Online anti-Catholicism rears its ugly head

OSV ^ | Tom Tracy

[Warlord David]

Thanks HarleyD. Well said.

[franky]

I will not post his sermon but you can search it
"Saint Leonard of Port Maurice"

He told it like it is.

[franky]

***"But I do agree that most catholic have a genuine desire to want to know the Lord. Something the catholic church is found wanting. See how that the catholic church is falling apart over gay priest, gay marriages, and other internal conflicts."***

The Catholic Church is no more falling apart than it was in the middle ages. Look, it's still here. The public school systems in the United States have a higher percentage of gay teachers and child molestation, etc. etc. I don't seem the schools falling apart.

It is apparent you do not know the right Catholics. As in other denominations there are always people who have not been catechized. You don't condemn a Church for the few.

I have worked with Evangelical Christians in Bible study over the years and the problem I have seen is the 101 variations of a chapter and verse by the groups.

My question to these people, and I love them, is: Where in the Bible does it say, The Bible is the ONLY truth you should believe. In 20 years I have not had an answer.

[franky]

Harley:

Try getting on a "religious" forum and see the Catholic bashing that goes on. Other denominations get on the same thread and not a word is said.

The problem is that they claim to be Evangelical but never anwer the questions I raise. They go to verse in scripture, take that verse and that is their answer.

I look at the same verse and it is completly out of context. The person should at least read the prior and after verses to get the true answer.

And I pose the same question all the time. Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ONLY truth and that tradition is not to be believed? Maybe you can answer that question?

[Warlord David]

Instead of attacking protestant.
It seems to me the pedophile priest are doing a better job of recruiting catholic.
As sad as this may seem, their doing a better job of recruiting, than protestant could possible hope to ever do. I guess sin is an easy lurer for recruitment.

Maybe I need to get an updated version? Hey, good ideal. Perhaps an updated version would provide better explained doctrinal truths for the reprobate priest.

[lightman]

It has often struck me that extreme evangelical protestants and extreme, confessional Catholics both declare a variation of "ex eccelsia nun salvator es"' (outside of the Church there is no salvation); the difference hinges on the definitions of Church and salvation.

For the extreme evangelical, salvation is something that a person decides for themself, albeit with the strong coersion of preaching of hell's terror and the necessity of "making a decision". What Jesus did on the cross counts for nothing unless the penitent "decides". "Church" is then an assembly of those who have made this "decision". If you aren't in that assembly, you are lost.

The extreme Catholic recognizes only the Bishop of Rome as the legitimate successor to the Apostles. Those assemblies which cannot trace their spiritual lineage--and especially their Ordained ministry--to the apostolic age cannot administer a genuine Sacrament; so their declaration of pardon or Absolution carries no weight and their Eucharist is not what Christ declares it to be. So if you aren't in the assembly in the apostolic succession, you are lost. There is more common ground here than either extremist would care to acknowledge.

[Warlord David]

My question to these people, and I love them, is: Where in the Bible does it say, The Bible is the ONLY truth you should believe. In 20 years I have not had an answer.

Jesus said two thing that hold true today.

1. I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIGHT, no one comes to the Father, except by me.

2.Then say I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book, it is written of me) to do thy will, O God. Hebrew 10:7
We call it the Bible.

There is a war being fought, if we follow the righteousness of man we will fall into darkness. Look around you, can man save himself from death or defeat death by is own righteousness.

It we follow the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ we shall live forever, for he as conquered death, and we bear witness in the Spirit that his Word is true.

[jude24]

When I was in high school, someone handed me a copy of Dave Hunt's A Woman Rides the Beast. I read it, saw that it was heavily footnoted, and assumed it was accurate.

That experience was illuminating for me: the guy who handed me that book was not exactly theologically sophisticated, but if I hadn't been exposed to Catholic teachings in college, I probably would never have abandoned the "Rome=Babylon" position, and would probably still be teaching that to others.

I wonder how many young kids like me are out there.

Now, I still have grave reservations about Catholic theology. My theological perspective is Reformed. However, I've read the writings of Augustine, Ireneaus, and Aquinas, and found Augustine particularly compelling. (I consider his Confessions to be one of the three most influential books I ever read in my life, after Desiring God by John Piper and Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.) But I understand it better now, and won't dismiss Rome as Antichrist.

[RoyaltyBoughtWithBlood]

And I pose the same question all the time. Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ONLY truth and that tradition is not to be believed? Maybe you can answer that question?

Christ and vain tradition:

1   Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2   Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3   But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4   For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5   But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6   And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7   Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8   This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9   But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matt. 15:1-9 see also Mark 7)

\ Paul and and vain tradition:

4   And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. 5   For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. 6   As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7   Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8   Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col. 2:4-8)

Peter and vain tradition

13   Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 14   As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 15   But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16   Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. 17   And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: 18   Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers (1 Peter 1:13-18)

[ladyinred]

Thank you so much for that post. I have been so disturbed by both sides of this. It never occured to me that Catholics weren't going to Heaven, or that they thought I as a Protestant wasn't until I decided to check out the religion side of FR.

I never expected to see all of the venom that is on this forum, guess I was naive. I often wonder what a non believer who happened by this forum would find here to make him or her want to become a Christian. Bless you for your post.

[ladyinred]

I do training in different religious groups and in the community and my last venue was for a methodist pastor and his parishoners who when told I was Catholic, turned to me and said, "I am sorry."

You showed Christ like behavior by not poking him in the nose! :-)

[ladyinred]

I think your 2 cents was worth a whole lot more. Good post.

I know where that Pope is the Antichrist comes from, the belief that Rome is going to be the ruler of the world again through the EU, and that is going to set up the Mark of the Beast, etc.

I wonder how anyone looking at the world situation today could possibly think Rome is suddenly going to return to it's Empire days! But in all fairness, many people are just being taught that by people they trust and who are big in the Christian publishing world.

[ladyinred]

And I pose the same question all the time. Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ONLY truth and that tradition is not to be believed? Maybe you can answer that question?

Protestants live by traditions too actually, I know, since I am one, and different denominations have their own traditions.

Do they tell you they don't?

[ladyinred]

I am a protestant, always have been. You are aware aren't you, that Pastors, teachers, etc in Protestant Churches also molest children? It isn't right in any religion, or outside of religion for that matter.

But to be fair to our Catholic friends here, it doesn't only involve Priests. Lately they have been the focus in the news, but I would certainly think it is just as prevalent in other Churches too, wouldn't you agree?

[johnb2004]

"There is more common ground here than either extremist would care to acknowledge."

Perhaps I am not understanding your logic? Are you saying there is more than one Truth? Is the Truth extreme to you?

[Gotterdammerung]

*****See how that the catholic church is falling apart over gay priest, gay marriages, and other internal conflicts. *****

I don't think the Catholic Church is falling apart by any means. The Church knows the seven deadly sins and Catholics don't pretend to be sinless. Many are still 'coming home' every year from out of the evangelical wilderness.

[Desdemona]

See how that the catholic church is falling apart over gay priest, gay marriages, and other internal conflicts.

Where did you ever get that idea? Falling apart?

Gay marriage? Did I miss a council? An encyclical?

What internal conflicts? Unless you're talking about loud mouthed liberals who can't keep their yaps shut. There's dissent, but there's always been dissent and there always will be.

[HarleyD]

What you asked are two separate questions:

Question 1: ”Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ONLY truth”

Question 2: “ and that tradition is not to be believed?”

Question 1: Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ONLY truth

To answer question 1 I could quote Revelations 22:18-19 (e.g. if anyone add to them…) but the argument would come back that the New Testament wasn’t created at that time. Or 2 Timothy 3:16-17 but I would get the same response. In fairness these responses would be legitimate primarily because the Bible doesn’t defend itself. It is God’s word-take it or leave it. (Just like it doesn’t mention the Trinity by name or a number of other things.)

The church has ALWAYS made the distinction that the books that constitute the Bible is the inspired word of God as opposed to any other teaching. (The Jews held this for the Old Testament as well.) In the fourth century when a number of heretical doctrine and teachings and “fake” books were entering the church, the church fathers wisely decided to sort out the original books and close them to maintain the scriptures’ purity. Augustine writes that they were very concerned the farther away from the life of Christ one would go, the more distorted the theology would become and heretical writings or beliefs would enter the church. Thus there needed to be a clear distinction as to what the church deemed inspired writing and what wasn’t.

These blessed church fathers gathered up all the early writings they knew to be written by those directly involved with our Lord Jesus or the early growth of the church and these documents, along with the recognized inspired Hebrew text, became the Bible. As I have pointed out to my Catholic friends here but what seems to be ignored or construed as Catholic bashing, the Apocrypha was controversial among the early church fathers and added as an Appendix-this is a historical fact. It was 1000 years later at the Council of Trent that the Apocrypha was deemed “inspired”-a decision the early church fathers felt they could not make.

Be that as it may, the early church fathers made a clear distinction between what WAS inspired and what was NOT inspired to keep heretical doctrine out. They felt the Bible was inspired by God and was the document they used to make decisions. (Creeds came in later to clarify the position of the church but was based upon the scriptures.)

To say that there is more than the Bible is to essentially deny the work and belief of the early church fathers.

Question 2: “ and that tradition is not to be believed?”

I don’t know of any Protestant who would say tradition is not to be believed. Many Protestants baptize and maintain the Lord’s table (albeit with a different interpretation than our Catholic counterparts) and believe in the early creeds among other traditions. However, as Augustine and the other church fathers cautioned, it is easy for faulty doctrine to enter the church. As the early church fathers noted, the question really becomes, “What verifies that a tradition is of God?” Catholics would say they have the church to tell them. Protestants would say they go back to the original writings the early church fathers said where inspired.

The meanings of “traditions” that currently exist in all churches were controversial in the early church. At the risk of sounding like I’m bashing Catholics, Catholics would like for us to believe traditions like the Eucharist and baptism were standard practice right from Peter to today. As I posted on another thread, the meaning of the Eucharist was agreed upon 900 years after Augustine. And on another thread how there was confusion in the early church on the meaning of baptism.

Many of the beliefs held by Protestants on these matters were held by early church members. It’s just that the Vatican picked one for whatever reason. This isn’t to say that the final interpretation of the RCC is incorrect, but it’s a little disingenuous to make it sound like the meaning of these traditions were always held or other believers are wrong just because someone in the Vatican say so.

And as history has shown us, there have been boo-boos decisions of the Vatican. As I have posted on other threads (and Catholics have disagreed with me on), a major shift in the doctrinal and theological position of the Catholic Church took place between the Council of Orange and the Council of Trend. I disagree with the Council of Trend position.

Consequently, some traditions are accepted but only after careful review of the scriptures. Does God work today? Of course. Does that require a new tradition. No.

”Try getting on a "religious" forum and see the Catholic bashing that goes on. Other denominations get on the same thread and not a word is said.”

Ho! Ho! Just let me mentioned the wonderful works of John Calvin or Martin Luther or the doctrine of Election or Limited Atonement and I’ll be on the Catholic ping list before one can say Pope John Paul. And do a Google search on John Calvin and see how many negative articles by Catholics are written about the gentleman.

As you and many other people probably already know, I’m frequently a participant on this forum. Contrary to what some may think I’m not here to change or bash anyone’s belief.

From what I can tell Catholics tend to be overly sensitive to any doctrinal criticism and construed this as “bashing”. Most of us Protestants don’t mind having our doctrinal positions challenged. Catholics on the other hand feel that if you challenged the doctrinal position of the RCC then you’re attacking the church. I think it’s a cultural thing.

I hope this answer your questions.

[topcat54]

I don't know - I've seen my share of "I'm going to heaven and you're not" Catholics, too. :)

With a stop in Purgatory for good measure.