Why I could personally never chose to be Catholic

[bbyrd009]

i don't guess you will be able to hear this right now, but you might see that what that Catholic orphanage did was, make it impossible for you to die to self, BoL, you are a raging lion, an ego-monster, it is evident in every single line you write. fwiw
i respect that despite that you still serve God, ok, surely as best you are able, just like me

 

[BreadOfLife]

"Funny, because you certainly love to interject during every one of my exchanges with other people."

actually i avoid it like the plague, and only do so in passing usually, when i perceive that the other ppl might have confused you for a Christian, or since you prefer to believe that you are a Christian, fine with me, then the other ppl might not yet be aware that you are a Catholic Christian, or iow someone who adds to Christian.

arg, still doesn't sound right, but after all we are not IRL here, but on a forum for this purpose, so add to Christian all you like ok, your privilege. You are even paying for it, after all right. Continuing the time-honored tradition of -mancers who state the future for money, and know things--even if you got it reversed, and don't have enough sense to get paid for it, but rather pay to pretend at it. imo. nona my business, but my guess is that you've already been defrocked

if you don't like it, BoL, you can go write a blog, and i mean that in a good way, ok; this is a forum, and i am not your b*tch wadr.

Correct - this IS a form and any time you want to say something stupid or lie about the Church - I'll be there to expose you.
If you don't like it - put me on "ignore" . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

At the very least, he is telling his readers that this is what they SHOULD do

a point being that there might more easily be some overriding reason to refrain from giving a defense in the moment

 

[Naomi25]

Hmmmmm . . . .
I don't know where you get the idea that Jesus didn't like Tradition. He didn't care for the extra traditions (small "t") of the Pharisees that tried to usurp the Word of God - but he had absolutely NO problem with Tradition.

Hi BOL. Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you, we've been having problems with our internet.
I'm not quite sure how we can determine which 'type' of tradition Jesus had a problem with, be it little t or big, as the bible doesn't make that particular specification. What it does make clear, is that Jesus doesn't NOT like man adding to God's word and requiring others to hold to it as if it were. I don't particularly care what you call it, or if there is a big or little letter in front of it, I think the intent is what we're talking about here. Does the Catholic Church call Christians to follow 'rules' (for want of a better word), that we are not called to in scripture? If it does, then I say this is cause for great consideration and perhaps worry. Strictly on Christ's own words and actions.

You point out that Jesus used Scripture to rebut Satan when He was being tempted - but Jesus also used and referred to Oral Tradition - and so did the NT writers . . .
- Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Well....hmm. It gets a bit tricky when we're talking about the direct teaching of Christ himself, doesn't it? Is it relying on oral tradition when it comes from God himself? I mean...he was there.
And then...I'm not sure this verse is proof of Christ relying on oral tradition anyway. He acknowledges Moses' seat of authority. And that's what? Either symbolic of the spiritual leader and teacher of the Jewish people, or the actual seat of authority and teaching that archeologists have found in most temples, and that would have been a seat for a Pharisee. So, that reference is clear; Moses seat is where the Law was taught, and Jesus tells his followers that if the Pharisees preach faithfully from God's word, they should obey, but not if the Pharisees (as we know they did) lived outside the law. The verse is quite clear:
"The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you - but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice."

- Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

So...let me sum this up correctly. You believe the 'oral tradition' of several OT prophets...those directly inspired by God, and had been proved by the strict OT rules that they were indeed such...comparable with the 'oral tradition' of many men since God finished writing his scriptures to us, even though we've had ample evidences of their sinful natures? Surely you must see the differences in these two instances?
Unless you believe that God is even now inspiring men to write his infallible word....no man can claim to speak or write infallible things...not honestly, anyway, not according to scripture. Only Christ was. And to place such weight on the oral tradition of anything outside scripture, is to place your weight on something that is not founded on what we know to be perfect. And mankind being what he is, he will use even the best intentions for his own gain.

- Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on ORAL TRADITION to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."
- 1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

- Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

- Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

- Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

I think, perhaps, this is just a repeat of my point above, but it still holds. You cannot use the fact that the bible (Paul, in this case) makes a reference to the cultural knowledge of the day to make his point, and then say that because they do it, you can make any person within the Church hierarchy do the same and have it hold the same weight. It does not...it can not. And....and I do say this without rancor or any anger, please know....if you cannot see or understand that, I suspect that it a large part of where our misunderstanding on the matter stands.

As for the "small t" traditions of the Church - they don't hold as much weight as Scripture - and the Church has never claimed that they do. This is the difference between the traditions of the Pharisees and the traditions of the Church. ?These types of traditions are more about discipline and teaching that they are requirements.

I hope our conversation can continue to be charitable. Exchanges with some of the others on this forum always descend into hateful anti-Catholic tirades instead of edifying conversations.

I appreciate that you say that there is a difference between the types of traditions; that they are more discipline and teaching rather than requirements. But...I do wonder. I do fully confess to not knowing much about the Catholic Church, but I cannot help but wonder what would happen if someone was to choose to reject the traditional teaching that spoke on the Pope's infallible teachings (and I know he's only infallible some of the time, not all of the time, but still...). Or perhaps the teaching or purgatory? Or what if they refused to see Mary as anything other than just a fellow sister in Christ? Yes...I do wonder what would happen then.

But.....you know...when it really comes down to it. I know a lot of Catholic people who love Jesus...a lot. And it could be that a lot of people are hearing about Jesus through the Catholic Church that wouldn't have otherwise. So...as you say....I really don't hate the Catholic Church. Sometimes I might wish I could persuade her a little! But....perhaps I ought to start with my own house!

 

[Webers_Home]

-
● John 3:14-17 . . As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so
must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in him have
eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num 21:5-9. Long story
short: Yhvh's people became weary of eating manna all the time at every
meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically, petitioning their divine
benefactor for a different diet, they became hostile and confrontational;
angrily demanding tastier food.

In response to their insolence, and their ingratitude for His providence; Yhvh
sent a swarm of deadly poisonous vipers among them; which began striking
people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no exceptions.

After a number of people died, the rest came to their senses and begged
Moses to intercede. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to fashion a brazen
image of the vipers and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so that everyone
dying from venom could look to the image for relief.

The key issue here is that the image was the only God-given remedy for the
people's bites-- not sacrifices and offerings, not tithing, not church
attendance, not scapulars, not confession, not the Eucharist, not holy days
of obligation, not the Sabbath, not the golden rule, not charity, not Bible
study, catechism, yeshiva, and/or Sunday school, not self denial, not vows
of poverty, not the Ten Commandments, not one's religion of choice, no; not
even prayers. The image was it; nothing else would suffice to save their
lives.

As an allegory, the brazen serpent indicates that Christ's crucifixion for the
sins of the world is the only God-given rescue from the wrath of God; and
when people decide to rely upon it, then according to John 3:14-17 and John
5:24, they qualify for a transfer from death into life wherein they will never
again be in danger of losing out on heaven. Those who reject his crucifixion
for the sins of the world as the only God-given means of protection from the
sum of all fears are instantly put on the docket to face it.

● John 3:18 . .Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does
not believe stands condemned already.

/

 

[bbyrd009]

Correct - this IS a form and any time you want to say something stupid or lie about the Church - I'll be there to expose you.
If you don't like it - put me on "ignore" . . .

ha, i like it just fine lol, if i need the other kind of friends i can just go to a bar and buy the house a round!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hi BOL. Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you, we've been having problems with our internet.
I'm not quite sure how we can determine which 'type' of tradition Jesus had a problem with, be it little t or big, as the bible doesn't make that particular specification. What it does make clear, is that Jesus doesn't NOT like man adding to God's word and requiring others to hold to it as if it were. I don't particularly care what you call it, or if there is a big or little letter in front of it, I think the intent is what we're talking about here. Does the Catholic Church call Christians to follow 'rules' (for want of a better word), that we are not called to in scripture? If it does, then I say this is cause for great consideration and perhaps worry. Strictly on Christ's own words and actions.

Well....hmm. It gets a bit tricky when we're talking about the direct teaching of Christ himself, doesn't it? Is it relying on oral tradition when it comes from God himself? I mean...he was there.
And then...I'm not sure this verse is proof of Christ relying on oral tradition anyway. He acknowledges Moses' seat of authority. And that's what? Either symbolic of the spiritual leader and teacher of the Jewish people, or the actual seat of authority and teaching that archeologists have found in most temples, and that would have been a seat for a Pharisee. So, that reference is clear; Moses seat is where the Law was taught, and Jesus tells his followers that if the Pharisees preach faithfully from God's word, they should obey, but not if the Pharisees (as we know they did) lived outside the law. The verse is quite clear:
"The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you - but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice."

So...let me sum this up correctly. You believe the 'oral tradition' of several OT prophets...those directly inspired by God, and had been proved by the strict OT rules that they were indeed such...comparable with the 'oral tradition' of many men since God finished writing his scriptures to us, even though we've had ample evidences of their sinful natures? Surely you must see the differences in these two instances?
Unless you believe that God is even now inspiring men to write his infallible word....no man can claim to speak or write infallible things...not honestly, anyway, not according to scripture. Only Christ was. And to place such weight on the oral tradition of anything outside scripture, is to place your weight on something that is not founded on what we know to be perfect. And mankind being what he is, he will use even the best intentions for his own gain.

I think, perhaps, this is just a repeat of my point above, but it still holds. You cannot use the fact that the bible (Paul, in this case) makes a reference to the cultural knowledge of the day to make his point, and then say that because they do it, you can make any person within the Church hierarchy do the same and have it hold the same weight. It does not...it can not. And....and I do say this without rancor or any anger, please know....if you cannot see or understand that, I suspect that it a large part of where our misunderstanding on the matter stands.

I appreciate that you say that there is a difference between the types of traditions; that they are more discipline and teaching rather than requirements. But...I do wonder. I do fully confess to not knowing much about the Catholic Church, but I cannot help but wonder what would happen if someone was to choose to reject the traditional teaching that spoke on the Pope's infallible teachings (and I know he's only infallible some of the time, not all of the time, but still...). Or perhaps the teaching or purgatory? Or what if they refused to see Mary as anything other than just a fellow sister in Christ? Yes...I do wonder what would happen then.

But.....you know...when it really comes down to it. I know a lot of Catholic people who love Jesus...a lot. And it could be that a lot of people are hearing about Jesus through the Catholic Church that wouldn't have otherwise. So...as you say....I really don't hate the Catholic Church. Sometimes I might wish I could persuade her a little! But....perhaps I ought to start with my own house!

First of all - thank you for your charitable tone.
It's refreshing to actually have an intelligent conversation on this forum.

The one thing that you are overlooking in all of this is the fact that Jesus gave His Church SUPREME earthly Authority - that WHATEVER it ordained on earth would also be ordained in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23). God never gave that Authority to the Jewish Hierarchy.

In context - Jesus was clearly showing that the Pharisees and Saducees had put their OWN demands on the people that nullified or usurped the Word of God.
There is NO Catholic Tradition - or tradition - that nullifies OR usurps the Word of God.

 

[BreadOfLife]

a point being that there might more easily be some overriding reason to refrain from giving a defense in the moment

No there's not.
I asked you plainly to explain why you believed what you believed - and you refused.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No there's not.
I asked you plainly to explain why you believed what you believed - and you refused.

ALWAYS be ready when somebody asks you unless you don't know.
Then, you can simply tell them that you'll get back to them

 

[bbyrd009]

No there's not.
I asked you plainly to explain why you believed what you believed - and you refused.

really i did not, BoL, i took quite a while to explain what i believed there, you just cannot read it, as already noted.
and if i bothered to go and find it and post it again, the same result would occur, no doubt.

really what you are doing here imo is demonstrating the pointlessness of giving a defense to someone who does not require one of you, namely strangers or neighbors. i give an accounting to those who require an accounting of me, my family

 

[bbyrd009]

ALWAYS be ready when somebody asks you unless you don't know.
Then, you can simply tell them that you'll get back to them

bam tell ppl what you know, BoL, works for me, and i can see how marvellously it is working for you too lol

imo it does not, as the Lex will clarify, and i know who my enemies are, see; those of my own household
1 Peter 3:15 Lexicon: but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

so, fwiw, i find no command here, strictly speaking anyway, and my research on the matter leads me to read defense over reasoned response, Definition: a verbal defense (particularly in a law court), and ppl who have questions about my faith would differ from those asking me to defend a belief, as imo is in view here.

i say that last part bc i would never, ever give a defense of my faith, although i guess that is kind of hard to get here, sorry (imo the hope that is in me might not come to pass; blessed assurance is my faith. I don't lay in bed at night hoping that there is a God, iow). You do not ever have to defend your faith to me, ok, in fact i would respect you the more if you would stop doing that. Defend your actions imo; your faith is irrelevant to me, and defending it = you are not secure in it.

Bam defend your beliefs, should you feel so inclined tho, don't get me wrong, that's why i'm here too

 

[BreadOfLife]

bam tell ppl what you know, BoL, works for me, and i can see how marvellously it is working for you too lol

Translation:
"I don't want to be exposed anymore because it's embarrassing - so I'll keep keep dodging the issue."

Good job . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

Translation:
"I don't want to be exposed anymore because it's embarrassing - so I'll keep keep dodging the issue."

Good job . . .

a perfect example of why you should not be defending your faith to strangers imo, yes

 

[BreadOfLife]

a perfect example of why you should not be defending your faith to strangers imo, yes

I'm NOT defending my faith.
As I have warned you dozens of times - I am ONLY here to expose those who lie or otherwise misrepresent Catholic teaching.

Don't do that - and I won't expose you . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

 

[Naomi25]

First of all - thank you for your charitable tone.
It's refreshing to actually have an intelligent conversation on this forum.

The one thing that you are overlooking in all of this is the fact that Jesus gave His Church SUPREME earthly Authority - that WHATEVER it ordained on earth would also be ordained in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23). God never gave that Authority to the Jewish Hierarchy.

In context - Jesus was clearly showing that the Pharisees and Saducees had put their OWN demands on the people that nullified or usurped the Word of God.
There is NO Catholic Tradition - or tradition - that nullifies OR usurps the Word of God.

Could you perhaps explain a little what you mean about something being "ordained" here on earth and in heaven? I'm unsure what you mean when you talk of that. My first thought is that 'surely that can't be true all over', for indeed, there are many, many things the Church has done throughout the ages that has been just sinful. The crusades were not, perhaps, wise or just, the inquisitions either. The sexual sins that we are seeing at the moment (that is not only seen within the Catholic Church). My point is, the Church is filled with sinful people. Even saved people fall into sin at times, and sadly sometimes when they do that, mistakes can be made that hurt others horribly, or have a tumble on effect that then hurts many. How can we say that whatever happens, or is 'ordained' in the Church is then done in heaven? No sin can be found in heaven.
Anyway...you see my need for clarification here...!

And...you may be right that no Catholic tradition nullifies or usurps the Word of God...I do not know them well enough to say. But...the level of reverence shown to those who are not God, and the prayers offered to those who are not God, make me uneasy in light of God's command of no other Gods and no idols, etc. And while it may not directly contradict God's word, I find it distressing that the RCC might demand it's parishioners to follow it's rules and traditions, to the point of ex-communication should they refuse. Isn't this, in effect, teaching these people that these traditions carry the same weight; especially if people are not inclined to study.

 

[Wanting to Serve]

1 Timothy 2:5-6
"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,"

 

[mjrhealth]

How old are you, mjr?
Judging by your emotional and immature writing style - I'd say you're about 15 or 16 at the oldedst . . .

Well coming from you BOL not unexpected , belittling people cant be as much fun as burning them at the stake which has being banned for centuries, but what has age go to do with anything in Gods kingdom, did He not use an Ass to talk to a prophet or.

Act_2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Act_2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

but what do you care of the Spiritual things, are you not here defending you religion, and exposing her lies....

oh and did I forget

1Co_1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

1Co_1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Luk_10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

All that learning and still you know nothing, what was it Paul said

Php_3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

but you won catholism, not much of a prize is it...

Do have a blessed day, yours is coming...

 

[tabletalk]

Could you perhaps explain a little what you mean about something being "ordained" here on earth and in heaven? I'm unsure what you mean when you talk of that. My first thought is that 'surely that can't be true all over', for indeed, there are many, many things the Church has done throughout the ages that has been just sinful. The crusades were not, perhaps, wise or just, the inquisitions either. The sexual sins that we are seeing at the moment (that is not only seen within the Catholic Church). My point is, the Church is filled with sinful people. Even saved people fall into sin at times, and sadly sometimes when they do that, mistakes can be made that hurt others horribly, or have a tumble on effect that then hurts many. How can we say that whatever happens, or is 'ordained' in the Church is then done in heaven? No sin can be found in heaven.
Anyway...you see my need for clarification here...!

And...you may be right that no Catholic tradition nullifies or usurps the Word of God...I do not know them well enough to say. But...the level of reverence shown to those who are not God, and the prayers offered to those who are not God, make me uneasy in light of God's command of no other Gods and no idols, etc. And while it may not directly contradict God's word, I find it distressing that the RCC might demand it's parishioners to follow it's rules and traditions, to the point of ex-communication should they refuse. Isn't this, in effect, teaching these people that these traditions carry the same weight; especially if people are not inclined to study.

You said: "And...you may be right that no Catholic tradition nullifies or usurps the Word of God...I do not know them well enough to say."

You might check out the Immaculate Conception dogma. It seems to me, to be a teaching that relies heavily on Tradition to support it. It 'usurps the Word of God' since Scripture strongly declares mankind to be sinners.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
The term "sin nature" found in some versions of the Bible, is actually an
interpretation rather than a translation. I suspect somebody coined it as a
substitute for the flesh that Paul often spoke of in his letters.

● Rom 8:8 . .They that are in the flesh cannot please God.

The koiné Greek word for flesh is sarx (sarx); which basically indicates the
meaty parts of either man or beast. The meat of the human body would of
course include the 3-pound lump of flabby organic tissue housed within
humanity's bony little skulls sufficing for a mind; and it's not all that difficult
to tamper with a brain and make its owner quite mindless.

The meaty parts of the human body are the source of a human being's
human nature and it isn't all that difficult to define. Webster's says its (1)
the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that are common to most people,
and (2) the nature of humans; especially the fundamental dispositions and
traits of humans.

Ironically, when God finished assembling the cosmos with its various forms
of life, matter, and energy; He pronounced it all not just good; but "very"
good (Gen 1:31). In other words, God was satisfied that the human body
came out just exactly as He designed it to come out; but it didn't stay that
way.

When people do something contrary to their better judgment; it's very
common to hear them complain "I don't know what came over me." Well;
the thing that came over them was their own body exerting its fundamental
dispositions and traits; viz: the human body literally has a mind of its own; it
constantly, and perpetually, competes with its host for control of their
thoughts, their speech, and their conduct, and more often than not wins.

When I was a growing boy my dad was always telling me that I was my own
worst enemy. I think maybe the apostle Paul would have agreed with my
dad because he too was his own worst enemy.

● Rom 7:18 . . For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good
thing

● Rom 7:24 . .What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this
body of death?

Point being: if perchance a Catholic should be resurrected with the very
same body they have now, the only place they'll fit in is hell.

/