- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lord’s Prayer opening may be ‘problematic’, says archbishop
Posted on 7/12/23 at 9:33 am to Champagne
Posted on 7/12/23 at 9:33 am to Champagne
quote:I am not anti-Catholic (people), but anti-Catholicism (organization) because of what it teaches. Like I said, if Catholicism were to be reformed and the Gospel reinstated, I would be a friend to Rome instead of her critic.
And here we have it again. Foo is the Arch-Enemy of Catholics and the Roman Catholic Faith. He has posted here that Catholics do not belong to the Body of Christ.
quote:My denomination's "testimony" (clarification and application of the WCF for our denomination) says "Many antichrists will be present in the world throughout history. Prior to Christ's coming the final 'man of lawlessness' will be revealed. He will be destroyed by Christ". (1 John 2:18; 1 John 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:8)
He supports the Westminster Confession that says that the Pope is the Anti-Christ.
I believe the Pope to be an anti-Christ, because of the anti-gospel soteriology that he professes and teaches others to profess, but I don't believe he is the anti-Christ.
quote:Our denomination is growing, but ultimately our size doesn't matter. Think of how many people were in Israel who rejected their God and went after other idols, yet God said He preserved a remnant who would remain faithful. The small number of "true Jews" (those who are so by faith) were not invalidated by their size. In fact God says that Israel was not chosen because she was greater in number than the other nations.
His particular sect of Presbyterianism has no congregations at all in the state of Louisiana and has less then ten thousand members in all of the USA. How "bankrupt" is that, since Foo uses that word?
You keep harping on the size of my denomination like that matters to the truth of what we believe. Islam has quite a lot of followers. Apparently they preach the truth because of how big they are, right?
quote:Here's a bit of advice for you: linking to such a large document like that isn't going to entice people to read it and become Catholic. You have to take parts of what the Catechism teaches and explain it plainly for people, and then point to them to the Catechism for further reading if they desire.
Here's what the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches. It's all here. Let the people see for themselves and decide for themselves about it. People should not take theological advice from tiny sect leaders/pastors like Foo who are and always will be the Arch Enemy of Roman Catholicism. Foo is an Anti Catholic Bigot, and proud of it.
Here's the Catechism.
LINK
I could link to the Westminster Confession of Faith for everything I say, but that isn't very helpful for people who don't have the time to read through the whole thing. I type more than enough as it is, but I'm trying to explain what I believe in my own words.
This post was edited on 7/12/23 at 12:10 pm
2
Posted on 7/12/23 at 1:13 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Catholicism were to be reformed and the Gospel reinstated
I hear the gospel every Sunday right before the sermon. Is there some magic gospel that isn’t in the Bible? He reads straight from the book right there. Also it is announced as the gospel
Posted on 7/12/23 at 1:39 pm to ShoeBang
quote:
I hear the gospel every Sunday right before the sermon. Is there some magic gospel that isn’t in the Bible?
Foo thinks that since the RCC doesn't preach the man-made gospel of monergistic soteriology that was unknown to the world until 1555, it's a false gospel. Don't feed the troll.
This post was edited on 7/12/23 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 7/12/23 at 1:50 pm to Smeg
quote:
Lord’s Prayer opening may be ‘problematic’
No it's not. Next!
Posted on 7/12/23 at 4:25 pm to Prodigal Son
Prodigal Son,
Thanks for responding. Hopefully this helps.
You wrote:
Great - making progress.
So you believe genesis 1 in that:
- third day God created plants
- sixth day God created man and woman
- third day came before the sixth day
To summarize your belief/response further… plants were created before man, which is all I will address in this post.
So I can go to the NASB95 and pull this from the very next chapter of genesis:
Let me tell you why that’s a problem for your belief in the genesis 1 account.
Genesis 2:4… I don’t think there’s a contradiction here, as “day” could have been just as easily translated as “time” or “age” from the Hebrew.
Genesis 2:5… establishes that there were no plants on the earth
Genesis 2:7… man was formed from dust
Genesis 2:8… God made the first plants
Consider that chapters 2-3 (and 1 for that matter) are flowing narratives, written in sequential order. 1 came, then 2 came, then 3 happened. In that type of flowing narrative, we can say 1 happened before 2 and 3. 2 happened after 1, but before 3. There’s nothing in there, not in English or in Hebrew that I can tell, that is indicative of the author skipping around in time or swapping tense for every other sentence. It’s just a simple flowing sequential narrative.
Simply, genesis 2 establishes there are no plants on earth… it’s setting the stage for the next sentence. The author is saying that since there was no man to cultivate the ground, then there was no previous desire or need for God to create plants.
Then… God makes Adam. Now he has a slave to cultivate plants. But he has no plants yet right? That was just established. Now after creating Adam, God creates plants (that Adam can cultivate and presumably eat).
So you see, genesis 1 has plants being made before man. Genesis 2 has plants being made after man was made. That’s a contradiction if you are trying to understand genesis as one story. It’s not a contradiction if you understand that the author put two different creation stories in genesis.
Let’s break down your buddies At gotquestions.org.
Gotquestions is saying some length of time happened between 2:6 and 2:7, and that during this time God must’ve created plants. The text doesn’t say that at all though. They also forget the ending of 2:5… there were no plants yet because it hadn’t rained yet and because there was no man to cultivate the plants. 2:5 sets up 2:7 as the reason for creating man… to cultivate the plants.
Gotquestions then argues the plant creation in 2:8 was in the past tense… that the author is just referring to the plants created before man in the non-existent text between 2:6 and 2:8. Suffice it to say their augment was that “planted” in 2:8 was not something done “now” but in the more distant past. The text just does not read that way at all in English. Let’s check out the Hebrew. The transliteration of the word is way·yi?·?a‘. It literally means “planted”.
Genesis 9 uses the same exact word.
Does this mean Noah began farming… and 3 days earlier, planted the vineyard… before he began farming?
The Gotquestions explanation is mental gymnastics and delusions at its finest, and resorted to fabricated details which don’t exist in the text literally or in context. To me, the text actually says is important, and I think we should read it and interpret it based on what it actually says.
I don’t expect to convince you of a contradiction, but maybe this will go a little way to allow you to understand why someone might have a problem believing that text is divinely inspired. If it was truly divinely inspired, the inspiration sure was shoddy work, as even two devout Christians can read the same text and interpret it in dramatically different ways. People kill each other over what they think the LORD meant. The all knowing creator of the universe in my opinion would have done a much better job at inspiring the books and not only that but preserving the books (copies of copies of copies of hand-written texts that were edited and redacted).
I’m ready for the creation timeline of animals versus man. Let me know when you are ready.
Thanks for responding. Hopefully this helps.
You wrote:
quote:
Genesis 1:11–13 (NASB95): Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day. Genesis 1:26–27 (NASB95): Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them…. Genesis 1:31 (NASB95): God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Great - making progress.
So you believe genesis 1 in that:
- third day God created plants
- sixth day God created man and woman
- third day came before the sixth day
To summarize your belief/response further… plants were created before man, which is all I will address in this post.
So I can go to the NASB95 and pull this from the very next chapter of genesis:
quote:
4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Let me tell you why that’s a problem for your belief in the genesis 1 account.
Genesis 2:4… I don’t think there’s a contradiction here, as “day” could have been just as easily translated as “time” or “age” from the Hebrew.
Genesis 2:5… establishes that there were no plants on the earth
Genesis 2:7… man was formed from dust
Genesis 2:8… God made the first plants
Consider that chapters 2-3 (and 1 for that matter) are flowing narratives, written in sequential order. 1 came, then 2 came, then 3 happened. In that type of flowing narrative, we can say 1 happened before 2 and 3. 2 happened after 1, but before 3. There’s nothing in there, not in English or in Hebrew that I can tell, that is indicative of the author skipping around in time or swapping tense for every other sentence. It’s just a simple flowing sequential narrative.
Simply, genesis 2 establishes there are no plants on earth… it’s setting the stage for the next sentence. The author is saying that since there was no man to cultivate the ground, then there was no previous desire or need for God to create plants.
Then… God makes Adam. Now he has a slave to cultivate plants. But he has no plants yet right? That was just established. Now after creating Adam, God creates plants (that Adam can cultivate and presumably eat).
So you see, genesis 1 has plants being made before man. Genesis 2 has plants being made after man was made. That’s a contradiction if you are trying to understand genesis as one story. It’s not a contradiction if you understand that the author put two different creation stories in genesis.
Let’s break down your buddies At gotquestions.org.
quote:
There is no contradiction, though, because Genesis 2:5 does not say how long before man’s creation there was no plant life. In fact, the previous verse mentions the first and second days of creation (at which point there were no plants), so it makes sense that Genesis 2:5 would mention there were no plants. Several days of creation occur between Genesis 2:6 and Genesis 2:7. Verse 7 details the creation of man on the sixth day. Verse 8 mentions the garden that God had created for him—the fourth day is spoken of in the past tense.
Gotquestions is saying some length of time happened between 2:6 and 2:7, and that during this time God must’ve created plants. The text doesn’t say that at all though. They also forget the ending of 2:5… there were no plants yet because it hadn’t rained yet and because there was no man to cultivate the plants. 2:5 sets up 2:7 as the reason for creating man… to cultivate the plants.
Gotquestions then argues the plant creation in 2:8 was in the past tense… that the author is just referring to the plants created before man in the non-existent text between 2:6 and 2:8. Suffice it to say their augment was that “planted” in 2:8 was not something done “now” but in the more distant past. The text just does not read that way at all in English. Let’s check out the Hebrew. The transliteration of the word is way·yi?·?a‘. It literally means “planted”.
Genesis 9 uses the same exact word.
quote:
20Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard.
Does this mean Noah began farming… and 3 days earlier, planted the vineyard… before he began farming?
The Gotquestions explanation is mental gymnastics and delusions at its finest, and resorted to fabricated details which don’t exist in the text literally or in context. To me, the text actually says is important, and I think we should read it and interpret it based on what it actually says.
I don’t expect to convince you of a contradiction, but maybe this will go a little way to allow you to understand why someone might have a problem believing that text is divinely inspired. If it was truly divinely inspired, the inspiration sure was shoddy work, as even two devout Christians can read the same text and interpret it in dramatically different ways. People kill each other over what they think the LORD meant. The all knowing creator of the universe in my opinion would have done a much better job at inspiring the books and not only that but preserving the books (copies of copies of copies of hand-written texts that were edited and redacted).
I’m ready for the creation timeline of animals versus man. Let me know when you are ready.
Posted on 7/12/23 at 4:53 pm to Stitches
quote:
Foo thinks that since the RCC doesn't preach the man-made gospel of monergistic soteriology that was unknown to the world until 1555, it's a false gospel. Don't feed the troll.
And the individualistic, "might of will makes right of action" beliefs ushered in by protestantism are wrecking the western world as usury and moral relativism go from forbidden to embraced.
Jesus left us a Church on earth. Imagine yourself in AD 40 or 50, how strange would it be to write to Peter or Paul to say you were a scripture alone Christian?
How could you look to anyone who was there in the upper room to say "the Eucharist is a symbol"?
Posted on 7/12/23 at 5:46 pm to Foch
quote:
Jesus left us a Church on earth. Imagine yourself in AD 40 or 50, how strange would it be to write to Peter or Paul to say you were a scripture alone Christian?
How could you look to anyone who was there in the upper room to say "the Eucharist is a symbol"?
Posted on 7/12/23 at 8:12 pm to Stitches
This post was edited on 7/12/23 at 8:14 pm
Posted on 7/12/23 at 8:36 pm to FooManChoo
Presbyterianism is NOT ORTHODOXY.
St. Columba, who was the first Christian missionary to what is now Scotland is a Saint in the Holy Orthodox Church that has remained the same since 33 A.D.
Presbyterianism is traced back to 1560…post Reformation…so either the gates of he’ll prevailed against the Church of Christ until the Scots Confession in the 16th century or the Church that was from the beginning is still standing!
Holy Orthodoxy!
St. Columba, who was the first Christian missionary to what is now Scotland is a Saint in the Holy Orthodox Church that has remained the same since 33 A.D.
Presbyterianism is traced back to 1560…post Reformation…so either the gates of he’ll prevailed against the Church of Christ until the Scots Confession in the 16th century or the Church that was from the beginning is still standing!
Holy Orthodoxy!
Posted on 7/12/23 at 8:41 pm to BHS78
No it wasn’t…geez, read the actual Constitution people. Nowheres does it delineate separation of church and state, it says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (official state religion) or prohibiting its free exercise.
Posted on 7/12/23 at 8:47 pm to Diamondawg
Why are you following Wesleyan principles?
How about follow the principles set by the Holy Fathers of the Church as laid out in Acts and in Holy Tradition?
John Wesley wasn’t even born until the 18th century…was the Church in hiding incognito from 33 A.D. until his arrival?
How about follow the principles set by the Holy Fathers of the Church as laid out in Acts and in Holy Tradition?
John Wesley wasn’t even born until the 18th century…was the Church in hiding incognito from 33 A.D. until his arrival?
This post was edited on 7/12/23 at 9:00 pm
Posted on 7/12/23 at 8:51 pm to Champagne
The Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. states that we acknowledge “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”…so that means ONE and ONE only CHURCH…not many sects, denominations, orders nor schismatic nor heretical councils/plenaries, etc.
This post was edited on 7/12/23 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 7/12/23 at 9:32 pm to Timeoday
He’s not a “Catholic entity.” He’s Anglican.
Posted on 7/12/23 at 10:11 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Thanks for responding
Likewise. I enjoy our conversations.
quote:
Great - making progress.
Indeed. I believe we are.
quote:
So you believe genesis 1 in that: - third day God created plants - sixth day God created man and woman - third day came before the sixth day
Correct.
quote:
So I can go to the NASB95 and pull this from the very next chapter of genesis:
The original manuscripts did not have chapters and verses- keep that in mind. The chapter divisions were added in the 12th century. I’m sure you knew that, just pointing it out. No one claims that the chapter and verse arrangement is inspired. We don’t even claim that the copies of the original manuscripts (which is all we have) are inerrant.
Genesis 1:31–2:4 (NASB95): God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
(Chapter 2)
1 ?Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 ?This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
Is this not a sensible reading? Can you see how the first four verses of chapter two are telling the end of the order of events in chapter one?
Genesis 2:5–6 (NASB95): Now ( as in, “Now, let me tell you) no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
Does it say what day this was? No. But, if you read chapter one, you know it’s adding detail to the events of the third day of creation. There was no man to cultivate the ground- but, there was a mist that used to “water the whole surface of the ground”- the mist was preparing the ground for the “sprouting.” Sounds like God was preparing the ground for man to be able to cultivate it.
Genesis 2:7 (NASB95): Then (as in, after the events of day three) the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Before we move to verse 8, let’s go back to 1:11 (Day 3)
Genesis 1:11 (NASB95): Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation (thanks to the mist alluded to in 2:6), plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
Hmmm. Sprout? So, not a full grown anything? Just sprouts, being watered by “a mist.” Now, let’s look at 2:8-9
Genesis 2:8–9 (NASB95): The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
The timing is unclear, but it is not an issue. Whether He planted the garden before or after the creation of Adam, does not negate the sprouting of Day 3.
9 Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
All of this could have happened either before or after the creation of man- and it would not change the order of creation in chapter one through 2:4.
- In 1:11 we have sprouts (thanks to the preceding mist), and no man.
- In 2:4, we are told that everything preceding 2:4 is the order of creation.
- In 2:5-6 we have added details of Day 3.
- In 2:7 we have added details of the creation of man.
- In 2:8-9 we have (possibly) a new development, made possible by the events of Day 3.
I don’t see a single contradiction. What I do see, however, is a lot of wish casting, word twisting, and intentional manipulation of the text- in a pathetic attempt to escape the obvious truth. As I have said before, your heart is in the wrong place. If you are looking for reasons to doubt- you will find them. If you are looking for reasons to believe, you will find them as well.
Posted on 7/12/23 at 11:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I could link to the Westminster Confession of Faith for everything I say, but that isn't very helpful for people who don't have the time to read through the whole thing. I type more than enough as it is, but I'm trying to explain what I believe in my own words.
Man, they’re really piling on you baw. FWIW, I’m in agreement with you on most things. I’ve read most of “Truths We Confess” by RC Sproul (still working on it, along with Antiquities of the Jews). He’s probably my favorite teacher of the modern age. I find your “tiny sect” to be in possession of some of the most Biblically sound doctrines among all Christians.
I have concerns about much of what the RCC claims/teaches (based on my understanding of Scripture), but I admittedly don’t have a full grasp of it. Certainly not enough to engage in the level of debate necessary to effect change (if that’s even possible). What I do know, is that there are Catholics and Protestants going to Heaven, and there are Catholics and Protestants going to Hell. The RCC (from what I gather) teaches that only RC’s are going to Heaven (even if through Purgatory and/or indulgences). Fine, let them believe that. Jesus seemed to say otherwise.
Mark 9:38–40 (NASB95): John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.”
39 But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.
40 “For he who is not against us is ?for us.
If your path leads you to Jesus, and their path also leads them to Jesus (with a few more turns), so be it. Salvation is not the goal- emulating Christ is the goal. Salvation is the reward. RC’s have some good stuff. Protestants also have some good stuff. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. I appreciate everything you post here. I posted this to you because of your apparent maturity (and because there are sooo many of them- it would take too long). You are truly a man of strong convictions, matched only by your desire to save the lost. Your knowledge and handling of Scripture is impressive. Which is more than I can say for the few serious Catholics that I know. But, I don’t question their faith. For we are not saved by our knowledge.
Ephesians 2:8–10 (NASB95): For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
Good night, my brother.
Posted on 7/12/23 at 11:31 pm to Prodigal Son
Amen to all of that, but i do want to correct this one piece
The RCC does not teach that only RC's are going to Heaven. I won't paste a novel here with the official teaching, but suffice it so say that we believe you're only held accountable for what you know. In other words, if you were raised Baptist, were a faithful Baptist, and never knew anything about what the RC church actually teaches, then we would expect God to judge you based on what you know and how you practiced that faith.
Here's a link with a much more detailed and much less butchered explanation if you want to read more
Catholic Answers link
Also, the church does not teach that indulgences can save you, rather they can only lessen the severity of temporal punishments (in this life, not the next) for sins already forgiven.
quote:
The RCC (from what I gather) teaches that only RC’s are going to Heaven (even if through Purgatory and/or indulgences)
The RCC does not teach that only RC's are going to Heaven. I won't paste a novel here with the official teaching, but suffice it so say that we believe you're only held accountable for what you know. In other words, if you were raised Baptist, were a faithful Baptist, and never knew anything about what the RC church actually teaches, then we would expect God to judge you based on what you know and how you practiced that faith.
Here's a link with a much more detailed and much less butchered explanation if you want to read more
Catholic Answers link
Also, the church does not teach that indulgences can save you, rather they can only lessen the severity of temporal punishments (in this life, not the next) for sins already forgiven.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 12:34 am
Posted on 7/13/23 at 6:31 am to FooManChoo
quote:
, as I keep pointing out from 1 Tim. 3, which you don't seem to want to touch with a 10-foot pole.
I'll address it than
The key lack of understanding you have is discipline vs doctrine or dogma.
Discipline is a rule or law set by the Church to be followed. It can be changed. What gives the Church the authority to make these rules? Simply put the power to bind and loose given to the apostles by Jesus Christ. The Church which we argue is the successor of the apostles has this same authority.
Priestly celibacy is a law of the western (latin) rite of the Church for all of her priests with exceptions. In the East married priests are more common and allowed. So the Catholic Church doesn't universally require celibacy for ministerial priests.
Doctrine is again a teaching of the Church on faith and morals that is not changeable.
Dogma is a divinely revealed truth that has been defined by the Church,
The error I see you making is that you believe celibacy is a doctrine of the Church. You say, well see there were married Bishops, Peter was married, etc and you say how can you mandate priestly celibacy for priests.
The way I see it was at the time of St. Paul and for the first at-least few hundred years of the Church there was no discipline of priestly celibacy. One could be a married priest. Despite there being no requirement there were men who voluntarily choose celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. I don't have room to get into the detail but basically priestly celibacy while not required till the 2nd millennium was practiced enough for the Church to pick it up as a law for the latin rite of the Church, the largest rite of the Catholic Church.
There is evidence out there that priestly celibacy was practiced and arguably widely practiced in the early Church. I don't have the time right now to go searching for all of that evidence.
It may not matter to you though, as I understand your approach you want to see it In the scriptures, history doesn't matter as much to you.
First, Jesus and St. Paul see continence or celibacy as the better part. Does that mean married is wrong, evil? Certainly not. Was the serving Martha did when Jesus came to her home wrong? No, maybe her anxiety was wrong, but not her serving. But Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus chose the better part.
Matthew 19:10-12 lays the foundation of the Church's understanding of priestly celibacy. Simply put Jesus says that renouncing marriage (as the NAB translates it) is the better part, but only some are able to accept this teaching.
1 Cor 7:7-9 is St. Pauls explanation of the preference for celibacy.
The theological reason the Latin Rite requires celibacy is because it is an imitation of Jesus Christ who is the high priest. Jesus was celibate, there is no debating that, it's clear from scripture he never took a wife. Further more we believe that Jesus will wed himself to the Church in the age to come. The Church is the bride and Jesus is the bride groom. Priests imitate Jesus the bride-groom in their priesthood, and also anticipate the state of heaven when they will never marry or be given in marriage.
I've done my best to explain the discipline of celibacy.
I see a major error in your understanding of the Church's view on celibacy. You believe that we see celibacy as a doctrine meaning no priest can be married. You have said that you think the exceptions we make are wrong from our point of view. However the Church's practice of celibacy is a discipline. Understanding the difference is key to this argument.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:20 am to Stitches
Thanks. I appreciate the gentleness of your response. Like I said, I don’t have a full understanding of RC doctrine. Im mostly going off of what I’ve heard/read from Protestants- which I then follow up by reading what the RCC has to say about it, and conversing with RC’s that I know (who, likely, are not the best sources of information). My biggest concern, is that while Catholics and Protestants are duking it out over who is the true church- people are perishing.
Every time I see/hear these arguments, I’m immediately reminded of the Samaritan woman at the well, with Jesus…
John 4:20–24 (NASB95): Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”
21 Jesus ?*said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
22 “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
23 “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
24 “God is ?spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
I think it’s time for Catholics and Protestants to put down their rocks, and focus our attention on the lost sheep.
To put it into a modern context- it’s (vaguely) like the Trump vs Desantis debacle. Republicans are tearing each other down- doing the Democrats job for them. Then, blaming each other instead of looking in the mirror- trying to remove the speck from our brother’s eye, while there is a plank in ours.
Just as Republicans should focus their efforts on democrats and independents, Christian’s should focus on atheists and the lost.
Mark 12:28–31 (NASB95): One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?”
29 Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord;
30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
31 “The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
May God give us all- grace, mercy and wisdom in abundance!
Every time I see/hear these arguments, I’m immediately reminded of the Samaritan woman at the well, with Jesus…
John 4:20–24 (NASB95): Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”
21 Jesus ?*said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
22 “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
23 “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
24 “God is ?spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
I think it’s time for Catholics and Protestants to put down their rocks, and focus our attention on the lost sheep.
To put it into a modern context- it’s (vaguely) like the Trump vs Desantis debacle. Republicans are tearing each other down- doing the Democrats job for them. Then, blaming each other instead of looking in the mirror- trying to remove the speck from our brother’s eye, while there is a plank in ours.
Just as Republicans should focus their efforts on democrats and independents, Christian’s should focus on atheists and the lost.
Mark 12:28–31 (NASB95): One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?”
29 Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord;
30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
31 “The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
May God give us all- grace, mercy and wisdom in abundance!
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:40 am to ShoeBang
quote:It depends what he's reading, I suppose. Is he reading from the Bible or something else? If he's reading from the Bible, I'm curious what he's reading.
I hear the gospel every Sunday right before the sermon.
He reads straight from the book right there. Also it is announced as the gospel
If he is just reading from the Scriptures the good news about Christ's death to atone for our sins, then that's wonderful. I hope the Gospel is getting out in spite of what Rome officially teaches regarding justification.
I don't doubt that there are true, saved Christians affiliated with the Catholic church, but I don't believe that anyone who has a full understanding of the teachings of Rome regarding justification and affirms those teachings is trusting in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as proclaimed in the Scriptures.
quote:There are many "gospels" that aren't in the Bible, adhered to by the religions of the world and even secularists, who place their trust in the "gospel" of man's works, or Muhammad, or Buddha, but not in Christ alone for salvation.
Is there some magic gospel that isn’t in the Bible?
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. -Gal. 1:6-9
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:46 am to Stitches
quote:I think you're mistaken. Monergistic soteriology is taught from the Scriptures, themselves, both in the OT and the NT. Augustine struggled with the concept of works vs. grace and his writings bear this out. Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers leaned heavily on Augustine's writings to justify the antiquity of their monergistic teachings, but ultimately appealed to Scripture, not history or tradition, for the truth of those doctrines.
Foo thinks that since the RCC doesn't preach the man-made gospel of monergistic soteriology that was unknown to the world until 1555, it's a false gospel. Don't feed the troll.
Page 11 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News