Don`t feel "saved"

PDN

Jakkass wrote:

I believe the simple answer is no keano it's perfectly reasonable and logical. However there is nothing wrong with repenting to a member of the ministry if you so wish.

Or indeed to any Christian who is not a member of the ministry.

Spyral

I dont see how you guys dont get it *facepalm*

BrianCalgary

Spyral wrote:

I dont see how you guys dont get it *facepalm*

Don't get what?

Spyral

the catholic church in general.. any attacks on it have been ad hominem to some members but the actual doctrines are accurate

keano_afc

Spyral wrote:

the catholic church in general.. any attacks on it have been ad hominem to some members but the actual doctrines are accurate

Well if you answered my previous post on Catholic doctrine I might be sympathetic to your plea. I left the Catholic Church because after reading the bible I discoverd that a lot of Catholic doctrine was against bible teaching. As I previosly mentioned, transubstantiation and purgatory were two of the main ones. But praying for the dead, praying to statues, papal infallibility and many other doctrine played their part. Other aspects just confuse me, like priestly confession, as I've already mentioned. Perhaps you could shed some light on these?

kelly1

keano_afc wrote:

Well if you answered my previous post on Catholic doctrine I might be sympathetic to your plea. I left the Catholic Church because after reading the bible I discoverd that a lot of Catholic doctrine was against bible teaching. As I previosly mentioned, transubstantiation and purgatory were two of the main ones. But praying for the dead, praying to statues, papal infallibility and many other doctrine played their part. Other aspects just confuse me, like priestly confession, as I've already mentioned. Perhaps you could shed some light on these?

Keano, you'll find no contradiction between the bible and Catholic teachings. Transubstantiation is well supported by scripture. Jesus went to great lengths to explain that he was talking about his real flesh and blood:

John 6:53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

See also: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

For Purgatory see: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

God bless,
Noel.

admiralofthefleet

can you tell me where papal infallibility or indeed a pope is mentioned in the bible kelly1?

Spyral

you are peter and on this rock i build my church and the gates of hell shall never prevail against her

keano_afc

Purgatory

The Catholic Church teaches that a Christian's soul must burn in purgatory after death until all of their sins have been purged. To speed up the purging process, money may be paid to a priest so he can pray and have special masses for an earlier release.

This heresy began creeping into the Roman Church during the reign of Pope Gregory around the end of the sixth century, and it has no scriptural support. In fact, Jesus warned us about this pagan practice in Matthew 23:14 when He spoke of those who devoured widows houses and made long prayers for a pretence. Psalm 49:6-7 tells us that a person couldn't redeem a loved one, even if such a place did exist: "They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:"

Peter addresses this issue in Acts 8:20 when he says, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." God's word is clearly against the doctrine of purgatory.

From biblebelievers.com, an excellent site.

Asiaprod

Spyral wrote:

you are peter and on this rock i build my church and the gates of hell shall never prevail against her

That may well have been said, but all available evidence points to the existence not of a monoepiscopal structure but instead to committees of elders (presbyteroi) or overseers (episkopoi). This was standard in Christian communities all over the Roman empire. It is my understanding that Peter never became pope. The concept of Pope (single leader) came much later.

Spyral

The Catholic Church teaches that a Christian's soul must burn in purgatory after death until all of their sins have been purged. To speed up the purging process, money may be paid to a priest so he can pray and have special masses for an earlier release.

Wrong and wrong

the church teaches the existence of a state of purification. Doctrine does not say that it is burning or anything else. The selling of indulgences was gotten rid of during that 'tidying up' of the church around reformation times.
A priest may be given a stipend which is about E5-E10 euro. but he can only get 1 per day so he's not getting rich. There is no issue of 'buy your way out of purgatory' the only 3 ways out are by: people praying for you, praying the Rosary and relying on Our Lady's promises or by someone getting a plenary indulgence which is nothing to do with money.

Additonally there is scriptural support for pugatory ex maccabees when daniel prays for the dead who he killed. Why pray for someone if they are in Heaven they dont need it ? And once you're in Hell there is no escape so why pray either ? Its obvious that there is somewhere else. Where in the bible does it say that there is a direct route. You are just assuming that you go straight to heaven but you forget that "nothing unclean shall enter Heven"

If we are still unclean from sins committed here we need to be made clean. Without purgatory only the most saintly would get to heaven.

Run_to_da_hills

Christians cannot accept the concept of Purgatory, for it is nothing more than an advertising gimmick to promote the sale of indulgences. The continuing offering of indulgences, while perhaps is no longer a major source of income for the Roman Catholic Church it still serves the purpose of creating and maintaining dependency on the Church to ease the consequences of sin.

Believers in the Christ of Scripture have no fear of Purgatory nor the need for silly indulgences.

"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10

Spyral

it still serves the purpose of creating and maintaining dependency on the Church to ease the consequences of sin.

no Jesus made the Church.. cf building the church on the rock.. peter..

the real issue is that many protestants dont like the idea of submitting to anything other than their interpretation of the bible picking in choosing. Nowhere in the bible does it say that you are saved by faith alone either but many Protestants believe it anyway..

At least purgatory has biblical support ; St Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried

additionally if "nothing unclean shall enter heaven" then how will ANYONE get in as we are unclean due to sin.. ? There must be a process of forgiveness the alternate protestant view is that Jesus forgives everyone thusly the apostle who wrote that was high at the time for everyone is clean due to Jesus.. this clearly makes no sense what so ever.

Run_to_da_hills

Spyral wrote:

no Jesus made the Church.. cf building the church on the rock.. peter...

As if the sacrifice that Jesus did on the Cross is not enough for taking the sin from this world. There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanest us from all sins. (Read I John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Rom. 8:1).

The doctrine of Purgatory which originated from outside of Christian circles was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence in 1439 and it was confirmed by Trent in 1548.

Purgatory is for those who wish to live like the Devil in this life and "Hope" that they will receive a get out of Jail card in the next life, Well they are in for a big shock because “the wages of sin is death!" Romans 6 vs. 23.

Spyral wrote:

additionally if "nothing unclean shall enter heaven" then how will ANYONE get in as we are unclean due to sin.. ? There must be a process of forgiveness the alternate protestant view is that Jesus forgives everyone thusly the apostle who wrote that was high at the time for everyone is clean due to Jesus.. this clearly makes no sense what so ever.

The Blood of Jesus that was sacrificed once on the Cross at Calvary IS sufficient to wash away all sin. That was the whole reason for Christ to come to earth in the first place.

Spyral

As if the sacrifice that Jesus did on the Cross is not enough for taking the sin from this world. There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanest us from all sins. (Read I John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Rom. 8:1).

The doctrine of Purgatory which originated from outside of Christian circles was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence in 1439 and it was confirmed by Trent in 1548.

Purgatory is for those who wish to live like the Devil in this life and "Hope" that they will receive a get out of Jail card in the next life, Well they are in for a big shock because “the wages of sin is death!" Romans 3 vs. 23.

Jesus will take away your sins but you still must make up for them. Basically by your logic if I kill you and rape the corpse its ok coz jesus will take away the sins i commit so i can do anything when it doenst work that way..

Run_to_da_hills

Spyral wrote:

Jesus will take away your sins but you still must make up for them. Basically by your logic if I kill you and rape the corpse its ok coz jesus will take away the sins i commit so i can do anything when it doenst work that way..

If you murdererd me a committed Necrophilia and died of a heart attack immediatly after you would die in your sin. (You will die in your sin anyway without committing any of those crimes).

If you were arrested and ended up in the slammer for life you would be clensed of those sins and you would know it if you genuinly asked God for forgiveness through the Blood of Jesus Christ.

Spyral

You will die in your sin anyway without committing any of those crimes

oh Im sorry God I didn't know it was you in the way you can predict the future..

there is only one true church

your bible isnt even accurate unless you use a catholic one which means that you accept that they are right and if you reject the church then you reject your bibles accuracy as they are the people who put it together in 376AD

treefrog1

keano_afc wrote:

Well here's 2 spyral, just for starters. Please feel free to give me biblical reference for transsubstantiation and purgatory. Oh, and while you're at it, explain to me your interpretation of the following verses: Matt 23:9, Ex 20:4, Rom 10:9, John 3:7 and Heb 10:12. I look forward to your reply.

Call no man your Father. So we do not call our dad our Father? Ok.

If any are sincere about exploring what Catholicism actually IS, rather than rehashing the same, tired, worn out pseudo-arguments, then I strongly recommend Catholic Answers. Yes its Catholic, but if you genuinely are interested, then please do take a look at the site.

The following articles are particularly relevant here:

Call No Man "Father"?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

All the usual anti-Catholic arguments are comprehensively addressed here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/anti_catholicism.asp

To be honest, I really can't be bothered getting into this. All I will say is that, in all my experiences of dealing with anti-Catholics, the one common theme is ignorance. Call it stupidity if you like, but it is the complete failure to engage what I call the 'ticker' - that's the brain.

To all who are honest seekers I say - explore the Catholic faith. You will be surprised and amazed beyond your wildest dreams. And it makes complete sense, it is logical and reasonable.

To the original poster: don't worry about feelings. You are a Catholic, not a freevangelical. Your salvation does not depend on feelings. And thank God for that. Feelings come and go.

I would recommend a good book for you, in fact a couple of good books.

One is called BORN FUNDAMENTALIST, BORN AGAIN CATHOLIC, the other is called CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY, by Peter Kreeft. Both books are published by Ignatius and available from www.amazon.co.uk

Pax et Bonum

treefrog

Run_to_da_hills

Spyral wrote:

oh Im sorry God I didn't know it was you in the way you can predict the future..

Look up the following in your douay rhemes. "For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of GOD". ( Romans 3 23) "except ye repent ye shall likewise perish" (Luke 13 vs 5.) in otherwords you are a
HELLBOUND, sinner, unless you REPENT!

Spyral wrote:

there is only one true church

The is only one true Church and Jesus Christ is the "Rock" of that Church.

Spyral wrote:

your bible isnt even accurate unless you use a catholic one which means that you accept that they are right and if you reject the church then you reject your bibles accuracy as they are the people who put it together in 376AD

(With the second commandment on graven images ommitted)

treefrog1

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

The is only one true Church and Jesus Christ is the "Rock" of that Church.

This article addresses the issue rather well:

Peter the Rock
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

I suggest you read it and then get back to us.

treefrog1

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

(With the second commandment on graven images ommitted)

It's funny you bring that up.

I have an article that addresses that perfectly.

Now you may accuse me of having nothing to say for myself. Fair enough. All I will say is that the Catholic Faith is the fullness of Truth and the information is freely available to all who desire the Truth.

The Catholic Church Changed The Ten Commandments?
http://www.fisheaters.com/10commandments.html

Read the article and then when you come back we can continue the discussion.

Run_to_da_hills

treefrog1 wrote:

It's funny you bring that up.

I have an article that addresses that perfectly.

Now you may accuse me of having nothing to say for myself. Fair enough. All I will say is that the Catholic Faith is the fullness of Truth and the information is freely available to all who desire the Truth.

The Catholic Church Changed The Ten Commandments?
http://www.fisheaters.com/10commandments.html

Read the article and then when you come back we can continue the discussion.

And then please explain why you have graven images placed in all your churches if it specifically tells you not to have them in Exodus 20 and Exodous 34 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21?

With regards to Simon Peter (Who was a married man) being the first "Pope" may I suggest you read this. http://www.teamtruth.com/articles/art_firstpope.htm

PDN

treefrog1 wrote:

To the original poster: don't worry about feelings. You are a Catholic, not a freevangelical. Your salvation does not depend on feelings. And thank God for that. Feelings come and go.

I don't think the original poster mentioned whether he/she was a Catholic or not.

philologos

How are we meant to give the OP a decent answer if we keep arguing over it.

treefrog1

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

And then please explain why you have graven images placed in all your churches if it specifically tells you not to have them in Exodus 20 and Exodous 34 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21?

Traditionally Catholics consider Deut. 5:6-10 as the First Commandment, verse 11 as the Second Commandment, verses 12-15 as the Third Commandment and so on. Verse 21 is split up into the Ninth and Tenth Commandments - distinguishing the desire (lust) to commit adultery from the desire (greed) to steal. This division scheme was advocated by St. Augustine in his writings on Exodus. Traditionally Protestants consider Deut. 5:6-7 as the First Commandment, verses 8-10 as the Second Commandment, verse 11 as the Third Commandment and so on. Verse 21 is kept together as the Tenth Commandment.
According to the RSV Bible and Catholic Tradition, the First Commandment is:

(6)I am the LORD your God,...(7)You shall have no other gods before me. (8)You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; (9)you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, (10)but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. [Deut. 5:6-10; RSV]

Verse 7 forbids the worship of other gods, while verses 8-9 forbid the making of graven (carved) images that would be worshipped as gods, i.e. idols. Now worshipping statues with divine honor is one way of worshipping other gods. Verse 7 is a general statement of the First Commandment, while verses 8-9 give a specific case of this Commandment. Verses 9-10 present the punishments and rewards that are associated with these Commandments.
By combining together Deut. 5:6-10 into one Commandment, the Catholic Church is accused of altering the Commandments and covering up God's command forbidding graven images. Suspicions are further fueled when Catholic books only present the general form of the Commandment, Deut. 5:7, in order to expedite memorization. Now one must ask the question: "Does God forbid the making of statues, or does He condemn the worship of statues?" If God condemns the divine worship of statues, then the Catholic division scheme is justified since these images would be "other gods before" Him. A separate Commandment based on Deut. 5:8-10 would be redundant.
Now if God simply forbids the making of graven images, then there are problems elsewhere in the Bible. First, in Exodus 25:18-21, God commands Moses to make two statues of angels (cherubim) for the top of the Ark of the Covenant. Later in Numbers 21:8-9, God commands Moses to make a bronze serpent, so that the people who were bitten by snakes could look upon it and be healed. Now it is true that centuries later King Hezekiah destroyed it; however, this action was done because the people worshipped it as a god (2 Kings 18:4). In the Gospel, Jesus compared Himself to the bronze serpent (John 3:14). Continuing in the Old Testament, the inner sanctuary of the Temple contained two large statues of angels according to 1 Kings 6:23-28. In the following verses, Solomon also had the walls of the Temple decorated with carved images of angels, palm trees and flowers (1 Kings 6:29ff). During the Babylonian Captivity, Ezekiel had a vision from God about the design of the new Temple. According to Ezekiel 41:17-25, this new Temple contained graven images of angels and palm trees. These passages in the Bible indicate that God does not forbid the making of statues. If God truly condemned the making of graven images in the "Second Commandment", then He must have changed His mind later in the Old Testament.
The Catholic Church during the Council of Trent (1545-1563) issued a clear statement concerning images and statues. According to the 25th Session of this General Council:

The images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the saints are to be had and retained particularly in churches, and due honor and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them on account of which they are to be worshipped, or that anything is to be asked of them, or that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old by the Gentiles, who placed their hopes in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which these images represent; so that we through the images which we kiss...or bend the knee, adore Christ and venerate the saints, whom they represent. [The Canons & Decrees of the Council of Trent (TAN Books, 1978) p. 215-6]

The Church does NOT compel her members to kneel or pray before images. No one is allowed by the Church to pray to images since they have no ears to hear or power to help us. The Church allows for the veneration of images as long as the honor is directed towards Christ and His saints.
On a related issue, some Christians may object to the veneration of images of the saints since they believe that honor should be directed towards God alone and not towards Mary or the saints (1 Tim. 1:17). This objection arises from a confusion between divine honor (adoration - supreme honor proper only for God) and respectful honor proper for men. According to the Bible, the people of God bowed down before King David to show him honor (2 Sam. 24:20; 1 Chron. 29:20; 21:21). Obadiah in 1 Kings 18:7 fell prostrate before Elijah showing him reverence for being a prophet of God. In the Ten Commandments, we are told to honor our mother and father (Deut. 5:16). Even Jesus defended and obeyed this Commandment (Mark 7:9-13; Luke 2:51). At least for Mary, our honor to her is in imitation of Jesus, her Son (1 Cor. 11:1). The Church allows for the veneration of the saints and their images as long as it remains honor proper for men. It is good to honor the saints for their love and trust in God (Matt. 22:31-32; Heb. 11:1-12:1).
The Catholic Church has not altered the Ten Commandments of God. The Church has not dropped the "Second Commandment" as the booklet alleges. The Catholic numbering scheme may differ with the Protestant numbering scheme, but this is due to a difference in tradition and not an alteration of God's Commandments. Unfortunately the Bible is not clear on how to divide or number the Ten Commandments. If this difference is scandalous, it would be interesting to know what the author of the booklet thought of Jesus Christ when He reduced God's Commandments to the Two Great Commandments in Matt. 22:36-40. Finally the Church strictly condemns the adoration (divine worship) of statues, images or even the saints, since this is idolatry and in direct violation of the First Commandment. For Christians a crucifix should not be considered merely as a statue of Jesus hanging on a cross, but as a reminder of the high cost of our salvation as well as His words to us:

"If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." [Mark 8:34]

Source: http://users.binary.net/polycarp/graven.html (It helps if you actually read what people post, rather than run away and hide behind what Pastor tells you, rehashing the same, tired, anti-Catholic arguments that reveal your true motivation and ultimate lacking of intelligence.)

treefrog1

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

With regards to Simon Peter (Who was a married man) being the first "Pope" may I suggest you read this. http://www.teamtruth.com/articles/art_firstpope.htm

Heard it all before. Sadly it's the usual anti-Catholc Fundamentalist drivel. You really should READ what people post. It would be tremendously helpful.

Particularly this bit:

Peter: Unperfected Stone

Jesus told Peter, “...thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew (16:18) The New Testament was written in Greek, the language of the 3rd universal Empire. The meaning is even clearer in that great language. It says that Jesus said to Peter:

"Thou art Petros, and upon this Petra, I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Jesus was using a play on words, “thou art Peter (Petros = little stone), and upon this rock (petra = large rock) I will build my church...” Jesus referred to Peter as a little stone, and to Himself as a large rock. Jesus is the chief corner stone, He was referring to Himself, the large rock, in which the church would be built upon, not Peter. It is Jesus Christ that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against, not sinful, weak, mortal man.

In the very same chapter Jesus turns to Peter and calls him Satan because Peter had tried to turn Jesus away from going to the Cross to die for sinners: "But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matt. 16:23).

Actually, Christ and His diciples spoke Aramaic.

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

Just another point to pick on:

Not ONE early church father, in their writings, ever even hint that Jesus made Peter the head of the church. Such silence is deafening. The first person to propose such an outrageous idea was a Bishop of Rome in the 4th century. Over 300 years after Christ!

That is a LIE.

Just one point proves this:

Cyprian of Carthage


"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men ... when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

This has actually already been addressed: earlier on in this thread I did actually post a link to these resources. It proves my point: that anti_Catholic bible Fundamentalists are not actually interested in Truth, but only in persisting in the promotion of their evil and hateful doctrines.

Run_to_da_hills

treefrog1 wrote:

[/url] (It helps if you actually read what people post, rather than run away and hide behind what Pastor tells you, rehashing the same, tired, anti-Catholic arguments that reveal your true motivation and ultimate lacking of intelligence.)
[/SIZE]

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..." -Exodus 20:4,5

Thats calling a spade a spade.

Jackass is right, how can we give the OP a decent answer if we are arguing over it.

treefrog1

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Jackass is right, how can we give the OP a decent answer if we are arguing over it.

^ That's Protestants for ya.

Please read what I post. Here is an article addressing the use of Graven Images:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

One other thing:

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

John 6:54

If I make it really big, maybe you will read it.

I'd say that's calling a spade a spade too... Hmmm.... It's funny how Fundamentalists choose which bits of Scripture to take literally and which to ignore.

Run_to_da_hills

treefrog1 wrote:

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. John 6:54

Our lord broke the bread and handed around the broken pieces to his disciples and said do this in membrane of me. The broken pieces representing his broken body on the cross that he sacrificed. I do not find any reference in scripture for "unbroken" disks. One rarely if ever participates in the Cup at a mass service.

When Jesus said, "I am the door; if anyone enters through me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture." John 10:9.

One dose not expect Jesus to be a 6'x3'x2" Wooden door, likewise why would one expect him to be turned into a loaf of bread. Jesus used Metaphors.

keano_afc

Spyral wrote:

Wrong and wrong

the church teaches the existence of a state of purification. Doctrine does not say that it is burning or anything else. The selling of indulgences was gotten rid of during that 'tidying up' of the church around reformation times.
A priest may be given a stipend which is about E5-E10 euro. but he can only get 1 per day so he's not getting rich. There is no issue of 'buy your way out of purgatory' the only 3 ways out are by: people praying for you, praying the Rosary and relying on Our Lady's promises or by someone getting a plenary indulgence which is nothing to do with money.

Additonally there is scriptural support for pugatory ex maccabees when daniel prays for the dead who he killed. Why pray for someone if they are in Heaven they dont need it ? And once you're in Hell there is no escape so why pray either ? Its obvious that there is somewhere else. Where in the bible does it say that there is a direct route. You are just assuming that you go straight to heaven but you forget that "nothing unclean shall enter Heven"

If we are still unclean from sins committed here we need to be made clean. Without purgatory only the most saintly would get to heaven.

Please stick to books that are actually IN the bible. Hebrews 9:27: "For it is appointed for man to die once, and then judgement". Clearly we are judged immediately after death, with no "waiting room". The "direct route" you say doesnt exist is found in John 14:6. "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father BUT BY ME". Seems pretty direct.

treefrog1

keano_afc wrote:

Please stick to books that are actually IN the bible.

As opposed to the books Mr Luther threw out of the bible because he didn't like them?

Did you know he wanted to get rid of James and Revelation, but a mate persuaded him to leave them in the bible?

keano_afc

Spyral wrote:

Jesus will take away your sins but you still must make up for them. Basically by your logic if I kill you and rape the corpse its ok coz jesus will take away the sins i commit so i can do anything when it doenst work that way..

Hebrews 10:17: "And their sins and iniquitites I will remember no more". If Jesus fogives our sins for good once they are forgiven, why do you feel we still have to make up for them?

keano_afc

treefrog1 wrote:

As opposed to the books Mr Luther threw out of the bible because he didn't like them?

Did you know he wanted to get rid of James and Revelation, but a mate persuaded him to leave them in the bible?

I'm not a Protestant or a Lutheran, so makes no odds to me. I'm simply a bible believing Christian.

Run_to_da_hills

treefrog1 wrote:

As opposed to the books Mr Luther threw out of the bible because he didn't like them?

Did you know he wanted to get rid of James and Revelation, but a mate persuaded him to leave them in the bible?

If everybody was to choose your style of font on this Christian site, it would soon resemble a tabloid newspaper.

Spyral

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

If everybody was to choose your style of font on this Christian site, it would soon resemble a tabloid newspaper.

well its evident that no one is reading treefrog1's posts so I don't blame him for doing it.

I'm not a Protestant or a Lutheran, so makes no odds to me. I'm simply a bible believing Christian.

Well your bible is incomplete as it lacks some of the books. Additionally to believe that the bible is infallible then you must accept that the Catholic Church is as they put it together

keano_afc

Spyral wrote:

Well your bible is incomplete as it lacks some of the books. Additionally to believe that the bible is infallible then you must accept that the Catholic Church is as they put it together

Revalation 22:18: "For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophesy of this book; if any man should add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"

I also note you didnt bother to answer my question, yet again.

Spyral

Hebrews 10:17: "And their sins and iniquitites I will remember no more". If Jesus fogives our sins for good once they are forgiven, why do you feel we still have to make up for them?

if i smash your window, even if you forgive me I still have to pay for it.

Revalation 22:18: "For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophesy of this book; if any man should add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"

Those books weren't added, they were Always there until Luther came along. He took away.. He modified it therefor contradicting the biblical quote you gave which tells us not to modify the bible.

keano_afc

Spyral wrote:

if i smash your window, even if you forgive me I still have to pay for it.

So you feel that Christ's death and the shedding of his blood is not enough to forgive sins? If I understand you correctly just because God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the Divine Being, forgives our sins and does not recall them, THIS IS NOT ENOUGH? Why do you even believe in God if you feel he cant forgive us our sins? Read Romans 6:10 and Hebrews 7:27. I'll keep praying for you.

Run_to_da_hills

Spyral wrote:

well its evident that no one is reading treefrog1's posts so I don't blame him for doing it.

If someone is going to drag and paste large sheets from a website no one is going to reply to him.

Spyral wrote:

Well your bible is incomplete as it lacks some of the books. Additionally to believe that the bible is infallible then you must accept that the Catholic Church is as they put it together

The Catholic Church tried to take credit for what the Lord did without their help. The Old Testiment which is cannon to the Jews was "put together" long before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, so the RC cannot take the credit for these Books, As regards to the New testiment, The discovery of scrolls in caves, many almost complete new testiment dating back to the second century already mentioned on another post, further proof that the Catholic Church did not "put together" the Bible.

The Jews nor the early Christians accepted the Apocrypha as inspired scripture. The do not claim inspiration. There are no "Thus saith the Lord's". Jesus NEVER quoted from these books, The New Testament has 263 direct quotations from and 370 allusions to the Old Testament, there is not a one reference to the books of the Apocrypha. It was at the Council of Trent 1546 the pope declared tradition and the Apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative. These books teach several false doctrines and contain many inaccurate historical facts

Spyral

you dont understand..

if you do something wrong there is a penalty. if you as a child do something wrong your parents repremand you. they still love you.

ditto with God. He is our *Father* fathers correct their children but they forgive them and still love them.
good fathers do not allow their kids to do what they want because they love them - they try to raise them right.

Hebrews 12
Have you forgotten that encouraging text in which you are addressed as sons? My son, when the Lord corrects you, do not treat it lightly; but do not get discouraged when he reprimands you. For the Lord trains the ones that he loves and he punishes all those that he acknowledges as his sons. Suffering is part of your training; God is treating you as his sons. Has there ever been any son whose father did not train him? Of course, any punishment is most painful at the time, and far from pleasant; but later, in those on whom it has been used, it bears fruit in peace and goodness. So hold up your limp arms and steady your trembling knees and smooth out the path you tread; then the injured limb will not be wrenched, it will grow strong again.

yes God forgives us but forgiveness does not mean 'get off scott free' as so many people think. You are still responsible for your actions

Spyral

The Catholic Church tried to take credit for what the Lord did without their help.

Jesus didn't write or complile the bible.

The Old Testiment which is cannon to the Jews was "put together" long before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, so the RC cannot take the credit for these Books

Different Jewish sects use different amounts of book, *some* Jewish sects didnt use all of the books, some did.

As regards to the New testiment, The discovery of scrolls in caves, many almost complete new testiment dating back to the second century already mentioned on another post, further proof that the Catholic Church did not "put together" the Bible.

In 367 the book was finalised. There was no more debating about what to put into it.
Its like saying here's a Gideons miniature bible of Gospels and you finding it and thinking everything else didn't belong. And yes BEFORE 367 some groups used only parts of what we know to be the bible as mass produciton of books didn't exist like it does today. However at the time the Catholic (that means UNIVERSAL) church which was the one and only Christian Church at the time agreed to use all the books which we now have in a Catholic Bible. Luther changed it but this has been pointed out before.

The Jews nor the early Christians accepted the Apocrypha as inspired scripture. The do not claim inspiration. There are no "Thus saith the Lord's". Jesus NEVER quoted from these books, The New Testament has 263 direct quotations from and 370 allusions to the Old Testament, there is not a one reference to the books of the Apocrypha.

I dont see Jesus quoting Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Solomon either... so maybe scrap them from your bible and come back to me on that one...

It was at the Council of Trent 1546 the pope declared tradition and the Apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative. These books teach several false doctrines and contain many inaccurate historical facts

367AD the first bible similar to our own, Old testament + new testament (prot versions) plus the wisdom of solomon and baruch
382AD council of rome. All of catholic cannonical books decided on.
393AD hippo this was agreed
397AD ditto @ carthage
787 ditto again 400 years later
1441 declared infallabale
Wrong, in 1441 they were declared infallible

now how did your bible protestantism work then in those 366 years prior to that ? What happend when the theologians were debating and deciding ?
Additonally what authority do you or Luther have to decide what books are in your bible ? None that's what.

To accept the bible as being the true word of God you must accept the Catholic Church which has been around for 2000 years and "the gates of hell shall never prevail against her" (unless you want to remove that book too)

Run_to_da_hills

Spyral wrote:

Jesus didn't write or complile the bible. )

Wrong! All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (II Tim 3:16)

Spyral wrote:

I dont see Jesus quoting Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Solomon either... so maybe scrap them from your bible and come back to me on that one...

Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Solomon are all apart of the Jewish Canon, unlike the Apocrypha which were never a part of Jewish canon.

Spyral wrote:

now how did your bible protestantism work then in those 366 years prior to that ? What happend when the theologians were debating and deciding ?
Additonally what authority do you or Luther have to decide what books are in your bible ? None that's what. Christians

Christians have been around since the time of Acts, these guys have been persecuted by the Vatican since the time of Constantine right up to the Reformation and slaughtered in their millions by the crusaders. These Christians worshiped the true "Rock" of the Christian Church which is Jesus Christ and not a counterfeit, they followed the Christ of the Scriptures, I.e. Sola Scriptura through scrolls and worshiped God in spirit and truth. We can thank Martin Luther and the Guttenberg Press for letting the cat out of the bag by sparking off the reformation by translating the scriptures into the common tongue and having it destributed.

Incidentally Martin Luther got excommunicated for translating the Bible into German, Adolf Hitler never got excommunicated nor did his book Mien Kampf ever get banned from the Vatican’s list of banned books and yet Pope Leo XII on 5 May 1824 Called the Protestant Bible, the "Gospel of the Devil" This is what I call hypocrisy.

Spyral wrote:

To accept the bible as being the true word of God you must accept the Catholic Church which has been around for 2000 years and "the gates of hell shall never prevail against her" (unless you want to remove that book too)

You are totally wrong on the dates, The Catholic Church goes back around 1700 Years when you take into account the date it was started at Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, It was then back dated to the time of the apostles by the same men that set it up, so I dont know where you get your 2000years from.

Spyral

Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Solomon are all apart of the Jewish Canon, unlike the Apocrypha which were never a part of Jewish canon.

he still didn't quote from them so you'd better remove them from your bible

Wrong! All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (II Tim 3:16)

really then how do you know the apocrypha shouldn't be included.. you just said all scripture... what you mean is "the scripture I want to have" as opposed to all CANNON scripture agreed on by early The early church fathers.

Christians have been around since the time of Acts, these guys have been persecuted by the Vatican since the time of Constantine right up to the Reformation and slaughtered in their millions by the crusaders. These Christians worshiped the true "Rock" of the Christian Church which is Jesus Christ and not a counterfeit, they followed the Christ of the Scriptures, I.e. Sola Scriptura through scrolls and worshiped God in spirit and truth.

firstly "thou are peter and on this rock I build my church" this has already been discussed. Treefrog1 explained it well. Read his posts. You have no argument.
Additionally nowhere in the bible is there support for scripture alone just as there is no reason for faith alone either.
There *is* however support for ALL Catholic beliefs including Traditions.
Read this on why sola scriptura is erroneous

You are totally wrong on the dates, The Catholic Church goes back around 1700 Years when you take into account the date it was started at Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, It was then back dated to the time of the apostles by the same crowd that set it up, so I dont know where you get your 2000years from.

ok 2007 - 33 = 1974 you're right not 2000...
the church had to have been in existence before the council was formed.. use your head if they weren't already a church then how could there have been a council.

Run_to_da_hills

Spyral wrote:

he still didn't quote from them so you'd better remove them from your bible .

Why should I reject them, they are part of the old testiment accepted by the Jewish Canon unlike the apocrypha.

Spyral wrote:

really then how do you know the apocrypha shouldn't be included.. you just said all scripture... what you mean is "the scripture I want to have" as opposed to all CANNON scripture agreed on by early The early church fathers.
.

We were warned about ADDING in to the Word of God in Revelation 22:18-9. These unscriptual books were added by the Roman Catholic Church as canon at the Council of Trent 1546.

Spyral wrote:

firstly "thou are peter and on this rock I build my church" this has already been discussed. Treefrog1 explained it well. Read his posts. You have no argument.

The only true and sure foundation is Jesus Christ, which is plainly stated in 1st Corinthians 3:11. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." It's that simple.

Spyral wrote:

Additionally nowhere in the bible is there support for scripture alone just as there is no reason for faith alone either.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" -John 10:27.

Spyral wrote:

There *is* however support for ALL Catholic beliefs including Traditions.
Read this on why sola scriptura is erroneous
.

I think the following from Mark would sum up the Traditions of the Catholic Church, "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition ... Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition..." -Mark 7:9,13

The Mad Hatter

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

If everybody was to choose your style of font on this Christian site, it would soon resemble a tabloid newspaper.

Tabloid style is much more to do with style of writing than colour. Sensationalism being a major part of it, combined with an unimpressive grasp of the English language.

Neither is really present here, as far as I can tell. He's just trying to draw attention to points that have been ignored. That (ignoring posts which sensibly contradict something that one or another person is saying) seems to be rather common here.

Run_to_da_hills

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Tabloid style is much more to do with style of writing than colour. Sensationalism being a major part of it, combined with an unimpressive grasp of the English language.

Neither is really present here, as far as I can tell. He's just trying to draw attention to points that have been ignored. That (ignoring posts which sensibly contradict something that one or another person is saying) seems to be rather common here.

OK I take it back about the Tabloids,(I was referring to appearance rather than content)
but as I already mentioned people are going to ignore long winded uninterrupted sheets that are pasted from websites. I’m sure the Mods on Boards.ie would not be too impressed if this manner of drawing attention took off. The PM facility is there for a reason.

Spyral

And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and,'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban"' (that is, given to God)then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."

you are using it out of context totally ! It is clear that traditions are supported

1 cor 11:2
I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thess 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.


2 Tim 2:2
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

I guess the apostles didn't follow bible only then...

The only true and sure foundation is Jesus Christ, which is plainly stated in 1st Corinthians 3:11. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." It's that simple.

read treefrog1 arguments. you evidently haven't

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" -John 10:27.

Sorry I thought that meant "the sheep that belong to me hear my voice. I know them and they follow me" not "the bible is the only official and inspired word or god and appeared magically overnight in a concise little passage in the NIV translation..."

Don't be asinine that passage in no was supports sola scriptura. NOTHING in the bible does. Logically how would it ? Each book was written by a separate author. None of them knew at the time what books would have been written and included in it in the future so.
Additionally maybe you should take this quote : "At the same time, we must regocgnise that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual" well if it s not for the individual could it POSSIBLY be for the church ? I think so

We were warned about ADDING in to the Word of God in Revelation 22:18-9. These unscriptual books were added by the Roman Catholic Church as canon at the Council of Trent 1546.

NO they were taken *away* by Luther. Read a bloody history book if you only think the catholic bible existed for 500 years. You aren't reading any evidence I'm giving you so I don't see how repeating this over and over is going to help but I will do it once more anyway :

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PUT THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE TOGETHER - NOTHING IN IT CONTRADICTS CHURCH DOCTRINE - NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SUPPORT SOLA FIDE OR SOLA SCRIPTURA

Run_to_da_hills

Spyral, You never explained to me why Martin Luther got excommunicated for translating the Bible into German and Adolf Hitler never got excommunicated nor did his book Mien Kampf ever get banned from the Vatican’s list of banned books and yet Pope Leo XII on 5 May 1824 Called the Protestant Bible, the "Gospel of the Devil" This is what I call hypocrisy and is something that I would not expect to come from any Christian church

Spyral

firstly its irrelevant to the purpose of this thread

second its an attempt at an ad hominem attack on the church

third Luthor was a heretic Hitler was an aethiest.
Luther opposed infallible church teachings I dont recall Hitler going "KILL THE JEWS AND MARY ISNT THE MOTHER OF GOD !" yet Luther was actively anti church and attempted to spread heresy.

To my knowledge the church doesn't only bans books which are heretical. the ravings of a madman would hardly measure up to the theological standards required to 'qualify' as heresy anyway.

Anyway reply to my posts and stop trying to distract the thread. (or what cunning freevangelical pittrap have i walked into, St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devingelical)

philologos

Luther also had a chronic case of anti-Semitism, and infact his book "The Jews and their Lies" was also an inspiration for young Hitler.

To the OP in the midst of this rambling. I suggest that you consider all the verses that have been quoted. Or even make a project for reading the Bible yourself and seeing what YOU make of it. And how it can bring personal meaning to your life. I hope that you and others will gain a valuable faith despite the arguing that often goes on.