Posted on 03/26/2015 11:36:04 AM PDT by RnMomof7
That's a cop out. The Catholic Church's long-standing cover up of sexual abuse makes it policy whether you like it or not.
Assigning the faults of some Protestant denominations on all non Catholics is disingenuous at best. Individual Christians are not obligated to accept the positions of those institutions as Catholic are obligated to accept the positions of the Catholic Church. For true believers affiliation with some organization is not their identity nor the views of that organization their views. If you want to assign beliefs to all not Catholics then we are free to assign the "who am I to judge" view of Francis to all Catholics.
I am not struggling with anything. I am adamantly opposed to rewriting history and rewriting the Bible to conform to certain dogmas, doctrines, and ideologies. I first learned that Jesus had brothers and sisters in a Bible study class taught by a Catholic priest in a Catholic church. When we were going over the passages mentioning Jesus’s brothers and sisters, the priest did not say...oh, there’s an error here, they really meant to say cousins...or here’s another whopper I’ve heard over the years, the brothers and sisters were Joseph’s children from a prior marriage. No, the priest did not put any spin on it all. He simply presented the Bible as it is written. Period. Something ALL Christians should do, regardless of religious denomination. Is that asking so much? To stay true to the Word of God without making things up, without speculation or manufacturing dogmas? Not ALL Catholics think the same way you do. Some of us actually do put the Word of God first. It is not necessary to make religion more complicated than it needs to be. Our primary source of knowledge about Mary, Joseph, and Jesus-—as well as Jesus’s brothers and sisters comes directly from the Gospels. Who came up with theory that Mary was always a virgin? It certainly is no where to be found in the Bible. And neither is there any requirement that priests must be celibate-—quite the contrary -—priests are specifically permitted to be married according to Scripture. No one has the right to rewrite the Bible or rewrite history IMHO.
“”Who came up with theory that Mary was always a virgin?””
Sex was created, for a husband and a wife, as a gift, a blessing.
Only Rome makes it. It’s OK for the great unwashed masses as long as it used for procreation. But for those with a “higher” calling it is out of bounds.
There could be some other issues at work here. I don’t want to dig too deep into it. But I know some Catholics-—underscore the word some-—who have some issues with women. They recoil at the thought of women being near the altar in any way or in any capacity, including as altar girls, Eucharistic Ministers, lectors. I don’t want to be accused of speculation. I’m from the Sgt. Joe Friday school: Just the facts please. But it is a well known fact that many early Church leaders were contemptuous of women, thought they tempted men in the wrong direction, and some even had issues with physical intimacy between a husband and a wife...which may in part explain why this entire yarn was fabricated that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage which is of course totally absurd.
I will say that there are certain hyperlegalistic branches of Protestantism that will do the same thing. Sadly some of them self-identify as being of the Reformed branch.
While you are right that marital relations are a gift, and a blessing, you are wrong about the rest. It was Jesus who said those who would make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom should do so (Matthew 9:12). Jesus Christ Himself was unmarried, as was John the Baptist. I would say those are two really good examples to follow. Enjoy the actual teachings of the Church on marriage and sexuality:
2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”143
Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.144
2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
Really?? So, who speaks for your denomination? Who makes policy or doctrine? My examination of non-Catholic Christians shows great disunity and no real authority. How can anybody know what they believe is true, when nobody seems to know?
Even in denominations of the same name, e.g. Lutherans, ECLA and Missouri Synod are day and night. Presbyterians are the same way. So who is right?
If you say you are right, of your own accord, why should anybody believe you? How do you know you are right? How do you know your reading of a passage of the Bible is accurate? You don’t. It is all your opinion.
Do you see that there is no unity, rather rapid division among non-Catholics? Unity is a key element of Christianity. How is there unity among Christians when a large portion of them are supporting divorce, abortion, euthanasia, homosexual acts, just to name a few.
The answer is really quite simple. Luther and the like set themselves above and apart from the Church Jesus instituted. They determined the Canon of Scripture was invalid. They did these things of their own accord. What is the result?
The result is disunity and apostasy. Other “reformists” couldn’t even agree amongst themselves. What they could agree with was they were anything but Catholic. How has that worked out for them?
I can respect someone whose beliefs are different from mine. I can respect someone who knows why they believe what they do. I can respect someone says they are continuing to learn and challenge their beliefs. However, I don’t have time for someone who seeks only to cast themselves as something they are not.
Denomination? Where in scripture or the teaching of the apostles do you find the concept of "denomination"?
>>How can anybody know what they believe is true, when nobody seems to know?<<
By searching scripture. This "nobody seems to know" stuff comes from putting faith in man rather than seeking the council of the Holy Spirit.
>>If you say you are right, of your own accord, why should anybody believe you? How do you know you are right? How do you know your reading of a passage of the Bible is accurate?<<
1 John 2:26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.
>>Do you see that there is no unity, rather rapid division among non-Catholics? Unity is a key element of Christianity.<<
Unity in wrong is still wrong.
>>Luther and the like set themselves above and apart from the Church Jesus instituted.<<
Christ didn't institute a nicolaiton hierarchical organization such as the Catholic Church. Also the self admitted inclusion of pagan beliefs and practices totally eliminates the Catholic Church from any consideration.
>>They determined the Canon of Scripture was invalid.<<
Nonsense. The oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews first. The Catholic Church added to what the Jews considered scripture with no authority to do so. Luther simply attempted to return to what God gave the Jews authority to keep as scripture.
If you want to put your faith in the fallible men of the Catholic Church that's your decision to make. I choose to trust the Holy Spirit to guide me in understanding what Jesus and the apostles taught. Paul wrote that anyone who taught what they did not teach was to be considered accursed. What the Catholic Church teaches and what other "denominations" teach that does not comport to what the apostles taught is not to be relied upon.
You keep saying this:
Nonsense. The oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews first. The Catholic Church added to what the Jews considered scripture with no authority to do so. Luther simply attempted to return to what God gave the Jews authority to keep as scripture.
However, you never explain what you mean. Please, what are you speaking of?
Actually, when it comes to denomination, it first appears in 1Corinthians 1 10-16.
“Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.”
You appear to be taking the stance that you alone decide what is right, and that the Holy Spirit tells each person the proper interpretation of Scripture. Is that true?
If that is true, then why do people have widely different opinions? Is the Holy Spirit telling the truth to one person, but a lie to another? In short, while we differ in opinion and belief, we can’t all be right if we claim the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Regarding a hierarchy, Scripture is silent on what Jesus may or may not have said. However, we do scriptural references to bishops, priests and deacons (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5) (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15) and (2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7) We also see recognition of the hierarchy in letters from Ignatius of Antioch to churches he passes on the way to Rome for execution in 110 AD.
Here is a sample:
“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).
While you are wise to read the Scripture and trust the Holy Spirit, as well as recognizing the law God has written on the hearts of man, you may consider how it is you came to know what you hold true. Who taught you, and who taught them, and so on until the Reformation? And then, consider whether
Romans 3:2 ...First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
That tells us that it was the Jews who God entrusted His word not the Catholics. The apocrypha WHICH THE CATHOLICS ADDED LATER was NOT part of scripture. This nonsense about the Protestants taking parts of scripture out is a lie. Protestants went back to what the Jews, to which God had entrusted His word, had decided was scripture.
>>Actually, when it comes to denomination, it first appears in 1Corinthians 1 10-16.<<
Again, absolute nonsense. Paul was scolding them for exactly what Catholics do. Catholics are the ones who proclaim "I follow Peter" or at least his successors. Did Peter die for you? Did the pope?
>>You appear to be taking the stance that you alone decide what is right, and that the Holy Spirit tells each person the proper interpretation of Scripture. Is that true?<<
1 John 2:26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.
NOT the Catholic Church. NOT some "magisterium". And it will be you and you alone that answers, NOT some group. Put your faith in that group of it's leaders and suffer the fate of that leader or group. Time and time again it's shown how the Catholic Church has been teaching something other than what the apostles taught. Paul called those people accursed.
>>If that is true, then why do people have widely different opinions?<<
Probably the same reason the Catholic Church is wrong. Self interest rather than submitting oneself to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Many chose to allow others to make the decision thinking they will lesson the responsibility for themselves. Who knows? Jesus never said everyone would understand. Allow others to make your decisions for you as to what you believe and your faith is in them, not Christ.
>>we can’t all be right if we claim the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.<<
Do you listen to the Holy Spirit or the Catholic Church?
>>Regarding a hierarchy, Scripture is silent on what Jesus may or may not have said.<<
I think not.
Revelations 2:6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
Nicolaitan means "conquerors of the people" or those who would lord it over the laity like the "magisterium" does. Then we have Jesus attitude toward the Pharisees which is analogous again to the Catholic Church hierarchy.
I will put my trust in the promised Holy Spirit to enlighten me as to what scripture teaches. Catholics put their trust in some fallible men who have proven themselves in many cases to be evil. Choose this day who you will serve.
Yes, the Jews are the Chosen People. The Septaguint was written by the Jews and decided by the Jews and codified in 130 BC, that would be before Catholics. Martin Luther decided to use what the Jews of his day were using and thus decided to throw out the books.
Again, you are confused. The Septuagint was what the Jews used, and used it before and during the time of Christ, and Gospel writers, and thus was included in the Canon.
“The translation of the Septuagint itself began in the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE,[19][20][21] initially in Alexandria, but in time elsewhere as well.[7] The Septuagint is the basis for the Old Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament.[22]”
“Over several centuries of consideration, the books of the Septuagint were finally accepted into the Christian Old Testament, by A.D. 405 in the west, and by the end of the fifth century in the east. The Christian canon thus established was retained for over 1,000 years, even after the 11th-century schism that separated the church into the branches known as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
Those canons were not challenged until the Protestant Reformation (16th century), when both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches reaffirmed them.”
I think you are confused. It is non-Catholics who broke off and said they followed Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley, Knox, etc.
You didn’t answer the question about what the Holy Spirit tells each person. Does each person receive the same message? If they don’t why not? I don’t think you can logically answer the question for the simple fact that not even non-Catholics agree amongst themselves.
You make a blanket statement the Catholic Church is “wrong,” yet you give no reason for your opinion.
Listening to the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit are not incompatible. The logical fallacy you are using there is called false choice or option.
Your reference is not in context and is not relevant to a discussion of hierarchy, rather it is a specific reference to a specific group. Besides you are giving an interpretation.
While you are correct in the interpretation of Nicolas from Greek to English, the jury is still out if Revelation was speaking of the Deacon Nicolas, or in general. Those closest in time, such as Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Clement, all finger him. However, some modern scholars disagree.
Regarding the Magisterium, it is not lorded over anybody. Anybody is free to accept or reject it.
While you place your trust in yourself, you seem to forget that your interpretation of the Bible and religion come from others. You are not the sole author of your opinion. Someone had to tell you about all the topics about which you claim knowledge. That is true for just about everybody in every field of knowledge. Even great discoverers have a foundation laid by someone else.
It is your choice to reject or accept the Church Jesus Christ founded 2000 years ago. It is your choice to accept the teachings of Jesus Christ as handed down to the Apostles. It is your choice to accept or reject the Church Fathers. These are your choices which you are free to make. Consider however, whether you trust in your opinions, which have been fostered in your life of less than 100 years, or the minds of almost 2000 years, specifically those who were disciples of the Apostles, as well as some of the greatest minds to ever walk the Earth.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
How is it personal?
All such statements are mind reading.
I consistently provide scripture to prove Catholicism is wrong.
>>Listening to the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit are not incompatible.<<
I most certainly is. The Holy Spirit would never sanction inclusion of paganism for one thing.
>>Regarding the Magisterium, it is not lorded over anybody.<<
You're joking right?
>>While you place your trust in yourself<<
No, I place my trust in Christ alone.
>>It is your choice to reject or accept the Church Jesus Christ founded 2000 years ago.<<
Once again, no, I am part of the ekklesia Jesus Christ founded. The Catholic Church in no way can be that ekklesia.
The Holy Spirit through Paul told us that anyone who teaches something the apostles didn't teach is to be considered accursed. The Catholic Church surely falls into that category.
As one can easily verify, it was the Catholic Church which assembled the canon. All Scriptural discussion start there. It was only Luther and later who altered the canon.
Speaking of Luther, these are some of his statements regarding the Bible, as well the Catholic Church itself. Please enjoy and contemplate them!
“We concede — as we must — that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304
and
“Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.” Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon), page 265, paragraph 28, 1522.
What did Luther take out?
>>Speaking of Luther, these are some of his statements regarding the Bible, as well the Catholic Church itself. Please enjoy and contemplate them!<<
Why should I contemplate what Luther said? I don't follow Luther. Catholics are obsessed with Luther for some reason and somehow think because they follow man all people follow some man. It makes no sense to me.
Let me know if I have to put it in all caps and bolded if it will help you understand but I don't follow Luther nor do I care what he said.
Here is a good article pointing out the salient points: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible
One should contemplate what Luther said as it affirms what Catholics have been teaching all along. In legal terms, it is called exculpatory evidence.
Without using emotional language, one can easily understand the significance of Luther in the history of Christianity. However, using your term, it would non-Catholics who are obsessed with trying to knock down the Catholic Church.
Regardless of your insult, I don’t assume you are a follower of Luther. However, your stated points of view were influenced by Luther, and the other Protestant luminaries who followed him.
I tell you that I don’t care what Luther said or did and you come back with a link about what Luther said and did? That’s bizarre!
Not really. Other people are reading the thread, and those other people may have been influenced by Luther and his fellow Protestant leaders. Still others may not be aware of what Luther wrote, and may bring other questions to mind.
If a person debating the beliefs of the Catholic Church doesn’t understand the significance of Luther and the rise of non-Catholic Christians, then there really can’t be much of a discussion.
Modern non-Catholic Christian theology, generally speaking, isn’t a product of today, rather it is a product of the Reformation and forward. Knox, Zwingli, Calvin, and Luther didn’t walk in lockstep, they required each other to act as foils off which they defined their own beliefs. Luther used the Catholic Church as his foil. However, there are foundational teachings shared by Protestants, not shared by Catholics, as well as foundational teachings shared by all Christians.
And just for fun, should one be a Calvinist and believe the “call no man father” thing, here is what John Calvin called Martin Luther:
“Adieu, most renowned sir, most distinguished minister of Christ, and my ever-honoured father.”
Letter to Luther, January 21, 1545. Found at: http://www.reformedliterature.com/calvin-letter-cxxiv-to-luther.php?print=on
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.