Why are Catholics so bad?

Raeneske · Nov 5, 2012

kepha31 said:
All I had to demonstrate is that not all bowing is worship, something you failed to grasp. Using bold font didn't help.

No one is forbidden to marry in the Catholic Church, with exceptions such as to family members, coercion, living in common law, etc. Priests cannot marry because they choose not to, and have made solemn vows to God to remain single for the sake of the kingdom. You need to read the story of the rich young man.

If an atheist university professor chooses to remain single so he can dedicate his life to his work, the world admires his dedication. But if a Christian chooses to dedicate his entire life, including his sexuality to God, suddenly its demonic. Yea, I hear you.

Isaiah 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony" means the written word is equal with the spoken word, something you deny. This verse backfires on you. You also deny the importance of oral tradition in Judaism, because your man made cult is more removed from Judaism than is Protestantism.

2 Timothy 3:12-17
[12] Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
[13] while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition) knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note verse 14. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:

1) Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2) Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3) Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.

In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Deformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses.

The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:12-17.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal." 83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

(1) The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism. 84

(2) The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction". 85

(3) The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem. 86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny. 87

You can't expose something you have pre-invented.

I have to speak in general terms when discussing reformist heresies. Being specific is hard to do with thousands of conflicitng Protestant denoms all having the Holy Spirit leading them. Few in here want to reveal what set of doctrines they follow. It's even worse when you have individual non-denominationalists each with their own set of doctrines, most of which don't make any sense. The "me, the Bible and the Holy Spirit" mentality. But I had you pegged as a SDA a long time ago. Besides, if I am guilty of Protestant bashing, quote me or knock off the slander.

Seventh-Day Adventism cannot change its views on the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon without admitting that it was wrong on Sunday worship. It cannot admit that Sunday worship is not the mark of the beast without changing its views on the Jewish Sabbath. Seventh-Day Adventism cannot cease to be anti-Catholic without ceasing to be Seventh-Day Adventism. SDA exposed. If you find something inaccurate, let me know.

Ellen White was an occultist who wrote by channeling, known by both Protestant and Catholic counsellors as demonic activity.

No, that's not all you had to show me. If you have proof that bowing in front of statues is okay, give me it. Show me where in the Bible, God sanctioned they bowed in front of statues. Period.

No one is forbidden to marry in the Catholic Church, with exceptions such as to family members, coercion, living in common law, etc. Priests cannot marry because they choose not to, and have made solemn vows to God to remain single for the sake of the kingdom. You need to read the story of the rich young man.

If an atheist university professor chooses to remain single so he can dedicate his life to his work, the world admires his dedication. But if a Christian chooses to dedicate his entire life, including his sexuality to God, suddenly its demonic. Yea, I hear you.

You 100% just proved my point on the marriage. Did I ever say there was something wrong with a Christian deciding not to marry? Or did I say it would demonic to forbid them to marry? I have to be very exact here, right now. You cannot forbid priests to marry. They took the vows, because your church has it set up that they take the vow, so they are forbidden to marry. It's not going to be obvious. One day the Pope isn't going to come in and be like "Hey you guys can't marry!". No, it's set up that way, so that you don't marry. This subtlety is what makes it very dangerous. This is why I say, be very exact right now. Only absolute plainness of speech will ever point out this churches errors. The church may have all the rights, and vows it wants. But it forbade it's preachers to marry, by implementing the celibacy vow. Period.

Isaiah 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony" means the written word is equal with the spoken word, something you deny. This verse backfires on you. You also deny the importance of oral tradition in Judaism, because your man made cult is more removed from Judaism than is Protestantism.

The spoken word must come according to the Bible. If it contradicts the Bible, it is because there is no light within the speaker. For that reason alone, the Word of God succeeds any oral tradition. Oral tradition in Judaism? You know Christ rebuked their traditions, because they placed their traditions in place of God's Word. Sort of like, how Catholic "Tradition" allows you to bow in front of statues, and tries to whipe the guilt away by telling you all bowing isn't worship.

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 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. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:1-9 KJV)

In a similar manner, it is taught that Catholics can bow before statues of their supposed leaders. Why does the church transgress the commandment of God by that tradition? God said not to bow before idols, did he not? Okay so, why does the church say it's okay to do. Where does the Bible say it's okay to bow before statues.

2 Timothy 3:12-17
[12] Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
[13] while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition) knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note verse 14. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:

1) Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2) Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3) Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.

In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Deformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses.

The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:12-17.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal." 83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

(1) The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism. 84

(2) The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction". 85

(3) The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem. 86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny. 87

Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:12-17 KJV)

The insertions you made, are simply man-made. The things that Timothy has learned do not come from some "oral tradition" as the Roman Catholic Doctrine would like to interject. The things which he has learned, all come from scripture. Just like the bereans who searched the scriptures daily, to see if the things brought to them were true. Now yes, someone does have to literally open their mouth and speak when teaching the Word of God. But this speaking, does not automatically make something an oral tradition. Those who accepted Jesus, accepted Him because they believed the scriptures, which testified of Him. As for whom he has learned them from, Paul is simply indicating the trustworthiness of what he has heard, and whom he has heard it from. Again, this "hearing" does not all of a sudden make something an oral tradition. Also, as you are putting it, Paul did list them, yes, but he was not listing something in order of importance. He later lists what scripture is important for - does he list it in an order of importance? Is doctrine more important than reproof? Is reproof more important than correction? Is correction more important than instructing in righteousness? No. Okay, so why is it an assumed list in a specified order there, but not so much down here?

As for the Literal approach, not every Protestant does that. There are many Protestants who will say one verse has completely literal, there will others who will say it's spiritual. We just do not take the same approach to something maybe a Roman Catholic would.

You can't expose something you have pre-invented.

I'm sure I did not come up with Catholic Dogma.

I have to speak in general terms when discussing reformist heresies. Being specific is hard to do with thousands of conflicitng Protestant denoms all having the Holy Spirit leading them. Few in here want to reveal what set of doctrines they follow. It's even worse when you have individual non-denominationalists each with their own set of doctrines, most of which don't make any sense. The "me, the Bible and the Holy Spirit" mentality. But I had you pegged as a SDA a long time ago. Besides, if I am guilty of Protestant bashing, quote me or knock off the slander.

Slander? Where have I slandered. Last time I checked, after my first post you alluded to me being filled with pride and then you said I was unteachable, and that I would run off to some "Anti-Catholic" site. So, if anyone out here is slandering, you are. I tried to come in peaceably, to have a good discussion. I tried to show my care for my human family, and it backfires, because the very next second, all i'm getting are these completely ridiculous accusations. So, you need to take your own advice on this subject, right now.

If Protestants do not want to reveal what doctrines they believe, I am sorry. I too have encountered certain problems where doctrines will not be laid out for me, and I am verbally assaulted, for questioning them, because I do not agree with the building up a prophecy, without a sure solid foundation.

You may have had me pegged as an SDA, but i'm sorry to inform you, I am not a Seventh Day Adventist, who sometime recently had some of their churches just be called "Adventist". I am not part of a church that runs around in blatant apostasy, and pretends it's okay. And no, i'm not an "Adventist" either.

Seventh-Day Adventism cannot change its views on the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon without admitting that it was wrong on Sunday worship. It cannot admit that Sunday worship is not the mark of the beast without changing its views on the Jewish Sabbath. Seventh-Day Adventism cannot cease to be anti-Catholic without ceasing to be Seventh-Day Adventism. SDA exposed. If you find something inaccurate, let me know.

Ellen White was an occultist who wrote by channeling, known by both Protestant and Catholic counsellors as demonic activity.

Seventh Day Adventism actually does think they can change their views on the Catholic Church being the whore of Babylon. Surprised? So am I. One of their articles asserted that Jesus Christ hasn't come yet, so maybe the Catholic Church is "off the hook", and that maybe sometime another enitity will arise to fit all those prophecies.

However, it is not only Seventh Day Adventists that know because of the Roman Catholic Church, people worship on Sunday. Seriously, even the Roman Catholic Church admits there is no Biblical Foundation for Sunday. It is a purely Catholoc institution, which can be guarded by not the scriptures, but by Catholic rites.

Ellen White did not channel. Please, I would not believe that garbage if it came giftwrapped to me, in a sweet smelling box. It's still complete garbage.

I believe you would know what I mean though, I'm sure someone has brought up the Jesuit Oath to you. If you've seen it, you'd believe it's garbage. Now you understand where I'm coming from when I tell you, about Ellen White channeling, is pure garbage.

I've only looked at your page of encyclocils (spelling?) rather briefly. Still need to look at it more.

Angelina · Nov 5, 2012

Many of you are in breach of the forum guidelines...so here's a friendly reminder

Community Board Rules
*No insults allowed. This rule will be strictly enforced. This community has a core set of beliefs that we clearly state at multiple locations on this website. However, we recognize that unity is Christ is the ultimate aim and this can be achieved even when there is disagreement on doctrinal issues. A good way to avoid this issue is to focus on the doctrine and not the person. This, of course, includes any kind of insults based on race or beliefs.
*Denominational Posts – Excessive posts either attempting to either push a single denomination (or group) or attacking another denomination are included in this rule.

The Apologetics forum is not a "debate forum" If you cannot discuss this topic without personal insults, then my suggestion is that you do not post. We are all adults here so please consider your point carefully before posting...

Thank you

neophyte · Nov 5, 2012

Raeneske said:
No, that's not all you had to show me. If you have proof that bowing in front of statues is okay, give me it. Show me where in the Bible, God sanctioned they bowed in front of statues. Period.

You 100% just proved my point on the marriage. Did I ever say there was something wrong with a Christian deciding not to marry? Or did I say it would demonic to forbid them to marry? I have to be very exact here, right now. You cannot forbid priests to marry. They took the vows, because your church has it set up that they take the vow, so they are forbidden to marry. It's not going to be obvious. One day the Pope isn't going to come in and be like "Hey you guys can't marry!". No, it's set up that way, so that you don't marry. This subtlety is what makes it very dangerous. This is why I say, be very exact right now. Only absolute plainness of speech will ever point out this churches errors. The church may have all the rights, and vows it wants. But it forbade it's preachers to marry, by implementing the celibacy vow. Period.

The spoken word must come according to the Bible. If it contradicts the Bible, it is because there is no light within the speaker. For that reason alone, the Word of God succeeds any oral tradition. Oral tradition in Judaism? You know Christ rebuked their traditions, because they placed their traditions in place of God's Word. Sort of like, how Catholic "Tradition" allows you to bow in front of statues, and tries to whipe the guilt away by telling you all bowing isn't worship.

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 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. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:1-9 KJV)

In a similar manner, it is taught that Catholics can bow before statues of their supposed leaders. Why does the church transgress the commandment of God by that tradition? God said not to bow before idols, did he not? Okay so, why does the church say it's okay to do. Where does the Bible say it's okay to bow before statues.

Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:12-17 KJV)

The insertions you made, are simply man-made. The things that Timothy has learned do not come from some "oral tradition" as the Roman Catholic Doctrine would like to interject. The things which he has learned, all come from scripture. Just like the bereans who searched the scriptures daily, to see if the things brought to them were true. Now yes, someone does have to literally open their mouth and speak when teaching the Word of God. But this speaking, does not automatically make something an oral tradition. Those who accepted Jesus, accepted Him because they believed the scriptures, which testified of Him. As for whom he has learned them from, Paul is simply indicating the trustworthiness of what he has heard, and whom he has heard it from. Again, this "hearing" does not all of a sudden make something an oral tradition. Also, as you are putting it, Paul did list them, yes, but he was not listing something in order of importance. He later lists what scripture is important for - does he list it in an order of importance? Is doctrine more important than reproof? Is reproof more important than correction? Is correction more important than instructing in righteousness? No. Okay, so why is it an assumed list in a specified order there, but not so much down here?

As for the Literal approach, not every Protestant does that. There are many Protestants who will say one verse has completely literal, there will others who will say it's spiritual. We just do not take the same approach to something maybe a Roman Catholic would.

I'm sure I did not come up with Catholic Dogma.

Slander? Where have I slandered. Last time I checked, after my first post you alluded to me being filled with pride and then you said I was unteachable, and that I would run off to some "Anti-Catholic" site. So, if anyone out here is slandering, you are. I tried to come in peaceably, to have a good discussion. I tried to show my care for my human family, and it backfires, because the very next second, all i'm getting are these completely ridiculous accusations. So, you need to take your own advice on this subject, right now.

If Protestants do not want to reveal what doctrines they believe, I am sorry. I too have encountered certain problems where doctrines will not be laid out for me, and I am verbally assaulted, for questioning them, because I do not agree with the building up a prophecy, without a sure solid foundation.

You may have had me pegged as an SDA, but i'm sorry to inform you, I am not a Seventh Day Adventist, who sometime recently had some of their churches just be called "Adventist". I am not part of a church that runs around in blatant apostasy, and pretends it's okay. And no, i'm not an "Adventist" either.

Seventh Day Adventism actually does think they can change their views on the Catholic Church being the whore of Babylon. Surprised? So am I. One of their articles asserted that Jesus Christ hasn't come yet, so maybe the Catholic Church is "off the hook", and that maybe sometime another enitity will arise to fit all those prophecies.

However, it is not only Seventh Day Adventists that know because of the Roman Catholic Church, people worship on Sunday. Seriously, even the Roman Catholic Church admits there is no Biblical Foundation for Sunday. It is a purely Catholoc institution, which can be guarded by not the scriptures, but by Catholic rites.

Ellen White did not channel. Please, I would not believe that garbage if it came giftwrapped to me, in a sweet smelling box. It's still complete garbage.

I believe you would know what I mean though, I'm sure someone has brought up the Jesuit Oath to you. If you've seen it, you'd believe it's garbage. Now you understand where I'm coming from when I tell you, about Ellen White channeling, is pure garbage.

I've only
looked at your page of encyclocils (spelling?) rather briefly. Still need to look at it more.

Raeneske, let's use the Holy Bible to show the Catholic position on statues, graven images and the sin of adolatry.
In [ Exodus 20: 3-5 ] the Lord forbids the carving of graven images for the purpose of idolatry-- He does not condemn the carving of graven images per se [ as I will show with the following verses]
In reading the following passages within the proper context shows that Christians are not wrong to make use of religious images and statues, so long as they are used to assist us in ordering our intellect toward God and His heavenly things. I presume you also keep pictures of your family and loved ones as a way of reminding us of them, many Christians also keep statues and images in their homes and churches as a way to help remind us of Jesus and the heroes of our Christian Faith. Many Christians haven't any family or friends that are still alive ,so they keep their heros that followed Jesus as their friends, nothing wrong with that with our Lord ---the following verses show that God does permit the use of religious statues and images, so long as we avoid idolatry.
Exodus 25:18-20
Exodus 26:1
Numbers 21:8-9
1 Kings 6:23-28
1 Kings 7:23-29
Colossians 1:15

Everything that Timothy learned, about the teachings of Jesus, came from Oral Traditional Teachings because nothing that Jesus spoke was penned at this time for Timothy or anybody else.

epostle1 · Nov 6, 2012

Raeneske has been refuted and refuses to accept that not all bowing is worship. It's as simple as that.

Do Catholics Worship Statues?

He refuses to believe the distinctions made in 1 Tim 3:14-15, and says it all means scripture, scripture, and scripture.

Google "ellen white" channeling and you get 48,000 hits, many from reputable encyclopedias. Raeneske is wrong.

Saturday to Sunday worship was changed by the Apostles, he is buying into occult propaganda and defies all of Christendom.
He accuses me of being anti-Protestant, then denies slandering me.

Raeneske, if he bothers to read even some of the provided encyclicals, will only do so with a microscope, straining for bats to beat Catholics with. He will miss the point of all three encyclicals.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/index_en.htm

Alanforchrist · Nov 6, 2012

kepha31 said:
This isn't worth commenting on, because you haven't said anything of substance. No proof, no documentation, no argument,
just raw hate. I would really like to know the name of your bible cult, who founded it, and when, unless you are of the "me, bible and Holy Spirit" crowd as your own pope in a church of one. That would mean you founded your own church the minute you formulated an opinion. Or maybe you are a klansman. Do you feel the same way towards Jews and blacks as you do Catholics? You don't want to keep me guessing, do you?

I don't hate catholics, But I do hate their eronious docrtrines.

The Bible and the original Greek texts are the proof that catholics are wrong.
Where in the Bible are,
Purgatory.
Works for salvation.
Salvation by infant baptism.
Penance.
Works of satisfaction.
Mary, Ever sinless.
Mary, Ever virgin.
Mary, A co-redeemer.
Mary, A Co-interceeder.
Mary praying for us.
The departed saints praying for us.
Praying to Mary and the departed saints.
Pops.
priests.

Just to mention some of the eroneous catholic teachings.

I REST MY CASE.

Mungo · Nov 6, 2012

Raeneske said:
You 100% just proved my point on the marriage. Did I ever say there was something wrong with a Christian deciding not to marry? Or did I say it would demonic to forbid them to marry? I have to be very exact here, right now. You cannot forbid priests to marry. They took the vows, because your church has it set up that they take the vow, so they are forbidden to marry. It's not going to be obvious. One day the Pope isn't going to come in and be like "Hey you guys can't marry!". No, it's set up that way, so that you don't marry. This subtlety is what makes it very dangerous. This is why I say, be very exact right now. Only absolute plainness of speech will ever point out this churches errors. The church may have all the rights, and vows it wants. But it forbade it's preachers to marry, by implementing the celibacy vow. Period.

The Catholic Church does not forbid people to marry.

Marriage and Ordination are sacraments. Whichever a person chooses he or she will be given the graces (gifts) to live the life they have chosen.

It’s a choice. No-one forces anyone to marry or become a priest (or a nun or a monk)

No-one forbids anyone to marry, but some choices rule out others.

Alanforchrist said:
I don't hate catholics, But I do hate their eronious docrtrines.

The Bible and the original Greek texts are the proof that catholics are wrong.
Where in the Bible are,
Purgatory.
Works for salvation.
Salvation by infant baptism.
Penance.
Works of satisfaction.
Mary, Ever sinless.
Mary, Ever virgin.
Mary, A co-redeemer.
Mary, A Co-interceeder.
Mary praying for us.
The departed saints praying for us.
Praying to Mary and the departed saints.
Pops.
priests.

Just to mention some of the eroneous catholic teachings.

I REST MY CASE.

You have no case.

Raeneske said:
No, that's not all you had to show me. If you have proof that bowing in front of statues is okay, give me it. Show me where in the Bible, God sanctioned they bowed in front of statues. Period.

Bowing is a gesture of respect.

When we bow in front of a statue we are showing respect to the person represented by that statue, nothing more.

"Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due."(Rom 13:7)

Those who are in heaven have run the race and received the imperishable crown (1 Cor 9:25). They are worthy of respect and honour.

epostle1 · Nov 6, 2012

Literacy after Iconoclasm in the English Reformation

Believing that the destruction of church imagery was necessary to the amendment of Christian life, the religious reformers in sixteenth-century England aimed to change minds as well as church furnishings. Image worship was to be replaced by reading, and learning from pictures and statues was to be replaced by learning to read the English Bible. Literacy, however, isn't easy, even now. Taking up the issues of iconoclasm and literacy from the perspective of recent research in cognitive neuroscience, this essay explores the reformers' misunderstandings about how people could or couldn't reform their spiritual lives, and suggests a new view of why changing minds wasn't as easy as the reformers had hoped, and why stripping the churches of their rood screens, burning or hiding statues of saints, overpainting narrative wall murals, and replacing stained glass with plain windows turned out to be easier than producing Bible readers.

from the Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies (non-Catholic source) (fee required for full article)

Raeneske · Nov 6, 2012

neophyte said:
Raeneske, let's use the Holy Bible to show the Catholic position on statues, graven images and the sin of adolatry.
In [ Exodus 20: 3-5 ] the Lord forbids the carving of graven images for the purpose of idolatry-- He does not condemn the carving of graven images per se [ as I will show with the following verses]
In reading the following passages within the proper context shows that Christians are not wrong to make use of religious images and statues, so long as they are used to assist us in ordering our intellect toward God and His heavenly things. I presume you also keep pictures of your family and loved ones as a way of reminding us of them, many Christians also keep statues and images in their homes and churches as a way to help remind us of Jesus and the heroes of our Christian Faith. Many Christians haven't any family or friends that are still alive ,so they keep their heros that followed Jesus as their friends, nothing wrong with that with our Lord ---the following verses show that God does permit the use of religious statues and images, so long as we avoid idolatry.
Exodus 25:18-20
Exodus 26:1
Numbers 21:8-9
1 Kings 6:23-28
1 Kings 7:23-29
Colossians 1:15

Everything that Timothy learned, about the teachings of Jesus, came from Oral Traditional Teachings because nothing that Jesus spoke was penned at this time for Timothy or anybody else.

Hello Neophyte,

Okay, We may use the Bible.

Please show me where the Bible commanded Roman Catholics to make images of the Saints of Jesus Christ, and of Jesus himself.

Also, please show me where bowing before an image specifically is okay.

kepha31 said:
Raeneske has been refuted and refuses to accept that not all bowing is worship. It's as simple as that.

Do Catholics Worship Statues?

He refuses to believe the distinctions made in 1 Tim 3:14-15, and says it all means scripture, scripture, and scripture.

Google "ellen white" channeling and you get 48,000 hits, many from reputable encyclopedias. Raeneske is wrong.

Saturday to Sunday worship was changed by the Apostles, he is buying into occult propaganda and defies all of Christendom.
He accuses me of being anti-Protestant, then denies slandering me.

Raeneske, if he bothers to read even some of the provided encyclicals, will only do so with a microscope, straining for bats to beat Catholics with. He will miss the point of all three encyclicals.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/index_en.htm

Sorry, you're in disagreement with your church there. They admit they changed the Sabbath, it is not a Biblical change, nor can anyone provide a Biblical change. And no, posting that the Bible speaks on 1st day 8 times in the NT does not warrant a change. It mentions the Sabbath over 60 times in the NT. Numbers aren't the proof however. Using Scriptures in context proves the day never changed. Having a meeting on Sunday doesn't make something the Sabbath, anymore than calling your mother on Tuesday makes it Mother's Day.

If I have been refuted, I would like to know where the verse is that tells Catholics to make statues of Jesus Saints, and of Jesus Himself. And where the verses are that show it's okay to bow before them. Not a single solitary scripture has been given to me. There is no refutation there. However, I myself pointed to Daniel 3. If Shadrech, Meschach, and Abednago could have bowed before the golden image, without it being sin, don't you think they would've, instead of risking their lives for the Commandment of the Lord? It's a sin to bow down before idols - period. And no amount of talking your way around it will change that.

It does mean scripture, scripture, scripture. Notice, you inserted the meanings yourself, Scripture didn't.

Google Catholics worship idols, and you'll get too many to name hits showing you Catholics are in sin with idols. I rest my case.

"He accuses me of being Anti-Protestant, then denies slandering me" Did I accuse you of being Anti-Protestant, or did I give you a mere example of the ridiculousness of the "Catholic Bashing" and "Anti-Catholic" terms thrown around? Please don't pull my words out of context. I did not come to this board to be ridiculed. Like I said, after my first post, you said I was filled with pride, and I was unteachable. You cannot reverse the facts.

Of course I will seek out errors in what you post regarding the encyclicals. Do you not seek out the errors in what I or others post?

Mungo said:
The Catholic Church does not forbid people to marry.

Marriage and Ordination are sacraments. Whichever a person chooses he or she will be given the graces (gifts) to live the life they have chosen.

It’s a choice. No-one forces anyone to marry or become a priest (or a nun or a monk)

No-one forbids anyone to marry, but some choices rule out others.

You have no case.

Bowing is a gesture of respect.

When we bow in front of a statue we are showing respect to the person represented by that statue, nothing more.

"Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due."(Rom 13:7)

Those who are in heaven have run the race and received the imperishable crown (1 Cor 9:25). They are worthy of respect and honour.

Please show me where in the Bible, it teaches that one must take a vow of celibacy if they come to the Priesthood. This is the problem. No matter who you are, you should not be forced to take a vow of celibacy. Whether you are a newborn Christian, A priest, a nun, a Pope, a treasurer, etc. So yes, the Catholic Church does forbid marriage. No matter what office someone steps into, you cannot forbid them to marry. Priest or not. You are not allowed that option to forbid, as the Bible calls it a doctrine of devils.

I also would like to know, where in the Bible it shows Christians, or tells Catholics to bow in front of idols, specifically.

Mungo · Nov 6, 2012

Raeneske said:
Please show me where in the Bible, it teaches that one must take a vow of celibacy if they come to the Priesthood. This is the problem. No matter who you are, you should not be forced to take a vow of celibacy. Whether you are a newborn Christian, A priest, a nun, a Pope, a treasurer, etc. So yes, the Catholic Church does forbid marriage. No matter what office someone steps into, you cannot forbid them to marry. Priest or not. You are not allowed that option to forbid, as the Bible calls it a doctrine of devils.

I also would like to know, where in the Bible it shows Christians, or tells Catholics to bow in front of idols, specifically.

Why do you ask me to follow an illogical and unbiblical practice?

You are obviously expecting me to use your erroneous sola scriptura practice which is not taught in the Bible and therefore illogical to demand that it is followed. It was not the practice of Jesus; it was not the practice of the apostles; it was not the practice of the early Church; it has not been the practice of the Catholic and Orthodox churches for 2,000 years.

No-one must take a vow of celibacy.

A man or woman has a choice to follow a particular calling from God. If a man chooses to become a priest in the Latin Rite then he chooses to forgo the option of marrying unless he leaves the priesthood (as some have done). He is not forced to become a priest and therefore is not forced to take a vow of celibacy. It is his choice. But as I said some choices rule out others.

If a man or a woman chooses to follow a celibate life as a priest, monk or nun then the Church expects them to faithfully honour that choice and the promises that go with it.

If a man or a woman chooses to marry then the Church expects them to faithfully honour that choice and the promises that go with it.

Catholics do not bow in front of idols.

Raeneske said:
Sorry, you're in disagreement with your church there. They admit they changed the Sabbath

The Church has not admitted it changed the Sabbath because it has not changed the Sabbath.

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath", from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi! (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, Dies Domini)

epostle1 · Nov 6, 2012

[Edited by the mod]

Do Catholics Worship Statues?

Raeneske · Nov 6, 2012

Mungo said:
Why do you ask me to follow an illogical and unbiblical practice?

You are obviously expecting me to use your erroneous sola scriptura practice which is not taught in the Bible and therefore illogical to demand that it is followed. It was not the practice of Jesus; it was not the practice of the apostles; it was not the practice of the early Church; it has not been the practice of the Catholic and Orthodox churches for 2,000 years.

No-one must take a vow of celibacy.

A man or woman has a choice to follow a particular calling from God. If a man chooses to become a priest in the Latin Rite then he chooses to forgo the option of marrying unless he leaves the priesthood (as some have done). He is not forced to become a priest and therefore is not forced to take a vow of celibacy. It is his choice. But as I said some choices rule out others.

If a man or a woman chooses to follow a celibate life as a priest, monk or nun then the Church expects them to faithfully honour that choice and the promises that go with it.

If a man or a woman chooses to marry then the Church expects them to faithfully honour that choice and the promises that go with it.

Catholics do not bow in front of idols.

The Church has not admitted it changed the Sabbath because it has not changed the Sabbath.

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath", from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi! (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, Dies Domini)

This is off the cuff, but your name sounds really familliar.

This is the deception, that they are "choosing" not to marry. When someone chooses to be a priest, taking a celibacy vow should not be required. The church cannot do that. The Bible says, that is a doctrine of devils. Whether it is a Roman Catholic rite or not - You cannot do it. The Bible explicitly makes that known. Yes, it is their choice to become a priest, but you do not have influence over whether the priest is allowed to marry or not - especially since the Bible says they should be married.

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 3:1-4, 12, 13 KJV)

Catholic Church admits they changed the Sabbath:
http://www.remnantofgod.org/romeadmits.htm

I also have the pages in specific Roman Catholic books, if you would to see their admittance.

wayseer · Nov 6, 2012

Raeneske said:
Catholic Church admits they changed the Sabbath:
http://www.remnantof.../romeadmits.htm

Rather than relying on questionably websites you might want to read something about the Early Christian Fathers and the Council of Nicaea.

The RCC is an institution and like any institution can make its own rules. Whether you agree with the rules is beside the point.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to make the case that the theology of the RCC is unsound then you have more research to do before you sound convincing.

Raeneske · Nov 6, 2012

wayseer said:
Rather than relying on questionably websites you might want to read something about the Early Christian Fathers and the Council of Nicaea.

The RCC is an institution and like any institution can make its own rules. Whether you agree with the rules is beside the point.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to make the case that the theology of the RCC is unsound then you have more research to do before you sound convincing.

I disagree with the rules, because the Word of God disagrees with it. I didn't write the Bible, I just agree with it. The doctrine is of demons, to forbid marriage. I try not to sound harsh, or rude, I just try to be very plain.

More research? I think we could all use a little more research. But what more can I put? And regarding what? The Sabbath?

http://books.google.com/books?id=zWMNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA47&vq=Sabbath&output=html_text&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1

epostle1 · Nov 6, 2012

On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure."
Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).

"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master."
Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).

"The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest--abstraction from ills--preparing for the Primal Day,[The Lord's Day] our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth--a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following Him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impossible; and this is to rest."
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:16 (A.D. 202).

Yup. You can blame us Catholics now. There's proof we changed the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday.

Ignatius and Clement wrote by day, and killed the real Christians by night. That's what the Remnant of Goons will have you believe.

wayseer · Nov 7, 2012

Raeneske said:
I disagree with the rules, because the Word of God disagrees with it. I didn't write the Bible, I just agree with it.

If you 'agree' with the Bible I guess you think that slavery should be reintroduced as part of Obama's second term - that stoning wayward daughters should recommenced and live animal sacrifices should happened at the end of your street.

Cliches don't work in the twenty-first century. If you are not up to speed in theology try Proverbs - there is sound advice in there for those who think they have all the answers.

kepha31 said:
On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure."
Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).

Actually the Didache is dated somewhat earlier - about 50 and is therefore contemporary with Paul.

And at that time we cannot be certain on what day of the week they celebrated the Lord's Day.

I really struggle to understand the anti Catholic sentiment - other than a heighten sense of spiritual superiority.

Mungo · Nov 7, 2012

Raeneske said:
This is off the cuff, but your name sounds really familliar.

This is the deception, that they are "choosing" not to marry. When someone chooses to be a priest, taking a celibacy vow should not be required. The church cannot do that. The Bible says, that is a doctrine of devils. Whether it is a Roman Catholic rite or not - You cannot do it. The Bible explicitly makes that known. Yes, it is their choice to become a priest, but you do not have influence over whether the priest is allowed to marry or not - especially since the Bible says they should be married.

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 3:1-4, 12, 13 KJV)
.

You seem to have a strange understanding of the word choose.

From the Concise Oxford English Dictionary

choose

verb (past chose; past participle chosen)

1 pick out as being the best of two or more alternatives.

2 decide on a course of action.

Choose is deciding between alternatives.

Your quote from 1Timothy has no relevance to the issue of celibacy, though it does demonstrate the right of the Church (represented by Paul) to lay down some standards for who is acceptable as a bishop, priest or deacon.

Jesus says
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." (Mt 19:12)
Jesus commends those who choose celibacy for the sake of the kingdom.

For as Paul says:
"An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife and he is divided.” (1Cor 7:32-34)

Raeneske said:
Catholic Church admits they changed the Sabbath:
http://www.remnantof.../romeadmits.htm

I also have the pages in specific Roman Catholic books, if you would to see their admittance.

I will accept authoritative Catholic sources such as Ecumenical Council documents, Papal Apostolic Constitutions, Encyclicals and Apostolic letters and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not statements from obscure individuals or supposed decretals that seem to exist only on anti-catholic web sites, unless you can show me primary sources for it.

I gave you two such authoritative quotes you can check. I can give you the links if you want them.

Saturday remains the Jewish Sabbath but is not applicable to Christians.

epostle1 · Nov 7, 2012

I prefer going to Saturday evening Mass at 5:00 P.M. so it looks to me like a lot of fuss over nothing.
Then I can sleep in on Sunday morning.

James Forthwright · Nov 8, 2012

kepha31 said:
On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure."
Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).

"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master."
Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).

"The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest--abstraction from ills--preparing for the Primal Day,[The Lord's Day] our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth--a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following Him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impossible; and this is to rest."
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:16 (A.D. 202).

Yup. You can blame us Catholics now. There's proof we changed the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday.

Ignatius and Clement wrote by day, and killed the real Christians by night. That's what the Remnant of Goons will have you believe.

You're being a bit selective in your choice of Early Church Father's (ECF) quotes. As in today's religious circles, the nascent Christian Church held a diverse spectrum of opinions regarding the Sabbath. Biblical scholars are also of a divided opinion on the matter:

1ST CENTURY CHRISTIANS
"Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat."[14] For say the[holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread."[15] But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them.[1] And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days[of the week]." --Ignatius, Bishop of Syria (c.20-107 AD)

"The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the Apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to the purpose." --"Dialogues on the Lord's Day," p. 189. London: 1701, By Dr. T.H. Morer (A Church of England divine).

...The Sabbath was a strong tie which united them with the life of the whole people, and in keeping the Sabbath holy they followed not only the example but also the command of Jesus."
--"Geschichte des Sonntags," pp.13, 14

2ND CENTURY CHRISTIANS
"The Gentile Christians observed also the Sabbath,"
--Gieseler's "Church History," Vol.1, ch. 2, par. 30, 93.

EARLY CHRISTIANS
"The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews;...therefore the Christians, for a long time together, did keep their conventions upon the Sabbath, in which some portions of the law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council. [364 A.D.]"
--"The Whole Works" of Jeremy Taylor, Vol. IX,p. 416 (R. Heber's Edition, Vol XII, p. 416).

"Do not lightly esteem the festivals. Despise not the period of forty days, for it comprised an imitation of the conduct of the Lord. After the week of passion, do not neglect to fast on the fourth and sixth days, distributing at the same time of thine abundance to the poor. If any one fasts on the Lord's Day or on the sabbath, except on the Paschal Sabbath only, he is a murderer of Christ." --Ignatius, Bishop of Syria circa 119AD

EARLY CHURCH
"It is certain that the ancient [Saturday] Sabbath did remain and was observed (together with the celebration of the [Sunday] Lord's day) by the Christians of the East Church, above three hundred years after our Saviour's death." "A Learned Treatise of the Sabbath," p. 77

2ND, 3RD, 4TH CENTURIES
"From the apostles' time until the council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observance of the Jews' Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors: yea, notwithstanding the decree of the council against it."
"Sunday a Sabbath." John Ley, p.163. London: 1640.

"The Old Testament regulations (regarding the sabbath) were developed and systematized to such an extent that they became a burden upon the people (who otherwise rejoiced in the rest provided) and a byword for absurd extravagance. Two (Jewish) treatises of the Mishna (the Shabbath and Erubin) are entirely occupied with regulations for the observance ... THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK WAS NEVER CONFOUNDED WITH THE SABBATH; the confusion of the Jewish and Christian institutions was DUE TO DECLENSION (declining) FROM APOSTOLIC TEACHING." --W.E. VINE'S Expository on the Sabbath

"Everywhere, especially in the East of the Roman Empire, there would be Jewish
Christians whose outward way of life would not be markedly different from that of the
Jews. They took for granted that the gospel was continuous with Judaism; for them
the new covenant, which Jesus had set up at the last supper with his disciples and
sealed by his death, did not mean that the covenant made between God and Israel
was no longer in force. They still observed the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and
Tabernacles; they also continued to be circumcised, to keep the weekly Sabbath and
the Mosaic regulations concerning food. According to some scholars, they must have
been so strong that right up to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 they were the
dominant element in the Christian movement." --(W.D. Davies, "Paul and Jewish
Christianity", 1972, p. 72)

neophyte · Nov 8, 2012

Scripture

Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.
Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus' resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.
Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the "first day of the week." Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.
1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches "on the first day of the week," which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.
Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says "let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath."
2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of "another day," which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord's resurrection, which was on Sunday.
Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.
Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord's day, the new day of rest in Christ.
Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.

Tradition / Church Fathers

On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure." Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).
"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master." Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).
"The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest--abstraction from ills--preparing for the Primal Day,[The Lord's Day] our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth--a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following Him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impossible; and this is to rest." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:16 (A.D. 202).
"In fine, let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of the threat of death, teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath, or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered "friends of God." For if circumcision purges a man since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did He not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? At all events, in settling him in paradise, He appointed one uncircumcised as colonist of paradise. Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended; while He accepted what he was offering in simplicity of heart, and reprobated the sacrifice of his brother Cain, who was not rightly dividing what he was offering. Noah also, uncircumcised--yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath--God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and in-observant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world; who did not first taste death, in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might by this time show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God." Tertullian, An answer to the Jews, 2 (A.D. 203).
"The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation: because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the lace of the dead and on the first day of the week He arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week He ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week He will appear at last with the angels of heaven." Teaching of the Apostles, 2 (A.D. 225).
"Hence it is not possible that the rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh of our God; on the contrary, it is our Saviour who, after the pattern of His own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of His death, and hence also of His resurrection." Origen, Commentary on John, 2:27 (A.D. 229).
"On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord's day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that 'His soul hateth;' which Sabbath He in His body abolished." Victorinus, On the Creation of the World (A.D. 300).
"They did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we." Eusebius, Church History, 1:4,8 (A.D. 312).
"Also that day which is holy and blessed in everything, which possesses the name of Christ, namely the Lord's day, having risen upon us on the fourth of Pharmuthi (Mar. 30), let us afterwards keep the holy feast of Pentecost." Athanasius, Epistle 9:11 (A.D. 335).
"Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans, or into Judaism: for Jesus Christ henceforth hath ransomed thee. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths, and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:37 (A.D. 350).
"Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ." Council of Laodicea, Canon 29 (A.D. 360).
"For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy; and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day, and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked." Jerome, Dialogue against the Luciferians, 8 (A.D. 382).
"Then as one whom they must respect, there will be the presbyter among them and this will contribute to the security of the estate. There will be constant prayers there through thee hymns and Communions through thee; the Oblation on each Lord's Day." John Chrysostom, Acts of the Apostles, Homily 18 (A.D. 388).
"And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, on which we pray thrice standing in memory of Him who arose in three days, in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the Gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food?" Apostolic Constitutions, 2,7:59 (A.D. 400).
"Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian,--whether it prohibit the making and worshipping of idols and of any other gods than the one true God, or the taking of God's name in vain; or prescribe honour to parents; or give warning against fornication, murder, theft, false witness, adultery, or coveting other men's property? Which of these commandments would any one say that the Christian ought not to keep? Is it possible to contend that it is not the law which was written on those two tables that the apostle describes as 'the letter that killeth,' but the law of circumcision and the other sacred rites which are now abolished? But then how can we think so, when in the law occurs this precept, 'Thou shall not covet,' by which very commandment, notwithstanding its being holy, just, and good, 'sin,' says the apostle, 'deceived me, and by it slew me?' What else can this be than 'the letter' that 'killeth'?" Augustine, Spirit and the Letter, 23:14 (A.D. 412).
"He [Constantine] also enjoined the observance of the day termed the Lord's day, which the Jews call the first day of the week, and which the pagans dedicate to the sun, as likewise the day before the seventh, and commanded that no judicial or other business should be transacted on those days, but that God should be served with prayers and supplications. He honored the Lord's day, because on it Christ arose from the dead, and the day above mentioned, because on it he was crucified." Sozomon, Ecclesiastical History, 1:8 (A.D. 443).
"It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these but preachers of Antichrist, who, when he comes, will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord's day to be kept free from all work. For, because he pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord's day to be had in reverence; and, because he compels the people to judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the per-tidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. For this which is said by the prophet, 'Ye shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day', could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of Almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For, if any one says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered: he must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the Apostle Paul saying in opposition to him, 'If ye be circumcised, Christ profiteth you nothing.’” Pope Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], To the Roman Citizens, Epistle 13:1 (A.D. 597).

From John Salza @ scripturecatholic

Top

Alanforchrist · Nov 9, 2012

Mungo said:
The Catholic Church does not forbid people to marry.

Marriage and Ordination are sacraments. Whichever a person chooses he or she will be given the graces (gifts) to live the life they have chosen.

It’s a choice. No-one forces anyone to marry or become a priest (or a nun or a monk)

No-one forbids anyone to marry, but some choices rule out others.

You have no case.

Bowing is a gesture of respect.

When we bow in front of a statue we are showing respect to the person represented by that statue, nothing more.

"Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due."(Rom 13:7)

Those who are in heaven have run the race and received the imperishable crown (1 Cor 9:25). They are worthy of respect and honour.

I do have a very good case,

The Bible and the original Greek texts are the proof that catholics are wrong.
Where in the Bible are,
Purgatory.
Works for salvation.
Salvation by infant baptism.
Penance.
Works of satisfaction.
Mary, Ever sinless.
Mary, Ever virgin.
Mary, A co-redeemer.
Mary, A Co-interceeder.
Mary praying for us.
The departed saints praying for us.
Praying to Mary and the departed saints.
Pops.
priests.

Just to mention some of the eroneous catholic teachings.

Why are Catholics so bad?

New Member

Prayer Warrior

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads