[classyT]

LOL... ok.. well then tell me what book in those 66 books that we spoke of... can I find anything that speaks of POPES, NUNS, the ROSARY... just to name a few. Just let me know the BOOK... don't have to pin it down to the verse.. just give me the book.. Cause from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation... I will BE DARN if I can find these tidbits...

[JoeT777]

LOL....ok..well then tell me what book in those 66 books that we spoke of...can I find anything that speaks of POPES, NUNS, the ROSARY...just to name a few. Just let me know the BOOK...don't have to pin it down to the verse..just give me the book..Cause from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation...i will BE DARN if I can find these tidbits ......

Pope (Greek – Papas a variant of pappas or father):

Christ named St. Peter the head of His Church refer to Matt 16:17-19 and John 21:15-17

“The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.”

Nun: (the Latin for the feminine form of monk, nonna)

“The institution of nuns and sisters, who devote themselves in various religious orders to the practice of a life of perfection, dates from the first ages of the Church, and women may claim with a certain pride that they were the first to embrace the religious state for its own sake, without regard to missionary work and ecclesiastical functions proper to men. St. Paul speaks of widows, who were called to certain kinds of church work (1 Timothy 5:9), and of virgins (1 Cor. vii), whom he praises for their continence and their devotion to the things of the Lord. The virgins were remarkable for their perfect and perpetual chastity which the Catholic Apologists have extolled as a contrast to pagan corruption (St. Justin, "Apol.", I, c. 15; Migne, "P.G.", VI, 350; St. Ambrose, "De Virginibus", Bk. I, C. 4; Migne, "P.L.", XVI, 193). Many also practiced poverty. From the earliest times they were called the spouses of Christ, according to St. Athanasius, the custom of the Church ("Apol. ad Constant.", sec. 33; Migne, "P.G.", XXV, 639). St. Cyprian describes a virgin who had broken her vows as an adulteress ("Ep. 62", Migne, "P.L.", IV, 370). Tertullian distinguishes between those virgins who took the veil publicly in the assembly of the faithful, and others known to God alone; the veil seems to have been simply that of married women. Virgins vowed to the service of God, at first continued to live with their families, but as early as the end of the third century there were community houses known as partheuones; and certainly at the beginning of the same century the virgins formed a special class in the Church, receiving Holy Communion before the laity. The office of Good Friday in which the virgins are mentioned after the porters, and the Litany of the Saints, in which they are invoked with the widows, shows traces of this classification. They were sometimes admitted among the deaconesses for the baptism of adult women and to exercise the functions which St. Paul had reserved for widows of sixty years.” CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nuns

Monk: Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE munuc < LL monachus < Gk monachós hermit, n. use of adj.: solitary, equiv. to món(os) alone + -achos adj. suffix ]
Friar [From Lat. Frater, through O. Fr. Fredre, frere, M. E. frere; It. Frate (as prefix fra); Sp. Fraile (asprefix fray); Port. Fret; unlike the other Romance languages French has but the one word frère for friar and brother].
Friar: “A friar is a member of one of the mendicant orders…Mendicant Friars are members of those religious orders which, originally, by vow of poverty renounced all proprietorship not only individually but also (and in this differing from the monks) in common, relying for support on their own work and on the charity of the faithful. Hence the name of begging friars.”

"The Rosary", says the Roman Breviary, "is a certain form of prayer wherein we say fifteen decades or tens of Hail Marys with an Our Father between each ten, while at each of these fifteen decades we recall successively in pious meditation one of the mysteries of our Redemption."

The Hail Mary is rooted in scripture as is the Our Father.
‘It is commonly described as consisting of three parts. The first, "Hail (Mary) full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women", embodies the words used by the Angel Gabriel in saluting the Blessed Virgin (Luke, I, 28). The second, "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (Jesus)", is borrowed from the Divinely inspired greeting of St. Elizabeth (Luke 1:42), which attaches itself the more naturally to the first part, because the words "benedicta tu in mulieribus" (I, 28) or "inter mulieres" (I, 42) are common to both salutations. Finally, the petition "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen." is stated by the official "Catechism of the Council of Trent" to have been framed by the Church itself. "Most rightly", says the Catechism, "has the Holy Church of God added to this thanksgiving, petition also and the invocation of the most holy Mother of God, thereby implying that we should piously and suppliantly have recourse to her in order that by her intercession she may reconcile God with us sinners and obtain for us the blessing we need both for this present life and for the life which has no end."’

JoeT

[classyT]

Lets see.. hmmm? You could give me the root word.. a few verses about Mary being Jesus' mother and a virgin before he was born ( I know that) a few things about Paul talking about Widows and virgins and somehow that turns into nuns... most all of this is just what you wanted it to be.. you added to it. But OK... I getcha now.. I can see at least how some of this came to be. It was helpful... sincerely.

[wildandblue]

There have always been religious orders, what you call nuns and monks. Numbers chapter 6 John the Baptist, Sampson, and Samuel were Nazirites who had taken a special vow before God.

[JoeT777]

Lets see.. hmmm? You could give me the root word.. a few verses about Mary being Jesus' mother and a virgin

Virgin Mary:

Luke: 26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Mary is the Mother of God, attested to by the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. She is perpetually virgin, immaculately conceived, and assumed into heaven. The Nazarene woman, Mary, was born without ever knowing original sin being “FULL OF GRACE.” Her conception and birth was kept free from the stain of original sin and remained pure throughout her life.

Mary’s Immaculate Conception:

The Virgin Mother of God would not be conceived by Anna before grace would bear its fruits; it was proper that she be conceived as the first-born, by whom "the first-born of every creature" would be conceived. They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. Pope Pius IX ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

You might recall the Tabernacle is the tent-like sanctuary of the Hebrews before the erection of Solomon's Temple, made permanent by King Solomon. The Tabernacle called, beth Yahweh, house of Yahweh included an outer court surrounded by a wall; an inner court; Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies contained the veil that separated the Ark from the inner court. It contained the incense altar, the table of the Bread of Presence (12 loaves), the menorah, It was. This sanctuary housed the Ark of the Covenant, see Ex. 25-31 and Ex. 36 – 40 for additional information on the Tabernacle.

Mary was Ever Virgin:

You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius 383 c.
No Siblings of Christ:
In Matthew 13:55 we see the clansmen of Christ, called brothers and sisters as was the custom, who were children of Mary of Cleophas, sister of the Ever Virgin Mary: refer to Matt 27:56, and John 19:25. With proper Hermeneutics we see in the Old Testament the word “brother” to express a broad kinship or clanship as well as the word indicating siblings. Following are selected thought from St. Jerome who argued vehemently that to hold that Christ had siblings was an error:

17. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. … Shall we say they are brethren by race? … Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, Behold, your brethren seek you, for all men alike were entitled to the name … Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, Genesis 20:11 She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's, that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

If we were to argue for the literal interpretation of brother so as to insist on Jesus having siblings in this instance, then wouldn’t that redefine John 19:26-27? Jesus says to John, “Behold thy Mother.” Being redefined in our errant insistence on a literal interpretation would add John to James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude as siblings of Christ; which of course is nonsense.

Mary is Ever Virgin.

Roman Catholic beliefs:

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Pope Pius IX ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

before he was born ( i know that) a few things about Paul talking about Widows and virgins and somehow that turns into nuns... most all of this is just what you wanted it to be.. you added to it. But OK... i getcha now.. i can see at least how some of this came to be. It was helpful... sincerely.

And what did you get?


JoeT

[Tj3]

Virgin Mary:
Mary is the Mother of God

God has no mother. Mary would have to be a god herself to be the mother of God. We have been through this before and scripture nowhere would back up this claim.

She is perpetually virgin

Matt 13:55-56
55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us?
NKJV

immaculately conceived

Even Mary acknowledged that she was a sinner in need of a Saviour:

Luke 1:46-48
46 And Mary said:
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;
NKJV

and assumed into heaven.

I note that you did not even attempt to validate this claim.

The Nazarene woman, Mary, was born without ever knowing original sin being “FULL OF GRACE.”

Let's look at that verse:

Luke 1:28-29
28 And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!"
NKJV

The translation "highly favoured one" is a more accurate translation. Now, if we look in scripture, we see thye following passage where the same word in Greek is found:

Eph 1:6
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.
NKJV

The term "made us accepted" is the same word in Greek. Thus, according to you interpretation, this would make all of us sinless, thus this belief in Mary being sinless is a complete denial of the gospel. Are you saying that Romans 3:23 is a mistake?

Scripture directly refutes each one of these. So this actually support ClassyT's position.

[Fr_Chuck]

We already know that you don't accept the virgin status of Mary as the Catholic church views it, and the idea that we view Jesus as God and Mary was his mother.

This has been hashed to death in another thread.

Lets get back on topic, Merely not agreeing on these two issues do not make or does not make Catholics Christian,

Anymore than if they require being bapisted by going under the water as some do.

These are merely differences in teachings, not the fact that all of them accept Christ as their savior who died for their sins.

Instead of looking at some of the more minor differences, we could pick Baptist to Pentecostal groups to death, who have a lot more differences than lets say Catholics and Anglican ( Anglican all have saints, and special services for saints) which is a protestant group last time I checked.

It is more a matter of how they worship and some of the non saving issues of belief.

[classyT]

JoeT,

I see what things you all used to get your belief system. I couldn't figure out how and why you believed what you did.. I couldn't find it in the Bible. I still can't... but I see how you make the S T R E T CH.

[Tj3]

We already know that you don't accept the virgin status of Mary as the Catholic church views it, and the idea that we view Jesus as God and Mary was his mother.

God is a trinity, and pre-existed Mary. Jesus created her. God was manifest in the flesh through Mary - God was not conceived in Mary. The flesh into which God was manifest was.

Lets get back on topic, Merely not agreeing on these two issues do not make or does not make Catholics Christian,

Agreed.

anymore than if they require being bapisted by going under the water as some do.

Agreed.

These are merely differences in teachings, not the fact that all of them accept Christ as their savior who died for their sins.

I would agree that one can disagree on these points and still be saved, b ut I not agree that these are minor differences in teaching. I believe that some of these are quite serious doctrinal issues.

Instead of looking at some of the more minor differences, we could pick Baptist to Pentecostal groups to death, who have a lot more differences than lets say Catholics and Anglican ( Anglican all have saints, and special services for saints) which is a protestant group last time I checked.

I am not a denominationalist in any case, and not a protestant. I have issues with some of the doctrines taught by other denominations where they go outside of or in contradiction to scripture also.

I would disagree that Anglicans are protestant. They are essentially Catholic, though with a different person at the top - the ,monarch is in essence holding the same position as the pope.

[JoeT777]

JoeT, I couldn't find it in the Bible. I still can't

Find it or not, it’s there.

... but I see how you make the S T R E T CH.

It’s not my station to stretch or condense the Catholic doctrine.

JoeT

[Tj3]

Find it or not, it’s there.

It does require faith to believe that it's there when no one can find it.

[classyT]

JoeT777,

You can make anything in there if you want it bad enough... come on. It's just not in there my friend.

[classyT]

FR_Chuck,

So YOU believe that Mary stayed a Virgin? You believe that Jesus didn't have actual blood brothers? i.e. James and Jude?

[JoeT777]

JoeT777,

You can make anything in there if you want it bad enough...come on. It's just not in there my friend.

Your comments, in my understanding, point to one of the primary differences between our respective faiths. In my estimation of Protestantism there is an element of rationalism mixed with relativism and naturalism. When applied it to Church doctrine we call it “liberal theology”. Protestantism synthesizes its own traditional morals for autonomous pre-determined conclusions on the premises desired. Catholicism, on the other hand uses both Tradition and Scripture to reveal God's will; that is inasmuch as man is capable of knowing. It's a matter of what God's absolute Truth is, and what it is not is what I “read into the Bible”.

As I understand it Protestantism holds that each individual can subjectively determine God's will (refer to the “five solas”). Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany in 1886 addressed problem in 1886 when he said, “Free-thought begets free morals, or immorality.” See Liberalism Is A Sin (link). Here you find that the term “Liberal” was understood to mean Protestant or other similar forms of rationalizing faith.

Based on my observation, Protestants hold that inductive reasoning founded on Christian faith, weighing actions on traditional Catholic morals, is discarded as being slow, regressive, and narrow-minded. The fault seems to be that conclusions drawn are autonomous intellectual exercises; judgments are based on subjective reasoning not founded on absolute moral truths that only Catholicism brings. Ultimately Protestantism must come in conflict with the Church.

Protestantism must require toleration of different virtuous moral precepts. Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany seems to support this concept when he states:

“Liberalism is the program of naturalism. Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic). Liberalism in the intellectual order is license in the moral order. Disorder in the intellect begets disorder in the heart, and vice-versa. Thus does Liberalism propagate immorality, and immorality Liberalism.”

Right and wrong become subjective; morality and integrity become matters of positive law as opposed to natural law. The liberal trait is exhibited as autonomous authority to have “freedom from” doctrine as well as “freedom to” implement proxy ethics independent of God's will, e.g. abortion, devoice etc. As such the standard of right and wrong become subjective and differ from individual to individual; thus we hear the refrain "it might be wrong for you but its right for me." This ideology becomes progressively independent of God's authority in its thinking as it no longer needs God for its authority; this is evidenced by the number of independent non-denominational Christian Churches and Protestant denominations – which is upwards of 30,000 – it was only one in 1520. Tracking the liberal trait of autonomous authority over morality it can be seen to become asymptotic to atheism – and in short order. While still holding a Christian like caricature, liberalism progresses to the point where God is no longer needed (or wanted); thereby God ceases to exist in the heart and mind.

Consequently, at least in my way of thinking, we see a trend where by Protestantism forces interpretation of Scripture to fit the will of man. The Lutheran view would reject any type of cooperation with the concept of “once saved always saved”, the certitude of justification. The Lutheran views man as depraved and as such saving graces must be forced on man. Thus, Luther rejects that there is free will. Similarly Calvin's views of a fiduciary faith which denies that man can be holy, a faith that merely covers sin. Catholics however believe in a justification through penance and good works actually removes sin. Whereas, Catholicism finds a synergism between God and man when sanctifying graces are conferred; the free human will and the will of God (the Holy Spirit) work together to bring about spiritual regeneration or salvation. [cf. Trent, Sixth Session, Cannon IV] In the Catholic world man subjects his will to God, as opposed to finding some scriptural support whereby the will of God is subjected to man's will. Therefore, I find God's objective Truth remains true whether I “find it in there”; whether I “want it bad enough.”



JoeT

[Tj3]

Your comments, in my understanding, point to one of the primary difference between our respective faiths. In my estimation of Protestantism there is application of rationalism mixed with relativism and naturalism. When applied it to Church doctrine we call it “liberal theology”. Protestantism synthesizes its own traditional morals for autonomous pre-determined conclusions on the premises desired. Catholicism, on the other hand uses both Tradition and Scripture to reveal God’s will; that is inasmuch as man is capable of knowing. It’s a matter of what God’s absolute Truth is, and what it is not is what I “read into the Bible”.

By applying traditions of man and making that equal to scripture, you in fact are using relativism, because the traditions change over time.

By sticking solely to God's word, we have an anchor that never changes.

As I understand it Protestantism holds that each individual can subjectively determine God’s will (refer to the “five solas”).

I cannot speak for protestantism, but sola scriptura does not hold to that. Sola scriptura holds to the belief that scripture interprets itself, and thus holds to what scripture says that scripture is of no private interpretation, unlike Catholicism which holds that only the private interpretation of their leadership and their denomination is correct. It is my understanding that protestants also typically use sola scriptura.

[wildandblue]

Basically what we are talking about is that at one time there was one church, and now there are many different denominations all claiming that theirs is the absolute truth and the other people are wrong.
But if they split off from us how can that be true? If the church was, say, good enough to carry the word of God from Jesus day down until the day that they decided they wanted to start their own schism, how can the narrowness be in us?
It also puzzles me how all of these denominations use the scripture that their leaders authority must be obeyed by all good Christians, if they don't they need to be disfellowshipped, sort of the same as their original founders were when they left the Church? If they had no respect for the fellowship and the congregation, and the holy spirit poured out on the leaders, how can they claim the same privilege.

[classyT]

Guys,

The Catholic church was not the first church! Read Paul's epistles... not the Catholic church AT ALL... you all evolved.

Churches splitting has been happening for centuries.. they had the same troubles in Paul's day.

I do not belong to a denomination for that very reason.

Well that is my thoughts anyway.

[wildandblue]

Paul had several congregations, which should be thought of as church buildings in different towns. They were not separate denominations. Acts tells us all the Christians were of one community and shared their property in common

[Fr_Chuck]

FR_Chuck,

so YOU believe that Mary stayed a Virgin? You believe that Jesus didn't have actual blood brothers? i.e. James and Jude?

Actually talking what the church believes, no where does it say that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters,
Since the term brothers and sisters can and was used for all family including cousins at that time in history.
Also many feel it was also step brothers and sisters from Joseph.

The basic facts is that the bible does not tell us one way or the other for sure.

[wildandblue]

Yes consider the book of Ruth. Ruth's child she had with Boaz was considered Naomi's child. Ruth wasn't even born a Jew, she was a Moabitess.