Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > Tropical_Man > Meriam's Guy |
|
Exposing Catholicism is not attacking Catholics I am very sorry Lisa felt that way,among others; but no one was attacking her or any other person. The facts are that it is not Christian. That is all. It does not line up with scriptures and places the writings of Catholic men over the writings of the people of the Scriptures. The word of God says that the truth will set people free. Many Catholics that have never received Jesus Christ did not go to purgatory. The are going to eternal damnation. So where is the compassion in keeping quiet? Many people die in their sin without Christ because people keep quiet. I am not going to be quiet on subjects relevant to who Jesus Christ really is and what he really did. If people want to take that personal, then that is fine. I do not intend it to be personal. Claudia and I go back and forth alot, but it is not personal for me. I didnt go to Lisa's blog uring this pope crap because I know she is catholic. But the pope? I have no respect for his man made office. I make no bones about that. |
|||
4/28/2008 7:28 pm |
Dennis, try this, perhaps it will give you a different perspective....everywhere the word Pope or Catholic appears in any of the blogs or statements that are anti insert the word Jesus or go even bigger and use God....would you be offended at all in the least? How much better could something be written to still get a point across.....IF......you or others are so worried about the eternal fate of Catholics or other religious individuals? What's the true purpose behind any of these anti blogs? The manner in which some have been written does not make a Catholic or any other religious person turn away and follow another religion. It doesn't even cause questioning of one's own faith. So therefore what's it's purpose? I will not tell you.....it's something you and others need to figure out for your own selves!! Ask God to reveal it to you and He will!! The facts are that it is not Christian. That is all. It does not line up with scriptures and places the writings of Catholic men over the writings of the people of the Scriptures. Christian.......hmmmmmm.....believing in God, Jesus, The Holy Spirit......how is that not being Christian? The word of God says that the truth will set people free. Many Catholics that have never received Jesus Christ did not go to purgatory. The are going to eternal damnation. What Catholic did not receive Jesus Christ???? We are baptized!!!! We receive Him!!! Sorry to say, Dennis, but your statement about purgatory makes no sense whatsoever. That's not the way it works.
| ||
|
Gordy...Following Jesus was not in the context of Christianity. Christianity began after Jesus gave atonement. Lisa what you just stated is aniother issue with Catholisism. The pope is not Jesus Christ. I do not have any inkling to "protect any denomenation because denomenations are not important. The truth is what is real matters. I have put up all the scriptural reasons that I need to. Catholics teach it is Jesus plus other things. That is very big, because the word of God teaches that what Jesus did was a completed work. They teach Mary can forgive sins. Thats total baloney. They teach praying to the dead, which is forbidden scripturally. They have images [idols] all over the place when the scriptures teach against that. The act of confession to Priests started when? the 12 century.1200 years after Jesus Christ. You have been lied to when Peter was proclaimed the first "Pope". Peter was sent to the Jews, Paul was sent to the gentiles. Peter was not even in Rome in the time period that Catholics teach. Catholicism is nothing more than another Mormonism. All of these things I have just listed is scriptural herecy
| ||
|
Lisa, Purgatory does not exist. Thats one of the major problems, along with the invented confession of sins.
| ||
|
and Catholic, Protestands were born the night Jesus died for them. Catholicism was an invention and a state run religion with the intention of ruling the world.
| ||
4/29/2008 7:10 am |
Dennis, if you're really looking for answers, Cathoholic is excellent! He absolutely understands the Catholic faith, teachings, and beliefs!! He is awesome!! He has a God given ability to express well!!! Catholics teach it is Jesus plus other things. That is very big, because the word of God teaches that what Jesus did was a completed work. Dennis, you can't just blurt out other things or what Jesus did is a complete work.....you must be specific.....I nor no one else can understand what you mean!! They teach Mary can forgive sins. Thats total baloney. Whoever told you that highly misinformed you!!! Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. So wrong!!! No Catholic would ever stand behind that!!!! They teach praying to the dead, which is forbidden scripturally. Are you referring to Angels and Saints? God made the Angles for us they are part of Him they are to protect us, and guide us! Explaining Saints is a little too difficult for me to explain, I'd leave that to Cathoholic if he'd be so kind or else, a Catholic website you'd find the answer.....but it's a lengthy read!! They have images [idols] all over the place when the scriptures teach against that. You're too vague here....don't know to what you're referring. The act of confession to Priests started when? the 12 century.1200 years after Jesus Christ. You have been lied to when Peter was proclaimed the first "Pope". Peter was sent to the Jews, Paul was sent to the gentiles. Peter was not even in Rome in the time period that Catholics teach. Catholicism is nothing more than another Mormonism. All of these things I have just listed is scriptural herecy Dennis, I don't argue scripture or doctrine....there are too many things I do not know, or do not understand.....and neither do you.....no one does!!!.....I live for God do good works and try hard to keep on the path He has for me.
| ||
|
Catholic does not understand. He thinks everyone else is wrong when they point out the obvious things catholicism teaches that is wrong. He is pretty lost when it comes to all of that. What Jesus did on the cross. His death totally reconsiled mankind to God. He died one time for the sin of mankind. No other thing need ever be done to add to this. Yet Catholicism adds to this in penance and in confession which strangely started 12 centuries later(conferssion) Before Jesus gave his life and ended the old covenant, only the Jews had a relationship with God. Also, mankind could go directly to God as the veil leading to the holy of holies was torn. A place only certain priests could go before. The word of God proclaims that all of us are priests and prophets in our own hiome. Because of what Jesus did in giving of his life as atonement. Yet Catholicism still has Priests and for some reason they do confession? We need no Priests. All curses were broken on the cross to the born again believer to receive Christ. The Law was done away with to the born again believer, and right and wrong is written on the born again believers heart. All of our needs are now met accrording to the riches and Glory in Christ Jesus. Christs Glory was the cross. Because of the Cross our heritage is blessing. We are not to live under laws but rather abide in Christ by him living through us. Not a third party. priests in the old testament law were married. Yet Catholicism seeks to place people in a holy position within. The word says there is none Holy yet one, and that was Jesus himself.
| ||
|
Lisa you said "They teach Mary can forgive sins. Thats total baloney. Whoever told you that highly misinformed you!!! Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. So wrong!!! No Catholic would ever stand behind that!!!! Here is the answer to that.... I am not trying to be mean but this is exactly what is stated in the Writings of the Catholic Church. Their words, not mine. And Lisa these are the exact reasons that Catholicism is heretical. Mary in Salvation: "O Mary, co-redemptrix of the human race..." (This begins a standard prayer repeated during the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, at the Crowning of Thorns, third decade of the rosary, "To be said on the Sundays in Lent and all Tuesdays and Fridays" From "With Mary to Jesus," by Fr. Theodore Zaremba. OFM (Franciscan Printery, 1954) Nihil Obstat, M Grajewski, OFM; Imprimi Potest, Fr. T Kalinowski, OFM; Nihil Obstat, JA Schulien, STD; Imprimatur, AG Meyer, Archiepiscopus Milwaukiensis, Aug 16, 1954. Note: The introduction to this book says: "The indulgenced prayers contained herein are from the latest official edidtion of the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, a compilation of prayers and devotions enriched with indulgences by the authority of the Holy See." Mary, "by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.... " Catechism, para 969 "'...Holy Church honors the Blessed Mary, Mother of God, with a special love. She is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son. In her the Church admires and exalts the most excellent fruit of redemption ....'[SC 103.]" Catechism, para 1172 "O woman blessed among women, thou art the honor of the human race, the salvation of our people." St. Bernardine of Siena "With what words shall we celebrate Mary's virgin-dignity? With what spiriutal song or word shall we honor her ...? By her means are we called sons and heirs of the kingdom of Christ. All who become lovers of her shall enjoy the grace of angels." St. Gregory Thaumaturgus "Holy Mary, deliver us from the pains of hell." 300 days indulgence, Raccolta, 301 "Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. 'This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death'; [LG 57] it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion: Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: 'Woman, behold your son.' [LG 58; cf. Jn 19:26-27]" Catechism, 964 "The Virgin Mary 'co-operated through free faith and obedience in human salvation' (LG 56). She uttered her yes 'in the name of all human nature' (St. Thomas Aquinas, S Th III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living." Catechism, 511 "It is impossible for a client of Mary, who is faithful in honoring and recommending himself to her to be lost. Those (sinful) clients who with a sincere desire to amend, are faithful in honoring and recommending themselves to the Mother of God -- it is, I say, morally impossible that such as these should be lost." St. Alphonsus "As it is impossible for one who is not devoted to Mary, and consequently not protected by her, to be saved, so it is impossible for one who recommends himself to her, and consequently is beloved by her to be lost." St. Anselm "He who neglects the service of the blessed Virgin will die in his sins." St. Bonaventure "For no one lady all-holy is saved except through thee." Prayer of St. Germanus of Constantinople "The Pillar is Mary who saved the world by her faith ('Blessed art thou that hast believed' ... leads on unerringly those who call her blessed...')" The Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary, by Concilium Legionis Mariae (1959), p 66, Nihil Obstat: Michael L. Dempsey, S.T.D., Imprimi Potest: Joannes Carolus, Archbishop of Dublin, March 25, 1953 [Note: A letter, posted in the foreword, from Pius XI to the Legion of Mary 16th Sept., 1933, states his approval thus: "We give a very speical blessing to this beautiful and holy work...The Blessed Virgin ... co-operates in our Redemption, for it was under the Cross that she became our mother."] "... she is the channel of every grace which Jesus Christ has won. We receive nothing which we do not owe to a positive intervention on her part..." Ibid, p 12 "He has set in her the fullness of all good; in such manner that all we have of hope, all of grace, all of salvation, all--I say and let us doubt it not--flows to us from her." St. Bernard: Sermo de Aquaeductu, Ibid, p 12 Contrarily here is what the word of God Says: Jesus alone is our Redeemer; he alone bought us with his blood. Jesus is the only Savior, the only Way to God: Isaiah 43:11 "... beside me there is no saviour." Hosea 13:4 "... there is no saviour besides me." John 14:6 "... I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 10:1, 2, 9 "... He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.... I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved ..." Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 "For there is ... one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all ..." Psalm 61:2 "Only in God is my soul at rest: from him comes my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation."
| ||
|
History reveals that Catholicism is a mixture of paganism and Christianity. Rome and Christianity merged under Constantine. Catholicism is a synchronized religion and has its roots in Roman paganism. The Catholic church has been historically responsible for the murder of myriads of people, preached false doctrines contrary to scriptures, and continues to spread their false religion. God calls the Catholic Church the Harlot of Babylon in the book of revelations and he exhorts all true born again Christians to COME OUT OF HER!!! Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
Oh by the way Dennis, it was the Protestant reformers who preached the just shall live by faith in Jesus Christ....led by guess who??? Martin Luther. Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
I can agree with that. It was formed for political reasons
| ||
|
No we arent going to pay dearly. Thats ridiculous
| ||
4/29/2008 5:30 pm |
Dennis, some of the statements you've listed have been taken out of context! The Blessed Mother is an intercessor.....that's it!! Case closed!! And as far as Cathoholic goes....I, of course, would highly disagree....I'm impressed with him as he states the truth as to what I've been taught and know of the Catholic faith....I trust his knowledge!!
| ||
4/29/2008 7:41 pm |
Dennis, I back up all that Cathoholic says!!! This is what I know and believe as well!!! I told you he's excellent!! 
| ||
|
Cathoholic, No Peter is not the rock, Jesus is the rock. Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words. Peter means "PETROS" which is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone. Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone. PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament: Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac 9 times by the word SHU`A' , 6 times by the word KE'PHA' and 1 time by the Hebrew root word 'ABENA' Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated: 7 times by the word SHU`A' (Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13) 3 times by the word KE'PHA' (Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60) Of the three times KE'PHA' is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels: [1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark's gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHU`A' to translate PETRA. [2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable). [3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA. In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHU`A', meaning "a massive rock." KE'PHA' is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS. The Greek word LITHOS, which means "a stone" (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE'PHA'. As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for "a stone" (see the quote from Liddle and Scott's Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE'PHA' as "a stone" is correct. The Syriac KE'PHA' is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone. KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS. SHU'A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA. KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS. SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA. The Syriac word SHU`A' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS. Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHU`A' is. The Syriac KE'PHA' is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones. 9. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage [Matthew 16:18] indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words. Conclusion a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church." This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text: "You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church." b. The Peshitta Syriac New Testament text, at least in its extant Manuscripts, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE'PHA' for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA. c. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language. d. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?" Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
amen
| ||
|
Catholic gets beat up on this stuff all the time. Peter was given to lead the Jews conversion to Christ, yet Catholics say he was the first pope. Paul, was to lead the gentiles which if there was any truth to the legacy of Pope, would have been the first one. Its one big lie after another in the catholic church. I feel sorry for the people deceived. Its witchcraft. Further proof? Confession started in the 12th century AD. Where is the truth in that? It took 1200 years to realize that you had to confess to a Priest? Thats a sloppy job by the Holy Spirit if that were true. Instead it is one of a linage of lies perpatrated on people.
| ||
|
lets break down a few things such as Purgatory: Does Purgatory Deny the Sufficiency of Christ's Sacrifice? According to the Handbook for Today's Catholic, page 47, "If you die in the love of God but possess any stains of sin, such stains are cleansed away in a purifying process called purgatory. These stains of sin are primarily the temporal punishment due to venial or mortal sins already forgiven but for which sufficient penance was not done during your lifetime." The Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1030, says that purgatory is for "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." Among the many doctrines that Catholicism claims to be derived through Sacred Tradition, purgatory is one of the most interesting and puzzling, particularly to a Protestant. In light of the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace through faith, how is it possible that an afterlife cleansing through punishment is necessary for a Christian who has trusted in Jesus to cleanse him from all His sins? Wasn't Jesus' punishment for our transgressions sufficient? Didn't He take our place in that He suffered our death? It would seem that the words of Christ, "It is finished," (John 19:30) do not mean that the cleansing of our souls was completed on the cross. Of course, Roman Catholic doctrine states that eternal life is bestowed upon the one who receives baptism (Catechism, par. 1265 - 1266, 1992). It is the stains of the sins committed after baptism and not removed through penance, good works, prayers, the Mass, etc., that are removed in the fires of purgatory (Handbook for Today's Catholic, page 47). In light of the doctrine of justification by faith (Rom. 5:1; Rom. 4:5; Rom. 9:30; Acts 13:39; Gal. 2:16), where Jesus bore all of our sins, purgatory would seem to have no theologically justifiable right to exist. But the Bible alone is not appealed to by Catholic theologians in support of Purgatory. By far, the main support for Purgatory is found in the Catholic doctrine of Sacred Tradition. Nevertheless, what does the Bible say about justification, punishment, and our sins? What is justification by faith? To justify means acquit, declare righteous, the opposite of condemn. It means to not be guilty of breaking the Law and to be deemed as righteous by the standard of the Law. God gave the Law, i.e, the 10 Commandments. The Law is a reflection of God's character and it is a perfect standard of righteousness which no one can keep. Since no one is able to keep God's Law, no one can be justified by the Law (Rom. 3:20). There is, therefore, none righteous (Rom. 3:10-12). This is the problem of all people. We have all broken God's Law and are in need of justification, of being declared righteous in God's sight. This can only be done through the Messiah, our sin bearer. Jesus is the one who took our place on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21), and turned away the wrath of God from us (Rom. 5:9) by being a propitiation (1 John 2:2) that turned away the wrath of God. He was punished in our place. Therefore, Jesus was our substitution. The righteous work of Christ is imputed to the believer by grace (Titus 3  ) and through faith (Rom. 5:1). This justification is a legal action on the part of God reckoning the believer as having satisfied the Law all of the Law.It necessarily follows that to be justified in God's eyes, is to be fully justified. It is not part of the Law that must be satisfied, but all of it. Perfection is the standard. Likewise, it is not part of our sins that were born by Christ, but all of them. This justification includes all of the sins of the believer (past, present, and future), or else we could not be justified. What does the Catholic Catechism Say? The Catholic Catechism (paragraphs 1990-1992) says, "Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals"...."Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ..." and "...justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy." Of particular interest is the reference that "justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith." There are many verses in the Bible that deal with baptism and putting on Christ (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1-11). This paper is not intended to discuss the nature of baptism. Nevertheless, I strongly affirm that baptism is a covenant sign for the believer who is already justified by faith and for the children of believers who are under the covenant headship of the family. Baptism is not what justifies a person. Rather, Justification is a gift by His grace through Jesus (Rom. 3:24) Justification is by grace (Titus 3 ) Justification is by faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1; Gal. 3:24) Justification is by Jesus' blood (Rom. 5:9). Justification is in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 6:11). Justification is not equated with baptism, but with grace, faith, and the blood of Jesus. Jesus said, "It is finished," (John 19:30) Jesus bore our sins in His body, paid the penalty for them, and died. He said, "It is finished." In Greek, the phrase, "It is finished" is one word, tetelestai. In ancient Greek papyri, in texts that were receipts for taxes, when a debt was paid in full, the word tetelestai was written on the document. This meant that the debt had been paid in full. In other words, Jesus had finished the work of atonement. But not only atonement (to make amends, to make right), but also of propitiation (turning away God's wrath). He had fully paid the debt invoked by the sinner. There was nothing more to be done... It was finished. Yet, the doctrine of Purgatory, in effect, is saying that we must suffer in purgatory for sins not covered by baptism and not covered by the cross. It is to say that the work of Christ is not finished and that there are things we must do to complete the sacrificial, cleansing work of Christ. This amounts to earning heaven by our good works, albeit a work of suffering. Additionally, the doctrine of Purgatory implies that a person must atone for his own sins. It implies that the person must do more than what the Law of God requires of him. This is called supererogation. When Jesus said, "It is finished," all that was necessary in the atonement was concluded and all in Christ were justified. We cannot complete or add to Christ's work through our suffering. Purgatory is not only unnecessary, but it contradicts God's word. Matt Slick
| ||
|
Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition One of the great differences between Protestant and Catholic doctrine is in the area of Tradition. The Protestant church maintains that the Bible alone is intended by God to be the source of doctrinal truth (2 Tim. 3:16). The Catholic Church, however, says, "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God . . ." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 97. Note, all citations in this article are from this Catechism). The Catholic Church reasons thusly: 1. "The apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.'" (Paragraph 77) 2. "This living transmission, accomplished through the Holy Spirit, is called tradition..." (Par. 7  3. "Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence" (Par. 82). Within the Catholic scope of Tradition, many doctrines have been "revealed" to the Church over the centuries. For example, there is the veneration of Mary, her immaculate conception and her bodily assumption into heaven. There is also the Apocrypha, transubstantiation, praying to saints, the confessional, penance, purgatory, and more. Protestantism as a whole differs with Catholicism in these additions. Tradition in the Bible The Bible speaks about tradition. Some verses speak for tradition and others speak against it. Of course, the contexts are different and carry different meanings. For example: For Against 2 Thess. 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us." Matt. 15:3-6, "And He answered and said to them, 'And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, Honor your father and mother, and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death 5But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God, 6he is not to honor his father or his mother. And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition." 2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." Mark 7:8-9, "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. 9He was also saying to them, You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition." 1 Cor. 11:2, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." Col. 2:8, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." In the discussions regarding Tradition between Protestants and Catholics, both sets of scriptures are often quoted in order to establish their respective positions. The Protestants often quote Matt. 15:3-6 in opposition to Sacred Tradition. In an appeal to be biblical, many Catholic apologists cite 2 Thess. 2:15 to validate their position on Sacred Tradition. Unfortunately, this amounts to using the Word of God against itself. Clearly, God's word is not contradictory. Rather, it is our understanding that is in error. The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. Though the Catholic Church officially states that Sacred Tradition should not and does not contradict Scripture, Protestants see much of the teaching from this Sacred Tradition as doing just that. It isn't enough for the Catholic to say that their church is the true church, that they have the apostolic tradition, that they hold the keys to the truth, and that they have revealed doctrines consistent with biblical revelation. Likewise, it isn't enough for a Protestant to pass judgment upon Catholic doctrines simply because they are Catholic and are derived via Sacred Tradition. Are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition Really Equal? To me, it is not enough to simply say that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture based upon the decree of the Catholic Magisterium. Like any spiritual teaching, I must compare it to the Bible. Jesus' own words in Matt. 15:3 lend support for myself and many non-Catholics to subject the fruit of Sacred Tradition to the pruning of God's word. In other words, do the teachings of the Catholic Church that are derived through tradition transgress the commands of God? Of course, the Catholic will say that they do not. When Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in Matt. 15:1-6, He reprimanded them for not understanding God's word. They were appealing to the tradition of the elders, those who had passed down oral and written tradition. Jesus, on the other hand, exposed their error by citing scripture. Please take note of what He said in Matt. 15:1-6. "Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 2'Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.' 3And He answered and said to them, 'And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4'For God said, "Honor your father and mother," and, "He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death."5'But you say, "Whoever shall say to his father or mother, 'Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God,' 6he is not to honor his father or his mother." And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.'" Whatever might be said about this passage, at least one thing must be observed: The tradition of the religious leaders was subject to the Word of God. Are the religious leaders of the Catholic Church exempt from subjection to the Word of God? And likewise, is their Sacred Tradition also exempt? I think not. Where the Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite. Consider the following, "The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. 1. 'Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.'. . . 2. 'Read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church.' . . . 3. 'Be attentive to the analogy of faith.'" (Par. 111, 112, 13, 114). It is number 2 that is the main concern here. What does it mean to read Scripture "within the living Tradition of the whole Church?" If Scripture is "within the living Tradition," then Tradition encompasses Scripture. In other words, it is the tradition of the Church that interprets Scripture. This is in contradiction to the Word of God spoken by Jesus in Matt. 15:1-6. Some object and say that the Pharisees didn't have apostolic authority and succession that was ordained by the apostles as does the Catholic Church and, therefore, Matt. 15:1-6 cannot be used to nullify Sacred Tradition. But the issue in Matt. 15:1-6 is not succession of authority but the traditions of men being used in opposition to the truth of the Word of God. Essentially, the Pharisees were seeing the Word of God "within" their sacred tradition. Jesus, in contrast to this, cited the Word of God to judge their traditions. The apostles, likewise, continuously admonished their people to check their teaching against the Scripture (Acts 17:11), thereby substantiating the position that even what they taught was subject to God's Word. After all, no doctrinal teaching should contradict biblical revelation and the Sacred Word of God was and is the final authority in all things spiritual. The Catholic Church's position and teaching as based on Sacred Tradition are no different. They must be compared to Scripture. My desire in writing this is not to alienate Catholics nor belittle their beliefs. I believe that there are some Catholics who love the Lord and are saved. But I would like to add that I believe it is in spite of official Roman Catholic doctrine. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the Catholic Church has added teachings that are not consistent with biblical revelation. If you are a Catholic, I hope my words do not offend you. Rather, I hope and pray that you would consider what this site has to say and compare it with the Word of God.
| ||
|
Peter was a man...a moveable stone. Jesus Christ is the unshakable rock. Isaiah 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged I Corinthians 10:1-12. Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ. Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
Catholic, until the word of God means more to you than the witchcraft written by Catholics, and it is witchcraft, then truth will always evade you. People have given many illustrations of how Mass is unGodly, Worship of Mary, Pope's are lied about; such as Peter being the first Pope which is scripturally proven wrong. Why bother answering you because you have this liberal mindset of brainwashing that everyone else is wrong when you are tore a new butthole by the scriptures versus the ant-Christ writings of Catholics.
| ||
|
Peter was sent to the Jews to help convert them. Paul was sent to the gentiles
| ||
|
Yeah Catholic, every one elses opinion outside of yours is somehow skewered. Here is the clue. You are in a cult. Not us.
| ||
|
being aside from what the scripture clearly says is not even a question. That is why Catholicism is a pagan religion born out of babylon
| ||
5/8/2008 3:34 am |
hey guys...jesus is LORD if dennis and catholic hold to their convictions...so be it i personally stand in the middle,,i do see obvious catholic heresy...i do respect mr catholic and his faith and conviction very deeply and i would endeavour to recieve him in christ and would hope that he would do so me..if he could not...i would still recieve him why dont you two take communion and accept each other for your different convictions convictions doctrines and history are very important,,,,but TRUE apostolic doctrine is one faith one body one baptism AND THAT IS NOT CATHOLICISM or protestantism,,,,ism are schisms THE BODY IS CHRIST..are we in the body....absolutely...by faith blood and grace receive each other meekly...if catholic rejects me as being not in the faith i will forgive him but i will recieve him in the Faith if His Faith in his redemption is in the blood of Christ alone For the record dennis,,i know what you know as well..but i dont offend catholics if their faith is genuine and sincere Love each other brethren,,,the centre is JESUS FRED do you both love fighting more than fellowshipping i KNOW DOCtRINE IS important but KNOWING THE AUTHOR is what counts Dennis correct theology wont get you into heaven...dont stand on it..and dont reject catholic because of doctrine,,challenge each other but given that dennis you posted this youo were after a fight...and i think you are misguided in that obvious motive LOOK FOR ReDEMPTION not staining out gnats FRED ref says time out...if you cant commune with each other it grieves God and you too Catholic,,,look at your heart...do you reject me for being of a different denom my spirit is grieved,,at both of you Jesus is Lord and he is not catholic or protestnt 0-0...
| ||
|
well Freddie I suggest you read a little more. There are way too many things that split the true Gospel in Catholic writings and beliefs. I do not stand in the middle on anything because there are absolutes. Especially in this case.
|
×
×