Roman Catholicism Is Blasphemy

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChristWarrior

New Member
Jan 16, 2009
8
1
0
37
1 Timothy 3 KJV
1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

The bible clearly states that all may marry every man and woman. Marriage is for everyone.

Yet the roman catholics departed from the faith and it is clearly explained and prophecied in 1 timothy 4

1 timothy 4 ESV 1Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2through the insincerity and hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from certain foods/pleasures that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4for everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.

1 Timothy 4 (Darby Translation)

1 Timothy 4
1But the Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall apostatise from the faith, giving their mind to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons

2speaking lies in hypocrisy, cauterised as to their own conscience,

3forbidding to marry, [bidding] to abstain from meats, which God has created for receiving with thanksgiving for them who are faithful and know the truth.

4For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing [is] to be rejected, being received with thanksgiving;

5for it is sanctified by God's word and freely addressing [him].

1 Timothy 4 (King James Version)

1 Timothy 4
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

2through the insincerity and hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from certain foods/pleasures that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Several translations, all denouncing a corrupt denomination of the faith. Is it any wonder why they have so much sin and sexual scandal?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Rider

Martin W.

Active Member
Jan 16, 2009
817
37
28
70
Winnipeg Canada
1 Timothy 3 KJV
1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

The bible clearly states that all may marry every man and woman. Marriage is for everyone.

Yet the roman catholics departed from the faith and it is clearly explained and prophecied in 1 timothy 4

1 timothy 4 ESV 1Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2through the insincerity and hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from certain foods/pleasures that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4for everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.

1 Timothy 4 (Darby Translation)

1 Timothy 4
1But the Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall apostatise from the faith, giving their mind to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons

2speaking lies in hypocrisy, cauterised as to their own conscience,

3forbidding to marry, [bidding] to abstain from meats, which God has created for receiving with thanksgiving for them who are faithful and know the truth.

4For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing [is] to be rejected, being received with thanksgiving;

5for it is sanctified by God's word and freely addressing [him].

1 Timothy 4 (King James Version)

1 Timothy 4
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

2through the insincerity and hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from certain foods/pleasures that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Several translations, all denouncing a corrupt denomination of the faith. Is it any wonder why they have so much sin and sexual scandal?

Notice it says some (not all ) will depart from the faith.

Paul said it was good to not be married if you want to do the Lords work. (his opinion)

Roman Clergy can be married.

Un-married clergy know what they are getting into before they join the Roman Church. Nothing is forced upon them.

Some (homosexual) men joined the Roman Church as a cover because marriage to them was not an option. Many did not join to do The Lords work. This can be seen today as they are exposed.

The Catholic Church has its share of problems.

The Protestant Church has it's share of problems.

The non denominational Church has it's share of problems.

Each one of us has our share of problems.

Don't kid yourself folks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fivesense

fivesense

New Member
Mar 7, 2010
636
24
0
WI
[
The Catholic Church has its share of problems.

The Protestant Church has it's share of problems.

The non denominational Church has it's share of problems.

Each one of us has our share of problems.

Don't kid yourself folks.

[/quote]

Hey, Martin, may I agree with you?... A sect is a sect is a sect. It happens every time someone uncovers buried truth, people latch on to it, and figure they got a handle on it more than the rest. It's even more insidious when the splinters attempt to come back together again, discarding biblical truth in order to unify. Until they all repent of departing from Paul's Gospel (scripturally not likely), and every man-mongering facet is removed, the apostasy will continue to tumble along, marching to the Adversary's drumbeat, and thus fulfilling the word of God.
fivesense
 

Martin W.

Active Member
Jan 16, 2009
817
37
28
70
Winnipeg Canada
Hey, Martin, may I agree with you?... A sect is a sect is a sect. It happens every time someone uncovers buried truth, people latch on to it, and figure they got a handle on it more than the rest. It's even more insidious when the splinters attempt to come back together again, discarding biblical truth in order to unify. Until they all repent of departing from Paul's Gospel (scripturally not likely), and every man-mongering facet is removed, the apostasy will continue to tumble along, marching to the Adversary's drumbeat, and thus fulfilling the word of God.
fivesense

fivesense

Your above statement is profoundly true. You have great insight. Thanks.
 

Brother Mike

New Member
Sep 16, 2008
939
47
0
56
You go Martin!!!!!

I see no reason for post like this..........................................

I feel for those in the Catholic system. Those people are told they are not worthy enough to go to God directly and must go through other channels like Mary, or Peter.
Putting them down, or making post like this does not help at all.

Nobody's Doctrine is perfect....................


Jesus Is Lord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fivesense

fivesense

New Member
Mar 7, 2010
636
24
0
WI
You go Martin!!!!!

I see no reason for post like this..........................................

I feel for those in the Catholic system. Those people are told they are not worthy enough to go to God directly and must go through other channels like Mary, or Peter.
Putting them down, or making post like this does not help at all.

Nobody's Doctrine is perfect....................


Jesus Is Lord.
 

fivesense

New Member
Mar 7, 2010
636
24
0
WI
You go Martin!!!!!

I see no reason for post like this..........................................

I feel for those in the Catholic system. Those people are told they are not worthy enough to go to God directly and must go through other channels like Mary, or Peter.
Putting them down, or making post like this does not help at all.

Nobody's Doctrine is perfect....................


Jesus Is Lord.

You guys are all pushing grace. How's a religious bigot suppose have any fun with you guys around.
I speak as a fool.
fivesense
 

Brother Mike

New Member
Sep 16, 2008
939
47
0
56
You guys are all pushing grace. How's a religious bigot suppose have any fun with you guys around.
I speak as a fool.
fivesense

Ooopppss................... Keep forgetting this is a Debate forum.... No place for love and grace here........ my bad...... :unsure: :blink:


Be blessed out of Measure Fivesense!!! Your family and all you do.


Jesus Is Lord.
 

Templar81

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
854
17
0
UK
I think clerical celibacy should really be a matter of choice as it is in the Church of England. Rome did not always insist on clerical celibacy. It was under Gregory VII's reforms in the 11th century that it became Cannon Law and even then Priests still got married openly for at least another 100 years. In those days the Church was only just starting to get powerful and much power was still with Kings and emperors. Bishops were like aristocrats and Parish priests were like gentry, marriage was seen as a distraction as it placed a Priest or Bishop close to powerful inlaws. Gregory wanted the church to be free from such people. Before then Bishops and Priests married important womenand sometimes passed down their Diocese or Parish to their sons. Thus inheritance of church estates was kept outside the control of the church. By abolishing clerical marriage a cleric cold never have legitimate offspring who might inherit.

In this day and age there is no real need for clerical celibacy and I really don't think it should be insisted upon. There are indeed Catholic priests who are married but they were married before they were ordained and some of them find it difficult to rise above Deacon.
 

Brother Mike

New Member
Sep 16, 2008
939
47
0
56
Very interesting Templar81......................

I would like to see the Whole Catholic system stay on just the Word of God, and not all those other things the Church established.
I see certain Catholic Groups now speaking in Tongues, and filled with the Spirit of God. Things are changing, but would like it to go somewhat faster.

I see lots of good things Catholic organizations doing that are making a difference, things that cost lots of money to do, and takes faith to keep it up. Here in Branson we have CAMS (Christian action Ministry) feed hundreds and hundreds of people every week. how the food keeps coming in, can only be God.

Now we have all that sex scandal that must of been created by giving the devil place though bondage of abstinence. If we just stuck with the Word at the start, I don't think this issue would be so prevalent in the Catholic Church. Still, other churches have similar issues, but the media loves to focus on anything that makes a story, and the small baptist church down the street just does not make that great a story, when You can go after the Pope.

Walking in Love though........................ Not putting your mouth on others, or on what they believe. There by we know them.

Jesus Is Lord.
 

Templar81

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
854
17
0
UK
That's a fair point. The media love this kind of thing. I'm not so keen on this Pope myself, though I had a lot of respect for John paul II. There are lots of people in any denomination at all levels who have done terrible thins, so Catholic priests cannot all be tarred with the same brush. Abolishing mandatory clerical celibacy probably wouldn't put these things to an end.
 

Martin W.

Active Member
Jan 16, 2009
817
37
28
70
Winnipeg Canada
I see certain Catholic Groups now speaking in Tongues, and filled with the Spirit of God. Things are changing, but would like it to go somewhat faster.

Hello Mike

I do not have an issue with you or your post (just want you to know that)

But if anyone was to check carefully you will find more sexual scandal , fraud , fakery , and dysfunction in the Charismatic / Pentecostal denominations than any other church.

They are also at the forefront in causing the unsaved to mock religion. The secular world may be unsaved but they are not stupid.

Yet at the same time these groups claim to have a greater measure of gifts from The Holy Spirit than any others.

Something does not add up here.


(My opinion) they have confused emotionalism with (Holy) Spiritualism.

Emotionalism can take a person in many wrong directions.

Martin W.
 

Brother Mike

New Member
Sep 16, 2008
939
47
0
56
Martin W.

Thank you for your input............... I suppose preaching with rattlesnakes in your hand, telling people that if your not baptized in Jesus name only then you can't be saved, If you don't talk in tongues, then you can't be saved, running around crazy, and gibbering strange things. Setting up FAKE healing to get people to give. (One explained they do that to get people in faith), though I thought the Word caused faith to come. Who knows...............

And a host of a few other things I won't mention. I can't blame you for your opinion.

I do however speak in Tongues, and as much as I can, Avoid pentecostal type Churches. I do believe in Healing, and the Gifts of the Spirit, but tend to see people recover by believing the Word of God. I believe the Gift of Healing is as the Spirit wills, and not to be just thrown around.

Did I mention family curse doctrines, and casting out devils from household object so a person can stop drinking and obey God?

I would what you call to be "Word of Faith" I see something in the Word, and I believe it over what I see.......... Well, that is the goal anyway.

I know of a man a certain Pentecostal group told to walk on legs that have been lame for over 30 years. They told this man if you believed then you should just walk on those legs, and put works to faith. The man ended up breaking his leg.

They made this man feel like he had to prove he was just as spiritual as they were (or were suppose to be) and it cost him.

Yes, I can see why you think this Way Brother Martin. I am not putting these people down, but I avoid them myself.......


Jesus Is Lord.
 

Catholic Crusader

New Member
Mar 8, 2008
21
1
0
61
What a ridiculous thread.
Who wrote most of the New Testament: Paul did. Was he married? No.
In fact, he said it is better to not marry so that your loyalties would not be divided.


.

Fundamentalist attacks on priestly celibacy come in a number of different forms—not all compatible with one another. There is almost no other subject about which so many different confusions exist.

The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma or doctrine—a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles. Thus some Fundamentalists make a great deal of a biblical reference to Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30), apparently supposing that, if Catholics only knew that Peter had been married, they would be unable to regard him as the first pope. Again, Fundamentalist time lines of "Catholic inventions" (a popular literary form) assign "mandatory priestly celibacy" to this or that year in Church history, as if prior to this requirement the Church could not have been Catholic.

These Fundamentalists are often surprised to learn that even today celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.

Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.

The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.

As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married.

Is Marriage Mandatory?

Another, quite different Fundamentalist confusion is the notion that celibacy is unbiblical, or even "unnatural." Every man, it is claimed, must obey the biblical injunction to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28); and Paul commands that "each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2). It is even argued that celibacy somehow "causes," or at least correlates with higher incidence of, illicit sexual behavior or perversion.

All of this is false. Although most people are at some point in their lives called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated—as well as practiced—by both Jesus and Paul.

So far from "commanding" marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Notice that this sort of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom" is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people, but is granted to some. Other people are called to marriage. It is true that too often individuals in both vocations fall short of the requirements of their state, but this does not diminish either vocation, nor does it mean that the individuals in question were "not really called" to that vocation. The sin of a priest doesn’t necessarily prove that he never should have taken a vow of celibacy, any more than the sin of a married man or woman proves that he or she never should have gotten married. It is possible for us to fall short of our own true calling.

Celibacy is neither unnatural nor unbiblical. "Be fruitful and multiply" is not binding upon every individual; rather, it is a general precept for the human race. Otherwise, every unmarried man and woman of marrying age would be in a state of sin by remaining single, and Jesus and Paul would be guilty of advocating sin as well as committing it.

"The Husband of One Wife"

Another Fundamentalist argument, related to the last, is that marriage is mandatory for Church leaders. For Paul says a bishop must be "the husband of one wife," and "must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, they argue, that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, is somehow untried or unproven.

This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!

The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise "self-control" (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of "managing his household well," even if his "household" is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.

Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).

The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely "concerned about the affairs of the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to "renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom" (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have "left everything" to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).

Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be "soldiers" of Christ must avoid "civilian pursuits": "Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him" (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these "civilian pursuits."

An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: "The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’" (Jer. 16:1–2). Of course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution.

Forbidden to Marry?

Yet none of these passages give us an example of humanly mandated celibacy. Jeremiah’s celibacy was mandatory, but it was from the Lord. Paul’s remark to Timothy about "civilian pursuits" is only a general admonition, not a specific command; and even in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul qualifies his strong endorsement of celibacy by adding: "I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord" (7:35).

This brings us to Fundamentalism’s last line of attack: that, by requiring at least some of its clerics and its religious not to marry, the Catholic Church falls under Paul’s condemnation in 1 Timothy 4:3 against apostates who "forbid marriage."

In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

But is there scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (5:11–12).

This "first pledge" broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today.

Such orders are not, then, what Paul meant when he warned against "forbidding to marry." The real culprits here are the many Gnostic sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as intrinsically evil. Some early heretics fit this description, as did the medieval Albigensians and Catharists (whom, ironically, some anti-Catholic writers admire in ignorance, apparently purely because they happened to have insisted on using their own vernacular translation of the Bible; see the Catholic Answers tract Catholic Inventions).

The Dignity of Celibacy and Marriage

Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution—a sacrament, an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.

In fact, it is precisely the holiness of marriage that makes celibacy precious; for only what is good and holy in itself can be given up for God as a sacrifice. Just as fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage. To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage itself—as the early Fathers pointed out.

Celibacy is also a life-affirming institution. In the Old Testament, where celibacy was almost unknown, the childless were often despised by others and themselves; only through children, it was felt, did one acquire value. By renouncing marriage, the celibate affirms the intrinsic value of each human life in itself, regardless of offspring.

Finally, celibacy is an eschatological sign to the Church, a living-out in the present of the universal celibacy of heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).
 

jiggyfly

New Member
Nov 27, 2009
2,750
86
0
63
North Carolina
I think clerical celibacy should really be a matter of choice as it is in the Church of England.

I think the whole clergy/laity system is man-made so it doesn't really matter what rules and regulations they have to follow, it's simply another carnal religious manipulation.

The English word religion comes from the Latin word religio and it means to bind again or obligate. This is simply what religion does and the proof is in the puddin.

The scriptures bear out that we are all priestly ministers of Love firstly towards God and then towards one another.
 

Brother Mike

New Member
Sep 16, 2008
939
47
0
56
Where do I get one of those cool hats that is shown on that old guy in Catholic Crusader Icon.............???

Jiggyfly
The scriptures bear out that we are all priestly ministers of Love firstly towards God and then towards one another.

Catholic's think that every book they get their hands on, also is as important as the Bible, So explaining it to them is extremely hard to do.

Mike.
 

Templar81

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
854
17
0
UK
Yes; Catholics and to a lesser extent other Christians do make use of other writings , considering that they too were guided by the Holy Spirit, a good example would be the Creeds. What I say to Evangelicals who will dismiss anything that is not in the scriptures is two things.

1. Don't forget that we worship God, not the Bible, so don't turn it into an Idol. many peopel do this without realising it.
2. The Holy Spirit did not stop inspiring religious writing when the Bible was compiled by St Jerome. TYo totally dismiss anything unbliblical is to endy that the Holy Spirit continues to work. People see visions and miracles continued to happen.

One alst point is that at no point did Jesus ever say that one day the scriptures would be compiled into 66 books that had to be venerated and followed litterally. No he didn't Did the very first Christians have a Bible, I bet they didn't.
 

[email protected]

Choir Loft
Apr 2, 2009
1,635
127
63
West Central Florida
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Here we go with another post which questions the validity of the Roman Catholic church in some way.
Somewhere else we will all read a post from some Catholic who claims that all the rest of us are wayward souls.

Is it not enough to be 100% concerned about how we are living before God as we ought without condemning a brother or sister because they cross themselves at the altar or not?

Theology is nothing more than a pompous attempt to put God in a box. I ought to know, I've got a Masters Degree in it.
It's great fun to philosophize about this or that, but in the end the only thing that matters is Christ and our brothers and sisters.

One second after your dead, all your fancy theology won't mean squat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: perrero

Templar81

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
854
17
0
UK
Actually theology is important because it is theology that prevents us from falling into heresy and error. Everyone ahs theology; Catholic of Protestant, Evangelical or Sacramental, Charismatic or Contemplative. We all have Theology. I'll admiot, I'm not a fan of Papal infalability being an Anglo-Catholic I can agree with the Pope on what i AGREE WITH AND DISAGREE WITH HIM ON WHAT i DISAGREE WITH.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Streetsweeper

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
Actually theology is important because it is theology that prevents us from falling into heresy and error. Everyone ahs theology; Catholic of Protestant, Evangelical or Sacramental, Charismatic or Contemplative. We all have Theology. I'll admiot, I'm not a fan of Papal infalability being an Anglo-Catholic I can agree with the Pope on what i AGREE WITH AND DISAGREE WITH HIM ON WHAT i DISAGREE WITH.

Papal infallibility has always been misunderstood. It doesn't mean that the Pope is impeccible. The Pope is a mere man just like everyone else. He is a sinner like everyone else. Being a Catholic, I adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.