Religion Question:

[CatManDoo_rivals376463]

Its equivalent if you were on your knees in prayer in front of a priest or preacher.

Its not attributing any power to Mary. Its simply like "Hey Mary, you are at the right hand of God, and already in heaven and in his presence, so could you, along with Jesus send some prayers my way?".

Horseshit.

We turn in all our needs to Christ's blessed Mother, Mary, because we know that our Lord, as her obedient and loving Son, can refuse her nothing. Hence, we turn with confidence to our blessed Lady as "comforter of the afflicted," "the help of Christians," "health of the sick," and "Virgin most powerful."
Our Virgin Mother still stands by us as she stood faithfully by the foot of the Cross, and as she remained praying with His apostles and disciples. So, too, will she be close to us when we turn to her in our necessities. - Our Lady, the Lord's Virgin and Mother

So, Jesus is obedient to Mary? Sounds like attributing power to me.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

Horseshit.

We turn in all our needs to Christ's blessed Mother, Mary, because we know that our Lord, as her obedient and loving Son, can refuse her nothing. Hence, we turn with confidence to our blessed Lady as "comforter of the afflicted," "the help of Christians," "health of the sick," and "Virgin most powerful."
Our Virgin Mother still stands by us as she stood faithfully by the foot of the Cross, and as she remained praying with His apostles and disciples. So, too, will she be close to us when we turn to her in our necessities. - Our Lady, the Lord's Virgin and Mother

So, Jesus is obedient to Mary? Sounds like attributing power to me.

So you know more about Catholicism than my Priest and local Bishop.....ok....

 

[CatManDoo_rivals376463]

So you know more about Catholicism than my Priest and local Bishop

Evidently. Look, I get it. You're a wet-behind-the-ears Catholic fresh from the RCIA who is just giddy about going out and crying about how mistreated Catholics are by ignorant Protestants. That's why you started this thread, is it not? You have your marching orders, and you're sticking to them. And predictably, you rely on the thoughts and words of others to fight your battles for you. You've traded independent thought for parroting whatever the clergy tells you. Have you had one independent thought this entire thread? My experience with Catholicism has been first-hand for 43 years, and I've seen the damage its doctrines can do to people and their families. I guarantee you I've attended more Masses than you have. And I'm pretty sure that, absent the ability to Google, I know more about what Catholics teach and believe than you do. So before you come on a public message board and start implying that Protestants are ignorant, uneducated morons, learn a lot more about your newly-adopted religion, not to mention the people you're trying to attack.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

Evidently. Look, I get it. You're a wet-behind-the-ears Catholic fresh from the RCIA who is just giddy about going out and crying about how mistreated Catholics are by ignorant Protestants. That's why you started this thread, is it not? You have your marching orders, and you're sticking to them. And predictably, you rely on the thoughts and words of others to fight your battles for you. You've traded independent thought for parroting whatever the clergy tells you. Have you had one independent thought this entire thread? My experience with Catholicism has been first-hand for 43 years, and I've seen the damage its doctrines can do to people and their families. I guarantee you I've attended more Masses than you have. And I'm pretty sure that, absent the ability to Google, I know more about what Catholics teach and believe than you do. So before you come on a public message board and start implying that Protestants are ignorant, uneducated morons, learn a lot more about your newly-adopted religion, not to mention the people you're trying to attack.

I never said Protestants are morons or uneducated. I simply asked the question if other protestants believe Catholics wont inherit heaven.

 

[wildcatwelder_rivals]

The problem is that your definition of "good" is not God's definition of good. God requires perfection because He is holy and by His very nature sin cannot exist in His presence.

Therefore, because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3), no one "deserves" to go to Heaven (which is eternal existence in God's presence). In fact, everyone deserves judgment because God is a righteous judge who cannot let sin go unpunished (just like a righteous judge on earth who won't simply let a guilty murderer go free because the judge is a "nice guy").

Hence we are all under God's wrath (Eph 2:1-4)...enter Jesus. He is the only man who has ever been sinless and perfect...the only man to "deserve" to enter the Kingdom. On the cross Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of all who would believe in Him and in exchange imputes His people with His perfect righteousness so that they may live with Him forever.

This is the Gospel and all who trust in Christ alone for salvation, trust in His atoning work on the cross and His resurrection, Jesus promises to raise them from the dead as well on the last day. This is grace.

If God can't be in the presence of sin, then how did the great war in heaven begin in the first place? The angel of angels rebelled against God, and apparently a great number followed him into battle, in heaven, against God's angels.

 

[rmattox]

If God can't be in the presence of sin, then how did the great war in heaven begin in the first place? The angel of angels rebelled against God, and apparently a great number followed him into battle, in heaven, against God's angels.

He won't be in the presence of sin. Thus He expelled the rebels.

 

[wildcatwelder_rivals]

When you die you are going to stand before almighty God and give an account for your life.
Because He is holy, righteous, and just He is going to judge you by His perfect moral standard in thought, word, and deed. If found guilty of breaking His law because He is holy, righteous, and just He must punish sin. The punishment God has ascribed for sin is eternity in hell.

In addition to being holy, righteous, and just God is also gracious, loving, kind, and merciful. There is only 1 way you can escape His holy wrath. That is through His Son Jesus Christ. 2000 years ago God the Father sent His Son to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ fully God and fully man without sin.

Unlike you or I He never broke God's law in thought, word, or deed. He was the perfect sinless Lamb of God. In about 30-33 years into that existence, He voluntarily went to the cross and suffered a bloody and horrible death that He did not deserve to take upon Himself the punishment that you and I rightfully deserve for our sins against God.

Then, 3 days later He forever defeated sin and death when He rose from the grave. Now what God has commanded of you and the same He commands of me and people everywhere is to repent, turn from your sin, and by faith and faith alone receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and your Savior.

God literally looked at His Son, who knew no sin, as though He lived your life. In return, God looks at you as though you lived His Son's perfect life. Jesus says unless a person is born again they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. He will give you a new heart with new desires. You will begin to hate the things God hates and love the things God loves. When you do die and stand before Him instead of receiving what you deserve for your sin which is hell you will receive what you don't deserve which is grace, mercy, and eternal life with Jesus Christ the Lord.

If God can't be in the presence of sin, then how can we stand before him to be judged?

 

[wildcatwelder_rivals]

He won't be in the presence of sin. Thus He expelled the rebels.

"Won't be", and "can't be" are two totally different things.

 

[Pope John Wall II]

So you know more about Catholicism than my Priest and local Bishop.....ok....

Can you please convert to Protestantism? You're ruining Catholicism for me by being a part of it. TIA.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

Ok, so I am currently reading a book called Rome Sweet Home, a book about a Protestant Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism. His biggest hurdle was Mary, and it's been quite an issue on here but there's a passage about Mary in the book that I just wanted to post in here to offer an explanation:

"As a man, Christ filled God's law perfectly, including the commandment to honor his father and mother. The Hebrew word for honor is kaboda, which literally means to glorify. So Christ didn't just honor his heavenly Father; he also perfectly honored his earthly mother, Mary, by bestowing his own divine glory upon her. The second principle is even easier: the imitation of Christ. So we simply imitate Christ not just by honoring our own mother's but also by honoring whomever he honored- and with the same honor he bestows."

Thought that offered a reasonable explanation...and did so quite clearly.

 

[JamesIII]

My interpretation:

Why the f*ck are you relying on interpretations (from others) for your belief?

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

My interpretation:

Why the f*ck are you relying on interpretations (from others) for your belief?

Thats a weak argument. The Church (Catholic) interpretation has largely remained consistent throughout time and everything Catholicism does is rooted in proof from the bible or can be backed biblically....You cannot say that for Protestants.

Martin Luther fathered the Reformation on 2 pillar ideals:

Sola Fide - Faith alone salvation- the idea that once you accept God as your savior you are saved via his grace from then on no matter what

Sola Scriptura - The authority lies in the bible alone.

Find me where in the bible either one of those things are supported.....Instead, you find a plethora of examples in the bible that refutes both of those ideals. So you ask me why I am using other peoples interpretations... I ask to protestants, why do you go off two huge interpretations Martin Luther made that have absolutely no biblical origin?

 

[CatsFanGG24]

BBS and CMD both look like poor representatives of their respective religions.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

Jesus said this:

John 17: 11 -

"Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are one".

In that prayer of Jesus he is referring to how he wants the church to be. To be one. To be unified and universal. Now you tell me which more accurately illustrates that point:

The Catholic Church - which has been consistent throughout history and unified in belief, worship, traditions, bishops....

or

Modern Christianity - A result from a protestant reformation that split, has caused nearly 30k different denominations, and is said by professors that 5 new denominations are created a day.


You tell me what is a more accurate depiction of what Christ said he wanted the church to be...

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

BBS and CMD both look like poor representatives of their respective religions.

Im not here to debate who is more right or why I may believe that Protestants are right/wrong....All I am saying is Protestantism has some major issues in its formation that lack biblical support. I spent 30 years of my life asking questions about these very issues to multiple leaders of the church for clarification. All I kept getting was "you just have to have faith". Now I get why that answer was given...and its because the very foundation of the reformation have no biblical support, which is Ironic being that one of those major principles is "sola scriptura"....which essentially contradicts Luthers own ideals. Thats why everyone kept telling me I was asking too many questions and just to have faith.

Now am I saying i think that anyone that is Protestant is wrong? Heck no. Im in no position to make that judgement. But growing up I was lead to believe that Catholics were the ones with the dirty laundry....All I am saying is Protestantism has its fair share of the same....so I dont get where some protestants such as my mother in law think Catholics are not heaven-bound.

 

[CatsFanGG24]

Im not here to debate who is more right or why I may believe that Protestants are right/wrong....All I am saying is Protestantism has some major issues in its formation that lack biblical support. I spent 30 years of my life asking questions about these very issues to multiple leaders of the church for clarification. All I kept getting was "you just have to have faith". Now I get why that answer was given...and its because the very foundation of the reformation have no biblical support, which is Ironic being that one of those major principles is "sola scriptura"....which essentially contradicts Luthers own ideals. Thats why everyone kept telling me I was asking too many questions and just to have faith.

Now am I saying i think that anyone that is Protestant is wrong? Heck no. Im in no position to make that judgement. But growing up I was lead to believe that Catholics were the ones with the dirty laundry....All I am saying is Protestantism has its fair share of the same....so I dont get where some protestants such as my mother in law think Catholics are not heaven-bound.

I get it - CMD is playing a game of "gotya" and it caused you to play the same game. Not a good look IMO, but I understand you coming back in the same manor as he was dishing.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

I get it - CMD is playing a game of "gotya" and it caused you to play the same game. Not a good look IMO, but I understand you coming back in the same manor as he was dishing.

Yeah, I agree, that wasn't the intent of the thread but it kinda turned into exactly that. My issue is, he is giving his opinion on Catholic teachings or his sole interpretation....not necessarily what Catholics themselves teach. Reminds me of this quote I saw:

"There are not over 100 people in the United States who hate the Roman Catholic Church; there are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church."

- Archbishop Fulton Sheen

 

[Rupp'sRunt]

Religion is fake y'all need to chill

 

[WettCat]

 

[CatManDoo_rivals376463]

everything Catholicism does is rooted in proof from the bible or can be backed biblically

Back these Biblically:

Mariology
Transubstantiation
Prayer to Saints
Purgatory
Indulgences
Assumption of Mary
Infallibility

Sola Fide - Faith alone salvation- the idea that once you accept God as your savior you are saved via his grace from then on no matter what

Sola Scriptura - The authority lies in the bible alone.

Find me where in the bible either one of those things are supported

2 Timothy 3:16-17
Proverbs 30:5-6
Matthew 15:3-9
Galatians 1:11-12,17

Heck, reference the words of your own Catholic church fathers:

"the holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth." - St. Athanasius

"with regard to the divine and saving mysteries of faith no doctrine, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the divine Scriptures...for our saving faith derives its force, not from capricious reasoning, but from what may be proved out of the Bible." - St. Cyril of Jerusalem

"it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching." - St. Augustine

"He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know." - St. Augustine

"in the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - St. Augustine

"we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings." - St. Thomas Aquinas

You do see the absurd irony of trying to attack sola scriptura using the Bible as your authority, right?

Also, do you really believe God's Word to be incomplete or insufficient, requiring the intervention of fallible men?

John 17: 11 -

"Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are one".

In that prayer of Jesus he is referring to how he wants the church to be. To be one. To be unified and universal.

Where does Jesus say anything about the church? He's preparing to leave his disciples in a world of persecution and unbelief. He's praying that they hold fast to His teachings and remain strong. He's talking about a unity of heart and spirit. Read the next few verses:

12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

Nowhere does He say anything about the structure of the church.

My issue is, he is giving his opinion on Catholic teachings or his sole interpretation....not necessarily what Catholics themselves teach.

Where am I misinterpreting?

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

Back these Biblically:

Mariology
Transubstantiation
Prayer to Saints
Purgatory
Indulgences
Assumption of Mary
Infallibility



2 Timothy 3:16-17
Proverbs 30:5-6
Matthew 15:3-9
Galatians 1:11-12,17

Heck, reference the words of your own Catholic church fathers:

"the holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth." - St. Athanasius

"with regard to the divine and saving mysteries of faith no doctrine, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the divine Scriptures...for our saving faith derives its force, not from capricious reasoning, but from what may be proved out of the Bible." - St. Cyril of Jerusalem

"it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching." - St. Augustine

"He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know." - St. Augustine

"in the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - St. Augustine

"we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings." - St. Thomas Aquinas

You do see the absurd irony of trying to attack sola scriptura using the Bible as your authority, right?

Also, do you really believe God's Word to be incomplete or insufficient, requiring the intervention of fallible men?



Where does Jesus say anything about the church? He's preparing to leave his disciples in a world of persecution and unbelief. He's praying that they hold fast to His teachings and remain strong. He's talking about a unity of heart and spirit. Read the next few verses:

12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

Nowhere does He say anything about the structure of the church.



Where am I misinterpreting?

You are misinterpreting your interpretation as Catholic teaching. I could sit here and go through all these points and give you solid evidence for every little thing you list. But you have no interest in looking at anything objectively. Its ok. You dont agree with Catholic teaching and mistakenly think your interpretation represents all of Catholicism. There is absolutely nothing I can do to change your mind. Im not wasting my time going through point by point. You bring up certain things in your rant that I NEVER said. I never said I think that Gods word is incomplete or insufficient. I never said his word requires the intervention of men. I do think God knew we needed leadership. You have a crap ton of Protestants however that like to claim sola scriptura, but then in the same breath claim denominational-ism....that ideal is in conflict with sola scriptura.

I didnt come here to sit here and argue over what you believe catholic teaching is, and what is Catholic teaching. Catholics = Christians. So much of it lies in the word "Catholic" - which never meant to serve as a division of a separate religion, but rather serve as an adjective to describe the church as God wanted it- Universal. I know Catholicism has its hurdles. I know the church became corrupt. I just take issue with all this "negative shade" thrown Catholicisms way when the entire Protestant Reformation and Protestant Christianity has its fair share of issues as well. I dont believe Catholicism is the only way. If you believe, repent, confess, and are baptized I believe I'll see you in heaven. Whether you are baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic or any other denomination means nothing. We are all much more alike than anyone wants to pretend, and we all have more faults than we like to admit as well.

You have a good weekend.

 

[CatManDoo_rivals376463]

I could sit here and go through all these points and give you solid evidence for every little thing you list.

No you couldn't, not Biblically, or you would. It's ok, though. I haven't found a Catholic yet who could.

You have a good weekend, as well.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

4

No you couldn't, not Biblically, or you would. It's ok, though. I haven't found a Catholic yet who could.

You have a good weekend, as well.

I really could, just as I have rebuked some of your other points already...but you combat that by saying "that's someone else's thoughts or interpretation of Scripture"

I'll just enlighten ya a bit on the whole idea where people say "Show me where God said he wanted a Pope or anything of the sort":

In Matthew it emphasizes Jesus role as the son of David and the king of Israel sent by his father to inaugurate the kingdom of heaven... in Matthew 16: Jesus establishes it (the role of a "Pope" figure". First he gives Simon the new name Peter which translates to rock in Hebrew, and father. Then he pledges to build his church on Peter....lastly, and most importantly, he gives him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. It's that last gift that if you don't know theology at a level that exceeds basic understanding you look over and don't think anything of that phrase "keys of the kingdom of heaven". When Jesus speaks of the keys of the kingdom, he is referring to an old testament passage- Isaiah 22: 20-22 ---Where Hezekiah, royal heir to David's throne and king of Israel in Isaiah's day replaced his old prime minister, Shebna with a new one named Eliakim. Everyone could tell which one of the royal cabinet members with the new prime minister since he was given the "Keys of the Kingdom". Jesus thus is referring to and establish ing the office of Prime Minister for administering the church as his kingdom on Earth. The keys are a symbol of Peter's office in Primacy to be handed on to his successor just as it has been handed down through the Ages of History.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

Also just for kicks, dealing with purgatory:

In the Bible God revealed himself numerous times to his people in order to renew his Covenant with them: as a fire pot and flaming torch with Abraham in Genesis 15, in the burning bush with Moses in Exodus 3, in the pillar of fire with Israel in Numbers 9, in the Heavenly Fire which consumed the altar sacrifices with Solomon and Elijah in 1st Kings and in the tongues of fire with the apostles at Pentecost in Acts 2....

I say all of that to say this when Hebrews 12 verse 29 describes God is a consuming fire it's not referring to his anger which many people get wrong. There is a fire of hell but there is also an infinitely hotter fire in heaven and it is God himself. So it refers to God's infinite love even more than his eternal wrath. God's nature is described like a raging Inferno a fiery love in the Bible. This is the reason that scripture refers to the angels that are closest to God himself as the seraphim which translates directly to the burning ones in Hebrew. That is also why Paul can describe in 1st Corinthians 3:13 how all the things must pass through a fiery judgement in which each man's work will become manifest "for the day will disclose it because it will be revealed with fire." He cannot be talking about the fire of hell since he is discussing Saints. Verse 15 makes it clear that some things who are destined for heaven will pass through the fire and suffer loss but will be saved only through the burning fire. The fire mentioned is there for the purging of Saints, thus making it a purgatorial fire which is one that purifies and prepares all things to be enveloped in the consuming fire of God's loving presence forever. That where the word and thought stems from.

I could quote a couple other books but then your argument would be "well those books aren't in my Bible and aren't "God breathed"... Funny thing is if you go off Luther's Bible he use a line of thought that very non-christian Rabbi's were more qualified to decide what scripture was "God Breathed" than the Apostles themselves....The apostles adopted all cannons...the men whom Christ decided to further his Church. Hell if Luther had his way and his interpretation Judges, Revelation, James, Esther, Jude and Hebrews wouldn't be present either.

 

[Primedfor9]

Mathew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth father, for you have one father, and he is in heaven.

The above scripture is a big reason. Catholics ignore this, though I'm sure they would say I'm taking it out of context or whatever, I don't think so.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

Mathew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth father, for you have one father, and he is in heaven.


The above scripture is a big reason. Catholics ignore this, though I'm sure they would say I'm taking it out of context or whatever, I don't think so.

You cant interpret Matthew 23:9 as prohibiting reference to dads/priests/anyone as "fathers" without contradicting other scriptural passages in which the word "father" is used. Such an interpretation would render the commandment "honor your father" meaningless and would diminish the authority of the apostles and their successors. But see this is what people who don't truly understand the complexity of the Bible do. You are taking it 1) out of context, 2) applying the context of today's culture around it and 3) obviously missing the use of hyperbole. You also have to have a much deeper understanding of at that time what was going on with the Pharisees and what God was addressing.

God uses hyperbole all over the Bible... Talking about plucking out your eye if it has sinned ECT...cutting off your hand...selling all of your stuff to the poor.....he isn't literally saying to do those things, he is speaking in hyperbole to drive home a point dramatically. So he isn't saying don't use the words Rabbi, Teacher, Master, Father.... He is saying realize it's not them who you are worshipping. They are not God. He is the ultimate father and also giving instruction to those people to remember they are not to just be seen or be exalted for holding those titles. It's calling on those people to humble themselves in effort to realize that the one true father/teacher/master is God himself. He is not eliminating those words from usage in people's vocabulary.

 

[jwheat]

God isn't this or that. It's everything. God is energy and love. There is no hell. Just more lives spent on this hell of a planet. We are here to learn and to love. I would suppose most of you heathens will be spending a few more lives here. Good luck

 

[Primedfor9]

You cant interpret Matthew 23:9 as prohibiting reference to dads/priests/anyone as "fathers" without contradicting other scriptural passages in which the word "father" is used. Such an interpretation would render the commandment "honor your father" meaningless and would diminish the authority of the apostles and their successors. But see this is what people who don't truly understand the complexity of the Bible do. You are taking it 1) out of context, 2) applying the context of today's culture around it and 3) obviously missing the use of hyperbole. You also have to have a much deeper understanding of at that time what was going on with the Pharisees and what God was addressing.

God uses hyperbole all over the Bible... Talking about plucking out your eye if it has sinned ECT...cutting off your hand...selling all of your stuff to the poor.....he isn't literally saying to do those things, he is speaking in hyperbole to drive home a point dramatically. So he isn't saying don't use the words Rabbi, Teacher, Master, Father.... He is saying realize it's not them who you are worshipping. They are not God. He is the ultimate father and also giving instruction to those people to remember they are not to just be seen or be exalted for holding those titles. It's calling on those people to humble themselves in effort to realize that the one true father/teacher/master is God himself. He is not eliminating those words from usage in people's vocabulary.

Wrong, all of it. What he's saying is clear and you choose to spin it as I've heard other Catholics do. What he said obviously isn't about calling your earthly father "father" which leaves no doubt as to what he's talking about, which is what Catholics do.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

You cant interpret Matthew 23:9 as prohibiting reference to dads/priests/anyone as "fathers" without contradicting other scriptural passages in which the word "father" is used. Such an interpretation would render the commandment "honor your father" meaningless and would diminish the authority of the apostles and their successors. But see this is what people who don't truly understand the complexity of the Bible do. You are taking it 1) out of context, and 2) applying the context of today's culture around it. You have to have a much deeper understanding of at that time what was going on with the Pharisees and what God was addressing.

Wrong, all of it. What he's saying is clear and you choose to spin it as I've heard other Catholics do. What he said obviously isn't about calling your earthly father "father" which leaves no doubt as to what he's talking about, which is what Catholics do.

Its not about spinning it. You take 1 verse and completely remove it from the context it is in, refuse to admit any sort of hyperbole at all or see how the logic of taking this 1 verse solely how you think it should be negates countless other verses and teachings of Christ in the new testament. Be sure a and pluck out your eye, cut off your hand, and all that other stuff while you are at it. Whats clear here is your flawed understanding of theology and the bible. People think you just read what it says and what it says goes. Understanding the bible and its theology is ever more complex than what many realize. But go ahead Ignore all context of the time or presence of hyperbole. By that measure all rape victims today should be forced to wed the person who raped them. No, what this is simply is you taking a verse as YOU see fit to work against Catholicism. That's what it is. Even my Protestant, Presbyterian Professor in College completely disagrees with how you are interpreting that sole verse. The man has over 25 years of in-depth study of the bible. I highly doubt you know more than him...and he is Presbyterian and has his own arguments against Catholicism...but the use of "father" isn't one of them.

 

[-LEK-]

God isn't this or that. It's everything. God is energy and love. There is no hell. Just more lives spent on this hell of a planet. We are here to learn and to love. I would suppose most of you heathens will be spending a few more lives here. Good luck

hippie

 

[Primedfor9]

Its not about spinning it. You take 1 verse and completely remove it from the context it is in, refuse to admit any sort of hyperbole at all or see how the logic of taking this 1 verse solely how you think it should be negates countless other verses and teachings of Christ in the new testament. Be sure a and pluck out your eye, cut off your hand, and all that other stuff while you are at it. Whats clear here is your flawed understanding of theology and the bible. People think you just read what it says and what it says goes. Understanding the bible and its theology is ever more complex than what many realize. But go ahead Ignore all context of the time or presence of hyperbole. By that measure all rape victims today should be forced to wed the person who raped them. No, what this is simply is you taking a verse as YOU see fit to work against Catholicism. That's what it is. Even my Protestant, Presbyterian Professor in College completely disagrees with how you are interpreting that sole verse. The man has over 25 years of in-depth study of the bible. I highly doubt you know more than him...and he is Presbyterian and has his own arguments against Catholicism...but the use of "father" isn't one of them.

There are parables spoken in the bible that requires discernment from the Holy Spirit, you seem to think I don't understand this. This isn't one of them though, Jesus spoke plainly about this and many other things. No man can forgive you of your sins, no man on earth is to be put in the position Jesus was when he was on earth, and no man should be called a spiritual father only the father in heaven himself. That concept is clear throughout the New Testament. The examples you're using of Jesus talking about repentance when saying to pluck out thou eye and this aren't the same concept at all. It's not hard to understand what Jesus meant when talking about cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye if they cause you to sin, it's about repentance and repenting from sins you love to commit. Likewise, it's not hard to understand what Jesus meant when he said to call no man father for only God in heaven is our father.

 

[jwheat]

hippie

Reported

 

[CatManDoo_rivals376463]

The fire mentioned is there for the purging of Saints, thus making it a purgatorial fire which is one that purifies and prepares all things to be enveloped in the consuming fire of God's loving presence forever.

Reconcile that with John 19:30. I find it interesting that in your entire explanation of sin, repentance, purification, etc., you don't reference Christ's sacrifice once.

Also, just for kicks, how would you respond to Fr. Richard McBrien's following statement: "There is, for all practical purposes, no biblical basis for the doctrine of purgatory. This is not to say that there is no basis at all for the doctrine, but only that there is no clear biblical basis for it."

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

Reconcile that with John 19:30. I find it interesting that in your entire explanation of sin, repentance, purification, etc., you don't reference Christ's sacrifice once.

Also, just for kicks, how would you respond to Fr. Richard McBrien's following statement: "There is, for all practical purposes, no biblical basis for the doctrine of purgatory. This is not to say that there is no basis at all for the doctrine, but only that there is no clear biblical basis for it."

Depends on what bible you use...(Only not really) Also, you are talking about a guy who although he was once the head of the Catholic Theological Society of America he is known essentially by Protestants and Catholics as a bit of a nut case with many of his "takes". But it makes reference to a Purgatory state in II Maccabees, as well as Matthew in Matthew 12:32 as well as Matthew 5:24-25 as well as other places. In multiple instances of those text you get the word "prison". But as God/Jesus does ever so frequently, he is speaking in parables. The Greek word for prison is phulake. Its the same word used by St. Peter, in I Peter 3:19, to describe what is come to be known as a "holding place" into which Jesus went to after his death to liberate the detained spirits of Old Testament believers. Phulake is frequently used in the New Testament to refer to a temporary holding place and not exclusively in this life. You also have the illustration in I Corinthians 3:11-15 which I have quoted. Christs sacrifice did provide us with the grace that forgives our sins. However that doesn't mean we cease to sin. We are sinful in our own very nature...and that nature cannot exist near God...hence the Corinthians passage about the fire used to purge us of our sins so we may dwell alongside God.

 

[CatManDoo_rivals376463]

But see this is what people who don't truly understand the complexity of the Bible do.

You also have to have a much deeper understanding of at that time what was going on with the Pharisees and what God was addressing.

Whats clear here is your flawed understanding of theology and the bible. People think you just read what it says and what it says goes. Understanding the bible and its theology is ever more complex than what many realize.

Pretty condescending statements from someone who shamelessly plagiarizes Catholic apologetic websites by copying-and-pasting their arguments verbatim. If you posted your own thoughts, I might disagree with them, but at least I would respect you. There is nothing more Catholic than running for the robes of the magisterium when challenged. Almost like that dynamic was intended from the start.

 

[KentuckyStout]

I'll just enlighten ya a bit on the whole idea where people say "Show me where God said he wanted a Pope or anything of the sort":

In Matthew it emphasizes Jesus role as the son of David and the king of Israel sent by his father to inaugurate the kingdom of heaven... in Matthew 16: Jesus establishes it (the role of a "Pope" figure". First he gives Simon the new name Peter which translates to rock in Hebrew, and father...

Jesus’ discussion with Peter centered on identifying the Christ and his role, not on the role that Peter would play, as shown in the preceding verses (Matthew 16:13-17)
Peter himself later stated that Jesus was the rock upon which the congregation was built. (1 Peter 2:4-8) Peter never taught that he was head of the early congregation.
In harmony with this, the apostle Paul later confirmed that Jesus, not Peter, was “the foundation cornerstone” of the Christian congregation.—Ephesians 2:20.

Although Peter played a major and very important role in the first century, he was never given primacy over the other apostles, he never expressed that himself (1 Peter 1:1; 5:1) - and none of the other apostles ever taught it.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

Pretty condescending statements from someone who shamelessly plagiarizes Catholic apologetic websites by copying-and-pasting their arguments verbatim. If you posted your own thoughts, I might disagree with them, but at least I would respect you. There is nothing more Catholic than running for the robes of the magisterium when challenged. Almost like that dynamic was/is intentional.

They are my thoughts lol...Just because I could locate online people echoing your arguments doesnt equate to them not being your own thoughts. Everyone in some form or fashion relies on sentiments of or opinions of Preachers, Priests, Decons, Elders...Please dont act like you just read the bible all by your lonesome and came to all your own conclusions. No. You whether you realize it or not, have been shaped in some way through opinions, education, etc. of other people be it your parents, church members, deacons, elders, preachers or what not. To say otherwise is a complete lie.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

Jesus’ discussion with Peter centered on identifying the Christ and his role, not on the role that Peter would play, as shown in the preceding verses (Matthew 16:13-17)
Peter himself later stated that Jesus was the rock upon which the congregation was built. (1 Peter 2:4-8) Peter never taught that he was head of the early congregation.
In harmony with this, the apostle Paul later confirmed that Jesus, not Peter, was “the foundation cornerstone” of the Christian congregation.—Ephesians 2:20.

Although Peter played a major and very important role in the first century, he was never given primacy over the other apostles, he never expressed that himself (1 Peter 1:1; 5:1) - and none of the other apostles ever taught it.

Only he kinda was. Even though he didnt express that sentiment, and no other apostles taught it doesn't mean it wasn't so. You are just simply devaluing and completely ignoring the gift of the "keys to heaven" and the meaning and importance of that.

 

[CatManDoo_rivals376463]

Of course my knowledge and opinions have been shaped over time. That's different than copying-and-pasting someone else's exact words without attribution, then portraying yourself as some sort of theological expert.

Sounds familiar

 

[CatsFanGG24]

CMD thinks he and his religion are better than everyone else. He is the problem in religion.