Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Questions for Catholics

Caelitaten
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 6:08:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hello, calling all Protestants! It is quite evident that there are many aspects of the Catholic Church that Protestants cannot understand, so feel free to challenge any of our teachings or views.

Some ideas:
- Marian dogmas
- Issues of salvation
- Fundamentalism
- and more fun for the whole family!
Adsum! -Caelitaten
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 6:53:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 6:08:33 PM, Caelitaten wrote:
Hello, calling all Protestants! It is quite evident that there are many aspects of the Catholic Church that Protestants cannot understand, so feel free to challenge any of our teachings or views.

Some ideas:
- Marian dogmas
- Issues of salvation
- Fundamentalism
- and more fun for the whole family!

Or one could visit "Ask a Catholic" forum.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 10:57:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes, I have a question about Papal Infallibility. From what I gather, it is the belief that the Pope is free from error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church." This is according to Wikipedia.
The Wikipedia page goes on to say "In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture."

That is all fine and dandy, however many of the traditions of the Catholic Church outright contradict scriptural teachings. So how is it legitimate to say that the Pope is infallible in that sense? Let's address the issue of directly praying to Mary or Saints. Catholics openly admit to doing this despite it contradicting with everything Christ Jesus said.
Consider these verses: Luke 11:1, 2; Matthew 6:6, 8; John 16:23; Luke 10:21; John 11:41; Luke 23:46; Matthew 11:25; 26:41, 42; 1 John 2:6

As well, the Catholic church practices Transubstantiation. Consider Acts 15:20:
"Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." (NIV)

How does this verse along with others like it (such as Genesis 9:4 or Leviticus 17:14) allow for the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Those are just some of the thoughts off the top of my head.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 7:16:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 10:57:00 PM, tstor wrote:
Yes, I have a question about Papal Infallibility. From what I gather, it is the belief that the Pope is free from error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church." This is according to Wikipedia.
The Wikipedia page goes on to say "In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture."

That is all fine and dandy, however many of the traditions of the Catholic Church outright contradict scriptural teachings. So how is it legitimate to say that the Pope is infallible in that sense? Let's address the issue of directly praying to Mary or Saints. Catholics openly admit to doing this despite it contradicting with everything Christ Jesus said.
Consider these verses: Luke 11:1, 2; Matthew 6:6, 8; John 16:23; Luke 10:21; John 11:41; Luke 23:46; Matthew 11:25; 26:41, 42; 1 John 2:6

As well, the Catholic church practices Transubstantiation. Consider Acts 15:20:
"Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." (NIV)

How does this verse along with others like it (such as Genesis 9:4 or Leviticus 17:14) allow for the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Those are just some of the thoughts off the top of my head.

Who were you addressing? Since you didn't reply/quote, the host may not have seen this yet.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 1:36:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 7:16:06 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Who were you addressing? Since you didn't reply/quote, the host may not have seen this yet.
Sorry, I am new to this site. I was addressing the original poster who was requesting people to ask questions. I figured that any time someone gets a reply on their post the got a notification.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Caelitaten
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 2:02:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 10:57:00 PM, tstor wrote:
Yes, I have a question about Papal Infallibility. From what I gather, it is the belief that the Pope is free from error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church." This is according to Wikipedia.

First of all, thank you for your questions. Second, one must remember that inerrancy is different from infallibility.

The Wikipedia page goes on to say "In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture."

Next, indeed, the infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict Sacred Tradition or Scripture.


That is all fine and dandy, however many of the traditions of the Catholic Church outright contradict scriptural teachings. So how is it legitimate to say that the Pope is infallible in that sense? Let's address the issue of directly praying to Mary or Saints. Catholics openly admit to doing this despite it contradicting with everything Christ Jesus said.
Consider these verses: Luke 11:1, 2; Matthew 6:6, 8; John 16:23; Luke 10:21; John 11:41; Luke 23:46; Matthew 11:25; 26:41, 42; 1 John 2:6

1. The doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15"17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

2. Sacred Tradition in general is not contradictory to the Bible. Consider these passages: 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and 2 Thessalonians 3:6.

3. We may be directly praying to Mary or the saints, but you might be mistaking it for worship; correct me if I am wrong. The truth is, we pray directly to God the Father through Mary and the saints, which is often why the prayers associated with them are most commonly prayers of petition.

Please let me know if you desire more clarification, as I'm trying to juggle around multiple tasks at once.


As well, the Catholic church practices Transubstantiation. Consider Acts 15:20:
"Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." (NIV)

How does this verse along with others like it (such as Genesis 9:4 or Leviticus 17:14) allow for the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

A brief summary of transubstantiation:
St. John Chrysostom declares: It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.

There are four accounts of the institution of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26, Mark 14: 22-24, Matthew 26:26-30, and Luke 22:14-23.

Well, one must ask then, are Catholics cannibals? Cannibalism is the act or practice of humans eating the flesh or internal organs of other human beings. On the contrary, Jesus Christ is both 100% divine and 100% human in the Hypostatic Union. We are not consuming Christ in the Eucharist. Rather, we are letting Him consume us.


Those are just some of the thoughts off the top of my head.

Let me know if you've got more. If you don't mind me asking, to what denomination do you belong?
Adsum! -Caelitaten
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 6:49:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 2:02:56 PM, Caelitaten wrote:
Thank you for responding.

First of all, thank you for your questions. Second, one must remember that inerrancy is different from infallibility.
They are not really different at all. Hence why people will use the words "infallible" or "inerrant" to describe the Bible of being free of errors or contradictions. In fact, the definitions of these two words are as follows:
infallible - incapable of making mistakes or being wrong
inerrant - incapable of being wrong
So one just includes mistakes and the other does not.

1. The doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15"17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
Those are very weak passages to conclude that Papal Infallibility must be a thing. Those verses not only are very vague, but reveal their true meaning when we take into consideration other verses that talk about the subject. Consider these scriptures:
Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; Hebrews 7:22-28; John 16:12-14; Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16; Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17

2. Sacred Tradition in general is not contradictory to the Bible. Consider these passages: 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and 2 Thessalonians 3:6.
There is nothing wrong with passing down traditions, that is fine. Though those verses don't mention "sacred" traditions. Not all traditions of the Catholic Church are very old and even contradict directly with the scriptures, as I have shown.

3. We may be directly praying to Mary or the saints, but you might be mistaking it for worship; correct me if I am wrong. The truth is, we pray directly to God the Father through Mary and the saints, which is often why the prayers associated with them are most commonly prayers of petition.
So what verses lead you to believe that you need to pray through them? Did Jesus not say to pray to our Father? Did Jesus ever say he prayed through someone? Did Jesus ever say for us to pray through someone? The answer is no.
A similar problem also exists in Islam between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Shia Muslims often say " Ya Ali Madad", or "O Ali help me". Sunnis criticize this practice because Muhammad specifically said: "If you ask, ask from Allah".

So I would appreciate your scriptural reasoning for praying through someone.

A brief summary of transubstantiation:
St. John Chrysostom declares: It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.

There are four accounts of the institution of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26, Mark 14: 22-24, Matthew 26:26-30, and Luke 22:14-23.

Well, one must ask then, are Catholics cannibals? Cannibalism is the act or practice of humans eating the flesh or internal organs of other human beings. On the contrary, Jesus Christ is both 100% divine and 100% human in the Hypostatic Union. We are not consuming Christ in the Eucharist. Rather, we are letting Him consume us.
The idea of "Transubstantiation" or "Consubstantiation" cannot be true because Jesus still had all of his fleshly body when offering the bread. This body, whole and entire, was to be offered as a perfect, unblemished, sacrifice for sins the next afternoon. He also had to retain all his blood for the perfect sacrifice. Consider:
"He poured out his soul (which is in the blood) to the very death." [KJV] (Isaiah 53:12; Leviticus 17:11)
Since we can recognize that, during the evening meal he did not perform a miracle of transubstantiation, or changing the bread into his literal flesh and the wine into his literal blood. For the same reasons, it cannot be truly said that he miraculously caused his flesh and his blood to be present or combined with the bread and wine, which is claimed by those who follow to the doctrine of consubstantiation.

This is not contradicted by Jesus' words at John 6:51-57. Jesus was not there discussing the Lord"s Evening Meal, that arrangement was not brought up until a year later. The "eating" and "drinking" mentioned in this account are done in a figurative (symbolic) sense by exercising faith in Christ Jesus, which is indicated by verses 35 and 40.

As you mentioned, eating actual human flesh and blood would indeed be cannibalism. That is why, Jews who were not exercising faith and who did not correctly understand Jesus' statement about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were baffled. This shows the Jewish view on eating human flesh and blood, as instilled by the Law. (John 6:60)

As I mentioned before, drinking blood was a violation of God's law to Noah, prior to the Law covenant. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10) The Lord Christ Jesus would never instruct others to violate God's law. Consider Matthew 5:19. Furthermore, Jesus commanded: "do this in remembrance of me". Note he did not say in sacrifice of me. [NIV] (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

The bread and the wine are therefore emblems, representing Christ"s flesh and blood in a symbolic way, as were his words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Jesus said to those offended by his words: "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." [NIV] (John 6:51) This was given at his death as a sacrifice on the cross or stake. His body was buried and was disposed of by his Father before it could see corruption. (Acts 2:31) No one ever ate any of his flesh or blood, literally.

I would like to mention that you said Jesus is "100% human" as well as "100% divine". Can you explain this? As well, if you want more of my views on this subject, I can go more in depth.

Let me know if you've got more. If you don't mind me asking, to what denomination do you belong?
I will let you know as some more come up.
To answer your question, I am a non-denominational Christian and a recent convert (this year). From ages 0-15 I was an atheist until at age sixteen I began to study Hinduism through the Bhagavad Gita and several Vedic scriptures; Islam through the Qur'an, Sahih al-Bukhari, and Nahjul Balagha; and Christianity through several Bible translations and other Biblical thinkers.
Some of my beliefs consist of the denial of the Trinity, hellfire, and immortal soul. Though I am still establishing my beliefs on many topics.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Mike.com
Posts: 91
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 7:35:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I thought the new Pope Francis was going to shake up the CC and some of its doctrines but alas no, he is just like all the others. He thinks gays should not be condemned yet his church still calls them disordered and intrinsically evil. Why didn't he get that removed from their catchecisms? He told a divorced Catholic woman she could take communion even though that is forbidden normally. So why not change that rule?

I thought he was going to reintroduce marriage for the Priesthood or alas allow women in the Priesthood? No such luck. It took them several hundred years to apologize for Galileo and so we may have to wait a few hundred years more to get their infallible doctrines to reflect the real truth about many things.

Just on the Eucharist? As nobody guessed yet. Jesus never ever told anyone outside that room to do this or that in remembrance of him? That was a statement like many others that applied only to those he spoke to and they hoodwinked the whole world for many years the Priest was able to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus, literally. Its only in the present scientific age, that was all seen as bunk. But they are still doing it and tens of thousands of Catholic Churches doing no evangelism at all, only do this ridiculous ritual costing millions of pounds. Why not give all that to the poor?

Isn't it amazing that a reverend Mother in charge of a Convent cannot lead the Eucharist service or bless the bread and wine for her sisters in Christ and yet a young 21 year old bloke fresh out of the seminary can? Its a bit pathetic and ugly imo.

Mary Magdelene was chosen to deliver the very first post resurrection sermon, that Jesus had risen! And yet the Church for the next 2000 years excluded them.

God, what morons they are!
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 8:34:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 6:08:33 PM, Caelitaten wrote:
Hello, calling all Protestants! It is quite evident that there are many aspects of the Catholic Church that Protestants cannot understand, so feel free to challenge any of our teachings or views.

Some ideas:
- Marian dogmas
- Issues of salvation
- Fundamentalism
- and more fun for the whole family!

why did the Catholic Church coverup for the pedophile priests for so long? why didnt they ex-communicate them instead of just moving them around to new diocese where they could have at a fresh batch of innocent kids. we know that Jesus hated anybody who "hurt the little ones." that they should "be thrown into a Lake with a mill stone around their neck." Last Iheard the RCC had paid out over two billion dollars in hush money to victims and their families. I would be ashamed to be a Catholic and would have left the Church. I know not all priests are pederasts but there is enough to make me leave them. I think if Jesus came back today and was told about that He would have his Dad rain down Fire and Brimstone on the Vatican so much it would make Sodam and Gomorrah look like kids playing with sparklers.
your opinion on what I just said about your Church, sir?
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Caelitaten
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 8:38:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 6:49:20 PM, tstor wrote:
At 7/23/2015 2:02:56 PM, Caelitaten wrote:
Thank you for responding.

They are not really different at all. Hence why people will use the words "infallible" or "inerrant" to describe the Bible of being free of errors or contradictions. In fact, the definitions of these two words are as follows:
infallible - incapable of making mistakes or being wrong
inerrant - incapable of being wrong
So one just includes mistakes and the other does not.

Just includes? Not exactly. Inerrancy is being free of wrong, not the incapability of being wrong, if you understand. The Bible is, as you said, free of errors or contradictions. The Bible is not infallible because it cannot make a mistake by itself. As for the Pope, Papal infallibility means that the pope is protected from error when he "proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals" (CCC 891). This does not mean that he is impeccable (incapable of sin) or inerrant (incapable of error).


Those are very weak passages to conclude that Papal Infallibility must be a thing. Those verses not only are very vague, but reveal their true meaning when we take into consideration other verses that talk about the subject. Consider these scriptures:
Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; Hebrews 7:22-28; John 16:12-14; Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16; Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17

The infallibility of the pope is certainly a doctrine that has been more clearly understood over time, but is not one that was invented in 1870. It is clear in Scripture that Christ promised the protection of the Holy Spirit, saying, "I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete"to be with you always; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, since it neither sees him nor recognizes him because he remains with you and will be within you . . . . the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send will remind you of all that I have told you" (John 14: 16-17, 26). "When the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you to all truth . . ." (John 16:14). Peter shares the gift of infallibility (a negative gift in the sense it keeps him from teaching error on matters of faith and morals) with the other apostles and their successors, the bishops. The "pope" (an Italian word meaning "father") and the bishops together are the magisterium of the Church, that is, the teaching authority. As Jesus said, "He who listens to you, listens to me" (Luke 10:16); "all that you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Mt. 18:18).

There is nothing wrong with passing down traditions, that is fine. Though those verses don't mention "sacred" traditions. Not all traditions of the Catholic Church are very old and even contradict directly with the scriptures, as I have shown.

So what verses lead you to believe that you need to pray through them? Did Jesus not say to pray to our Father? Did Jesus ever say he prayed through someone? Did Jesus ever say for us to pray through someone? The answer is no.

I never said you had to pray to them, but veneration is only appropriate for figures of their stature. But to digress quickly, on the surface, without understand the theology of the Covenant and the Incarnation, the Scriptures don't plainly spell out all Catholic doctrine. The Church however, has never accepted the notion that Scripture alone is it's source. This is why you seem to need many more explanaitons. The Church has a teaching authority along with Sacred Tradition. Together with the Scriptures, they make a three legged stool upon which doctrine safely sits.


So I would appreciate your scriptural reasoning for praying through someone.

Again, from the Catholic standpoint, the Bible is not our only source of authority.


The idea of "Transubstantiation" or "Consubstantiation" cannot be true because Jesus still had all of his fleshly body when offering the bread. This body, whole and entire, was to be offered as a perfect, unblemished, sacrifice for sins the next afternoon. He also had to retain all his blood for the perfect sacrifice. Consider:

Are you trying to say that during transubstantiation, some part of Jesus was ripped off Him and therefore became the bread? Please clarify your statements.

Since we can recognize that, during the evening meal he did not perform a miracle of transubstantiation, or changing the bread into his literal flesh and the wine into his literal blood. For the same reasons, it cannot be truly said that he miraculously caused his flesh and his blood to be present or combined with the bread and wine, which is claimed by those who follow to the doctrine of consubstantiation.

It is transformed into His actual body and blood in the accidents of bread and wine.
Constubstantiation is irrelevant here.


This is not contradicted by Jesus' words at John 6:51-57. Jesus was not there discussing the Lord"s Evening Meal, that arrangement was not brought up until a year later. The "eating" and "drinking" mentioned in this account are done in a figurative (symbolic) sense by exercising faith in Christ Jesus, which is indicated by verses 35 and 40.

As you mentioned, eating actual human flesh and blood would indeed be cannibalism. That is why, Jews who were not exercising faith and who did not correctly understand Jesus' statement about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were baffled. This shows the Jewish view on eating human flesh and blood, as instilled by the Law. (John 6:60)

Again, why you are baffled, too, so it seems.


As I mentioned before, drinking blood was a violation of God's law to Noah, prior to the Law covenant. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10) The Lord Christ Jesus would never instruct others to violate God's law. Consider Matthew 5:19. Furthermore, Jesus commanded: "do this in remembrance of me". Note he did not say in sacrifice of me. [NIV] (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

Yes, but the action to be done in remembrance is the sacrifice. Also, Jesus frequently challenged the law. Recall Matthew 21:12, among all the other passages where he questions the Pharisees.


The bread and the wine are therefore emblems, representing Christ"s flesh and blood in a symbolic way, as were his words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Jesus said to those offended by his words: "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." [NIV] (John 6:51) This was given at his death as a sacrifice on the cross or stake. His body was buried and was disposed of by his Father before it could see corruption. (Acts 2:31) No one ever ate any of his flesh or blood, literally.

Jesus said, "This is a symbol of my flesh, " not, "This is my flesh."

Jesus' body was never disposed of. It was raised up to Heaven on the Ascension body and soul. (Acts 1:6-11)


I would like to mention that you said Jesus is "100% human" as well as "100% divine". Can you explain this? As well, if you want more of my views on this subject, I can go more in depth.

It is the theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances. It occurs also in St. Paul's Epistles (2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 1:3-3:14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nic"a hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine avers that he sees no difference between them.

I realize a lot has been deleted, so just repost anything I haven't answered. If I do not respond soon or for the next three days, I will be away with my family.
Adsum! -Caelitaten
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 8:54:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 7:35:23 PM, Mike.com wrote:
I thought the new Pope Francis was going to shake up the CC and some of its doctrines but alas no, he is just like all the others. He thinks gays should not be condemned yet his church still calls them disordered and intrinsically evil. Why didn't he get that removed from their catchecisms? He told a divorced Catholic woman she could take communion even though that is forbidden normally. So why not change that rule?

I thought he was going to reintroduce marriage for the Priesthood or alas allow women in the Priesthood? No such luck. It took them several hundred years to apologize for Galileo and so we may have to wait a few hundred years more to get their infallible doctrines to reflect the real truth about many things.

Just on the Eucharist? As nobody guessed yet. Jesus never ever told anyone outside that room to do this or that in remembrance of him? That was a statement like many others that applied only to those he spoke to and they hoodwinked the whole world for many years the Priest was able to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus, literally. Its only in the present scientific age, that was all seen as bunk. But they are still doing it and tens of thousands of Catholic Churches doing no evangelism at all, only do this ridiculous ritual costing millions of pounds. Why not give all that to the poor?

Isn't it amazing that a reverend Mother in charge of a Convent cannot lead the Eucharist service or bless the bread and wine for her sisters in Christ and yet a young 21 year old bloke fresh out of the seminary can? Its a bit pathetic and ugly imo.

Mary Magdelene was chosen to deliver the very first post resurrection sermon, that Jesus had risen! And yet the Church for the next 2000 years excluded them.

God, what morons they are!

Who is this addressed to? If you don't reply/quote it's difficult to determine, and no one gets a notification.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 9:29:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 6:08:33 PM, Caelitaten wrote:
Hello, calling all Protestants! It is quite evident that there are many aspects of the Catholic Church that Protestants cannot understand, so feel free to challenge any of our teachings or views.

Some ideas:
- Marian dogmas
- Issues of salvation
- Fundamentalism
- and more fun for the whole family!

fun for the family? Even the kids???

why did the Catholic Church coverup for the pedophile priests for so long? why didnt they ex-communicate them instead of just moving them around to new diocese where they could have at a fresh batch of innocent kids. we know that Jesus hated anybody who "hurt the little ones." that they should "be thrown into a Lake with a mill stone around their neck." Last Iheard the RCC had paid out over two billion dollars in hush money to victims and their families. I would be ashamed to be a Catholic and would have left the Church. I know not all priests are pederasts but there is enough to make me leave them. I think if Jesus came back today and was told about that He would have his Dad rain down Fire and Brimstone on the Vatican so much it would make Sodam and Gomorrah look like kids playing with sparklers.
your opinion on what I just said about your Church, sir?

Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Caelitaten
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 9:39:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 9:29:52 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/22/2015 6:08:33 PM, Caelitaten wrote:
Hello, calling all Protestants! It is quite evident that there are many aspects of the Catholic Church that Protestants cannot understand, so feel free to challenge any of our teachings or views.

Some ideas:
- Marian dogmas
- Issues of salvation
- Fundamentalism
- and more fun for the whole family!



fun for the family? Even the kids???

Before I say anything, props to you because ABR is an awesome band. Next, hey, some kids get into this stuff haha.

why did the Catholic Church coverup for the pedophile priests for so long? why didnt they ex-communicate them instead of just moving them around to new diocese where they could have at a fresh batch of innocent kids. we know that Jesus hated anybody who "hurt the little ones." that they should "be thrown into a Lake with a mill stone around their neck." Last Iheard the RCC had paid out over two billion dollars in hush money to victims and their families. I would be ashamed to be a Catholic and would have left the Church. I know not all priests are pederasts but there is enough to make me leave them. I think if Jesus came back today and was told about that He would have his Dad rain down Fire and Brimstone on the Vatican so much it would make Sodam and Gomorrah look like kids playing with sparklers.
your opinion on what I just said about your Church, sir?

My opinion? Sexual abuse is not only a Catholic problem. Catholic priests who have committed some form of sexual misconduct are no better than other offenders. The number does not justify the act whatsoever, and the Catholic Church has implemented several programs to help continue to lower the amount of cases and hopefully eradicate the problem. For example, there is the VIRTUS certification (which I have taken) and Protecting God's Children.


Adsum! -Caelitaten
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 11:30:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 8:38:05 PM, Caelitaten wrote:

Just includes? Not exactly. Inerrancy is being free of wrong, not the incapability of being wrong, if you understand. The Bible is, as you said, free of errors or contradictions. The Bible is not infallible because it cannot make a mistake by itself. As for the Pope, Papal infallibility means that the pope is protected from error when he "proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals" (CCC 891). This does not mean that he is impeccable (incapable of sin) or inerrant (incapable of error).
Are you arguing with the official definitions of the words or are you saying that the Catholic Church has their own set of definitions? And if the Pope is "protected from error when he 'proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals'", then that would mean you morally agree with the Crusades, Inquisition, and all the other morally terrible things that occurred in the past.

The infallibility of the pope is certainly a doctrine that has been more clearly understood over time, but is not one that was invented in 1870. It is clear in Scripture that Christ promised the protection of the Holy Spirit, saying, "I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete"to be with you always; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, since it neither sees him nor recognizes him because he remains with you and will be within you . . . . the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send will remind you of all that I have told you" (John 14: 16-17, 26). "When the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you to all truth . . ." (John 16:14). Peter shares the gift of infallibility (a negative gift in the sense it keeps him from teaching error on matters of faith and morals) with the other apostles and their successors, the bishops. The "pope" (an Italian word meaning "father") and the bishops together are the magisterium of the Church, that is, the teaching authority. As Jesus said, "He who listens to you, listens to me" (Luke 10:16); "all that you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Mt. 18:18).
That is an utterly ridiculous conclusion to have. The holy ghost helped recall what was in the Gospels, that is it. To assume anything beyond that is just, well, an assumption.

I never said you had to pray to them, but veneration is only appropriate for figures of their stature. But to digress quickly, on the surface, without understand the theology of the Covenant and the Incarnation, the Scriptures don't plainly spell out all Catholic doctrine. The Church however, has never accepted the notion that Scripture alone is it's source. This is why you seem to need many more explanaitons. The Church has a teaching authority along with Sacred Tradition. Together with the Scriptures, they make a three legged stool upon which doctrine safely sits.
So you are saying that there is no scriptural premise for what you do in that regard? In other words, you are making things up? I am sorry, but if you are pulling your beliefs and ideas, especially something as strong as praying through another person, then you are practically slapping Christ Jesus in the face. Jesus always prayed to the Father and advised us to. Jesus always prayed directly to the Father and through no one, however he did say for us to pray through him. So to do anything else is absolutely against Christ Jesus.

Again, from the Catholic standpoint, the Bible is not our only source of authority.
Then you are relying on fallible men to advise you, which is not good. What in the Bible would lead you to believe that you can pull information from any other source when it comes to key things such as prayer?

Are you trying to say that during transubstantiation, some part of Jesus was ripped off Him and therefore became the bread? Please clarify your statements.
I am saying that if you believe Jesus actually gave up pieces of his flesh to the disciples you are mistaken. There is absolutely no logical reason to think that when you take into consideration the entirety of Bible.

It is transformed into His actual body and blood in the accidents of bread and wine.
Constubstantiation is irrelevant here.
It isn't irrelevant because it is just as ridiculous as a doctrine as yours. Neither of them are even remotely correct in the context of the Bible.

Again, why you are baffled, too, so it seems.
I am baffled that you would literally sit there and eat literal flesh and blood. Not only that, but say that it is a Biblical teaching.

Yes, but the action to be done in remembrance is the sacrifice. Also, Jesus frequently challenged the law. Recall Matthew 21:12, among all the other passages where he questions the Pharisees.
No, Jesus did not contradict God's Law. The verse you gave me only shows that Jesus was against corruption. You know, the same corruption that has been seen time and time again in your own Catholic Church.

Jesus said, "This is a symbol of my flesh, " not, "This is my flesh."

Jesus' body was never disposed of. It was raised up to Heaven on the Ascension body and soul. (Acts 1:6-11)
No, Jesus' literal fleshy body was never raised to heaven. Consider these verses:

1 Pet. 3:18: "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit." (NIV)
At his resurrection from the dead, Jesus was brought forth with a spirit body. In the Greek text the words "flesh" and "spirit" are put in contrast to each other, and both are in the dat. So, if a translator uses the rendering "by the spirit" he should also consistently say "by the flesh", or if he uses "in the flesh" he should also say "in the spirit." Just a little bit of a ramble :)

Acts 10:40, 41: "but God raised him (Christ Jesus) from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen" (NIV)
Why didn't others see him too? Because he was a spirit creature and when, as angels had done in the past, he materialized fleshly bodies to make himself visible, he did so only in the presence of his disciples.

1 Cor. 15:45: "So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam (Jesus Christ, who was perfect as was Adam when created), a life-giving spirit." (NIV)

It is the theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances. It occurs also in St. Paul's Epistles (2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 1:3-3:14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nic"a hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine avers that he sees no difference between them.

I realize a lot has been deleted, so just repost anything I haven't answered. If I do not respond soon or for the next three days, I will be away with my family.
I do not disagree that Christ Jesus was both man and divine, I think we just have two different understandings of it. Specifically because you are a Trinitarian and I am not.

I understand and I thank you for answering my questions.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 11:35:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 9:39:45 PM, Caelitaten wrote:

My opinion? Sexual abuse is not only a Catholic problem. Catholic priests who have committed some form of sexual misconduct are no better than other offenders. The number does not justify the act whatsoever, and the Catholic Church has implemented several programs to help continue to lower the amount of cases and hopefully eradicate the problem. For example, there is the VIRTUS certification (which I have taken) and Protecting God's Children.
I agree that mistakes are made and sometimes sick people get higher up in the Church. The problem is, this creates friction with all the weird rituals and understandings of the Church. From Wikipedia:
"The Catholic Church teaches that when a man participates in priesthood, he participates in the priesthood of Christ Himself. All men who, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, have become priests participate in Christ's priesthood; they act in persona Christi Capitis, in the person of Christ, the Head of His Body, the Church"

If this were true, how could pedophiles exist in the Priesthood anyways?
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Caelitaten
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 12:03:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 11:30:40 PM, tstor wrote:
At 7/23/2015 8:38:05 PM, Caelitaten wrote:

Are you arguing with the official definitions of the words or are you saying that the Catholic Church has their own set of definitions? And if the Pope is "protected from error when he 'proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals'", then that would mean you morally agree with the Crusades, Inquisition, and all the other morally terrible things that occurred in the past.

I am quite clearly arguing with the actual definitions of the words. The Catholic Church didn't come up with their own definitions. As for the Crusades and Inquisition, would you not support fighting for your homeland? Both events were within the requirements of the Just War Cause.



That is an utterly ridiculous conclusion to have. The holy ghost helped recall what was in the Gospels, that is it. To assume anything beyond that is just, well, an assumption.

Please elaborate on how the Holy Ghost helped recall what was in the Gospels. Your wording is throwing me off ever so slightly.

I never said you had to pray to them, but veneration is only appropriate for figures of their stature. But to digress quickly, on the surface, without understand the theology of the Covenant and the Incarnation, the Scriptures don't plainly spell out all Catholic doctrine. The Church however, has never accepted the notion that Scripture alone is it's source. This is why you seem to need many more explanaitons. The Church has a teaching authority along with Sacred Tradition. Together with the Scriptures, they make a three legged stool upon which doctrine safely sits.

So you are saying that there is no scriptural premise for what you do in that regard? In other words, you are making things up? I am sorry, but if you are pulling your beliefs and ideas, especially something as strong as praying through another person, then you are practically slapping Christ Jesus in the face. Jesus always prayed to the Father and advised us to. Jesus always prayed directly to the Father and through no one, however he did say for us to pray through him. So to do anything else is absolutely against Christ Jesus.

Okay, if you do want scriptural proof, the Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalm 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21).
And in Psalm 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2) Because he is the only God-man, Jesus is the only Mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1-4), including those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for "[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).

Again, from the Catholic standpoint, the Bible is not our only source of authority.
Then you are relying on fallible men to advise you, which is not good. What in the Bible would lead you to believe that you can pull information from any other source when it comes to key things such as prayer?
We are not relying on fallible men, as the Pope together with the Magisterium are infallible. Now, if you will answer me this, where then in the Bible does it say that it is the sole source of authority for all?

I am saying that if you believe Jesus actually gave up pieces of his flesh to the disciples you are mistaken. There is absolutely no logical reason to think that when you take into consideration the entirety of Bible.

Well, my friend, Jesus did give His disciples His flesh, again in the accidents of bread and wine.


It is transformed into His actual body and blood in the accidents of bread and wine.
Constubstantiation is irrelevant here.
It isn't irrelevant because it is just as ridiculous as a doctrine as yours. Neither of them are even remotely correct in the context of the Bible.

I won't bother to repost the passages from John again.

I am baffled that you would literally sit there and eat literal flesh and blood. Not only that, but say that it is a Biblical teaching.

Are you confused as to why we participate in the Eucharist and not what the Eucharist is, or both?


Yes, but the action to be done in remembrance is the sacrifice. Also, Jesus frequently challenged the law. Recall Matthew 21:12, among all the other passages where he questions the Pharisees.
No, Jesus did not contradict God's Law. The verse you gave me only shows that Jesus was against corruption. You know, the same corruption that has been seen time and time again in your own Catholic Church.

For the sake of saving typing time and precious sleep, I will cite CCC 571-594.

Jesus said, "This is a symbol of my flesh, " not, "This is my flesh."

Jesus' body was never disposed of. It was raised up to Heaven on the Ascension body and soul. (Acts 1:6-11)
No, Jesus' literal fleshy body was never raised to heaven. Consider these verses:

1 Pet. 3:18: "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit." (NIV)
At his resurrection from the dead, Jesus was brought forth with a spirit body. In the Greek text the words "flesh" and "spirit" are put in contrast to each other, and both are in the dat. So, if a translator uses the rendering "by the spirit" he should also consistently say "by the flesh", or if he uses "in the flesh" he should also say "in the spirit." Just a little bit of a ramble :)

John 20: 24-3, classic Doubting Thomas. Fits quite well into this scenario to be honest. There is also Luke 24:36-49.

Acts 10:40, 41: "but God raised him (Christ Jesus) from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen" (NIV)
Why didn't others see him too? Because he was a spirit creature and when, as angels had done in the past, he materialized fleshly bodies to make himself visible, he did so only in the presence of his disciples.

You are implying that he met his disciples in crowds and was like a ghost. That is not the case.
There is no mention of anyone else on the road to Emmaus when Jesus appeared to the two men.

1 Cor. 15:45: "So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam (Jesus Christ, who was perfect as was Adam when created), a life-giving spirit." (NIV)


I realize a lot has been deleted, so just repost anything I haven't answered. If I do not respond soon or for the next three days, I will be away with my family.
I do not disagree that Christ Jesus was both man and divine, I think we just have two different understandings of it. Specifically because you are a Trinitarian and I am not.

What is your understanding of the Hypostatic Union?


I understand and I thank you for answering my questions.
Adsum! -Caelitaten
Caelitaten
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 12:06:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 11:35:47 PM, tstor wrote:
At 7/23/2015 9:39:45 PM, Caelitaten wrote:

My opinion? Sexual abuse is not only a Catholic problem. Catholic priests who have committed some form of sexual misconduct are no better than other offenders. The number does not justify the act whatsoever, and the Catholic Church has implemented several programs to help continue to lower the amount of cases and hopefully eradicate the problem. For example, there is the VIRTUS certification (which I have taken) and Protecting God's Children.
I agree that mistakes are made and sometimes sick people get higher up in the Church. The problem is, this creates friction with all the weird rituals and understandings of the Church. From Wikipedia:
"The Catholic Church teaches that when a man participates in priesthood, he participates in the priesthood of Christ Himself. All men who, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, have become priests participate in Christ's priesthood; they act in persona Christi Capitis, in the person of Christ, the Head of His Body, the Church"

If this were true, how could pedophiles exist in the Priesthood anyways?

I can give you the obvious answer, temptation has no exceptions for its victims.

I believe I need to rest now. I have a long drive tomorrow. Until Monday, I suppose. I enjoyed our discussions up to now, and I look forward to continuing them. God bless, and good night.
Adsum! -Caelitaten
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 1:21:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 12:03:17 AM, Caelitaten wrote:

I am quite clearly arguing with the actual definitions of the words. The Catholic Church didn't come up with their own definitions. As for the Crusades and Inquisition, would you not support fighting for your homeland? Both events were within the requirements of the Just War Cause.
The two words mean the same thing. The definitions I gave you mean the same thing. So for you to argue that they are different means that you either did not read them or have a different set of definitions that you are using.

No, I don't agree with the Crusades at all. Let's consider what Christ Jesus taught about violence and fighting:
Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." (NIV)
Luke 9:51-56: "When the days were approaching for His ascension, He was determined to go to Jerusalem; and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him. But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, 'Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?' But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, 'You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men"s lives, but to save them.'] And they went on to another village." (NIV)
Proverbs 24:29: "Do not say, 'I'll do to them as they have done to me; I'll pay them back for what they did.'"
Matthew 5:39: "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
Proverbs 26:17: "Like one who grabs a stray dog by the ears is someone who rushes into a quarrel not their own."
2 Timothy 2:24: "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful."
When the apostle Peter tried defend Jesus with a lethal weapon, Matther 26:52 says: "'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'"
Matthew 5:43-45: "'You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.'" (NIV)

For you to try and put a positive twist on such horrible events is truly telling of your character, sorry to say.

Please elaborate on how the Holy Ghost helped recall what was in the Gospels. Your wording is throwing me off ever so slightly.
I am referencing to verses such as John 14:26.

And in Psalm 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2) Because he is the only God-man, Jesus is the only Mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1-4), including those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for "[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).
Correct me if I am wrong, but your practice of praying to saints is based on the doctrine of "intercession by saints"? From what I gather, the basic idea is "pleading by one who in God's sight has a right to do so in order to obtain mercy for one in need". This is according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia. So, one praying to saints does so with the hope that special favor may be obtained through them because of their blessed position before God.

Do you really think the Bible teaches this? Consider the apostle Paul when said to the Christians in Rome: "I urge you, brothers and sisters, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me." [NIV] (Romans 15:30) Was Paul asking his fellow Christians to intercede for him before God? No. If anything, they would ask Paul, an apostle of Christ, to intercede for them. Paul was showing that it is appropriate to ask a fellow Christian to pray to God in our behalf. But it is a completely different matter to pray to someone who is believed to be in heaven to make our request known to God for us.

In the apostle John's Gospel, Jesus states: "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" [NIV] (John 14:6) He also says: "The Father will give you anything you ask him in my name." [The New Jerusalem Bible] (John 15:16) Jesus did not say that we should direct our prayers to him and that he would then speak to God on our behalf. Rather, for our prayers to be heard, we must address our prayers to God through Jesus and through no one else.

When Jesus' disciples asked him to teach them how to pray, Jesus replied: "He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.'" [NIV] (Luke 11:2) Yes, "when you pray" or each time we pray, we should address, not Jesus or anyone else, but God himself. In light of these explicit teachings of Jesus, is it not logical to conclude that our prayers should be directed to God through Jesus Christ and not to any intercessors or "saints"?

Prayer is a very important part of our worship, and to worship anyone other than God is clearly not in harmony with Bible teaching. (John 4:23, 24; Revelation 19:9, 10) That is why we should address our prayers only to God.

With all that considered, you should know better than to interpret those Pslams verses as you have. To try and say that the verses such as 1 Timothy 2:1-4 and James 5:16 somehow justify praying to or through other people is absolutely wrong.

We are not relying on fallible men, as the Pope together with the Magisterium are infallible. Now, if you will answer me this, where then in the Bible does it say that it is the sole source of authority for all?
So what do you think of verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17?
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (NIV)

I ask because if you believe that the Bible leaves room for contradictions by your "infallible" Pope then you have not fully read it.

Well, my friend, Jesus did give His disciples His flesh, again in the accidents of bread and wine.
He did, but through symbolism. The disciples, as I have shown previously, did not take it literally and neither should you. Because if you take it literally it makes no sense at all in respect with the rest of the Bible.

I won't bother to repost the passages from John again.
Good, because using the same argument again after I already showed you why it did not fit with your stance would be unwise.

Are you confused as to why we participate in the Eucharist and not what the Eucharist is, or both?
I am not confused at all. If you want all my understanding of such an event, then I said I would be willing to provide it.

For the sake of saving typing time and precious sleep, I will cite CCC 571-594.
The problem is that you just referenced me to a document that is composed by Catholics, which I have shown that the Catholic Church directly promotes contradictions in teachings of the Bible. Not to mention that I can't even find the thing online. Perhaps send me a link if you want me to look at it.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 1:27:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
John 20: 24-3, classic Doubting Thomas. Fits quite well into this scenario to be honest. There is also Luke 24:36-49.
I would say that those verses are in harmony with my position on the matter. Jesus would have appeared to his disciples in a form that would let them believe. In fact, my stance makes a lot more sense than thinking Jesus is some sort of zombie.

You are implying that he met his disciples in crowds and was like a ghost. That is not the case.
There is no mention of anyone else on the road to Emmaus when Jesus appeared to the two men.
Right, but you are telling me that Jesus removed the stone entrance, got past the guards (Matthew 27:66), and made it to the disciples without anyone even noticing him?

What is your understanding of the Hypostatic Union?
I believe that Jesus is The Archangel Michael. Considering that along with the positions he is to be holding, we can say that he is divine. Though Jesus was also a human on earth.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 1:29:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 12:06:07 AM, Caelitaten wrote:

I can give you the obvious answer, temptation has no exceptions for its victims.

I believe I need to rest now. I have a long drive tomorrow. Until Monday, I suppose. I enjoyed our discussions up to now, and I look forward to continuing them. God bless, and good night.
Indeed, but the Catholic Church seems to believe that there is some sort of weird Priesthood authority. If that is the case, then pedophiles would never even be considered apart of the Priesthood.

God bless and have a safe trip.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Caelitaten
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 11:39:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:27:58 AM, tstor wrote:
John 20: 24-3, classic Doubting Thomas. Fits quite well into this scenario to be honest. There is also Luke 24:36-49.
I would say that those verses are in harmony with my position on the matter. Jesus would have appeared to his disciples in a form that would let them believe. In fact, my stance makes a lot more sense than thinking Jesus is some sort of zombie.

A zombie in a sense has no spirit, but Jesus Christ was raised from the dead body and spirit, not one or the other.


You are implying that he met his disciples in crowds and was like a ghost. That is not the case.
There is no mention of anyone else on the road to Emmaus when Jesus appeared to the two men.
Right, but you are telling me that Jesus removed the stone entrance, got past the guards (Matthew 27:66), and made it to the disciples without anyone even noticing him?

Refer to Matthew 28.


What is your understanding of the Hypostatic Union?
I believe that Jesus is The Archangel Michael. Considering that along with the positions he is to be holding, we can say that he is divine. Though Jesus was also a human on earth.

How is the assumption that Jesus is the Archangel Michael even plausible? That is a belief that Jehovah's witnesses hold. Since the Lord Jesus descends from heaven "with an archangel's voice," the JWs understand this passage as "suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel" (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1152).

While there are several problems with this line of reasoning, two points in particular easily reveal its fallacy. First, the fact that the Lord Jesus descends "with an archangel's voice" does not automatically mean that it is his own voice spoken of. This passage simply says that an archangel's voice will accompany the Lord's descent from heaven, in the same manner that the bailiff's voice ("All rise!") accompanies the judge's entrance into the courtroom.

Second, Hebrews 1:5 says, "For example, to which of the angels did he [God] ever say: 'You are my son; I, today, I have become your father'?" (New World Translation). The answer to the question is, of course, "none."

Thus, if God never called an angel his Son, then Michael--who is an angel--cannot be the Son. The fact that Michael is an archangel does not change anything, as he is still an angel by nature. An archangel is simply a "higher order" of angel, but an angel nonetheless; "arch-" simply means "ruling" or "high ranking."

*I will not be able to respond to your other two responses until Monday, my apologies.
Adsum! -Caelitaten
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 11:57:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:29:56 AM, tstor wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:06:07 AM, Caelitaten wrote:

I can give you the obvious answer, temptation has no exceptions for its victims.

I believe I need to rest now. I have a long drive tomorrow. Until Monday, I suppose. I enjoyed our discussions up to now, and I look forward to continuing them. God bless, and good night.
Indeed, but the Catholic Church seems to believe that there is some sort of weird Priesthood authority. If that is the case, then pedophiles would never even be considered apart of the Priesthood.

God bless and have a safe trip.

Are you interested in having actual debates on this website (outside of the forums)? I think it would be interesting to debate you on some specific Catholic issue.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Caelitaten
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 12:00:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 11:57:28 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:29:56 AM, tstor wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:06:07 AM, Caelitaten wrote:

I can give you the obvious answer, temptation has no exceptions for its victims.

I believe I need to rest now. I have a long drive tomorrow. Until Monday, I suppose. I enjoyed our discussions up to now, and I look forward to continuing them. God bless, and good night.
Indeed, but the Catholic Church seems to believe that there is some sort of weird Priesthood authority. If that is the case, then pedophiles would never even be considered apart of the Priesthood.

God bless and have a safe trip.


Are you interested in having actual debates on this website (outside of the forums)? I think it would be interesting to debate you on some specific Catholic issue.

I do realize that an actual debate would be more interesting, so yes I am.
Adsum! -Caelitaten
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 12:19:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oops, I ment this for tstor
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 12:20:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:29:56 AM, tstor wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:06:07 AM, Caelitaten wrote:

I can give you the obvious answer, temptation has no exceptions for its victims.

I believe I need to rest now. I have a long drive tomorrow. Until Monday, I suppose. I enjoyed our discussions up to now, and I look forward to continuing them. God bless, and good night.
Indeed, but the Catholic Church seems to believe that there is some sort of weird Priesthood authority. If that is the case, then pedophiles would never even be considered apart of the Priesthood.

God bless and have a safe trip.

Are you interested in having actual debates on this website (outside of the forums)? I think it would be interesting to debate you on some specific Catholic issue.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 12:51:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 11:39:52 AM, Caelitaten wrote:

A zombie in a sense has no spirit, but Jesus Christ was raised from the dead body and spirit, not one or the other.
Well, zombies aren't real as far as I am concerned. So the logistics of one is purely based on assumption. I have shown you how it would be unreasonable to think that the literal fleshy body of Christ could be resurrected.

Refer to Matthew 28.
This, if anything, proves my point. There was no body in the tomb, which would be a result of God disposing of it. Jesus got past the guards, as I said, without them noticing. It makes no sense at all to think that Jesus literally rose from the dead in the same fleshy body. It also makes no sense to think that the literal fleshy body would be taken into heaven.

How is the assumption that Jesus is the Archangel Michael even plausible? That is a belief that Jehovah's witnesses hold. Since the Lord Jesus descends from heaven "with an archangel's voice," the JWs understand this passage as "suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel" (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1152).
It is a belief held by many Christians, not just JWs. And that is not the only verse used to justify the belief. Here are some other evidences:

At times, individuals are known by more than one name. Whether that be in the Bible or through other cultures around the world. It is a common practice. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also known as Israel and the apostle Paul as Simon. Typically the change in name comes when there is a change in the role of the person. Such as Abram to Abraham.

Michael is clearly an outstanding angel, as you mentioned. Take into consideration the book of Daniel, in which Michael is described as fighting wicked demons on behalf of us. (Daniel 10:13; 12:1) In the letter of Jude, Michael confronts Satan in a dispute over Moses' body. (Jude 9) The book of Revelation shows that Michael wars with Satan and his demons and hurls them out of heaven. (Revelation 12:7-9)

No other angel is known to fight God's enemies. That is why he (Michael) has the title "the archangel", as you said. This can mean "the chief angel". There is no other angel referred to as "archangel", and Michael is THE archangel. So it would seem that God places Michael as the authority over all other angels. This is in accordance with the following examples:
Other than God Himself, the only person known to have authority of the angels is Jesus. (Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31)As you mentioned, in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the apostle Paul prophesied: "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." (NIV)
Note that the Lord is speaking with an archangel's voice and has the power to resurrect. This does not mean that Jesus is with Michael, it means that Jesus (the Lord) has a voice of an archangel. Any other way of interpreting it is not in harmony with logical reasoning.

Revelation 12:7 shows that Michael is the leader of an army of faithful angels, similar to that of Revelation 19:14-16.
2 Thessalonians 1:7 says that Jesus has powerful angels. However, the Bible never mentions there being more than one army of angels. What do you conclude from this?

While there are several problems with this line of reasoning, two points in particular easily reveal its fallacy. First, the fact that the Lord Jesus descends "with an archangel's voice" does not automatically mean that it is his own voice spoken of. This passage simply says that an archangel's voice will accompany the Lord's descent from heaven, in the same manner that the bailiff's voice ("All rise!") accompanies the judge's entrance into the courtroom.
I addressed this in the above response.

Second, Hebrews 1:5 says, "For example, to which of the angels did he [God] ever say: 'You are my son; I, today, I have become your father'?" (New World Translation). The answer to the question is, of course, "none."
Hebrews 1:5 demonstrates that Jesus is and was an angel. Let's reference them with earlier scriptures about Jesus, which will show that Jesus is indeed not only separate from God, but none other than The Archangel Michael. So, when the question frames itself as asking about "which angel", then a Bible student in Paul's day day would immediately know the answer is pointing to Jesus, and reminding that Jesus is a distinct person from God Himself.

In Hebrews 1:5, the question asked, as you stated:
"For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father?'" (NIV)

So what is the answer? Is it "none", which you have suggested?

The angel is obviously the angel Jesus (Michael), the Christ. This is in harmony with Psalm 2:7:
"I will proclaim the Lord"s decree: He said to me, 'You are my son; today I have become your father.'" (NIV)

Thus, if God never called an angel his Son, then Michael--who is an angel--cannot be the Son. The fact that Michael is an archangel does not change anything, as he is still an angel by nature. An archangel is simply a "higher order" of angel, but an angel nonetheless; "arch-" simply means "ruling" or "high ranking."
I cover this in my above responses.

*I will not be able to respond to your other two responses until Monday, my apologies.
That is fine, as I am actually going off camping for the weekend. As before, God bless and I wish you a safe trip.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 12:53:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 12:20:21 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:

Are you interested in having actual debates on this website (outside of the forums)? I think it would be interesting to debate you on some specific Catholic issue.
Not at all, I have very high confidence in my Biblical interpretations and my understanding of the Bible. So to share that with other people is fine with me.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 12:54:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 12:20:21 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:

Are you interested in having actual debates on this website (outside of the forums)? I think it would be interesting to debate you on some specific Catholic issue.
I mean to say yes, not "not at all". I though you asked "would you mind". In short, yes I am willing to have a debate.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 2:39:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 12:53:26 PM, tstor wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:20:21 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:

Are you interested in having actual debates on this website (outside of the forums)? I think it would be interesting to debate you on some specific Catholic issue.
Not at all, I have very high confidence in my Biblical interpretations and my understanding of the Bible. So to share that with other people is fine with me.

Great! It will have to be in about a week, however. I'm going out of the country and won't have internet access
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax