Topic: Why I am Catholic

[CatholicCrusader]

And those councils were anointed directly by  Jesus?..........

In a sense, yes. Jesus gave the authority to the apostles. The apostles later, through the laying on of hands, passed that authority on to others. This is known as Apostolic Succession.

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
 
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops (and Eastern Orthodox bishops too) are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
 
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
 
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
 
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).
 
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

The scriptures teach that Jesus is the High Priest and everyone else are priests directly before Him, who rules to this day. It is our responsibility to read the word and study it ourselves. If we allow men to stand between us and God, more the fools are we.........

So you are saying Jesus was a fool for giving the apostles the authority to teach and to bind & loose?

I never said not to study the Bible. You aren't even listening to what I am saying. I never said not to study the Bible., in fact I study the Bible too. What I said is, who has the AUTHORITY to decide what is correct doctrine and what is not.

To the contrary. How dare you call Jesus a fool!?! What got into you? This was a reasonable discussion of scripture and the authority we have from it, and I have to assume you know what you have done. I suppose that is between you and God though, so I leave you to his mercies.

The Priests appointed by God of COURSE have that authority. Not those appointed by the church. There is very LITTLE authority given to the church. The authority belongs to Christ, the Apostles (all of whom died in the first century) and to us directly as His priests. There ARE scriptures which authorize the CHURCH as a WHOLE, not as represented by priests, or Popes(an office which does not exist in scripture) to restore order.  Other than that, the authority rests in God and each of his Christians, as priests themselves, under Jesus the High Priest. I have presented scripture to support EVERY point I have made.  Show me the Pope in scripture. I am interested. Have I been in error serving Christ, rather than men? I do not think so, but I am willing to hear the scriptures if you can show me.  Do we have other than the bible as the word of God? Is ANYONE fit today to add to it or take from it?  I deny the right of any council to tell me what God means by his Word. I think I know how to read. I choose to read his Word and OBEY it. Is that not sufficient?  I understand my obligation to other believers. I understand that I am not to forsake the assembly. I understand that I partake of the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Him, and I do it EVERY Sunday. Explain why I need to send my money to Rome, when my brother who lives beside me is in need?  Explain why the Pope and who is not mentioned in scripture has authority to modify the Word of God in any way? I am interested, but admittedly doubtful. Explain to me why, though the scriptures say: 1 Timothy 4:2-4
King James Version (KJV)
"2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

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

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving".
Which to me LOOKS like a direct description of the Catholic Church(Capital C denoting the denomination rather than the dimension) I see no SCRIPTURE forbidding to marry. I see no scripture denying the right of men to eat meat on Friday or any other day. Frankly, CC, the certain marks of the TRUE church are our willingness to obey God over the traditions of man. Given the choice of the scripture or the Pope, I choose to obey Christ in his scriptures every time. 
The scriptures list no higher office held by mere men, since the death of the last Apostle, than that of Bishop=Elder=Pastor=Shepard(they are all the same), which is clearly one of a plurality of qualified Men, husbands of one wife, able to teach,  etc...., over one congregation, not many congregations. 

[IronDioPriest]

Uh-uh.
Uh-huh.
Uh-uh.
Uh-huh.
Uh-uh.
Uh-huh.
Nope.
Yup.
Extra-biblicalist.
Heretic.

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

Uh-uh.
Uh-huh.
Uh-uh.
Uh-huh.
Uh-uh.
Uh-huh.
Nope.
Yup.
Extra-biblicalist.
Heretic.

I'm Sorry, I can't understand which things you object to, and require more proof of, from what I quoted. Perhaps you would clarify for me?

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

<Quick Search Results: pope
Showing results from: 

Keyword search results
0 Results
Sorry, we didn’t find any results for your search. Please try the following:

Double-check spelling, especially people and place names.
Make sure there are spaces between words. Bible Gateway treats “nameoftheFather” >

Scripture search returns zero results for Pope.

[Weisshaupt]

.The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Yes, a simple task. Wait, what?

The evidence is there,clear as day, that there were Church  councils that didn't follow the words of Christ, "apostolic laying of hands" or  not. Are you claiming the current Pope has eradicated all evil from the current church? There isn't one bad clergymen anywhere now? What about before?  Unless there is some section of the new testament I am unfamiliar with that advocated torture (or death via secular authority) for unbelievers, for heretics, the Catholic Church and its anointed members were certainly responsible for such deeds? Are you really claiming that all who were tortured or killed during the various inquisitions were all tried fairly and tortured with justice?

The fact that Jesus and/or God  left us free to choose, of our own free will, what sect we would belong to, if any, is proof enough that God accepted the ramifications of the Apple.  God could have, with the wave of his hand, put us back- decided that we cannot suffer under the affliction of such knowledge. He did not.  He accepted the choice of his children.  Their first assertion, however naive, stupid, or vain, that they wished to be like him, he let stand. Again, reflect upon that.  He did  not reverse time. He did not change us back.

Each person is free to choose. Free to exercise his own will. To chose Catholicism or not. To chose Lutheranism or not. To chose protestant, or not. To choose Hindu, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, or any of a dozen, hundreds, thousands of faiths, nor not. BY DESIGN. BY GOD'S CHOICE If God didn't want us to have a choice, he would not have given us one. I hear him, but only faintly. Jesus is not the road I am to follow, or at least not yet. He has given me a another  road to trace, through underbrush and wild lands.. Maybe that road will eventually  lead to cultivated paths, maybe even someday to Jesus, and then to the "true church". Maybe there is something inferior in my makeup or mind or spirit  that requires remedial lessons before I can even dare to tread the path others  walk. I hear the call. I follow the best I can. Point is, maybe Catholicism is the right answer. Maybe I am not ready to hear it? Maybe God and Jesus know more about tending their garden  of souls than any man?

[CatholicCrusader]

Catholics Come Home Epic Video

[CatholicCrusader]

The evidence is there,clear as day, that there were Church  councils that didn't follow the words of Christ.........

Name one, and be specific.

And when you do, make sure you know the difference between what we call an Eccumenical Council, and just some local "council".

[Libertas]

There is the Bourgias, Girolamo Savonarola may have something to say about Alexander VI and Apostolic authority.  Humans are by their nature flawed, rising above those flaws is key, adhering to ritual does not always guarantee legitimacy or devine authority.  The Almighty bestows legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity, let the Holy Spirit work its will and true legitimacy will bear the best fruit.

[Weisshaupt]

The evidence is there,clear as day, that there were Church  councils that didn't follow the words of Christ.........

Name one, and be specific.

And when you do, make sure you know the difference between what we call an Eccumenical Council, and just some local "council".

The Ecumenical Councils largely defined what was and was not heresy, and the heretics were often persecuted or executed - if not directly by the Church, then by the state at the request of the church.   I don't recall Christ telling anyone to kill or persecute unbelievers. Yet whole new classifications of Heretics were usually created by each Ecumenical Council - and often such councils were called for the specific purpose of repudiating some doctrine that was gaining power and threatening the old guard, explicitly so  power could be brought to bear and exterminate the rival sect- either via local state action, crusades or  inquisitions. If such councils had merely re-affirmed the doctrine of the church that would be one thing - the fact that those defined as heretical  were invariably punished for their beliefs  either directly or indirectly because of these councils deliberations seems very much in contradiction with the teachings of our Lord.

Further, there is the sale of indulgences, in which Men assumed they could barter and negotiate penalties and penances on behalf of a person with Jesus and God.

1415 Council of Constance affirmed the practice of indulgences.
1549 Council of trent  states it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.” - -- thus the idea of indulgences was added to the "infallible" doctrine. I do  recall Christ granting the power to sell indulgences in his name, and in fact asserting quite the opposite.

[IronDioPriest]

The evidence is there,clear as day, that there were Church  councils that didn't follow the words of Christ.........

Name one, and be specific.

And when you do, make sure you know the difference between what we call an Eccumenical Council, and just some local "council".

The Ecumenical Councils largely defined what was and was not heresy, and the heretics were often persecuted or executed - if not directly by the Church, then by the state at the request of the church.   I don't recall Christ telling anyone to kill or persecute unbelievers. Yet whole new classifications of Heretics were usually created by each Ecumenical Council - and often such councils were called for the specific purpose of repudiating some doctrine that was gaining power and threatening the old guard, explicitly so  power could be brought to bear and exterminate the rival sect- either via local state action, crusades or  inquisitions. If such councils had merely re-affirmed the doctrine of the church that would be one thing - the fact that those defined as heretical  were invariably punished for their beliefs  either directly or indirectly because of these councils deliberations seems very much in contradiction with the teachings of our Lord.

Further, there is the sale of indulgences, in which Men assumed they could barter and negotiate penalties and penances on behalf of a person with Jesus and God.

1415 Council of Constance affirmed the practice of indulgences.
1549 Council of trent  states it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.” - -- thus the idea of indulgences was added to the "infallible" doctrine. I do NOT recall Christ granting the power to sell indulgences in his name, and in fact asserting quite the opposite.

Think you missed a word there Weisshaupt.

Your truth of your statement is so obvious on its face, it boggles my mind that someone would twist themselves in a logic-pretzel to refute it.

[Libertas]

IIRC indulgences were one (the central one) of the 95 thesis Martin Luther nailed on the door in 1517.  And translating the bible so that the Word was made known to more people also helped to bring about a revival of faith in Jesus Christ that brought millions to his grace.

[Pandora]

CC, what is official Catholic teaching on a practicing Catholic regularly attending services at a church of a different Christian denomination, like Baptist?

[CatholicCrusader]

There is the Bourgias, Girolamo Savonarola may have something to say about Alexander VI and Apostolic authority.  Humans are by their nature flawed, rising above those flaws is key, adhering to ritual does not always guarantee legitimacy or devine authority.  The Almighty bestows legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity, let the Holy Spirit work its will and true legitimacy will bear the best fruit.

Yes, the Almighty DOES bestow legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity. And in the Catholic Church we have seen the humble rise up and challenge Popes. Saint Catherine of Siena comes to mind. But your error is in assuming that the Papacy and/or the Church is some sort of human contrivance.

Consider the High Priest of the Old Testament. This was established by God. Centuries later, some High Priests were corrupt, but that does not alter the fact that the "office" was established by God. In fact Jesus even made a point of telling the people to obey the High Priest despite his personal corruption.

If the day ever comes when God comes down himself and wipes away the Papacy, as Jesus did with the God-created High Priesthood, then I'll have to say "Adios" to the Pope. But no MAN has the authority to do away with what Jesus established.

[CatholicCrusader]

The evidence is there,clear as day, that there were Church  councils that didn't follow the words of Christ.........

Name one, and be specific.

And when you do, make sure you know the difference between what we call an Eccumenical Council, and just some local "council".

The Ecumenical Councils largely defined what was and was not heresy, and the heretics were often persecuted or executed - if not directly by the Church, then by the state at the request of the church.   I don't recall Christ telling anyone to kill or persecute unbelievers. Yet whole new classifications of Heretics were usually created by each Ecumenical Council - and often such councils were called for the specific purpose of repudiating some doctrine that was gaining power and threatening the old guard, explicitly so  power could be brought to bear and exterminate the rival sect- either via local state action, crusades or  inquisitions. If such councils had merely re-affirmed the doctrine of the church that would be one thing - the fact that those defined as heretical  were invariably punished for their beliefs  either directly or indirectly because of these councils deliberations seems very much in contradiction with the teachings of our Lord.

Further, there is the sale of indulgences, in which Men assumed they could barter and negotiate penalties and penances on behalf of a person with Jesus and God.

1415 Council of Constance affirmed the practice of indulgences.
1549 Council of trent  states it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.” - -- thus the idea of indulgences was added to the "infallible" doctrine. I do  recall Christ granting the power to sell indulgences in his name, and in fact asserting quite the opposite.

The "sale" of indulgences was never approved by the Church. The "doctrine" of indulgences IS approved by the Church, and still is to this day.

In fact, the sale of indulgences was condemned by the Church before Martin Luther ever hit the scene.

[CatholicCrusader]

CC, what is official Catholic teaching on a practicing Catholic regularly attending services at a church of a different Christian denomination, like Baptist?

My understanding is that attending a service is okay, and participating in certain things (like the Lord'sd Prayer for example) is okay. But we cannot participate in any rite that contradicts Catholic beliefs, such as going up and receiving what Batists consider to be "communon" for example. If a Catholic were to go up and receive communion at a Baptist church, that would in essence be a sort of public statement that Baptist belief on that issue is acceptable, when in fact the Baptist belief on that issue is in direct contradition to Catholic belief.

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

There is the Bourgias, Girolamo Savonarola may have something to say about Alexander VI and Apostolic authority.  Humans are by their nature flawed, rising above those flaws is key, adhering to ritual does not always guarantee legitimacy or devine authority.  The Almighty bestows legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity, let the Holy Spirit work its will and true legitimacy will bear the best fruit.

Yes, the Almighty DOES bestow legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity. And in the Catholic Church we have seen the humble rise up and challenge Popes. Saint Catherine of Siena comes to mind. But your error is in assuming that the Papacy and/or the Church is some sort of human contrivance.

Consider the High Priest of the Old Testament. This was established by God. Centuries later, some High Priests were corrupt, but that does not alter the fact that the "office" was established by God. In fact Jesus even made a point of telling the people to obey the High Priest despite his personal corruption.

If the day ever comes when God comes down himself and wipes away the Papacy, as Jesus did with the God-created High Priesthood, then I'll have to say "Adios" to the Pope. But no MAN has the authority to do away with what Jesus established.

The church was established by God himself, as we have already demonstrated from scripture. The error is thinking the Pope was established by God. No scripture did that. We have already demonstrated that neither the word Pope, nor the word Papacy appear in scripture.  Only men and only then in error added the office. The bible gives  no office above Elder(or Bishop, Pastor, Shepard, which are all interchangeable terms for the same position), after the last Apostle died. Each congregation stands alone, part of the church that Christ built, but not divided from it, if they hold Christ as their head and not men. No human has authority to change the word of God.  We are all called to serve him. all men are appointed priests before him, and the concept of separating Christians into tiers and divisions is error.  The question of how much error is acceptable to the Lord belongs to the Lord. Our goal in claiming Christ as our head, should be to serve him as best we can, constantly searching the scriptures to improve our obedience to Him, in order to show our love for Him, and the amazing sacrifice he made for us.

[Weisshaupt]

This was established by God. Centuries later, some High Priests were corrupt, but that does not alter the fact that the "office" was established by God. In fact Jesus even made a point of telling the people to obey the High Priest despite his personal corruption.

Reference?

If the day ever comes when God comes down himself and wipes away the Papacy, as Jesus did with the God-created High Priesthood,

That is the same priest hood that Jesus commanded us to Obey? I am very confused..

[Libertas]

There is the Bourgias, Girolamo Savonarola may have something to say about Alexander VI and Apostolic authority.  Humans are by their nature flawed, rising above those flaws is key, adhering to ritual does not always guarantee legitimacy or devine authority.  The Almighty bestows legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity, let the Holy Spirit work its will and true legitimacy will bear the best fruit.

Yes, the Almighty DOES bestow legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity. And in the Catholic Church we have seen the humble rise up and challenge Popes. Saint Catherine of Siena comes to mind. But your error is in assuming that the Papacy and/or the Church is some sort of human contrivance.

Consider the High Priest of the Old Testament. This was established by God. Centuries later, some High Priests were corrupt, but that does not alter the fact that the "office" was established by God. In fact Jesus even made a point of telling the people to obey the High Priest despite his personal corruption.

If the day ever comes when God comes down himself and wipes away the Papacy, as Jesus did with the God-created High Priesthood, then I'll have to say "Adios" to the Pope. But no MAN has the authority to do away with what Jesus established.

Elements are in fact man-made, the Catholic Church & Papacy as a whole, no of course not, but elements.  There is no direct evidence Jesus ever instructed people to create the rituals, lavish gilded structures and offices that exist today.  Somewhere along the line a man made a decision to do this or that.  Sure, they may think they have a rock solid interpretation justifying the reason something is done, but going back to my KISS principle the message can be given and salvation earned on the fundamentals, period.  Not looking to get into a itemized list of what I think is man-made or not, it is a moot argument IMO, I am not looking to convert your belief or thinking but there is more than one venue to salvation as long as the basics are maintained.  Apostate churches of any denomination will have to answer for their apostasy and leading people astray just as much as the unprepentant sinner.

[CatholicCrusader]

This was established by God. Centuries later, some High Priests were corrupt, but that does not alter the fact that the "office" was established by God. In fact Jesus even made a point of telling the people to obey the High Priest despite his personal corruption.

Reference?

Matt 23:1-12: “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. "

Here Jesus is at once condemning their corruption yet upholding their authority. Luckily modern Popes are not corrupt like the old Pharisees were.

If you want a reference to God establishing the Papacy, I invite you to read an OP I made in another forum: http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/theology/2162-pope.html

If the day ever comes when God comes down himself and wipes away the Papacy, as Jesus did with the God-created High Priesthood, then I'll have to say "Adios" to the Pope. But no MAN has the authority to do away with what Jesus established.

That is the same priest hood that Jesus commanded us to Obey? I am very confused..

Yep, the same one. Christ recognized their authority right up to the moment when the old law was nailed to the cross. After the old law was nailed to the cross, their authority was no more.