Catholic Church & Jesus Christ-Why No One Should Be A Catholic

Apostolic Messianic Fellowship ^ | August 30, 2005 | Why No One Should Be A Catholic

[GoLightly]

You are blessed.

Yes, I am. It wasn't always the case. I had an attitude adjustment. ;o)

[Mad Dawg]

I'd respectfully like to add:

Deo volente rivoque non adsurgente
God willing and the creek don't rise.

[Mad Dawg]

I paid a foot doctor to do it!

To repair the serious bad bunion, they break (actually saw through) the long bone leading to the megalomaniac joint and the phalanx of the big toe on the other side of the joint. Then they whittle on 'em some and slide the pieces around and screw them back together -- not the phalanx to the tarsal, just the respective pieces.

Sure hope it works! He said about 17 of 20 that get it down say they'd have it done again ... I have to be able to walk in this years MS walk, and to get back into the whole Search and Rescue thing, so it seemed good as I was limping back to the house after a failed attempt at a four mile walk/run/walk during Xmastide.

[Mad Dawg]

Why is the Bible not sufficient for YOU? It is God breathed and inspired by Him. Why in the world would ANYONE but their confidence in man - mere mortals as you prefer?

You keep saying that, and it's just as untrue now as it was the first time you said it.

[Diego1618]

here are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

Greek is a very precise language. That is one of the reasons the Holy Spirit saw to it that the scriptures were preserved by it.

Let's take your first example: [Matthew 12:46]ετι δε αυτου λαλουντος τοις οχλοις ιδου η μητηρ και οι αδελφοι αυτου ειστηκεισαν εξω ζητουντες αυτω λαλησαi While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

The word highlighted in red means brothers. It is Strong's dictionary #80. adephos (ad-el-fos') here.(Scroll down to #80) It would be very difficult.... reading this verse and knowing what the dictionary says.....to not conclude that these are flesh and blood brethren.

Let's take your next example. [Matthew 13:55] ουχ ουτος εστιν ο του τεκτονος υιος ουχι η μητηρ αυτου λεγεται μαριαμ και οι αδελφοι αυτου ιακωβος και ιωσης και σιμων και ιουδας. Same word....same meaning.

[Mark 3:31–34] Same word again....trust me.

[Mark 6:3] Likewise. [Luke 8:19–20] Again.

The others all show the translation to mean flesh and blood siblings. If the usage were to mean a relative....a cousin, the word would be Anepsios as we find in [Colossians 4:10] Aristarchus my fellow-captive salutes you, and Mark, Barnabas's cousin, concerning whom ye have received orders, (if he come to you, receive him.)Strong's #431. anepsios (an-eps'-ee-os.

As for the rest of your post.....you should not attempt to compare Hebrew to Greek.

[Mad Dawg]

Why would someone who is filled with God desire to go thru a ritual to get the 'real presence' of God when God is within them???

TTTTTwo reasons, at least. (I'm stipulating pro tem "ritual" which I doubt is meant in a non-confrontative way)(1)He told us to. (You'll find that in Scripture. (2)The Trinity is hard. Can we at least agree on that? The Spirit is God, but generally Trinitarians would not say the Spirit is the Son. So there evidently is a kind of presence of God the Son which is some mysterious way different from the presence of God The Holy Spirit.

I like the first reason a lot.

[Mad Dawg]

I wear polycarbonate bifocals so that I always have shooting glass on. (I can't see my sights without reading glasses but my distance vision is fine. The top "half" of my glasses is almost blank.

Your friend who's tilting his head needs glasses with the division line up further, that's all, I'd bet. (BTW thanks for your prayers)

[BlueNgold]

While I personally do not choose to worship in a Catholic church I cannot say that it is impossible for a 'true Christian' to be Catholic. I, and most other protestants, have varying levels of issues with the dogma of the HRCC, hence our Protestantism. I also have issues with some Baptist churches, some evangelical churches, etc. etc. etc. on down the line.

I have, however, known some very fine people who's election I would never question in the slightest who were in fact Catholic.

The impression I get from the author is that he is not actually all that familiar with the teachings of the HRCC, and I also get the impression that he has had little to no interaction with local parish priests. I think most protestants would be pleasantly surprised were they to sit in on a small group Bible study or engage a private conversation with their local Catholic minister.

Most of the arguments of the author are based on popular lore, not based on the actual teachings of the church.
- Sinning your way into purgatory to be saved by the prayers of others is simply not dogmatic.
- I have never heard a Catholic in a position to teach proclaim that Jesus founded the Catholic church per se, but rather they do believe that their priesthood traces back to Peter, who of course, was commissioned by Jesus Himself.
- I don't know of anyone, Catholic of Protestant, who believes that salvation comes through the Holy Communion.
- I agree that the Mass is odd to a non-Catholic, but one must remember that the ritual dates from a time when most could not read or write. So long as the priest is talking to Jesus when he prays I have no particular quarrel with it. For the record I don't find that standard service of most protestant churches in the Bible either - nowhere can I find that at 1030 the music will start, 1035 singing begins, 1045 greet your friends, 1055 offering and more music, 1115 sermon begins...
- Confession comes directly from James chapter 5 verse 16 and is also backed up indirectly by a number of teachings of Paul. Not being Catholic I don't have the exact references handy, but I'm sure one of our good Catholic Brethren will be happy to provide them if needed.
- The 6th point is silly - the HRCC wasn't 'founded' by Peter - if one wants to dispute their claim of a traceable succession of pastors and priests from the 1st century church - fine - but what does that have to do with their teachings on salvation? That is after all the core question.
- Point 7 - they were Jewish. The author wasted 4 paragraphs explaining the obvious in such detail as to confuse the question. The left turn into racism was interesting at the very least. Poorly written, without a binding thread of logic, but interesting all the same.
- Point 8 is silly to the point of laughable. Mary was never a Baptist or an Evangelical either - she was a Christian - a Jewish woman who saw the prophets justified in her son.
- A better point would have been to address specifically the pervasive 'Mother Worship' in the HRCC. To state that she was not Catholic is to state the obvious and the rambling disjointed logic train makes it hard to read. I too have concerns that there exists within Catholicism what many call the 'Cult of Mary' where she is given power and honor reserved to God alone. The words of Gabriel that Mary was highly favored by God are the source of the position Catholics give to Mary - however praying to her is a huge red flag to me.

I did some research on this Reckart guy - I can find very little in his writings that is Biblically sound. I find Scripture quoted out of context, statements made with references to Scripture which have nothing to do with the topic under discussion, he requires baptism for salvation as opposed to it being an obligation of the saved, and he goes so far as to claim that if one has been baptized otherwise 'correctly', but the pastor used the words 'In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' instead of 'In the name of Jesus Christ' you haven't actually been baptized and are not saved and thus doomed to hell. His articles seem to be more about arguments within the church than they are about finding and preaching to the lost - of course he considers most of us to be lost unless we follow his 'correct' version of Christianity.

Thus bringing me to my final point - (thank you to those of you still awake and who actually read this far) -
There is a difference between legitimate theological discussions and inciting division within the Church. I use the term Church in a very liberal and wide sweeping sense without respect to denomination. Seeking the Truth should be the goal of each of us. Defending the Truth should be on our task list as well. But if we seek the Truth and respect the Scripture then we will also read where Paul and John and Peter spoke about divisions and the cancer they create within the body. If you take personal offense that someone - another mortal man - disagrees with you about interpretation of Scripture then you are giving yourself too much power. Where in the Scripture do we find our right to be offended over such things? Peter tells us the fate of false teachers - that judgment is reserved unto God. The obligation of man is to confess Christ, seek the Truth, obey the Law, and preach the Gospel. I will now attempt to get off my soap box and remind myself first, and perhaps some others, of Matt 11:29 where even Jesus sought humility before God. A great lesson for me, and I hope someday to learn it well - but alas I am human - a work in progress - forgive me.

[Salvation]

**wont to inject **

Me too, sometimes.

[Salvation]

Thanks, Frank. Excellent information there.

[Salvation]

I think it is a different "Mary" and I think you have John the apostle mixed up with John the Baptist -- who was the cousin of Jesus.

[Salvation]

Are you familiar with the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts? Who was the person who spoke there? Peter, fyi.

Would you like to have me post a list of Popes from Peter on down? I have it and I certainly could.

[Salvation]

Glad to hear the surgery went well. I would hate to have something like that done under local anesthetic so that I could watch it. But you're a lot tougher than me, I bet.

Prayers continue! God bless you and heal you.

[Salvation]

** each of us who make the faith assertion that Jesus is the Christ also receives the keys.**

No way! I will never be on the same level as Peter! If you really believe that you receive the "keys to the kingdom" once saved, then what happens when you go out and commit a robbert, abuse your wife, drink too much, eat too much, tell a lie, covet your neighbor's new car?

Doesn't make sense to me. OSAS never has made sense to me.

[Running On Empty]

"We all do it at times."

Ah--a universal truth discovered at last.

[Salvation]

**You said that the Catholic Church does not consider you a part of it "so" you question whether we are part of the same family. **

Aren't we all part of the great family of Abraham -- stars in the sky, grains of sand?

Even in the prayers at Mass, we pray for all those who believe, whether they are there in person or not. So many Protestants get prayed for in a Catholic Mass. Who would have ever though it?

[Salvation]

From this Reglection thread for Lent

Lenten Question
Q: What is Lent?
A: Lent is the forty day period before Easter, excluding Sundays, which begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on Holy Saturday (the day before Easter Sunday). [This traditional ennumeration does not precisely coincide with the calendar according to the liturgical reform. In order to give special prominence to the Sacred Triduum (Mass of the Lord's Supper, Good Friday, Easter Vigil) the current calendar counts Lent as only from Ash Wednesday to Holy Thursday, up to the Mass of the Lord's Supper. Even so, Lenten practices are properly maintained up to the Easter Vigil, excluding Sundays, as before.]

 

Lenten Question
Q: Why are the forty days called Lent?
A: They are called Lent because that is the Old English word for spring, the season of the year during which they fall. This is something unique to English. In almost all other languages its name is a derivative of the Latin term, or "the forty days."

Lenten Question
Q: When does Lent begin?
A: Lent begins on Ash Wednesday, which is the day on which the faithful have their foreheads signed with ashes in the form of a Cross. It is also a day of fast and abstinence. 

 

Lenten Question
Q: Why are Sundays excluded from the reckoning of the forty days?
A: Because Sunday is the day on which Christ arose, making it an inappropriate day to fast and mourn our sins. On Sunday we must celebrate Christ's resurrection for our salvation. It is Friday on which we commemorate his death for our sins. The Sundays of the year are days of celebration and the Fridays of the year are days of penance. 

 

Lenten Fact
The word "lent" means "lengthen" and stands for that time in spring when the days grow longer.

 

Lenten Fact

The original period of Lent was 40 hours. It was spent fasting to commemorate the suffering of Christ and the 40 hours He
spent in the tomb.
In the early 3rd century, Lent was lengthened to 6 days. About 800 AD it was changed to 40 days.

 

Lenten Question

Q: Why are the forty days called Lent?
A: They are called Lent because that is the Old English word for spring, the season of the year during which they fall. This is something unique to English. In almost all other languages its name is a derivative of the Latin term , or "the forty days."

[markomalley]

So do I. But then it doesn't allow Catholics to make the fun argument that "if it wasn't for us, you wouldn't have a Bible."

In my experience, that type of statement is used 99.99% of the time as a response to an allegation that the Catholic Church has attempted to destroy the Bible.

Obviously, the Church played a huge role in preserving the Word of God for us today.

The fact of the matter is that the scriptures were preserved by the Church. Before the invention of the printing press, it was Catholic monks who served as scribes, reproducing by hand each and every codice.^*

Of course, God would have preserved His word one way or another.

Absolutely...

But it is worth our Protestant thanks to the Church for its work in preserving the Canon.

It would at least be helpful if more Protestants would confront the wackos in their midst who make ridiculous accusations that the Catholic Church has tried to destroy the Word of God.

Having said that, thanks for the great post! A breath of fresh air around here!

^*It should be noted that much of this scriptural reproduction and distribution, done prior to the Great Schism of 1054, was done in the East and in North Africa...and that the use of the word Catholic Church should probably be given in a transliteration of the Greek: ekklesia katholikos (the Church Universal). I point this out in deference to my Orthodox brethren, so as not to be misinterpreted as asserting that the Latin Church was solely responsible for the preservation, reproduction, and distribution of the original texts. The common text in the Latin Church after the 4th Century was the Vulgate.

[Mad Dawg]

I, even I, am fearfully and wonderfully made. And you're plenty tough, Salvation -- an example to guys like me who are all swagger.

Oops. personal remark, NOW I'm in trouble ...

[Mad Dawg]

Lent. More time in the LIGHT! It's my favorite, but then I'm weird.