of Indulgences.

 

[schaick]

Show in scriptures where it was acceptable to have ‘different applications’.

1 Corinthians 12
12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts.
And now I will show you the most excellent way.

But they are not ordained, or appointed, without the authority set by God. It’s that simple. You repeat the same statement as if it proves something. Show in scriptures where someone was called by the Holy Spirit and appointed themself as an authority over His Church.

Mark 9
38"Teacher," said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Through the authority set by God and passed, with authority, by those of Apostolic succession, with the promises that the Holy Spirit, Spirit of Truth, would be with them and guide them, until the consummation of the world, they have.

You are avoiding the authority of the Church with each argument.

The “authority” of the Catholic Church maybe but not the authority of the Church Jesus is building.

 

[schaick]

The original question was why does one hate the Catholic Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The original question was why does one hate the Catholic Church.

Yes, it was and it’s being expressed in less than honest discussions.

 

[CMatt25]

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

I am going to make a thread about them.

Going in circles is what makes CAF go 'round.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1 Corinthians 12
12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts.
And now I will show you the most excellent way.

This in no uncertain terms expresses different applications of the one truth.

Mark 9
38"Teacher," said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

This does not show someone ‘appointed’ themself.

Luk 10:1 And after these things, the Lord appointed also other seventy-two. And he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come.

The “authority” of the Catholic Church maybe but not the authority of the Church Jesus is building.

Show us the very earliest Church, as recorded in ALL history.

And you failed to show scirptures for the many things you’re preaching here. Does this mean you’re preaching a truth other than recorded in scriptures?

 

[schaick]

NO not at all, but Catholics are saying that my Church is not a part of the universal Church!

So is that teaching considered the Sacred Tradition? That only Priest can consecrate the Eucharist?

 

[Cinette]

I actually read the Catholic Catachism about 10 years ago. really not too much I didn’t agree with or see as a challange.

Where you see mutation I see vibrant growth.Where you see vibrant growth I see the planting of churches each teaching a different theology yet claiming that it is based on the Bible. My friend, we cannot all teach different things and claim that our source is the bible. By the way who gave Christainity the bible?

**Where Trinitarian Christians see unity in the one faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and diversity in celebrating that faith, Catholics simply see division and confusion.**We are told to concentrate on what unites us and not what divides us so how can you say that?

Luther was consecrated to the priesthood and he passed that down to all the following Pastors. The Christian Protestant denominations of today are a far cry from what Luther believed and practiced - whatever his mistakes. He would not recognise the Protestant church in its current format. He would go down on his knees and repent! Did you know that he venerated Mary as the Mother of God (say that to a Protestant and he will call you a heretic - by the way Calvin and Zwingly also believed in the Mother of God) I have read that the Orthodox Church has a lineage also.

Luther was excommunicated because he questioned false teachings of indulgences. He questioned abuse but not false teachings - Jesus kept his promise when he said "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth - are you saying he did not keep his promise? He said if you can prove me wrong then I will stop- no one was able to prove him wrong.There was a counter reformation which had begun before Luther threw his toys out of his cot. The Church has been fighting heresies from the very beginning - it is a constant fight between good and evil - the Magisterium is forever keeping us on track. If someone goes off the rails there is the Magisterium to correct us - Luther could have helped with any reform from within the Church - he then went on to do some very naughty things - Luther had a screw loose. The easy thing get rid of him.

Yes I understand the idea of Oral Traditon. We know that Paul was refencing the Gospel and he quoted Luke.

I understand Doctrine- based on Scripture- concepts are there but not necesarily labeled [Trinity] or put into a statement of faith[Nicene Creed]

There is a growing thought that the Gospel was written the same year Jesus was crucified- very cool thought.You talk like a teenager - maybe you will change as you grow up.

You say: 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.

I have been told that Sacred Tradition has no bases in Scripture by Catholics on this forum- but hey I have started a new thread to try and get to the bottom of this Sacred Tradition issue.I am no theologian and my knowledge of the Church is a constant “work in progress”.

 

[Cinette]

The original question was why does one hate the Catholic Church.

I would say that you are best qualified to answer that question Schaick!

Your sister in Christ
Cinette

 

[elvisman]

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.

New thought? Revisionism, you mean. There is no reputable scholarly history about this - just new, independent. Every 5 years or so, we hear about a newly discovered “gospel” (Judas, Thomas, Huey, Dewey and Louie) - and they are ALWAYS frauds.
Talk about grasping . . .

**Paul could have recognized ANY of the 4 Gospels - that *doesn’t *mean that he recognized any CANON of Scripture. There WASN’T one yet because they were ALL still writing it.
You’re all over the place on this one, pal.
**
As for Ignatius - the word he used was “εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης”, this is "Ekklesia Kath olos” - CATHOLIC CHURCH.
You just can’t escape the truth - no matter how hard you try.

 

[elvisman]

I would say that you are best qualified to answer that question Schaick!

Your sister in Christ
Cinette

**Actually - TedDC, Protestant101 and Tweetymom would also be contenders for the title . . . **

 

[schaick]

You are saying that I am not.

Underneath the heiracrhy, the political Roman Catholic Church, is the Church that Jesus is building. This heirarchy political part of the Roman Catholic Church appeared later, not all at once but developed into what I believe is not at all what Jesus intended for His Church to be. It possibly started when State and Religion joined together around 300 AD.

And that is perhaps not unexpected given the general tenor of your posts thus far. It is fruitless to debate where when you ask for Catholic teaching you immediately become offended upon hearing it is in disagreement with what you believe. No debate between opossing points of view can be fruitful where one side merely asks to be offended upon hearing the answer.

With that I withdraw.

So my wanting proof of things is showing a hatred?

Don’t you see how odd it is that Catholics keep talking about Sacred Traditions then no one can tell me what they are? I mean come on you supposedly hold them on equal turf with Scripture. No neeed to worry about this I have started another thread on the subject.

I want to see proof that the Holy Spirit is not involved in the consecration of my Church’s Eucharist.

You are saying that you are allowed to be offended at my statements, but I am not allowed to be offended at yours?!?

Cinette - didn’t you read all of my posts? I said I did not hate the Catholic Church but did hate the arrogance portrayed.

The Catholic Church did not give us the Holy Bible- the Apostles did. What the **Catholic Church did was hold and safeguard the Holy Bible **until someone came along to give it to all the people.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I want to see proof that the Holy Spirit is not involved in the consecration of my Church’s Eucharist.

We have the scriptures and the oral tradition of the Apostolic succession. You can read the writings of the early Church fathers and see what the Eucharist is, from the beginning of Christianity.

We are not to tempt the Lord our God, or put Him to the test.

The Catholic Church did not give us the Holy Bible- the Apostles did. What the **Catholic Church did was hold and safeguard the Holy Bible **until someone came along to give it to all the people.

The Apostles were of the Catholic Church. Not only did they safeguard the Bible, they translated it, over and over, having every opportunity to make changes, yet you trust the Bible but not the keepers?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So my wanting proof of things is showing a hatred?

Your demand of proof is a double standard you hold Catholicism too.

Where is the proof the Bible is indisputably the ‘final authority’?

Where is the proof the Bible is to be interpreted by each and every individual that reads it?

Where it the proof of one faith and many applications of the faith?

Scriptures show us a chosen and appointed authority over the Church and you reject an authority.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Underneath the heiracrhy, the political Roman Catholic Church, is the Church that Jesus is building. This heirarchy political part of the Roman Catholic Church appeared later, not all at once but developed into what I believe is not at all what Jesus intended for His Church to be. It possibly started when State and Religion joined together around 300 AD.

The hierarchy appeared before that. Read the writings of the early Church fathers. First read your scriptures on ‘hierarchy’.

**Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Heb 13:24 Salute all your prelates and all the saints. The brethren from Italy salute you.

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

The Church was new and developed over time. How do you know what the Lord intended His Church to be?

 

[schaick]

It appears that translation is making scriptures fit a theology, as opposed to fitting a theology to scriptures. It is also changing the tense used in the original Greek language, which the passage was written in. The passage does not use the word for ‘having been’, or even ‘been’ alone.

biblegateway.com/versions/Youngs-Literal-Translation-YLT-Bible/
*This is an **extremely literal translation *that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings.

I compare scriptures among several translations; Douay-Rheims, 2 English translations of the Aramaic, the Greek interlinear, 2 versions of the King James Versions, New Jerusalem Bible and the Revised Stanard Version. All show a future tense.

What version of the Bible do you depend on?

In Bible studies I have been encouraged to use all differant translations. In fact there has been actual requests put out for people to bring in the differant translations.

Yes I know, even the Aramaic translates it the same way. Combining the literal tenses and the way binding and loosing was used by the Jews the literal makes much more sense. In effect it keeps man from applying his own rules and so only GOD’s Law applies to the binding and loosing.

In post #531
Sacred Traditions, that we hold to whether written or spoken, was passed through the Apostolic succession, of those with Apostolic authority, that have the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose, those that we are to observe and do whatsoever they say to us, because we know, through our faith in Christ that He can accomplish all things.

Are you saying that the Sacred Traditions** are** that there was Apostolic Succession and the keys were passed down with authority to bind and loose?

Or are you saying that is** how **they were passed down?

Now, not to change the subject, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that people who believe Mary to remain ever virgin has an impact on their salvation? If so, please explain how?

Yes and so mere Christians must not - read Romans 14

I actually had a visit from the Holy Spirit on this one- Catholic friends of mine and some things they were saying and doing. Basically the Holy Spirit told me*** “it was not of your concern”***. I heard the voice - not mine and it used language not mine and then Romans 14 came to mind.

I understand the concept of everything Catholic about Mary- I don’t agree but it is not of my concern. I can point out what Scripture says but that is all I can say about the matter.