(CNS/Paul Haring)
Posted on 06/06/2014 11:46:00 AM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Those who insist others pray and believe exactly like they do, those who have alternatives to every church teaching and benefactors who use the church as a cover for business connections may call themselves Catholics, but they have one foot out the door, Pope Francis said.
"Many people say they belong to the church," but in reality have "only one foot inside," the pope said June 5 at the morning Mass in the chapel of his residence.
(CNS/Paul Haring) |
Name one Church dogma that is contradicted by the Bible. You sound like a Protestant: if it isn't in the Bible; it can't be true, even if it's not contradicted by the Bible.
The fact is that the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, following an itinerant Preacher who Messiah reproved them by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and the oral preaching of the word of God was not held as being such on the premise of assured magisterial veracity as per Rome, but the Lord established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word (formally or materially) and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
In contrast, the taught by Rome as dogma that Scripture does not teach are so numerous i do not know where to begin, and to which are added those who contradict it.
Just a few from about half the list of Dogmas of the Catholic Church: http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
157 In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. (Sent. fidei proxima.) She was immune from all sin mortal and venial.
No proof or doctrinal warrant, and contrary to what is stated as regards accountable souls and how exceptions to the norm are characteristically noted even among much lesser characters, and the sinlessness of Christ is noted at least thrice.
160 Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)
No proof or doctrinal warrant or necessity, and is contrary to how exceptions to the norm are characteristically noted. The Holy Spirit characteristically records extraordinary exceptions to the norm among its characters, from the age of Methuselah to the strength of Samson to the number of toes of Goliath, to the diet of John the Baptist, to the supernatural transport of Phillip, to the signs of an apostle, to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, to the prolonged celibacy of Anna, to the sinlessness of Christ, etc., He says nothing about Mary being a perpetual virgin. And instead what He does teach weighs toward the norm.
161 Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin. (De fide.)
No proof or doctrinal warrant or necessity.
210 Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith, if he be in the state of grace. (De fide.)
Contrary to what is written. The only "special Divine Revelation" is the Scriptures: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)
One is placed in the state of grace at conversion, (Rm. 5:1,2; Acts 13:43) being washed, sanctified and justified (1Cor. 6:11) accepted in the Beloved and made to sit together with Christ in heavenly places, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) by faith in the Lord Jesus to save one as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, by His sinless shed blood and righteousness,
Which is a faith which effects obedience, in contrast to being "fallen from grace." (Gal. 5:4) and thus in the evidential light of "things which accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) then one can obey, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Corinthians 13:5)
And by such, along with the internal witness of the Spirit, one can know they are in the faith, and have eternal life, and will be with the Lord for eternity, and all the verses which clearly speak of a N.T. believer's postmortem condition teach that it is with the Lord, (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1Jn. 3:2) thus all the Thessalonians would be if the Lord had returned in their lifetime, as would Corinthian believers. (1 Th 4:17; 1Cor. 15:
223 The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the bishops. (De fide.)
Absurd and blasphemous. "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." (2 Corinthians 12:12)
"But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God,..By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left.." (2 Corinthians 6:7)
If the NT church had the manner of manifestly powerless apostles as Rome, and missing the sword of men, and including her immoral elected popes and bishop Dolans joking with and sanctioning communion with proabortion prosodomite pols, then it would not have made it out of the 1st century except as a tiny superstitious cult.
225 According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time. (De fide.)
Without proof and contrary to what is written. There simply is no command to make successors for Peter, only one was chosen to maintain the original number of the 12 foundational apostles, (Acts 1:15-26; Rv. 21:14) and none for the martyred apostle James. (Acts 12:2) Nor did the apostle Paul - who was not ordained by man to be an apostle, nor Peter, in their ways to expected martyrdom, make any mention of another apostle taking their place. Instead, pastors, such as Timothy, were commissioned to carry on the work.
Nor is Peter, though being the street-level leader among the 11 brethren and the first to use the gospel key to the kingdom, (Acts 2; Col 1:13) and exercising a general pastoral role, confirmed to be the rock upon which Christ built His church, but the Christ of Peter's confession is. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
Nor has Rome ever elected a pope after the non-political OT method of casting lots, ( (Acts 1:15ff; Josh. 18:6; Prov. 16:33) not voting, by which known immoral men and or a long string of Italians were politically chosen as Peter popes. </p>
226 The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome. (De fide.)
Absurd. Rome has an<a href="http://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-peter-of-scripture-versus-that-of.html "> essentially different "Peter." </a> which even Catholic scholarship provides evidence of. The church neither looked to an exalted Peter of Rome sitting as God as the first of a line of ecclesiastical papal progeny possessing assured formulaic infallibility. The Peter of Scripture was married, poor, would not let even an unconverted soul bow down to him,
228 The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. (De fide.)
Unholy presumption. Nowhere in Scripture is any person (except the Lord) or body promised protection from error whatever and whenever they universally teach something on faith and morals, independently and even if the arguments for it are not without error. This is not the basis for what Caiaphas (spontaneous prophecy) or Peter (privately confessing Christ) did, or Acts 15 (Scripturally based ruling). The veracity of these was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of assured formulaic veracity.
Rather an assuredly infallible magisterium, God often provided and preserved Truth by raising up men from without the magisterium to correct it. Thus the church began, and thus it continues.
Moreover, what one does constitutes what one really teaches in God's sight, (Ja. 2:18) not profession by itself.
254 It is permissible and profitable to venerate the Saints in Heaven, and to invoke their intercession. (De fide.)
Without proof and contrary to what is written. In all of Scripture with its approx. 200 prayers to Heaven, the Holy Spirit inspires absolutely zero to anyone else in Heaven by God, whom He Himself makes intercession for. Nor is anyone but God shown as being able to hear virtually infinite amounts of prayer addressed to them and respond (which the memorial offering of prayer as incense is not doing), making it blasphemous to attribute this uniquely Divine ability to created beings.
Nor is there any other Heavenly intercessor but the Lord Jesus, (1Tim. 2:5) nor is any Heavenly intercessor provided in Scripture btwn Christ and man, nor is there any insufficiency in Him, from immediacy of access to ability, that would necessitate or advantage another intercessor in the heavenly realm btwn man and Christ. This unique universal access and ability of the Lord Jesus Christ to hear multitudinous prayer, even mental, is a mark of His deity, which no other created being in shown as having.
In contrast, corporate prayer btwn man and God is exhorted and exampled, but requiring material communication, and is advantageous due to the infirmity and iniquity of man (the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much) and thus the interdependence of the body on earth, in order to be effectually heard by the Lord in the heavenly realm. But the object is always Deity, not created beings, and outside looking to the example of departed saints (Heb. 13:7) and benefiting from their work they did here, (Jn. 4:38) the active interdependence of the body is always shown to be btwn that of living saints on earth, (1Cor. 12) not btwn those on earth and heaven.
257 The living Faithful can come to the assistance of the Souls in Purgatory by their intercessions (suffrages). (De fide.)
Without proof and contrary to what is written. See above. In addition, besides all the verses which clearly speak of a N.T. believer's postmortem condition (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2) showing it is with the Lord, it is not simply suffering the produces righteous character, but being tempted, and which Scripture only shows this life is for with its manifold temptations, contrasting “now” being the time of trials, “now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations..might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 1:6,7) and our “the sufferings of this present time” (Rm. 8:18) versus later, and thus the Lord Himself as made perfect through sufferings, in being “tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 2:10; 4:15)
Also, the only postmortem burning associated with believers is that of corruptible building material being consumed, but which 1 Cor. 3:8-15 teaches does not occur until the Lord's return, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:21-23; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) versus purgatory, which has souls suffering upon death. And the suffering is that of a loss of rewards based upon the manner of workmanship once built the church with, not to attain holiness of heart, and which loss the believer is safe despite of, not because of.
That is all for now. It is because the church began under Scriptural substantiation as the basis for veracity that those who most strongly hold to the supremacy of Scripture as the wholly inspired assured word of God (versus the church having assured veracity and supreme, as in Rome and cults), that they most strongly contend for core Truths we hold with Rome, and against cults which deny them, as well as against extra Scriptural traditions of men being taught as doctrine, and doctrines that are contrary to Scripture. And such are overall more unified in key conservative beliefs than the fruit of Rome.
Kind of like “according to our interpretation, only our interpretation can be correct in any conflict.”
1) We’ll address the nightmare first. Perhaps you joined the Church after the homosexual/pedophile priest scandal erupted which nearly destroyed our Church. Can’t get much more nightmarish then that. Not saying that clerical celibacy causes homosexual or pedophile behavior, but it certainly helped create an atmosphere attractive to such individuals.
2) The Assumption refers to Mary’s ascent into Heaven after her death. Does not refer to circumstances surrounding her birth.
3) I do believe what is written in the Bible trumps any dogma or doctrine propagated by ANY church. The Catholic Church has every right to formulate its own doctrines, dogmas, rituals, and traditions. But NO church has the right to rewrite the Bible or to rewrite history IMHO.
4) Priests and bishops in the Bible were married men as were priests, bishops, and popes in the early Catholic Church. Mandatory clerical celibacy was not institutionalized in the Church until relatively recently and for reasons which had nothing to do with anything that can be found in the Bible. Celibacy was made a requirement by the Church to combat rampant corruption including nepotism and simony.
Another point....this an analogy...so take it for it what it’s worth. I am a lifelong Republican and will always be one. I believe in nearly everything my Party teaches and just about everything the Party stands for. That does not mean I am a mindless drone who marches in lockstep with the GOP. When I think the Party is wrong on a certain issue or policy I would never hesitate to say so.
Churches like political parties are man made institutions always subject to sin and to error as they are run by humans. Nothing in life is perfect, least of all religious and political organizations. You choose and remain in the ones that closest resemble your views and values. Hence, I will continue to remain both a Catholic and a Republican even if I am not always 100% in agreement.
Well, I would say that this does veer a bit from what was written concerning contradiction. Something may not be in the Bible, which may be a compelling reason for some not to accept it, but that is still not quite the same as saying it is actually contradicted there.
But that does now answer the fundamental question. And as it usually takes me hours (and energy) to type such long replies as you are responding to, due to my arthritic fingers (though i often do it by God's grace for the benefit of all), then rather than engaging in more debate with you over what Scripture says or warrants, and seeing as you said " Personally, I would never try to convince anyone of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary," then i think the fundamental question as to the basis for your assurance of Truth, and this doctrine, is what is most relevant.
And i think the issue for both sides has been fairly well laid out and little more needs to be said.
Well, I certainly can understand how painful hands would deter typing. You have my sincere sympathies on that.
I thought I was a lifelong republican and then the party left me behind. Oh for the days of Reagan...
Sorry, I got lost in fantasy land for about 20 minutes.
If I believed that the Catholic Church was a man made institution I would make some of the more virulent anti-Catholics on FR look positively ecumenical. If it is man made it is positively evil, not flawed, not human: evil. Evil because of what it claims to be and could not be if it was man made.
The Church, from the beginning to this day, has always been run by human beings. All prone to sin and error. The Church like everything else in this world of ours is not perfect and has made its share of mistakes.
Welcome aboard our Church. I’m glad you are here. But let me be the first to inform you: We are NOT holier than Thou, and we are far from perfect. We’ve made plenty of mistakes. Sorry to inform you.
2) So you believe in the Assumption but not the Immaculate Conception or the perpetual virginity of the BVM? Based on what? The Bible is silent on the Assumption, it comes to us from Tradition.
4) In the interests of full disclosure, my best friend is a priest so I cheated on this question by calling and asking him, he directed me to a book titled The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy but my google-fu led me to this link at the Vatican website and This rather long article at OSV and This at CUF which begins:
"Through the media we repeatedly hear from dissenting theologians and commentators that priestly celibacy is a rule which the Catholic Church has “inflicted” on her clergy only since the 11th or 12th century. That is false. Here are the facts."
Just google "Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy" and you'll find tons of stuff.
Read Timothy 3:2
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”
The Bible is not silent that Mary ascended into heaven after her death. The Bible says nothing about her birth.
The fact is the Church took many centuries to implement its current policy of clerical celibacy. For a quick reference to see how, when, and why the policy was instituted, go to Wikipedia.com. Type in clerical celibacy.
There you might find a somewhat more unbiased account.
Ok, you go read the wikipedia article too.
I don't think it means everything that you think it says.
Specifically "The Council of Elvira (306) is often seen as the first to issue a written regulation requiring clergy to abstain from sexual intercourse. Its canon 33 decreed: "Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children. If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office."[36]"
and earlier in the article is this:
"One interpretation of "the husband of one wife" is that the man to be ordained could not have been married more than once and that perfect continence, total abstinence, was expected from him starting on the day of his ordination.[18][19][20][21]"
Ok then...
The Athanasian Creed
Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the CATHOLIC faith.
This sure says enough for me!
Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the CATHOLIC faith.
This sure says enough for me!
Don't forget the next sentence: "For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever."
I didn’t want to be accused of piling on...
That is the normal and most reasonable expectation, or at least that the oneness of marriage and love was expressed sexually, which is how Scripture describes marriage as and sanctifies the marriage bed, and which is to be held unless the notable exception of a cleave-less marriage is stated, as it was in the only other know case of such.
However, this is not a salvific issue, unless Rome makes it so, which it can be considered as since it is taught as doctrine.
But the fundamental difference btwn the NT church and that of Rome is that of the basis for assurance of Truth, that of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus the assured veracity of Rome. It is due to the latter that is the reason why perpetual Marian virginity (PMV) is held to, not because Scripture teaches it, nor the unanimous consent of Tradition.
And which is why it is claimed the church of Rome (AKA "the Church") was never wrong or contradicted itself, as she autocratically defines what is right and wrong, and what is a contradiction, and compels Scripture to conform to her.
Faced with internal contradictions (such as subjection to the pope being necessary for salvation in the past, and which could include torturing and exterminating theological dissenters, then later affirming Prots as brothers and sisters in Christ), some RCs will restrict the field to infallible teachings, but non-infallible teaching can be both binding as well, and what magisterial level teachings fall under, including how many and which ones are infallible can be subject to interpretation, as well as their meaning.
Meanwhile, the manner of egregious extrapolation RCs engage in trying to justify things which were simply not seen in the NT church testifies Scripture being reduced to the status of a servant compelled to support Rome.
On the point of celibacy. There is absolutely no requirement in the Bible whatsoever that priests must be celibate. To the contrary, priests were married men in the Bible. Further, according to Timothy 3:2,
This is true, except that NT pastors were never titled "priests" by the Holy Spirit, and they do not have a uniquely sacrificial function. See here and here .
Celibacy is a gift that not all have, and to require all (except certain clerical converts) to celibate is presumption. And thus in contrast to being a normative requirement for NT clergy, it was normative for both elders/bishops as well as apostles to be married - and was even invoked as a positive preparation — and those that were celibate were free to marry. (1Tim. 3:1-7; 1Cor. 9:5)
You don’t need to care what I call you.
You need to care what the Catholic Church calls you:
>>If a baptized person deliberately denies or contradicts a dogma, he or she is guilty of sin of heresy and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication.
From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop. Reprinted in U.S.A. by Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1974.<<
John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi also consider themselves Catholics in good standing.
Like I’ve said before, it’s a big club out there.
That is what distinguishes the NT church from Rome and other cultic sola ecclesia groups, in which examining the Scriptures to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching is not to be done by the faithful, as Scripture, Tradition and history are only what she says they are.
Certainly some of Scripture first existed in oral form, yet was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as is abundantly evidenced. And as seen by a study of the "the word of God" (or the Lord) it can by assumed that wholly inspired Truth expressed in preaching was subsequently written.
While Scripture does not contain all that Christ did or can be know from God, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet Scripture is the only morphous body of Truth that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and provides what is needed to instrumentally make man perfect, fully equipped for every good work. (2Tim. 3:15-17) By which all other Truth claims are tested by.
But that some of Scripture was first expressed orally does not mean that other oral teaching is wholly inspired of God, that does not make whatever is expressed orally is also inspired (and RC teaching states that the words in which Tradition has been passed down is not inspired). Yet Tradition is held by Rome to be the word of God based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome which declares it is so.
And under which all is declared to support her as needed.
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#104)
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — "Most Rev." Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, "Lord Archbishop" of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Mandatory clerical celibacy was not institutionalized in the Church until relatively recently and for reasons which had nothing to do with anything that can be found in the Bible.
It may be argued there were political causes but that Paul advocated celibacy, yet as said, that was a gift, and to suppose all those called to be pastors have that gift is without warrant and presumptuous, and contrary to the normative state of the church, in which even most of the apostles were married.
That is the problem with an elitist church which autocratically claims it alone is the one true and infallible church, as when it treats manifestly liberal souls as members in life and in death, which thus interprets herself, then other are do so as well. And if they formally want to separate, then they are considered to be sectarian or in schism.
And the conservative RCs see evangelicals, who are most conservative than even weekly RCs, as their greatest religious threat.
But the Great Shepherd of the sheep has other pastures.
No comment on #222?Ok then...
I suppose I overlooked it in the hustle and bustle. It seems you were asking me what error I was responding to? Is that right? If so, it was that the Bible directly contradicts the tradition which holds that St. Joseph was an elderly widower when he married the Blessed Virgin, and that the brothers and sisters of the Lord were his children from that previous marriage. That is why they are called the brothers and sisters of the Lord, because they were. I hope that clarifies it for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.