User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:08:19 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was raised Catholic, now I'm ...whatever. I stopped believing in ghost stories a long time ago. Due to life circumstances I wasn't exposed to the speaking in tongues, televangelist, running around crazy while listening to a shitty band play half-assed "rock" music until I was in high school. I found the whole thing quite shocking. For one, and I wasn't used to a church looking like a highschool gym, and for two I never realized people spent so many calories damning others for worshipping the same dude they do, but doing it "wrong". At no time in my 17 years as a practicing Catholic did a priest say anyone was going to hell because they were a Methodist or a Baptist. Nor did we worship anybody but God-Jesus. If a person is Baptised in the Roman Catholic Church, and attends a service in, say, a Baptist church, they are allowed to participate in Communion. Not so the Baptist at a Catholic service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:10:20 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-there-are-not-a-hundred-people-in-america-who-hate-the-catholic-church-there-are-millions-of-fulton-j-sheen-266505.jpg You do understand, that the Bible is a Catholic book, right? Was... Mine doesn't have the book of Maccabees in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:11:37 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If a person is Baptised in the Roman Catholic Church, and attends a service in, say, a Baptist church, they are allowed to participate in Communion. Not so the Baptist at a Catholic service. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I was raised Catholic, now I'm ...whatever. I stopped believing in ghost stories a long time ago. Due to life circumstances I wasn't exposed to the speaking in tongues, televangelist, running around crazy while listening to a shitty band play half-assed "rock" music until I was in high school. I found the whole thing quite shocking. For one, and I wasn't used to a church looking like a highschool gym, and for two I never realized people spent so many calories damning others for worshipping the same dude they do, but doing it "wrong". At no time in my 17 years as a practicing Catholic did a priest say anyone was going to hell because they were a Methodist or a Baptist. Nor did we worship anybody but God-Jesus. If a person is Baptised in the Roman Catholic Church, and attends a service in, say, a Baptist church, they are allowed to participate in Communion. Not so the Baptist at a Catholic service. A practicing Catholic shouldn't take part in a "communion" at a non-Catholic church. We would view not allowing a Baptist to take part at a Catholic service as actually protecting them, per Paul. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:12:02 PM EDT
[#4]
What you aren't understanding is that Catholics aren't "coming to the father" via the pope or Mary. They do not believe Mary or the Pope are equivalent to God or Jesus. Mary is simply asked to intercede on our behalf to her son. The Pope is human and is not prayed to no matter what your Sunday school teacher says. Any Catholic that does is doing it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:14:36 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If a person is Baptised in the Roman Catholic Church, and attends a service in, say, a Baptist church, they are allowed to participate in Communion. Not so the Baptist at a Catholic service. Quote HistoryQuoted: If a person is Baptised in the Roman Catholic Church, and attends a service in, say, a Baptist church, they are allowed to participate in Communion. Not so the Baptist at a Catholic service. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion "Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . " Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not. Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor. 11:29–30). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:15:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Though nto nemaed that, Christ's birth, and the final Passover of Christ and his execution execution are indeed in the Bible. Where does the Bible say to celebrate them on their anniversaries? Rules of men, I guess... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:16:37 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not so the Baptist at a Catholic service. For his/her protection ETA - as Zhukov posted, above |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:16:43 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was... Mine doesn't have the book of Maccabees in it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-there-are-not-a-hundred-people-in-america-who-hate-the-catholic-church-there-are-millions-of-fulton-j-sheen-266505.jpg You do understand, that the Bible is a Catholic book, right? Was... Mine doesn't have the book of Maccabees in it. Only because some random guy decided it shouldn't be. I haven't found yet the part in the Scriptura that said Martin Luther got to decide what it was. Plus, 1st and 2nd Macc are cool books. And if you don't have 1 Macc then technically you don't have the Feast of the Dedication mentioned in John 10-22. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:17:35 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor. 11:29–30). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If a person is Baptised in the Roman Catholic Church, and attends a service in, say, a Baptist church, they are allowed to participate in Communion. Not so the Baptist at a Catholic service. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion "Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . "
Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not. I would hope a practicing Catholic wouldn't take Baptist communion, vice Versa too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:19:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only because some random guy decided it shouldn't be. Plus, 1st and 2nd Macc are cool books. And if you don't have 1 Macc then technically you don't have the Feast of the Dedication mentioned in John 10-22. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-there-are-not-a-hundred-people-in-america-who-hate-the-catholic-church-there-are-millions-of-fulton-j-sheen-266505.jpg You do understand, that the Bible is a Catholic book, right? Was... Mine doesn't have the book of Maccabees in it. Only because some random guy decided it shouldn't be. Plus, 1st and 2nd Macc are cool books. And if you don't have 1 Macc then technically you don't have the Feast of the Dedication mentioned in John 10-22. They are cool books. I won't get into the feast debate. That's a big topic on its own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:20:11 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your postings make me wonder just how "catholic" you really were. There has never been any question that the Catechism defines what the beliefs are in case you need an explanation. I've never seen much in the way of this confusion from all these different stories you allude to. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As a catholic that has left the church I have always had a problem of NEVER getting the same story as to what it means to be catholic and what a catholic believes. If only the Catholic Church published a book that told people what they believed and how they interpret the Bible... They have piles of books and the last one I took to my priest that had a conflict with what he taught he took it from me and said it was wrong. When I brought it up with the priest that replaced him I got a third story. When you listen and watch the catholic channels you will get the fourth and fifth storeys and an explanation of why everyone else is wrong. The modern church is a social club and nothing else as far as I'm concerned. I still consider them christians and I don't see them going to hell or anything but just not honoring God as they should or could be. Your postings make me wonder just how "catholic" you really were. There has never been any question that the Catechism defines what the beliefs are in case you need an explanation. I've never seen much in the way of this confusion from all these different stories you allude to. More of one than most I have met. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:23:04 PM EDT
[#12]
Christ would be ashamed if he was to walk the earth again in how the Vatican has become an empire .
Churches do not follow the teachings of Christ but are in for their own gain and nothing more. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:27:19 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: See, I'm a liar also! :D Said I was checking out and back here I am, but I wanted to answer your point because I think it's a valid one. First, I'm not an authority on anything. My interpretation of the Bible is far too often probably wrong on certain points and counter points. So I am not setting myself up as any authority. Second, I obviously can't compare and contrast every verse of the Bible and catechism, we'd be here forever. So yes, I did pick specific verses from both the Bible and the catecism, but they are verses speaking of the same topic, salvation. My point for the comparison is the starting point and the very most important point of every relgion--the basis of salvation. If two religions do not agree as to the basis of salvation, everything else is a mute point. I'm clearly pointing out, without any interpretation what so ever, that the Bible and the catechism are completely at Odds and diametrically opposed as to how salvation is obtained....both cannot be right. Most importantly, it's not my interpretation of anything upon which I am basing my points and my Faith. The Bible clearly states that only through faith in Jesus Christ can you be saved. No other name under Heaven in which you must be saved. I do not want to offend Catholics, but the Bible clearly states something which is obviously different from what most Catholics believe. As a Christian I am bound to try to help others see the true path to salvation according to the Bible, not the catechism. I'm truly sorry if that offends people, but it truly is a position based out of love. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm saying you intentionally cherry picking for the catechism, and from the Bible, to make a tortured point. The Mary bit is especially tortured, unless your beliefs dismiss all intercessionary prayer. It doesn't take much surveying of various Christian doctrines to see that what you asserts as the only interpretation of the Bible is not the only interpretation of the Bible. By your asserting otherwise, you are setting yourself up as some sort of authority beyond the Bible itself, thus creating a sort of paradox. See, I'm a liar also! :D Said I was checking out and back here I am, but I wanted to answer your point because I think it's a valid one. First, I'm not an authority on anything. My interpretation of the Bible is far too often probably wrong on certain points and counter points. So I am not setting myself up as any authority. Second, I obviously can't compare and contrast every verse of the Bible and catechism, we'd be here forever. So yes, I did pick specific verses from both the Bible and the catecism, but they are verses speaking of the same topic, salvation. My point for the comparison is the starting point and the very most important point of every relgion--the basis of salvation. If two religions do not agree as to the basis of salvation, everything else is a mute point. I'm clearly pointing out, without any interpretation what so ever, that the Bible and the catechism are completely at Odds and diametrically opposed as to how salvation is obtained....both cannot be right. Most importantly, it's not my interpretation of anything upon which I am basing my points and my Faith. The Bible clearly states that only through faith in Jesus Christ can you be saved. No other name under Heaven in which you must be saved. I do not want to offend Catholics, but the Bible clearly states something which is obviously different from what most Catholics believe. As a Christian I am bound to try to help others see the true path to salvation according to the Bible, not the catechism. I'm truly sorry if that offends people, but it truly is a position based out of love. You sound like a nice enough guy but imo your position is based out of pride and is self-disguised as caring. You haven't helped anyone see the true path to salvation because you're holding beliefs against 1.2 billion Christ followers that are based in ignorance. I'm always dismayed that there are so many Christ followers that really believe the other Christ followers have got it all wrong and are doomed. Admitting you're ignorant of the Catholic church and its tenets would be a good first step in following Christ, then go spend a few years immersion studying Catholicism so you could actually make an informed judgement against your neighbor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:27:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go to a Southern Baptist deacon's meeting and tell then the national leadership is infallible, and that they have to say or do certain things. Watch what happens. Let's just say they operate very differently, and much more independantly, than a Catholic church. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Catholic bashers have been posting that all over the Internet, word for word, for decades now, complete with the very distinctive use of "El Papa." Yep. What i find funny is that 99% of the people who post this propaganda are members of a nationally organized church such as Southern Baptists or United Methodists, who have a national leader and church doctrine. Go to a Southern Baptist deacon's meeting and tell then the national leadership is infallible, and that they have to say or do certain things. Watch what happens. Let's just say they operate very differently, and much more independantly, than a Catholic church. Funny thing is that you don't what you are talking about when it comes infallibility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:30:07 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Seriously. Why does a guy who holds a made up position in the Christian Church have any power over anyone? It's almost as odd as praying directly to Mary. I just don't get it. The current guy in particular sure seems to be at odds with Christian principles in many ways. Why do you care that people care what the pope says? A.W.D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:30:42 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Funny thing is that you don't what you are talking about when it comes infallibility. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Catholic bashers have been posting that all over the Internet, word for word, for decades now, complete with the very distinctive use of "El Papa." Yep. What i find funny is that 99% of the people who post this propaganda are members of a nationally organized church such as Southern Baptists or United Methodists, who have a national leader and church doctrine. Go to a Southern Baptist deacon's meeting and tell then the national leadership is infallible, and that they have to say or do certain things. Watch what happens. Let's just say they operate very differently, and much more independantly, than a Catholic church. Funny thing is that you don't what you are talking about when it comes infallibility. Papal infallibility, only applies when the Pope is speaking from the Chair of St. Peter. A lot of non-Catholics don't make that distinction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:43:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was... Mine doesn't have the book of Maccabees in it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-there-are-not-a-hundred-people-in-america-who-hate-the-catholic-church-there-are-millions-of-fulton-j-sheen-266505.jpg You do understand, that the Bible is a Catholic book, right? Was... Mine doesn't have the book of Maccabees in it. because the bible Jesus taught from is not the correct version, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:44:19 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's rich, coming from a guy whose entire church history/belief system hangs on one verse in Matthew 16. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm saying you intentionally cherry picking for the catechism, and from the Bible, to make a tortured point. That's rich, coming from a guy whose entire church history/belief system hangs on one verse in Matthew 16. More like over 2000 years of teaching and tradition, based on the authority granted by God to the Church founded by Christ as documented in the Gospels and Acts, and demonstrated by how even "sola scriptura" types give special weight to the epistles of the early Church fathers which were themselves compiled and made into a book by still other early Church fathers. This, as opposed to basing an entire "sola scriptura" theology on one passage from one of those epistles which logically could not have even been referring to itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:46:37 PM EDT
[#19]
Please go bash someone else's religion. Or better yet, MYOB.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:52:20 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm saying you intentionally cherry picking for the catechism, and from the Bible, to make a tortured point. The Mary bit is especially tortured, unless your beliefs dismiss all intercessionary prayer. “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Not the Pope. Not Mary. Guess who is talking? Is it wrong to ask someone to pray for you, or is it only wrong when their adoration is the subject of much angst and vitriol from fundamentalists? This despite being hand-picked by God to be His Mother and so honored by the Angels themselves? "Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Exactly how is this rejecting or ignoring the role of Christ again? It's precisely because God honored Mary that mankind continues to honor her. it's precisely because Luke tells us of how she was highly favored that we ask her to intercede on our behalf. I see you are every bit the expert on Catholicism as you are on Islam. And, ironically you take that quote from the Gospel of John, the same Gospel where John writes, "I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. " Either he and Matthew need to get their acts together, or yet another tired old anti-Catholic canard has gone out the window. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:00:44 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
because the bible Jesus taught from is not the correct version, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-there-are-not-a-hundred-people-in-america-who-hate-the-catholic-church-there-are-millions-of-fulton-j-sheen-266505.jpg You do understand, that the Bible is a Catholic book, right? Was... Mine doesn't have the book of Maccabees in it. because the bible Jesus taught from is not the correct version, right? Lol, that was a joke wasn't it? I mean the book of Maccabees isn't in theTanakh either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:00:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
cut That's why we call our biological fathers, "Dad." We aren't allowed to call them "Father," because Christ is the only father allowed, ever. Father's Day will be renamed Christ's Day to avoid confusion in the future.   
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:09:43 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's why we call our biological fathers, "Dad." We aren't allowed to call them "Father," because Christ is the only father allowed, ever. Father's Day will be renamed Christ's Day to avoid confusion in the future.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
cut That's why we call our biological fathers, "Dad." We aren't allowed to call them "Father," because Christ is the only father allowed, ever. Father's Day will be renamed Christ's Day to avoid confusion in the future.
Sorry about the edit, I accidentally pasted a correction to one post in the wrong other post. But yes, what you suggest is the only possible way forward. God wills it! The infallible word of Brother Billy Bob of the independent Bible Church of Brewer County has spoken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:15:36 PM EDT
[#24]
It's fun watching people fight over a 2,000 year old book. I wonder how long the Romans and Greeks argued about their gods before they all decided it was a myth and moved onto the latest thing (Christianity).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:21:08 PM EDT
[#25]
I'm a Christian and the pope has never had any power over me. I've never prayed to Mary; I only pray to and worship Jesus. The pope is Catholic and believes he is god incarnate and that people should worship him. Catholicism is a legalistic, almost pagan religion. I revere the pope as much as I would revere the anti-christ.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:22:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm a Christian and the pope has never had any power over me. I've never prayed to Mary; I only pray to and worship Jesus. The pope is Catholic and believes he is god incarnate and that people should worship him. Catholicism is a legalistic, almost pagan religion. I revere the pope as much as I would revere the anti-christ. What denomination are you? * I'm Lutheran |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:23:30 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm a Christian and the pope has never had any power over me. I've never prayed to Mary; I only pray to and worship Jesus. The pope is Catholic and believes he is god incarnate and that people should worship him. Catholicism is a legalistic, almost pagan religion. I revere the pope as much as I would revere the anti-christ. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:28:04 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mathew 16:18. Paraphrasing: "Peter, thou art rock and upon this rock I shall build my church." Saint Peter was the first pope, the foundation of the church. He would obviously have successors. Also, there's something about the Pope being infallible in matters of faith, but not being so in worldly matters/everyday life. From a purely historical perspective, going back hand to hand from the pope backwards in time is the only way to get to the physical/historical Jesus Christ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:29:21 PM EDT
[#29]
Jesus answered, “See to it that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. These things must happen, but the end is still to come.…"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:30:29 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From a purely historical perspective, going back hand to hand from the pope backwards in time is the only way to get to the physical/historical Jesus Christ. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mathew 16:18. Paraphrasing: "Peter, thou art rock and upon this rock I shall build my church." Saint Peter was the first pope, the foundation of the church. He would obviously have successors. Also, there's something about the Pope being infallible in matters of faith, but not being so in worldly matters/everyday life. From a purely historical perspective, going back hand to hand from the pope backwards in time is the only way to get to the physical/historical Jesus Christ. You could do the same with most, if not all, of the Orthodox Patriarchs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:30:44 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From a purely historical perspective, going back hand to hand from the pope backwards in time is the only way to get to the physical/historical Jesus Christ. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mathew 16:18. Paraphrasing: "Peter, thou art rock and upon this rock I shall build my church." Saint Peter was the first pope, the foundation of the church. He would obviously have successors. Also, there's something about the Pope being infallible in matters of faith, but not being so in worldly matters/everyday life. From a purely historical perspective, going back hand to hand from the pope backwards in time is the only way to get to the physical/historical Jesus Christ. Infallible in matters of faith? Like denying Christ 3 times? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:32:21 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Infallible in matters of faith? Like denying Christ 3 times? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mathew 16:18. Paraphrasing: "Peter, thou art rock and upon this rock I shall build my church." Saint Peter was the first pope, the foundation of the church. He would obviously have successors. Also, there's something about the Pope being infallible in matters of faith, but not being so in worldly matters/everyday life. From a purely historical perspective, going back hand to hand from the pope backwards in time is the only way to get to the physical/historical Jesus Christ. Infallible in matters of faith? Like denying Christ 3 times? And yet here you sit, rejecting Christ's continued trust in him regardless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:33:43 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm a Christian and the pope has never had any power over me. I've never prayed to Mary; I only pray to and worship Jesus. The pope is Catholic and believes he is god incarnate and that people should worship him. Catholicism is a legalistic, almost pagan religion. I revere the pope as much as I would revere the anti-christ. I grew up in the Catholic church, but I'm not religious at all anymore. I still think you're wrong in your assessment of the Pope. I suppose we're all entitled to an opinion if nothing else. I agree, though, that the Pope doesn't hold any real power and should not be worshiped as an idol. He never was at my church, but whatever. There, it always was and always will be our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and him alone that will save us. They always made that pretty clear. IDK where everyone got this Pope Derangement Syndrome from. He's a figurehead, not an idol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:36:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Infallible in matters of faith? Like denying Christ 3 times? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mathew 16:18. Paraphrasing: "Peter, thou art rock and upon this rock I shall build my church." Saint Peter was the first pope, the foundation of the church. He would obviously have successors. Also, there's something about the Pope being infallible in matters of faith, but not being so in worldly matters/everyday life. From a purely historical perspective, going back hand to hand from the pope backwards in time is the only way to get to the physical/historical Jesus Christ. Infallible in matters of faith? Like denying Christ 3 times? Peter's change in character after seeing the resurrected Christ is one of the most compelling evidences of His resurrection. Doesn't make Peter a pope but it's noteworthy since you bring it up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:45:18 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet here you sit, rejecting Christ's continued trust in him regardless. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mathew 16:18. Paraphrasing: "Peter, thou art rock and upon this rock I shall build my church." Saint Peter was the first pope, the foundation of the church. He would obviously have successors. Also, there's something about the Pope being infallible in matters of faith, but not being so in worldly matters/everyday life. From a purely historical perspective, going back hand to hand from the pope backwards in time is the only way to get to the physical/historical Jesus Christ. Infallible in matters of faith? Like denying Christ 3 times? And yet here you sit, rejecting Christ's continued trust in him regardless. No, I reject that the pope is infallible in matters of faith. Peter was a humble servant of Christ and we all know he had shortcomings (which is a relief because his life is a testament to what God can do through a sinner), but he never claimed to be God incarnate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:46:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, that was a joke wasn't it? I mean the book of Maccabees isn't in theTanakh either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-there-are-not-a-hundred-people-in-america-who-hate-the-catholic-church-there-are-millions-of-fulton-j-sheen-266505.jpg You do understand, that the Bible is a Catholic book, right? Was... Mine doesn't have the book of Maccabees in it. because the bible Jesus taught from is not the correct version, right? Lol, that was a joke wasn't it? I mean the book of Maccabees isn't in theTanakh either. It is in the Septuagint. Which is the one Paul often quotes and in use by all the early Church fathers. And was in common use by Jews (especially those outside Jerusalem as Greek was the standard language by the entire Eastern Empire) too until after the death of Christ (funny that) and the destruction of the temple. Heck, at the time of Christ the Jewish authorities themselves differed on what was canonical and what wasn't. It's interesting that when Pilate wrote the sign, he didn't use Hebrew. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:47:51 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For Catholics, all 1.2 billion of them, he is about as close as it gets to Heaven I don't think I've ever seen this much disdain for a Pope, mind you I was only around for three of them. As a Catholic who attended the schools and got drug to mass weekly I can assure you I have never looked at The Pope as anything more than an old guy in a silly hat. I never gave much stock to the dogmatic practices and beliefs of the Vatican. This Pope in particular is a special breed of stupid and may the fleas of a thousand camels forever infest his crotch. When you realize that he's nothing more than an impotent politician he's easy to ignore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:55:27 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I grew up in the Catholic church, but I'm not religious at all anymore. I still think you're wrong in your assessment of the Pope. I suppose we're all entitled to an opinion if nothing else. I agree, though, that the Pope doesn't hold any real power and should not be worshiped as an idol. He never was at my church, but whatever. There, it always was and always will be our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and him alone that will save us. They always made that pretty clear. IDK where everyone got this Pope Derangement Syndrome from. He's a figurehead, not an idol. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm a Christian and the pope has never had any power over me. I've never prayed to Mary; I only pray to and worship Jesus. The pope is Catholic and believes he is god incarnate and that people should worship him. Catholicism is a legalistic, almost pagan religion. I revere the pope as much as I would revere the anti-christ. I grew up in the Catholic church, but I'm not religious at all anymore. I still think you're wrong in your assessment of the Pope. I suppose we're all entitled to an opinion if nothing else. I agree, though, that the Pope doesn't hold any real power and should not be worshiped as an idol. He never was at my church, but whatever. There, it always was and always will be our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and him alone that will save us. They always made that pretty clear. IDK where everyone got this Pope Derangement Syndrome from. He's a figurehead, not an idol. I very well could be wrong. I'm just going off of what a friend from college told me he believes. I guess it isn't a very widely accepted idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:55:57 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I reject that the pope is infallible in matters of faith. Peter was a humble servant of Christ and we all know he had shortcomings (which is a relief because his life is a testament to what God can do through a sinner), but he never claimed to be God incarnate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mathew 16:18. Paraphrasing: "Peter, thou art rock and upon this rock I shall build my church." Saint Peter was the first pope, the foundation of the church. He would obviously have successors. Also, there's something about the Pope being infallible in matters of faith, but not being so in worldly matters/everyday life. From a purely historical perspective, going back hand to hand from the pope backwards in time is the only way to get to the physical/historical Jesus Christ. Infallible in matters of faith? Like denying Christ 3 times? And yet here you sit, rejecting Christ's continued trust in him regardless. No, I reject that the pope is infallible in matters of faith. Peter was a humble servant of Christ and we all know he had shortcomings (which is a relief because his life is a testament to what God can do through a sinner), but he never claimed to be God incarnate. Only one man related to the Church ever claimed to be God incarnate, and that was Jesus Christ. That man established a Church and gave it the authority to bind and loosen, and specifically entrusted in it the keys to heaven. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:56:14 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is in the Septuagint. Which is the one Paul often quotes and in use by all the early Church fathers. And was in common use by Jews (especially those outside Jerusalem as Greek was the standard language by the entire Eastern Empire) too until after the death of Christ (funny that) and the destruction of the temple. Heck, at the time of Christ the Jewish authorities themselves differed on what was canonical and what wasn't. It's interesting that when Pilate wrote the sign, he didn't use Hebrew. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-there-are-not-a-hundred-people-in-america-who-hate-the-catholic-church-there-are-millions-of-fulton-j-sheen-266505.jpg You do understand, that the Bible is a Catholic book, right? Was... Mine doesn't have the book of Maccabees in it. because the bible Jesus taught from is not the correct version, right? Lol, that was a joke wasn't it? I mean the book of Maccabees isn't in theTanakh either. It is in the Septuagint. Which is the one Paul often quotes and in use by all the early Church fathers. And was in common use by Jews (especially those outside Jerusalem as Greek was the standard language by the entire Eastern Empire) too until after the death of Christ (funny that) and the destruction of the temple. Heck, at the time of Christ the Jewish authorities themselves differed on what was canonical and what wasn't. It's interesting that when Pilate wrote the sign, he didn't use Hebrew. Some scholars debate whether the exact Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures was discovered by the Jews until around 100 A.D. so Paul may not be referring to some authoritative list of books. However, the principle of the "oracles of God" still holds. The Jews rejected the Apocrypha as being part of the oracles of God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:59:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I very well could be wrong. I'm just going off of what a friend from college told me he believes. I guess it isn't a very widely accepted idea. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm a Christian and the pope has never had any power over me. I've never prayed to Mary; I only pray to and worship Jesus. The pope is Catholic and believes he is god incarnate and that people should worship him. Catholicism is a legalistic, almost pagan religion. I revere the pope as much as I would revere the anti-christ. I grew up in the Catholic church, but I'm not religious at all anymore. I still think you're wrong in your assessment of the Pope. I suppose we're all entitled to an opinion if nothing else. I agree, though, that the Pope doesn't hold any real power and should not be worshiped as an idol. He never was at my church, but whatever. There, it always was and always will be our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and him alone that will save us. They always made that pretty clear. IDK where everyone got this Pope Derangement Syndrome from. He's a figurehead, not an idol. I very well could be wrong. I'm just going off of what a friend from college told me he believes. I guess it isn't a very widely accepted idea. It's a widely accepted idea by those ignorant of Catholic teaching |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 2:01:22 PM EDT
[#42]
After Jesus died, Paul had a gig spending the word, and made up tons of news Christian stuff and rules, including the power of the Priesthood (a power derived through Christ), which gets passed along from pope to pope and priest to priest. So, the Pope has limited powers like a god, and that's why he's a big deal. Not to mention all the political power a head of a huge organization wields.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 3:07:19 PM EDT
[#43]
If'n only them catlicks would come out wit it n say what they figger they believe in. Thats why I don't trust em none. Ya gotta pay ta get into the catlick churchin' building and show a special handshake or they done feed ya to the gaters. They done keeps it all a secret. Thats why they done got a funny bible n a caterkism. Done confusers things for those that ain't in the papist conspeeracy.
They needs ta come up with a creed that tells zactly what they done mean, like we gots on both Saturday nights and Sunday mornings at the first United free bible Antioch klavern and churchin' hall. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 3:24:15 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If'n only them catlicks would come out wit it n say what they figger they believe in. Thats why I don't trust em none. Ya gotta pay ta get into the catlick churchin' building and show a special handshake or they done feed ya to the gaters. They done keeps it all a secret. Thats why they done got a funny bible n a caterkism. Done confusers things for those that ain't in the papist conspeeracy. They needs ta come up with a creed that tells zactly what they done mean, like we gots on both Saturday nights and Sunday mornings at the first United free bible Antioch klavern and churchin' hall. Like that Creed of Nicene or the one the Apostles started? The problem is that the Catholic Church did not stick to those when they made Church Tradition equally as important as the Bible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 3:32:30 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem is that the Catholic Church did not stick to those when they made Church Tradition equally as important as the Bible. Then again, there's nothing that says that tradition isn't allowed in teaching. How in the world do you think the Word was spread before there was a document called "The Bible"?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 3:33:14 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like that Creed of Nicene or the one the Apostles started? The problem is that the Catholic Church did not stick to those when they made Church Tradition equally as important as the Bible. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If'n only them catlicks would come out wit it n say what they figger they believe in. Thats why I don't trust em none. Ya gotta pay ta get into the catlick churchin' building and show a special handshake or they done feed ya to the gaters. They done keeps it all a secret. Thats why they done got a funny bible n a caterkism. Done confusers things for those that ain't in the papist conspeeracy. They needs ta come up with a creed that tells zactly what they done mean, like we gots on both Saturday nights and Sunday mornings at the first United free bible Antioch klavern and churchin' hall. Like that Creed of Nicene or the one the Apostles started? The problem is that the Catholic Church did not stick to those when they made Church Tradition equally as important as the Bible. I ain't gots much knowledge of them catlicks, but when did they done make that change, |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 3:34:53 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then again, there's nothing that says that tradition isn't allowed in teaching. How in the world do you think the Word was spread before there was a document called "The Bible"?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem is that the Catholic Church did not stick to those when they made Church Tradition equally as important as the Bible. Then again, there's nothing that says that tradition isn't allowed in teaching. How in the world do you think the Word was spread before there was a document called "The Bible"?
It's not that there's anything wrong with tradition. It's the elevation to "holy" status that rubs me the wrong way. Especially since Holy Tradition has evolved over time. I'm about to go to a Catholic funeral for a family member, I may not be able to reply for a bit. If my opinion matters, I have no problem believing many of my Catholic brothers and sisters (in Christ) will be in heaven. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 3:37:22 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I ain't gots much knowledge of them catlicks, but when did they done make that change, Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If'n only them catlicks would come out wit it n say what they figger they believe in. Thats why I don't trust em none. Ya gotta pay ta get into the catlick churchin' building and show a special handshake or they done feed ya to the gaters. They done keeps it all a secret. Thats why they done got a funny bible n a caterkism. Done confusers things for those that ain't in the papist conspeeracy. They needs ta come up with a creed that tells zactly what they done mean, like we gots on both Saturday nights and Sunday mornings at the first United free bible Antioch klavern and churchin' hall. Like that Creed of Nicene or the one the Apostles started? The problem is that the Catholic Church did not stick to those when they made Church Tradition equally as important as the Bible. I ain't gots much knowledge of them catlicks, but when did they done make that change, When they started adding things along with it that weren't biblical. Indulgences are the first that come to mind, but it doesn't seem to be a fair argument because it isn't practiced anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 3:41:23 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not that there's anything wrong with tradition. It's the elevation to "holy" status that rubs me the wrong way. Especially since Holy Tradition has evolved over time. I'm about to go to a Catholic funeral for a family member, I may not be able to reply for a bit. If my opinion matters, I have no problem believing many of my Catholic brothers and sisters (in Christ) will be in heaven. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem is that the Catholic Church did not stick to those when they made Church Tradition equally as important as the Bible. Then again, there's nothing that says that tradition isn't allowed in teaching. How in the world do you think the Word was spread before there was a document called "The Bible"?
It's not that there's anything wrong with tradition. It's the elevation to "holy" status that rubs me the wrong way. Especially since Holy Tradition has evolved over time. I'm about to go to a Catholic funeral for a family member, I may not be able to reply for a bit. If my opinion matters, I have no problem believing many of my Catholic brothers and sisters (in Christ) will be in heaven. It's definitely a good thing Paul didn't write a letter telling believers to do something like "maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" because that would obviously be wrong |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 3:45:54 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The catholics take everything that is meant to be inner and make it outer. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
