How well do you know Catholic Christianity?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on September 5, 2010 at 2:38pm

Helen,

I have not once insulted you. I do not know you and if I did I am sure I would have fewer reasons to. I have stated multiple times that you have a bright mind and obviously, you love God, but the RCC's teachings have been wrong from the beginning. As anyone that knows me knows, I have no problem contending for the truth and as it should be obvious to everyone, I do not think highly of the RCC doctrines or practices.

Whenever you try to make your case of the RCC traditions and beliefs you are saying the Protestant view is wrong. Sometimes you say that our interpretation could not be more wrong etc... I know that is what I can expect from you since you adhere to the RC teachings.

I have no problem with that. You have not offended me when you attack the doctrines I would die practicing, preaching and believing.

I do not see how I have disrespected you.

Blessings

Permalink Reply by Helen on September 5, 2010 at 12:58pm

Dear David,

Thank you for your comments.

Please let me just point out some of your conflicting statements:

In another post you said:

I belong to the Protestant Church. ( rather then 'TO A Protestant Church', since there is no unity amongst them, Protestantism cannot be called The Church, as in one UNITED body).

Now you state:

I used the phrase Protestant on myself to draw a distention between RC and Protestants, that was all, but is not how I go around claiming myself to be.

Then you write:

God's truth is one, for sure, but the RCC is probably the furthers from the truth. If ever a church has been extremely wrong, is the RCC.

Then you say also:

All Christian Protestants agree in the primary doctrines and we do have differences in the secondary ones.

Then you quote Luther:

'No believing Christian can be forced to recognize any authority beyond the sacred Scripture, which is exclusively invested with Divine right.

Which makes me feel a warm sense of certainty that indeed, as St Peter said: "some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. "

Then I found this quotation in Martin Luther from 1530, years after he had left the Church,

"Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth.'"

Luther even saw that, "'They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.'"

Therefore, dearest David:

1-God's TRUTH IS ONE. Fact.
2- Either the RCC is right or Wrong.
4- 38 THOUSAND conflicting protestant interpretations of ONE True Cannot be right all at the same time. Because TRUTH is ONE.

The simple fact that before Luther died there was already 280 different new protestant churches in the world proves to me, and to some other 1 billion people, how wrong was.

Now, I asked you to treat me with more respect, and I would like you to simply consider this statement you made:

[...] most Christians who have been taught by the Spirit of truth and not man-made religions will tell you [...]

Clearly you are implying that because I am a Catholic, I am automatically excluded of God's grace to receive wisdom through the Holy Spirit.

Apparently, you concluded this regardless of how strictly I keep or do not keep God's commandments, how many hours I pray every day, or even if I pray everyday, what kind of person I am and so on...You conclued all this simply based on the fact that I am Catholic, therefore I cannot possibly be touched by the Spirit....

What an interesting theory...

Many blessing, David. I mean it will my whole heart.

Helen

Permalink Reply by RoyW on September 5, 2010 at 1:55pm

Helen,

I will tell you that I admire Luther but he is not my founding father. He did not found the church of which I am a member. He said many things that I simply do not agree with. I do believe that Luther was a member of His church regardless of the fact that he was excommunicated by the Pope Leo and Roman Emperor Charles V (the only reason I mention the emperor is that you said you didn't know that emperors were influential in the church or something like that). Not only was he excommunicated by the Pope, he was declared a criminal and that if anyone killed him, it would be a legal act. Can you believe that? Has there ever been a public apology for that anti-Christian act?

Luther's words before the council at the Diet of Worms was:
“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the Popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen. ”

Are you kidding me? Are those words worthy of murder by a pope? Helen, have you heard of The Roman Catholic Inquisition? Do you acknowledge that? Millions of heretics were killed. One thing is for sure: most people were certainly afraid to speak out against the traditional teaching of the church. If you did, your life was certainly in danger. Not one time did Jesus teach the use of murder to squelch those who didn't agree with Him. There is no way that is His church. The millions of those who have been killed is a strong testimony to the fact that His church existed in spite of the RCC, not because of it.

I am going to give you just a paragraph from an article on the Inquisition. I know everyone on here knows of this but have reserved from talking about it. But, Helen, you do have to face the truth. Note:

Having divorced herself from Biblical absolutes, Catholicism adopted a theology in which she sees herself as the church founded upon the Apostle Peter by Jesus Christ, and alone empowered to bring salvation to the world. Further, she believes herself assigned the daunting task of bringing Christ's kingdom to fruition on earth. With those dogmas forming her philosophical foundation, she seeks her power in the political sphere as well as the religious realm. To whatever degree she achieves political power, to that degree she feels compelled to use her secular influence as a weapon against her spiritual adversaries. Thus, down through the centuries, we see that in those countries in which Catholicism had achieved absolute power, the pope's followers have not hesitated to brutally subdue the enemies of "the Church". Although Jews, Moslems, pagans, and others have felt the wrath of Rome, her special fury has always been reserved for her bitterest and most effective challengers -- Bible believing Christians. Only as the political climate changed in recent centuries did the Catholic hierarchy see it expedient to change tactics and appear to be more tolerant. Yet, to this day we see persecution continuing in those places on the globe dominated by Catholicism. The degree of the persecution is determined by the degree of control.
http://www.mtc.org/inquis.html

The RCC has down through the centuries sought to control the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ but it cannot do it. Their worse enemy is a Bible-believing Christian. Even though they can no longer kill them (only because of the lack of political support in our world), they still seek to suppress them. Jesus said, "I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Helen, I pleaded with you to really take a strong look at that post from David. I could tell he spent hours in research. This is a labor of love. I do not think you want to be on the side that is known through the centuries for squelching those who believe in His Word. Much truth has been spoken on this forum. Your heart for God is very obvious. But, so is your dedication to the RCC. Note this verse in Revelation and then tell me who you think it means:

Rv 17:6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. NIV

What woman do you know of that is guilty of killing His saints? Many kingdoms of this earth have been associated with terrible atrocities. The evils of the Roman Empire did not cease when they took over the church. It continued into the centuries only in the name of God. I do not in anyway identify with that. That was not His church. He did not come to kill people, He came to save people from their sins.

The Roman Empire lives on and will once again raise its head to slaughter the saints. Could it be that the RCC which was founded by the Emperor Constantine, who has attempted through all kinds of means including the evil crusades, to completely destroy all opposition is a part of what is planned for evil in the future great tribulation? Some believe it is.

I know this will sound very far-fetched to you. However, I do believe that Revelation is speaking of a very powerful force in our world. I also believe it is associated with a religious force. I pray it is not the RCC and that they will repent of all their evil deeds through the centuries and return to Holy Scripture. However, be careful to watch for any sign that they will once again attempt to squelch Bible-believing Christians through the method of murder. If so, I would run as far away from that woman as possible.

When you came onto this site, I don't think it was an accident. I really believe you have a heart for God. I don't expect you to walk away from your church. I do ask you to study more about the history of the RCC than just the development and many changes of teachings over the centuries. Take a look at the whole church and you will see some things that are not very pretty that can in no way be associated with Jesus Christ.

God bless you,
Roy

Permalink Reply by Helen on September 3, 2010 at 11:07am

I am afraid that is correct. A person named Martin Luther, a german Catholic monk, had other ideas about Justification, I think, and then he started protestantism.

May I ask you what was your religion before?

God bless,
H.

Permalink Reply by Helen on September 3, 2010 at 11:11am

Raj,

I can help you with documentation on the Origins of the Catholic Church. Which indeed can be traced back to Peter, one of the Apostles and the leader upon whom Jesus founded His Church. Even the leaders of the Reformation, the early leaders of protestantims accepted this historical fact.

Just let me know.

Ok?

Cheers,

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on September 5, 2010 at 2:31am

Helen,

It is not a historical fact. It is a concoction by the RCC, period, by misinterpreting scripture. Christ did not leave his church to the care of no man. Instead gave offices of Pastors, teachers, Evangelist, Prophets, and Apostles.

Ephesians 4

11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.


Please give me one verse where Christ in the bible states that the He assigned priest and popes, because I do not find one verse stating that in the whole bible.

Permalink Reply by Helen on September 5, 2010 at 4:05pm

Hi again David,

Thanks for your questions!!!

You asked this: Please give me one verse where Christ in the bible states that the He assigned priest and popes, because I do not find one verse stating that in the whole bible.

Please consider these scriptures. Just consider them, I am not asking you to accept anything. OK?

But before I go ahead, let me just state that Matt 16 -19 has been already extensively discussed as my argument for the assignment of a leader, which for us is Peter, the first bishop and pope. So I will not go there again. Instead I will show you other passages for the argument of holy orders. Alright?

To clarify this I will provide some adittional scriptural evidence for the Apostles authority:

Heb. 13:7,17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to remember and obey their leaders who have authority over their souls.

1 Peter 2:18 - Peter charges the servants to be submissive to their masters whether kind and gentle or overbearing.

1 Peter 5:5; Jude 8 - Peter and Jude charge the members of the Church to be subject to their elders.

2 Peter 2:10 - Peter warns the faithful about despising authority. He is referring to the apostolic authority granted to them by Christ.

3 John 9 - John points out that Diotrephes does not acknowledge John's apostolic authority and declares that this is evil.

These are just a few, if you need more, I can send them as well. I am just trying to make this shorter...

Ok. To you question:

1- The Elders of the Church are Called "Fathers" and the Faithful "Children"

Matt. 23:9 - Jesus says, "call no man father." But Protestants use this verse in an attempt to prove that it is wrong for Catholics to call priests "father." This is an example of "eisegesis" (imposing one's views upon a passage) as opposed to "exegesis" (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). In this verse, Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father.

2- Then we have these passages as our scriptural basis for the word FATHER

Matt. 23:8 – in this teaching, Jesus also says not to call anyone teacher or rabbi as well. But don’t Protestants call their teachers “teacher?” What about this commandment of Jesus? When Protestants say “call no man father,” they must also argue that we cannot call any man teacher either.

1 Tim. 1:2,18; 2 Tim. 1:2-3 - Paul calls Timothy his true "child" in the faith and his son.

Titus 1:4 - Paul calls Titus his true "child" in a common faith. Priests are our spiritual fathers in the family of God.

Philemon 10 - Paul says he has become the "father" of Onesimus.

Heb. 12:7,9 - emphasizes our earthly "fathers." But these are not just biological but also spiritual (the priests of the Church).

1 Peter 5:13 - Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his "son."

1 John 2:1,13,14 - John calls the elders of the Church "fathers."

1 John 2:1,18,28; 3:18; 5:21; 3 John 4 - John calls members of the Church "children."

1 Macc. 2:65 - Mattathias the priest tells his sons that Simeon will be their "father."

2- Then there are these instances where JESUS USES the word Father ( I will not show all of them)

Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7,19 - Jesus says a man shall leave his "father" and mother and be joined to his wife. See also Eph. 5:31.

Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:29-30 - Jesus says whoever has left mother or "father" for His sake shall receive a hundredfold.

Matt. 21:31 - Jesus uses "father" when he teaches about the parable of the two sons and asks, "who did the will of his "father?"

Luke 6:23,26 - Jesus speaks about reward and punishment with reference to what their "fathers" did to the prophets.

Luke 11:11 - Jesus says what "father" among you will give his child a serpent when he asks for a fish.

uke 15:12,17-18,20-22,27-29 - Jesus repeatedly uses "father" when teaching about the prodigal son.

Luke 16:27 - Jesus uses "father" when teaching about the rich man in purgatory.

John 6:49,58 - Jesus says your "fathers" ate the manna in the wilderness and died.


Then the RCC has these scriptural support for the annointing of the Holy Orders (Priests )


4- Support for Celibacy as Church Practice, Not Dogma

1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”

1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church

Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.

Isaiah 56:3-7 - the eunuchs who keep God's covenant will have a special place in the kingdom of heaven.

Jer. 16:1-4 - Jeremiah is told by God not to take a wife or have children.

5- The non-Catholic refutation & The Catholic argument:

1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church's practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).

If you would like to get more passages, please let me know.

6- Extra-Scriptural evidence:

"Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed…Let nothing exist among you that may divide you ; but be ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, 6 (c. A.D. 110).

Much love,
Helen

Permalink Reply by RoyW on September 5, 2010 at 5:03pm

Helen,

I don't know if David will answer every verse that you have given here or not. I can tell you that your interpretations are a real stretch. For instance, you take a very serious problem you have with celibacy and simply dismiss it with a wrong interpretation of Scripture. This is the problem you have when your church is so far from Scripture. You have to reinterpret Scripture to fit with your teaching. For example:
1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

What a sad thing. Let's see what the Passage really teaches before it is re-construed to match your teaching:

1 Ti 3:1-7

3 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. NKJV

The bishop is a married man. He must be temperate, sober-minded, etc. and then we note that he must know how to rule his own house well, having his children in submission. This is a family man. Where do you get this made-up idea that this is only in reference to a widower. This kind of thing will consistently be your problem. You will follow the lead of your teachers that tell you that what is in the Catholic church is right and then reinterpret Scripture to authenticate it. You just made something up out of the clear blue sky. You have no authority to say what you said. You are teaching false doctrine like your teachers.

This is not a rule to the bishops that if their wife dies they could not remarry. To those who study the Word, some do believe that this is a rule against divorce and remarriage in the clergy. I think this may be the correct teaching. Some say it means one wife at a time. I don't think that is the meaning but I will not set myself up as all-knowing.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on September 5, 2010 at 3:06am

Raj,

My family was never religious. I was neither Catholic nor Protestant. I was a very lost and angry individual who did his share of time in prison and pursuing to become the perfect killer. One day my Lord saved me in a cell. I am sure you also read that part, right. There is no country in the world that I know of that is 100%, one religion. Wherever you are getting such statistics they are not correct.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_El_Salvador

Religion in El Salvador
There is diversity of religious and ethnic groups in El Salvador. Majority of population are Christians, mostly Roman Catholics (52.5%), while Protestantism is growing rapidly and is already representing 27.6% of the population.[1] Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist and Seventh-Day Adventist[2] churches are all growing rapidly, as are Pentecostals. 11.1 percent of the population indicates that it is not affiliated with any religious group. Other religions (1.4%) are present as well - Islam, Judaism, Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claimed 98,575 members in the country as of year-end 2007. End of quote.

Catholicism is in decline throughout the world. That is why Catholics have made some drastic changes within the past 20 years. Millions of Protestant Christians use to be Catholics at one point.

Throughout Central and South America Protestant churches are rapidly taking over as the main religion by the grace of God. The truth was going to prevail sooner or later and it has.

>>Also, I don't know about any other members here but I think it is impossible for a person to remember what their circumstances were when they were just 2 years old.

Well if you are looking to discredit me, there is not much I can say, but check out some comments below. Attacking my character is not cool sir. I attack the doctrines that do not align with scripture, but I do not attack people. I do confront false teachers and contend for the truth. I cried a lot when I was separated from my mother and was in much abuse through that one year, what do I gain by lying about that? I have heard of many people remembering much more than the only thing I remember from that time. I only remember suffering during that time, others remember much more. I do not, but you think is impossible, hahaha you are starting to crack me up. :)

From: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090620180406AAFvLVy

Why can't people remember things at a very young age?
I understand are brains are so small that we are not able to remember things at a very young age but I have personally verified I remember things as early as 2 and even a memory at 18 months but others claim to not remember anything until 5 or older what exactly is the scientific reason for this?

This question was asked at http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/350997
What is the earliest age you can remember being?
Very interesting answers. Many remember things from as early as one and a half years of age. So Raj, what can I tell you.

Blessings

Permalink Reply by Helen on September 5, 2010 at 4:50pm

Hi Raj,

I am not sure if you have seen a question I sent you, yesterday, I think.

I thought I read somewhere that you are or used to be of another faith. I was curious to hear your story...

Anyways, Welcome!!

Helen

Permalink Reply by Helen on September 5, 2010 at 12:41am

Dear Scirbe,

Sorry for not replying sooner, I've only just seen your comment.

I hate to disappoint you, but your views on Peter's leadership are indeed incorrect. But since I have already extensively discussed this, I will refer you to the writings of Dr S. Hahn former Protestant Minister and Phd in Theology, and where you will surely see how wrongly you've been interpreting this particular scriptural teaching.

Please go to http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Cheers,
Helen

PS. The link I above is excellent, well worth reading. But, because it is very detailed it is also very long. But do read on and then re-think your views.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on September 5, 2010 at 3:16am

Helen -

You have not discussed the topic extensively. You have only quoted over and over again what the Catechism tells you to think about those verses. Can you tell me biblically using other verses of the Holy Bible where it is taught that Peter was left to be a pope?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• Next ›
• Page