Why does one hate the Catholic Church?

[Prodigal_Son1]

On this thread? I must have missed that.

It wasn’t necessarily on this thread and I don’t believe I said that it was.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Forgive my denseness, but what is SDA?
I’ve had to repeat many acronyms and tried to figure them out on the boards but I can’t seem to understand this one

Silly Dispensationalist Anabaptists.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Speaking can be heard by all. Inspiration is between God and the author.

So you were making a LITERAL distinction between what could be heard and what cannot at the specific time the original autographs were made?

 

[Rightlydivide]

It wasn’t necessarily on this thread and I don’t believe I said that it was.

Okay, then where? I want to read it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Okay, then where? I want to read it.

One thread is closed. I think it was the ‘Sabbath’ thread.

I was told anyone who rejected the SDA belief of the Sabbath, would not be counted in that heavenly number. It was also explained to me that people without proper knowledge were safe from condemnation, then in same sentence I was warned that they were giving me knowledge through their explanation.

I warned one about the rules of the forum and he told me he would do God’s work as commanded and would not worry about rules. Of course he went and copied and pasted only part of the rules and stated the rules I pointed out wasn’t in there. When I copied and pasted them with a link, he changed to ‘hypothetical’ condemnations.

 

[Nicea325]

**The Bible existed before the Church, and is God’s final authority on earth. **

How ignorant. Jesus FOUNDED a church before even the NT was complete. Christianity evolved out of a person named Jesus Christ,not out of a neatly compiled book called the Bible.

The church DID NOT come from the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

Of course you can make a case for that Guan. It seems I have to spend half my time on CAF doing exactly that! Unfortunately it is the Catholics to whom I have to make the case!

Well, of course! No faithful Catholic will easily be pursuaded that there are benefits in apostasy.

Lots of benefits.  One gets to worship the Lord in the manner they may prefer.  While following his or her informed conscience after much prayer and study and contemplation of his or her understanding of where the Holy Spirit is leading.

You seem to be saying that the benefit of being a lapsed Catholic is that one reserves the privilege to worship God on ones own terms, instead of His. The benefit of being a lapsed Catholic is that one can use their own conscience to replace what God has revealed to the Church.

But for an answer perhaps more to the liking of some, there is also always the chance the HS might call someone to repentence as prescribed by the CC and there is of course always Anointing of the Sick.

Do you honestly believe that there are some people that God has not called to repentance?

Do you think the teaching of the Apostles on repentance is different from the Reformed notions of it?

But in any case always in faith with the knowledge of and hope in God’s infinite mercy for us all. Peace and God bless always.

That is just it, Matt. When one abandons the chuch founded by Christ, to that extent such a one is no longer “in faith” or “in Christ”.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Forgive my denseness, but what is SDA?
I’ve had to repeat many acronyms and tried to figure them out on the boards but I can’t seem to understand this one

seven day adventist. i think

 

[guanophore]

Yes, of course we are all sinners, and I for one don’t expect the clergy to be without sin. The problem is, the Church claims for itself an extraordinary degree of authority, which it asserts comes directly from God. Doesn’t that come with an corresponding expectation of extraordinary goodness? When the same hierarchy which failed to protect innocents against this abuse commands that I not eat meat on certain days, under pain of eternal damnation - and wraps itself in the “unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit” - well, sorry, I’m callin’ BS!

Yes, I agree. I think that the Catholic Church, because she has been given the gift of infallibility and the fullness of Truth does bear a greater responsiblity.

However, what causes eternal damnation is sin. All disobedience is sin. It really appears that you are suffering from an authority problem.

Sir, you are bearing false witness against me - not very charitable! I said that a specific doctrine was BS:

This demonstrates your ignorance of the Catholic faith. What you have cited is not a doctrine, but a discipline.

I don’t mind being quoted at all - I stand by what I said regarding that particular doctrine.

You might be able to stand by it if it were. As it is, you are just standing there by your strawman.

 

[guanophore]

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.

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

Basically you are saying that you are unable to trust God. That He is not able to work through fallible persons to preserve His eternal truth. You are saying that your ideas are of better quality than those persons appointed by God.

If you cannot trust God to preserve His Truth through fallible men, then why does that principle not apply to yourself?

Why are you more righteous to have authority over you than the shepherds God appointed?

 

[Loboto-Me]

Originally Posted by CMatt25 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
But for an answer perhaps more to the liking of some, there is also always the chance the HS might call someone to repentence as prescribed by the CC and there is of course always Anointing of the Sick.
Sounds like you’re counting on the Catholic Annointing of the Sick and last rites to repent of dissention on your death bed.
*Is that what it’s all about? I’m going to worship the way I want and spread ill will toward the Church then just before I die, I’ll get my last rites so I can be forgiven. *
Someone wants his cake and eat it too. Problem is, if that’s the ultimate plan, God can see through it and it won’t necessarily work the way the “penitent” wants it to.

 

[Protestant101]

Well; you certainly can’t say this about me. I have been here for 4 years, and have always been happy to let it be known that I am a Seventh-day Adventist. I am over-joyed at the ways God has led me into His Remnant Church; and at the many ways Adventists have taught me about Jesus.

This thread is supposed to be about “Why do people hate the Catholic Church:” and to me, the very question itself is quite misleading. Adventist leaders and laypeople alike have always taught me to not look down on Catholics, no matter how false I believe some of their teachings to be. To me; it is not right to label people as “hating” based only on their differences of belief.

While someone could always point out some Protestant who does seem to hate Catholics; it is equally easy to point out Catholics who certainly seem to hate Protestants.

In my case; I have chose to use the name “Protestant101” not as a veil, but as a challenge, of sorts, to the many other Protestants who visit this board. Many Protestants today really should not use the term because they are more Catholic than anything else. That doesn’t mean I think they are not true Christians; it is just a statement or matter of fact.

 

[CMatt25]

Well, of course! No faithful Catholic will easily be pursuaded that there are benefits in apostasy.

Do you honestly believe that there are some people that God has not called to repentance?

Do you think the teaching of the Apostles on repentance is different from the Reformed notions of it?

That is just it, Matt. When one abandons the chuch founded by Christ, to that extent such a one is no longer “in faith” or “in Christ”.

Guan, we were taking about how Baptism incorporates one into the Church and no sin can erase this as the catechism teaches so a person may be considered Catholic. Not about apostacy.

I believe Christians repent in various ways. Some to God directly. Some confess to one another as James taught. Some do confession to a priest.

We will have to agree to disagree if you honestly don’t believe Christians who profess Christ Lord and Savior are no longer Christians in Christ.

God bless you Guan with a Happy Easter.

 

[schaick]

Then you consider anything preached by this ‘man’ to be infallible?

No man is infallible. I have the luxury of saying to Pastor but hold on a miniute dosen’t the Bible say this? Which in fact I never had to do, because he doesn’t preach anything but the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is not a denomination. It is the Church all Christian Churches have roots to, as they all came through that one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Would you care to show us different Churches in the beginning, with slight to great differences in doctrines?

You keep saying different Churchs- there is and always has been one church/“one body” with different “parts”

How was scriptures privately interpretated by those in 35AD? Can you give examples? How about 40AD?

Scriptures themselves give great examples of things learned ONLY through the oral tradition.

I do not question 1st or even 2nd hand Oral Tradition- I have mentioned that before. All Christians have access to the early writings of the Church Fathers, statements of faith, we know from the discussions in the New Testament.

Christ taught the People to listen to those who sat upon the chair of Moses. How did the people know what Christ was speaking about? The chair of Moses in not mentioned anywhere else in scriptures?

Exodus 18
13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?”

15 Moses answered him, “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and laws.”

Luke wrote a Gospel, recording the words of Christ. Acts 20:35 tells us of something Christ said. Luke was not an eyewitness to Christ’s life. Luke writes about things spoken before Christ’s birth, the conversation between the Angel and Mary, Elizabeth and Mary, the child Jesus and Mary.

St. Paul also wrote about Jannes and Mambres, the two magicians for Pharoah. Remember, Moses’ staff, turned into a snake, ate their staffs turned into snakes. Jannes and Mambres are not written about anywhere in scriptures. The only way St. Paul could have known their names, was through oral tradition.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

St. Paul also wrote about the rock that followed the Israelites, during the Exodus led by Moses. The rock that followed them, is not written about anywhere else in scriptures.

1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)

Whether one wants to admit it or not, a lot of OUR faith is based on oral tradition…

We don’t know that it was strictly an Oral Tradition or if we have just not discovered the writing.

Who knows how accurate this is?
knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Mambres/
*Iannes and Mambres, or Jannes and Jambres, are names given to the magicians who contended with Moses and Aaron and were discomfited by the Hebrew leaders in the Hebrew Bible book of Exodus. These names were not given in the book of Exodus himself, but they appear in 2 Timothy III:8 in the New Testament.
They also appear in Pliny the Elder’s Natural History, together with Moses, as famous magicians of antiquity; Pliny’s citation is also referred to in Apuleius. Numerius, a Pythagorean philosopher, calls them sacred Egyptian scribes. Origen says that there was an apocryphal book called The Book of Jannes and Jambres, containing details of their exploits, and that St Paul’s epistle was quoting from it. This book has not been rediscovered. *

If this was important to our salvation their complete story would be in the Holy Bible.

That is really my point- anything that is necessary for our salvation GOD would not leave up to it being passed down simply by oral tradition of man.

Not sure about your point of the rock- we all know that Jesus is the ROCK!

Christ died, was buried, resurrected and ascended in heaven around approximately 33AD. Christians were persecuted with the penaly of death. There wasn’t a new Testament for some years, with some books written the latter part of the century, Revelations is estimated to have been written around 90 to 107AD, yet the Church not only grew, it flourished…on oral tradition.

Actually I came across a cool article that is saying research is coming in that shows that the Gospels were actually written the year Jesus was Crucified and rose.

On a slightly different topic have you read about this?
nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html

Do you think God has no power over man to be able to protect His truth through the oral tradition of the Church, He Himself built?

GOD can, but HE has given us choices, a free will to distort. We have seen how corruption comes into the world - man. There were cults forming very early in Church history.

BUT HE did safe guard the Oral Tradition by having man write it down. The only way to absolutely protect the Oral tradition was to write it down. Statements of faith were written.

I believe that is why things were written down right away- codices of the Gospel circulating back and forth between church very early on- even in Paul’s time.

Have a BLESSED EASTER!

 

[schaick]

.If you apply reason you have got to conclude that Oral Tradition gave way to Written Tradition/Scripture - there were no printing presses until about the 1200 (I must check that - I think it was even a couple of centuries after that - can’t recall) There came a time when those inspires holy men had to write the inspired Word.

I have never argued that a 1st or even 2nd hand account is a bad thing as far as Oral Tradition goes.

Check out this cool article:
bible-researcher.com/isbetext02.html

Until very recent times it has not been customary to take up with any degree of confidence, if at all, the subject of New Testament autographs, but since the researches in particular of Dalman, Deissmann, Moulton (W. F.) and Milligan (George), the task is not only appropriate but incumbent upon the careful student. The whole tendency of recent investigation is to give less place to the oral tradition of Christ’s life and teaching and to press back the date of the writing of the Synoptic Gospels into the period falling between Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem. Sir William M. Ramsay goes so far as to claim that “antecedent probability founded on the general character of personal and contemporary Greek of Greek-Asiatic society” would indicate “that the first Christian account of the circumstances connected with the death of Jesus must be presumed to have been written in the year when Jesus died” (Letters to the Seven Churches, 7). W. M. Flinders Petrie argues to the same end and says: “Some generally accepted Gospels must have been in circulation before 60 AD. The mass of briefer records and Logia which the habits and culture of that age would produce must have been welded together within 10 or 20 years by the external necessities” (The Growth of the Gospels, 7).

I had an experience at a Parish where the priest was a fantastic preacher and had a lot of innovative ideas but both my husband and I found him too casual and relaxed - the Holy Spirit became a “she” and I sent him a couple of emails before we changed Parishes - you know Schaick nowadays people are better informed in all spheres - for example doctors can’t just give us an injection and a couple of pills and send us on our way. We read up on conditions on the internet and have informative articles in the media. We demand an explanation. If I had a really weird priest I would go to the bishop and if I got no joy I would go to the Cardinal.

Yes that is why I was so suprised that they continued to go to the Church after they had gone to the higher ups to have them removed.

.Well the old man should have been put in his place. In the Catholic Church we go to Mass not for the preaching (although that is a good thing) we go for the Eucharist mainly.

No, he was a very moral man and was effectively preaching the Gospel. He went through a couple of Christmas Eve and Christmas Day services having multiple mini heart attacks. The night between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day he spent sleeping upright against a wall, ended up going into the hospital after Christmas Day and passed away within a day or 2. He had given himself to the preaching of GOD for life.

We go for all of it the - singing, fellowship, preaching, Eucharist, praising GOD.

Have a BLESSED EASTER!!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not sure about your point of the rock- we all know that Jesus is the ROCK!

We also know He was a ‘light’, a ‘door’ and a ‘cornerstone’, among other things. This does not take away from the fact that He renamed Simon Bar-Jona to ‘rock’, Cephas in Aramaic and Petros in Greek, both translated to Peter in English. To leave this out, has appearances of only using certain passages to fit a theology.

Actually I came across a cool article that is saying research is coming in that shows that the Gospels were actually written the year Jesus was Crucified and rose.

Yet, all historic studies until this ‘cool’ article have shown otherwise. Even those who had disputes place the writings at a later date than the death and resurrection. This has an appearance of fitting history to a theology.

Why didn’t you provide the source for the ‘cool’ article?

On a slightly different topic have you read about this?
nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html

A good example of ‘evidence’ that hasn’t changed anything. I’m sure you noticed that article was two years old?

GOD can, but HE has given us choices, a free will to distort. We have seen how corruption comes into the world - man. There were cults forming very early in Church history.[/qutoe]

We know Christ chose and appointed ‘men’ over His Church. We also know He taught the people to observe and do whatsover those who sat in the seat of authority told them to do. We also know Paul wrote to ‘obey your prelates’.

Your comment almost seems like a ‘veiled’ attempt at accusing the early Church, that has survived to present day of being a cult. It’s sad that anyone would think such a thing about such a Church, especially in light of that Church preserving scriptures for us to have in our hands today. How can anyone distrust that Church, that had every opportunity to make changes in scriptures, through the mulitple copying and translations, and place all trust in the scriptures over the Church? People will say, because God can protect His written word. But, those same people doubt God’s ability to protect His ‘oral’ tradition, which was the only tradition used by Jesus, or protect His Church, which was built by Jesus. There seems to be no logic in that thinking, at least in my honest opinion.
schaick;6484307:

BUT HE did safe guard the Oral Tradition by having man write it down. The only way to absolutely protect the Oral tradition was to write it down. Statements of faith were written.

I disagree, in that I cannot see the ‘written’ being the unity of all when we consider the multiple interpretations, many denominations with many doctrines/teachings, all claiming guidance of the one Holy Spirit. There was one faith, one Church, of the same mind and judgment, all of the same accord, in the beginning. There was no such thing as ‘multiple’ applications of the one truth. Multiple applications does not represent the scriptural teachings of the same mind and judgment or being of the same accord.

I believe that is why things were written down right away- codices of the Gospel circulating back and forth between church very early on- even in Paul’s time.

The above quote would confirm one faith, of the same mind and judgment, all of the same accord, as written by Paul.

Have a BLESSED EASTER!

You too.

 

[TedDC]

Basically you are saying that you are unable to trust God. That He is not able to work through fallible persons to preserve His eternal truth.

No, you are saying that. I am unable to trust men.

You are saying that your ideas are of better quality than those persons appointed by God.

I do not believe they were appointed by God. They were selected by men.

If you cannot trust God to preserve His Truth through fallible men, then why does that principle not apply to yourself?

It certainly does. But given a choice between listening to men who claim to speak for God, and doing my best to hear the Holy Spirit directly, I’ll trust my own "ears"every time!

Why are you more righteous to have authority over you than the shepherds God appointed?

(1) I do not believe they were appointed by God, and (2) I’m not a sheep

 

[doanli]

1. I do not believe they were appointed by God, and (2) I’m not a sheep

And our Lord calls Himself the Good Shepherd.

I’m sad to see that you are fallen away, that is your decision. But why are you HERE?

 

[TedDC]

And our Lord calls Himself the Good Shepherd.

Good point. Then for the Lord Himself, I’m a sheep! But for mere men, sorry - I’m a man.

I’m sad to see that you are fallen away, that is your decision. But why are you HERE?

Ironically, it was what I saw on this forum which led to my falling away.

For many years I had considered myself a Catholic but had not practiced, so I came here to learn more and, I hoped, renew my faith. But what I found instead was a harsh, almost smug judgmentalism, a “One True Church” triumphalism, and “traditionalist” rantings about Vatican II being the root of just about all that’s evil in today’s world.

That, in turn, led me to question the foundations of my faith, and to finally conclude that I simply don’t believe many of the basic tenets of the Catholic faith.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
You are saying that your ideas are of better quality than those persons appointed by God.

I do not believe they were appointed by God. They were selected by men.

You mean Jesus did not APPOINT His Apostles to be leaders and the Apostles continued the same pattern?

Quote:
If you cannot trust God to preserve His Truth through fallible men, then why does that principle not apply to yourself?

**It certainly does. But given a choice between listening to men who claim to speak for God, and doing my best to hear the Holy Spirit directly, I’ll trust my own "ears"every time! **

And what gives you such much credence your hearing the Holy Spirit is infallible? Yeah men like Luther and Calvin trusted their own ears every time and look at the mess they caused?

Quote:
Why are you more righteous to have authority over you than the shepherds God appointed?

**(1) I do not believe they were appointed by God, and (2) I’m not a sheep **

The fact you deny it does not make it false or its existence.