What Most Christians Believe

[Vic C.]

... Regarding history, I think John Henry Newman summed it up nicely when he said: "To be deep in history is to cease being protestant".

I like Alfred E. Neuman's quote, ""What, me worry?"

[attachment=0:1f08c]AlfredENeumanMad30.jpg[/attachment:1f08c]

 

[Catholic Crusader]

[quote="Catholic Crusader":b43b1]... Regarding history, I think John Henry Newman summed it up nicely when he said: "To be deep in history is to cease being protestant".

I like Alfred E. Neuman's quote, ""What, me worry?"

[attachment=0:b43b1]AlfredENeumanMad30.jpg[/attachment:b43b1][/quote:b43b1]
Touche'. LOL! :D

 

[Vic C.]

... Touche'. LOL! :D

I was just kidding around. It was the first thing to come to mind. Hey, what can I say? I was fed well at lunch today. :

 

[cyberjosh]

Josh - and Catholic Crusader,

Being part of that "Catholic group" from several months ago mentioned above, I will say everything that Josh says is correct. Honestly, there were nearly a dozen Christians - whom I will not name, but most are not active here anymore - who basically turned the apologetic forum into an anti-Catholic site. It took a lot of my personal time answering all of these persons, 3-4 hours a day, although I certainly was not alone. I am happy to say that several Protestants often times jumped to defend their Catholic brothers against some unfair accusations. As it turned out, I found that some Protestants were actually closer to Catholic beliefs than I had first thought, esp. on salvation. Actually, I was quite impressed with how God worked on this thread and most of the more ardent anti-Catholics have left.

I would like to thank several Protestants who were very helpful during those times, in particular, StoveBolts, Unred Typo, Drew, Stranger, Veritas, Potluck and Josh. Thanks to them, I got the impression that not ALL Protestants hated Catholics.

The moderators, led by Vic, came up with a feasible solution. At first, I was skeptical, and noted that it appeared that we were being pushed aside - and Vic can vouch that I was a bit vocal on that count. However, after some thought and experiencing the new set up, I think it works well. Catholic questions do not take over the apologetic boards and we have a place where people can still ask questions and debate on Catholic particulars. I think it has worked well. Having lived through "life before the sub-forum", I can honestly say that it is not an effort to partition us or place us in an category separate from other Christians. Last Fall, the Apologetic forum was FULL of Catholic discussion. It was too much, considering that we are a small minority here!

With the new sub forum, one big advantage is that we don't have to re-fight these battles over and over, Catholic Crusader. A Protestant who comes to this forum can be simply directed to the particular subject and read the 4 or 5 pages of the "past battles". It may be enough to answer their questions and we don't have to re-address it. If not, we can start "round 2"! After some thought, I would say the Moderators came up with a fine idea and I am now satisfied with the results.

Yes, Josh is correct. "We" took over the whole Apologetic site, and it was unfair to people who wanted to discuss "non-catholic" issues.

You, Vic and Potluck have done an excellent job monitoring these forums. They have really been fair and even-handed. Keep up the good work.

Brother in Christ,

Joe

Wow, thanks for the kind words. It warms my heart. :D I am also satisfied that we actually could come up with such a Biblical oriented solution, for it was a solution which was done with respect for the brethren, which the Bible commends. Good to hear the outcome was indeed a decent one.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Imagican]

Not to 'start anything', but I have NO hatred towards ANYONE. Honestly guys and gals.

But I find it difficult to understand why it's so hard for 'my Catholic brothers' to face history as we NOW know it took place. I am NOT 'trying to start anything' I ASSURE you. But I continually see contradiction in historical accuracy that makes if difficult for me NOT to confront.

Look, WE ARE ALL SINNERS. There is NO doubt about this, (not to any TRUE believer in Christ). But denial doesn't 'alter anything'. I thought that the PURPOSE of 'forum debate' was to DISCERN the TRUTH. No matter what 'factions' it may affect.

I have noticed on this forum that UNIVERSALISTS are NOT allowed to promote their 'beliefs'. And EVERYTIME the subject of JW's comes up, the 'bandwagon' is QUICK to point out their 'false beliefs'. Same with mormons or SDA. I have even had my Catholic brothers ACCUSE me of such affiliations. I assure you that I have NONE.

Now, I have offered over and over again that I have NO SUCH affilitations. i would argue with JW's over 'some parts' of their 'theology'. And the SDA's the SAME. Mormons? Come on, TOO EASY, (just joking). And those that KNOW me KNOW that I am NOT partial to 'Protestant' denominations. I personally feel that the Protestant denominations are JUST 'offshoots' OF the CC. And then I get accused of BEING a 'Protestant' simply BECAUSE I DO NOT accept the Catholic doctrine. Now, folks, WHO is the one here ATTEMPTING to 'bring on controversy'. I do NOT proclaim ANY denomination yet am continuously LABELED by those that know NOTHING but denominationalism and TOLD that IF I claim NO denomination that I am simply a 'sola scriptura' or 'self interpreter' or WHATEVER one FEELS like accusing me of.

But HERE'S the 'beef'. Guys, I ONLY know what "I" know. I am NOT able to discern the 'truth' behind what 'others' know EXCEPT through MY understanding of The Word. I have studied the Catholic doctrine and from what it offers I CANNOT 'be' what I am. In other words, the Catholic doctrine states that I MUST be a 'part' of this; 'what THEY consider' to BE "The Church", or I CANNOT BE what I KNOW that I AM. How do you expect others to react to such understanding? Are Catholics TAUGHT that 'they are SO special' that NO ONE else is able to understand ANYTHING without 'their guidance'? If so, then, "Houston, we have a problem." And guys, HOW can you 'blame' anyone who KNOWS 'who they are' when YOU would TELL them that THEY CAN'T BE who they KNOW that they ARE?

That puts those that KNOW better in a 'position' to question the WHOLE Catholic doctrine. For, as I have previously stated, I ONLY know WHAT I know and I KNOW God and His Son. I have openly offered ALL that we have been TOLD that we MUST in order to BE considered 'followers of Christ'. Now, the nit pickin' LOVE of others, haven't gotten that one down COMPLETELY yet but I'm workin' on it. Pride, that's a tough one too. But I make extreme efforts to offer WHAT I am able without being OVERLY critical of ANYONE in 'particular'.

Now, if one insists upon ridiculing my offerings and INSIST upon me HAVING to accept what THEY offer to BE a 'follower of Christ', then you can expect NOTHING other than me to BE defensive.

So, let me offer apologies to ANY that I may have offended. NOt INTENTIONAL I assure you. But if 'throwing stones' becomes the 'game' I AM pretty good at it. I have NOTHING 'against' those that 'follow the Catholic Faith'. I question, at times, HOW they are able to follow such, but I do the SAME with MANY other denoms as well. I am NOT preferential when it comes to what I believe to BE 'false doctrine'. And guys, I have YET to find the denomination that DOESN'T offer it's OWN forms of 'false doctrine'. Fault me if you will. But my 'understanding' is ALL that I have. It is constantly evolving, but it is STiLL all I 'have'.

I 'think' that we are ALL here to offer what we 'have' to offer and to LEARN what we can. It's NOT a matter of denominationalism. TRUST ME, (and I HATE to use that phrase.........but sometimes..........), it's NOT. It's about WHAT we are ABLE to do to PLEASE God through HIS Son. For WITHOUT His Son, God would not even LOOK upon us. So, WHAT are we ABLE to 'produce' in LOVE that is ABLE to PLEASE God? That is our MISSION. That, and WHAT are we able to produce in LOVE that is ABLE to 'benefit' our brothers and sisters. And I consider EVERYONE on this planet to BE a 'brother or sister'. NOT necessarily IN CHRIST, but, my brothers and sisters REGARDLESS. For God IS Our Father. EVERYONE on this planet OWES their EXISTENCE to God's will. So, in this repsect, we are ALL in this TOGETHER. Some of my 'brothers and sisters' haven't COME to the 'understanding' of the TRUTH and some NEVER WILL. But that DOESN'T make them ANY WORSE than I am. They ARE sinners TOO. Just sinners that DON't 'realize it'.

I am more than willing to call a 'truce' to the denominational stuff. Don't accuse me of NOT 'being' what I KNOW that I am and I will make EVERY effort possible NOT to 'point out' specifics that I believe the CC to have a 'misunderstanding of'. We CAN both benefit from EACH other, but ONLY if NO ONE 'believes' or INSISTS that THEY have a MONOPOLY on the TRUTH.

So IF your 'religion' INSISTS that it IS the ONLY way to Christ, then OBVIOUSLY we are GOING to 'clash'. If you SAY that NO ONE can accept Christ into their hearts and have ANY different understanding than what the CC teaches, then I feel that ANYONE so treated has EVERY right to offer what they SEE that is 'WRONG' with THIS KIND OF THINKING.

I am NOT an elitist, (is that a word?), But I'm not willing to compromise what has been offered to me EITHER. My convictions are as STRONG as ANYONE on this forum. And I probably have MORE hours in the Bible than TEN of the average participants on this forum. I have been about as LOW as one can go and I have had prayers answered in ways MOST wouldn't even believe if I were to recount the events EXACTLY as they happened. I spent MUCH of my life following SATAN and I am CERTAINLY able to discern WHO he IS. And for quite a few years now I have been a 'son of God'. Saved by His grace through the sacrifice of His Son, my Savior: Jesus Christ. If that's NOT 'enough', then I don't know what else to offer so far as 'credentials' are concerned.

Let us just SEE what we have to offer one another WITHOUT the 'denominationalism' getting in the way. i am MORE than willing.

MEC

 

[GraceBwithU]

It's for sure that the CC is the largest body of proclaiming Christians....and I try to understand as much as I can about their doctrine, but I keep running into road blocks. If 12 buses are headed for destruction over the edge of a cliff, and only 1 is headed away from this cliff. I prefer to buy a ticket on the 1 headed away. Using a majority rules theology in Christianity is ridiculous to prove ones point. No offense to my CC brothers but please get over your numbers. Tell Jesus when He comes that "but Jesus, most of the people in the world believe this". Does this not remind you of the child that asked the parent to do something because everyone else at school does it.

 

[francisdesales]

Not to 'start anything', but I have NO hatred towards ANYONE. Honestly guys and gals.

But I find it difficult to understand why it's so hard for 'my Catholic brothers' to face history as we NOW know it took place. I am NOT 'trying to start anything' I ASSURE you. But I continually see contradiction in historical accuracy that makes if difficult for me NOT to confront.

OK. This whole post cannot go unanswered. Your knowledge of history, simply put, is incorrect. We have already seen on several separate occasions where your "idea" of history is incorrect. Just to remind you - that "Trinity" was an invention of Constantine. Wherever you got that information, no doubt, it has colored the rest of your attitude towards the Catholic Church's "history". I would suggest you do some reading from secular sources. But this notion that the Catholic Church persecuted millions and killed them in the name of God? Please. It is embarrassing. And the rest? We'll get to that...

Look, WE ARE ALL SINNERS. There is NO doubt about this, (not to any TRUE believer in Christ). But denial doesn't 'alter anything'. I thought that the PURPOSE of 'forum debate' was to DISCERN the TRUTH. No matter what 'factions' it may affect.

I have noticed on this forum that UNIVERSALISTS are NOT allowed to promote their 'beliefs'. And EVERYTIME the subject of JW's comes up, the 'bandwagon' is QUICK to point out their 'false beliefs'. Same with mormons or SDA. I have even had my Catholic brothers ACCUSE me of such affiliations. I assure you that I have NONE.

"Universalists" are not Christian in the traditional sense of the word. Sure, you can twist the meaning of "Christian" to mean anyone who is nice to someone else, no doubt, but words have actual objective meaning. Sorry if I am not being politically correct, but the truth must be told, MEC. I don't believe in relativism. A Christian is one who can repeat the Nicene Creed and believe what it says. ESPECIALLY the part about Jesus being "God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made". If you can't do that, you are not a follower of Christ in the conventional sense. Muslims are not Christians, nor are JW, Mormons, or Universalists. Maybe they can be really nice people. But that is not the heart of being Christian.

Now, I have offered over and over again that I have NO SUCH affilitations. i would argue with JW's over 'some parts' of their 'theology'. And the SDA's the SAME. Mormons? Come on, TOO EASY, (just joking). And those that KNOW me KNOW that I am NOT partial to 'Protestant' denominations. I personally feel that the Protestant denominations are JUST 'offshoots' OF the CC.

They are. Just as you are, since you use the Bible compiled and written by men of the Church.

And then I get accused of BEING a 'Protestant' simply BECAUSE I DO NOT accept the Catholic doctrine. Now, folks, WHO is the one here ATTEMPTING to 'bring on controversy'. I do NOT proclaim ANY denomination yet am continuously LABELED by those that know NOTHING but denominationalism and TOLD that IF I claim NO denomination that I am simply a 'sola scriptura' or 'self interpreter' or WHATEVER one FEELS like accusing me of.

Protesatants are Christians. They are members of the Church, to a very limited and mysterious degree, because of their baptism into the Blessed Trinity, a command given by Jesus Christ Himself. Those groups you mentioned above do not have valid baptism and are thus not part of the Church. Seeing that Christ created only ONE Church, I cannot imagine in what way you believe you or they are united to Christ if they WILLINGLY refuse to enter by the "Gate". Only robbers and thieves enter by bypassing the "Gate". And the Gate is Christ.

Now, how can one say they are following Christ when they refuse to abide by His teachings? How can one be a follower of Christ while choosing to reject what He established???

But HERE'S the 'beef'. Guys, I ONLY know what "I" know. I am NOT able to discern the 'truth' behind what 'others' know EXCEPT through MY understanding of The Word. I have studied the Catholic doctrine and from what it offers I CANNOT 'be' what I am. In other words, the Catholic doctrine states that I MUST be a 'part' of this; 'what THEY consider' to BE "The Church", or I CANNOT BE what I KNOW that I AM. How do you expect others to react to such understanding? Are Catholics TAUGHT that 'they are SO special' that NO ONE else is able to understand ANYTHING without 'their guidance'?

Catholics are taught that they have been given much, freely given. Selected without any merit, just as the Jews, called "Church" in the Greek OT. And to those given much, much will be expected. We have the sacraments, the Word properly interpreted, and the Divine Liturgy. God comes to us under the form of bread and wine. Much has been given to us. We are not special, though - most of us were born into the Church through infant baptism. As such, what could we have done to earn anything from God? And what could a Jewish infant do to earn such a position in the People of God?

No, we are not "special". Many of the worse Christians were Catholics at one point. It doesn't guarantee holiness. However, God provides the tools and the instruments of salvation through His Church. How we choose to use them is based on our free will response to God's graces.

That puts those that KNOW better in a 'position' to question the WHOLE Catholic doctrine. For, as I have previously stated, I ONLY know WHAT I know and I KNOW God and His Son.

Sorry, but if you "knew" God, you must know He is of the same essence as the Father. The Son has revealed Himself as such. If you do not recognize that, perhaps you do not know God as you think you do. I tire of such comments that you make - "I know God". God has revealed Himself to us through Christ. He has clearly shown His relationship to the Father and the Spirit. Better men than either of us have walked this terrain already. You aren't going to change that. Arianism has already been disproven from Scriptures and the Apostlic teachings.

I have openly offered ALL that we have been TOLD that we MUST in order to BE considered 'followers of Christ'. Now, the nit pickin' LOVE of others, haven't gotten that one down COMPLETELY yet but I'm workin' on it. Pride, that's a tough one too. But I make extreme efforts to offer WHAT I am able without being OVERLY critical of ANYONE in 'particular'.

Your posts seep with pride against all others! Have you considered that you are not the Pastor of the Christianforums.net site, trying to tell us that Sacred Art may be from the devil? Or that statues that even God HIMSELF commanded to be made do not contradict His commandment to the Jews on idol worship? Or that using modern tools may not be the way that Christ intended us to live? Such is the result of reading the Bible under one's own assumptions, rather than the Church - who has been guaranteed the Spirit to guide it. Self-interpretations merely lead people away from God's intent.

Now, if one insists upon ridiculing my offerings and INSIST upon me HAVING to accept what THEY offer to BE a 'follower of Christ', then you can expect NOTHING other than me to BE defensive.

You are then merely showing how humble you are. We are told to follow those elders put above us in spiritual matters. Rather than humbly accepting God's Word, you are making up your own interpretations that stray far from their intended meaning.

So, let me offer apologies to ANY that I may have offended. NOt INTENTIONAL I assure you.

That is an odd thing to say when YOU broach the subject repeatedly, telling us how the Catholic Church is responsible for killing millions and forcing others to unwillingly become Catholic or die.

But if 'throwing stones' becomes the 'game' I AM pretty good at it.

That humility again... What are you looking for, MEC? Maybe you need to take a break from this forum for awhile and live life. Shut the computer off for awhile and enjoy God's great gifts that surround us. Gifts He intended for us to use.

And guys, I have YET to find the denomination that DOESN'T offer it's OWN forms of 'false doctrine'. Fault me if you will. But my 'understanding' is ALL that I have. It is constantly evolving, but it is STiLL all I 'have'.

Considering your "theology" of such things that are nearly universally accepted as true among Christians of a wide spectrum of belief, is it surprising you are out in left field somewhere in the minds of other Christians? Trinity? Sacred Art? Jesus is not God? Not sure how you can be considered Christian but do not consider Jesus as God. That is a fundamental belief of Christianity. Thus, your "knowledge" is very questionable, quite frankly. Again, my intent is to relate the truth, and try to do it meekly. Consider even the ancient Romans knew that the Christians worshipped Jesus as a God! Thus, Christians on this board, whether Protesant or Catholic, scratch their collective heads when you post such opposing theological constructs.

So IF your 'religion' INSISTS that it IS the ONLY way to Christ, then OBVIOUSLY we are GOING to 'clash'.

So where did you "study" Catholicism, MEC? If you are going to attack Catholicism, at least get the doctrines and beliefs right. They are laid out nice and neat in the Catechism, a widely-available book that we will happily sell to you to learn the fullness of the truth.

What is amazing is that you place your own knowledge above and against an institution of holy men and women of 2000 years who really WERE humble and accepting of God's Word. You ask us to consider that YOU are right and 2000 years of Apostolic teaching is wrong based on what? Your claim to "know" Jesus???

I am NOT an elitist, (is that a word?), But I'm not willing to compromise what has been offered to me EITHER. My convictions are as STRONG as ANYONE on this forum. And I probably have MORE hours in the Bible than TEN of the average participants on this forum. I have been about as LOW as one can go and I have had prayers answered in ways MOST wouldn't even believe if I were to recount the events EXACTLY as they happened.

The most sincere person can be sincerely WRONG, MEC.

I spent MUCH of my life following SATAN and I am CERTAINLY able to discern WHO he IS.

Satan can come even as an angel of light - leading people away from God's teachings. Don't rely on yourself - you cannot fight Satan alone. He is the father of lies, and those outside the Church are susceptible to his whisperings. Remember, even Satan used the Bible to twist things around. What makes you think you are immune from that? Thus, us Catholics rely on Mother Church to aid us to defend against the barbs of the devil, who, like a lion, seeks out people to destroy.

Regards

 

[turnorburn]

Its amazing I just scrolled down this page and at the bottom am greeted with this statement...

Thus, us Catholics rely on Mother Church to aid us to defend against the barbs of the devil, who, like a lion, seeks out people to destroy.

I rely on Jesus Christ for all things, who is this "Mother Church" you mention? Is it the virgin mother perhaps because that would make her the Q-- oh well you know.

Sign me concerned,
turnorburn

 

[biblecatholic]

I rely on Jesus Christ for all things, who is this "Mother Church" you mention? Is it the virgin mother perhaps because that would make her the Q-- oh well you know.

Sign me concerned,
turnorburn

Mother Church is none other than.....drum roll please....... The Bride of Christ......also called the Body of Christ.

We rely on Jesus and the church we believe He established. Now you believe your beliefs are from Jesus and so does every other denomination, why are correct and the others wrong?

 

[turnorburn]

O.k. I was just thinking when I saw that you meant Mary as a mediator, that's all.
Then my reply would be there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus..

didn't mean to be confusing,
turnorburn

 

[francisdesales]

Thus, us Catholics rely on Mother Church to aid us to defend against the barbs of the devil, who, like a lion, seeks out people to destroy.

I rely on Jesus Christ for all things, who is this "Mother Church" you mention? Is it the virgin mother perhaps because that would make her the Q-- oh well you know.

You rely on Jesus, but refuse what He established here on earth in the physical world for the PURPOSE of calling ALL men to Himself... Have you actually given that any thought?

THAT has me concerned.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

O.k. I was just thinking when I saw that you meant Mary as a mediator, that's all.
Then my reply would be there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus..

didn't mean to be confusing,
turnorburn

So when Paul asked for others to pray for him, to mediate and intercede for him, was that bypassing Jesus?

Jesus is THE mediator because of His unique nature, being God and fully man, the Second Adam. NO ONE ELSE has two natures. Thus, ALL prayers, whether you sitting in your closet or Paul asking the Colossians to pray for him, or me praying the rosary and asking St. Francis for his prayers, go to the Father through THE Mediator, Jesus Christ. But that doesn't eliminate secondary mediators - Paul clearly teaches that.

Regards

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Thus, us Catholics rely on Mother Church to aid us to defend against the barbs of the devil, who, like a lion, seeks out people to destroy.

I rely on Jesus Christ for all things, who is this "Mother Church" you mention? Is it the virgin mother perhaps because that would make her the Q-- oh well you know.

You rely on Jesus, but refuse what He established here on earth in the physical world for the PURPOSE of calling ALL men to Himself... Have you actually given that any thought?

THAT has me concerned.

Regards

Correct. And even the Bible he relies on was canonized by the Church. Thus, ironically, he accepts the infallability bestowed upon the Catholic Church by Christ, otherwise he cannot be sure if the correct books are in the New Testament. There is no two ways around it: If the New Tetament is infallible (which it is) then God held the pope and bishops infallible when they canonized it.

 

[Vic C.]

So when Paul asked for others to pray for him, to mediate and intercede for him, was that bypassing Jesus?

I see this a lot here, Joe. Why do some here fail to understand the distinction between praying for and praying to?

Yes, we pray for people but we pray to the One and only Mediator, our Lord and Master, Jesus. The Bible doesn't teach us to pray to any other. My personal beliefs prohibit me from praying to or for dead people anyway.

If the New Tetament is infallible (which it is) then God held the pope and bishops infallible when they canonized it.

No wonder you all believe differently than us; you are reading a Tetament. ;-)

All kidding aside, I don't recall reading anywhere in my Bible about Popes. Bishops, Deacons, depending on translation; Pastors, mentioned once or twice, but no Pope. Sorry, we are not taught to honor substitutes and that is the definition of Vicar.

 

[francisdesales]

And even the Bible he relies on was canonized by the Church. Thus, ironically, he accepts the infallability bestowed upon the Catholic Church by Christ, otherwise he cannot be sure if the correct books are in the New Testament. There is no two ways around it: If the New Tetament is infallible (which it is) then God held the pope and bishops infallible when they canonized it.

It is one thing for someone like Imagican (who does not believe in the divinity of Christ) to refuse the claim of the Catholic Church. It is quite another for a Protestant who accepts the divinity of Christ, but refuses the claims of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is counter-intuitive. Denying His Church and His promise to protect it is a denial of the divinity of Christ... If one denies that the Catholic Church is protected by God is to deny that Christ has the ABILITY or DESIRE to live up to His promises. Hence, Christ would not be God...

Words have meaning, but some refuse to accept them, saying one thing and refuting it elsewhere...

Regards

 

[turnorburn]

From II Thessalonian s


Chapter 2

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


Antichrist.

In place of Christ...

"[W]e hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE)."

--POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302

Now do you see or do you prefer not to for fear of losing your salvation?
We are just trying to understand why anyone would put your man in Rome above
Jesus Christ himself.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

All kidding aside, I don't recall reading anywhere in my Bible about Popes. Bishops, Deacons, depending on translation;

Philippians 1:1:Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Acts 14:23: And when they had ordained them elders [Greek: Presbuteroi] in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed

Pastors, mentioned once or twice, but no Pope.

The word "Pope"? Correct. The "concept" of the pope, being earthly shepherd and Prime Minister of the Kindom? You are wrong (no offense.) Peter is the fullfllment of the Davidic Kingdom Prime Minister, and this is, logically, an office that could not be allowed to die with Peter's demise..

Sorry, we are not taught to honor substitutes and that is the definition of Vicar.

Hebrews 13:17: Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

 

[francisdesales]

I see this a lot here, Joe. Why do some here fail to understand the distinction between praying for and praying to?

The word "pray" means to ask for something. Sometimes, we continue to use that meaning of the word when addressing other people. We ask others to pray for us, OR we can ask another to ask a third person who is in a better position to ask for us. Specifically, I think of asking my mother when I wanted someone from dad when I was a kid... Thus, it is correct to say "I pray to Mary for "x"." Implied in that statement is I am asking Mary to pray FOR ME to Jesus for "x". Mary is not God and cannot grant graces apart from God. But being the Mother of Jesus - STILL - we presume she has a special place in the heart of Christ, our Mediator. We believe that God continues to honor His mother in a special way and that she is a powerful intercessor for us.

Yes, we pray for people but we pray to the One and only Mediator, our Lord and Master, Jesus. The Bible doesn't teach us to pray to any other. My personal beliefs prohibit me from praying to or for dead people anyway.

Yes, all prayers go to the Father THROUGH Jesus - (not TO Jesus. I am not familiar off the top of my head of a passage where Jesus says we are to pray TO Him, but in His name.) Prayers initially sent to Mary, or your buddy Fred down the street from you all eventually go THROUGH Jesus to the Father. Now. Is God a God of the dead or the living? Believe it or not, Mary and the saints are more alive in Christ than we are. Being so united to Love ITSELF, can we deny that the saints are indeed watching over us and eager to cheer us on in our own individual "race" to achieve eternal salvation with them?

I think this is a common confusion, one that the Pope addresses in his most recent encyclical. Eternal happiness is NOT continuation of life. It is entirely different. Thus, we shouldn't let our ideas of the here and now be an obstacle that prevents us from accepting the FULL meaning of the Communion of Saints.

All kidding aside, I don't recall reading anywhere in my Bible about Popes. Bishops, Deacons, depending on translation; Pastors, mentioned once or twice, but no Pope. Sorry, we are not taught to honor substitutes and that is the definition of Vicar.

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. Pope = Father.

The definition of vicar is NOT a "substitute"! No wonder there is a problem here. Vicar is a representative. He doesn't replace the pioneer - unless the pioneer has died. We don't have that situation with Christ or the Pope. The Pope is Christ's earthly representative, the head servant, if you will, while the Master is away on His journey. And like the parable, the head servant will have to answer for how he treated the other servants... And like the parable, the head servant is placed in charge of all the Master's goods. HE is tasked with feeding the sheep of the Master.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE)."

--POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302

Maybe you should consider reading the Bull in context of the times, in particular, what the King of France wanted to do... Then, you would better understand that sentence taken out of context.

My question to you, now, is where does Scriptures speak kindly of ANOTHER body of Christians in contradiction to the Church Christ established? Understanding that the Bible clearly tells us that one must be in the Church to be saved, and there is only ONE Church, how can one say they are saved OUTSIDE of Christ's Church? What does the bible say about those who try to enter the sheepfold by bypassing the gate?

Regards

 

[turnorburn]

My Oh My that's pretty cut and dried. "There is only one church" are you telling
the world that unless your a member of the Holy Roman Catholic church you can't be saved? That your pope your virgin mother are necessary for ones salvation, that Mary is a mediator, that goes for the priests cardinals and the rest? they have the power to absolve sin, just like that?.. My Oh My* Where does that leave us? followers of our Lord Jesus Christ, correct me if I'm wrong but where does Jesus teach us any of this that you've put forward? And if you decide it's the truth then back it up with scripture..

In His Service,
turnorburn