Pax

The catholic church uses images in their worship of God. That's anti-biblical. Agrees. Can you point me to the scripture you speak of? Where does scripture mention oral traditions to be passed down? Man I don't think you are reading the replies. This has been answered several times, but here it is again, Kansasdad Yesterday, 04:41 PM Post #311 I think this accurately describes each position: Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church

The catholic church uses images in their worship of God. That's anti-biblical. Agrees. Can you point me to the scripture you speak of? Where does scripture mention oral traditions to be passed down? Man I don't think you are reading the replies. This has been answered several times, but here it is again, Kansasdad Yesterday, 04:41 PM Post #311 I think this accurately describes each position: Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church

If you look back at some of what I previously asked about annulment, I wasn't asking about people who were married in Vegas. I think we all know that the RCC is not granting annulments in those situations. I specifically asked about people who were both Catholic, who were married in the RCC, and who raised their children in the RCC -- and THEN got an annulment. I've seen that happen more than once, and I've seen adult children who are essentially estranged from one parent -- because that parent got an annulment, primarily so they could selfishly remarry in the Catholic Church. How is that Christ-like? One parent essentially sends a message to their children that their family was a sham. And also sends an incredibly confusing message about their Church. I'm sorry, but asking for us to define marriage is like Bill Clinton asking for the definition of "is." Many of us here are not trying to bash the RCC, we are trying to understand it. Fiosh has done an excellent job of providing real and honest answers. She is not defensive or patronizing. Those of us who are not Catholic may not necessarily agree, but at least we are learning from her. Thank you and God bless you. Elisabeth, I am not trying to patronizing or defensive. Sorry if it seems that way. I will try to answer your question the best I can. I also appreciate the fact that you are not bashing the Church. Unfortunantly, I have been through the annulment process and feel like I can shed some light on this topic with you. Each case that goes before the tribunal is investigated. There are many things that the tribunal is looking for to see whether or not the marriage was a valid sacramental bond. I will list some of them: Age, were both people Catholic, where were they married (in the Church, Las Vegas, justice of the peace etc.), has either person been married before, how long were they married, was alcohol or drugs involved in the marriage, sexual abuse, adultry, physical/emotional abuse involved, pressure from parents or friends to get married, was the mother pregnant before marriage, maturity or lack of, was marriage prep taken, were they open to having children, etc. All of these things and others are taken into consideration. The tribunal is interested in how the relationship was handeled before the marriage and right after the wedding vows. If a Catholic couple is married for 25 years and has 6 children and then the women divorces the man there is still a chance it wasn't a Sacrmental marriage. That is why the tribunal will investigate the marriage and question witnessees. Lets say the women was pregnant before the marriage and she felt as though she had to get married. During the marriage she was emotionally and physically abused. The husband vowed to kill her if she left him. She stayed with this man for 25 years out of fear. There is a good chance this was never a Sacramental bond. As far as children go, each children born in a marriage, even if the marriage is considered non-Sacramental later on, are still considered ligitimate. Any Catholic who disowns their children after receiving a declaration of nullity are commiting a sin. I hope this helps out.

If the laws dont work, then ban guns altogether. Then the law abbiding citizens such as myself won't have a gun to defend my family, but you can bet the guy who breaks into my house will have one. Banning guns will not take the millions of guns in our country off the street, not to mention the millions that will enter this country through the black market.

The catholic church uses images in their worship of God. That's anti-biblical. Agrees. Can you point me to the scripture you speak of? Where does scripture mention oral traditions to be passed down? Man I don't think you are reading the replies. This has been answered several times, but here it is again, Kansasdad Yesterday, 04:41 PM Post #311 I think this accurately describes each position: Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church

You must understand that Catholics also believes that a valid Sacramental marriage cannot be seperated and the couple is married for life. If this couples seperates and subsequently remarries they have committed adultry. If one receives a declaration of nullity there never was a valid marriage in the first place. Like KansasDad has asked, how do you define marriage? Every person that stands in front of a judge, priest, minister, some Elvis look alike in Las Vegas, Buddist monk, and says "I do", are now in a valid marriage?

Sure, but someones mouth filled with germs is still going to be placed on the cup. Then the next person is going to put their mouth on the cup and on for 300 people. It isn't the contents one is worried about, but rather the germs from ones mouth that will be on the edge of the cup. I personally would drink the precious blood of Christ, but if I had a cold I wouldn't out of respect for others. I wouldn't want them to get sick. A Catholic isn't obligated to drink the precious blood of Christ and essentially one is receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. The parish I belong to only offers the precious blood to all the lay people during two masses a year. Easter, and Christmas. However the Eucharist is offered at each mass. Some parishes will offer both at each mass. I find that totally bizarre. To me that means you really are only offered the Eucharist twice a year. On one hand Catholics hold this Sacrament as the center the most important thing, and then on the other the instructions of Christ are ignored. Sorry to come of strong on this Pax, but Christ said take drink, take eat, it was not choose which you like the best and do what you want. I just don't get not taking both elements? How can you be so literal on one side, this IS my Blood, then on the other saying ,well don

Man, #337 was answered in #378 by Fiosh.

Man, I'm not sure what more you would like Fiosh to answer. She has answered many of your questions more than once, and she made it clear that she doesn't want to argue. If you don't agree that's fine. You have made your point that you believe that Catholics are guilty of Idolatry. Fiosh has shown her side of it, now do you have any other questions besides this?

Free will as I understand means the ability to say yes or no. The bride has the option to refuse to marry him or to marry him. I do not see how a secret affair negates her proper consent. Please show me how this negates her free will using scripture. AJ, What Fiosh is trying to point out is that the Bride didn't know of the affair. If she knew her husband to be was having an affair, it is very unlikely that she would go on with the wedding. Both people need full knowledge of each others action leading up to marriage. This is one reason why the Church has marriage prep classes.

If you compare the substance...it's not even a race. Well, gee, rip my heart out and throw it on the ground, why dontcha? How many pages did your thread go for?

My simple understanding of it is that by the best evidence that can be known the Church feels that God never "blessed" the marriage in the first place. It was never a union brought together by God. In other words, God was absent from the formula, and If God was not part of the beginning then it was never a marriage in the first place, more like a long spell of fornication. ( was that too blunt) God Bless, K.D. Isn't that the same basic argument that people use to justify abortion? One could say that God certainly was absent from a one-night stand ... does that mean the resulting child was not from Him? Could not one apply that same kind of logic to anything in life that is a "problem" or "inconvenient?" Isn't that exactly how Satan works? "Did God REALLY mean for you to be married to that person?" So you are saying that a couple can take the vow of marriage in the RCC, they raise their children in the RCC, they behave as husband and wife for years ... but at some point later in life, one or both of them, and the RCC decides that marriage was never valid? To me, that is an insult to God. Please let us know if there is anything Scriptural to support the RCC's position. Thank you. The percentage of marriages that are reviewed and receive an annulment are about 10%. Not every Catholic who gets married and then tries to receive that annulment will. You must remember that no one can seperate what God has brought together. If a marriage is a valid sacramental bond it can't be broken. I also would like to point out that every diocese in the nation has a tribunal of Priest, deacons, and Cannon Lawyers that review marriage at the request of Catholics seeking a declaration of nullity. It isn't like the decision is left up to the couple divorcing to see if their marriage was valid. I will also add that no other denomination does this. It is up to the pastor of a non-Catholic Church to decide if he wants to remarry couples who have divorced. I don't know of to many pastors who have denied divorced couples to remarry, not once but in some cases many times.

A divorce is said to end a valid marriage, but a declaration of annulment says there was no valid marriage in the first place. Every state has civil law that provides for annulment in cases where no valid consent has been given by one party. Classic example is when a person gets intoxicated and decides to get married. The next day they wake up and figured out they are married. Another example would be a "shotgun wedding". No free consent is given if the groom has to consent to the wedding or be shot. Those are examples of civil law on annulments. Church law is similar, for a valid Sacramental marriage to take place both parties must be capable of giving consent, and both then must consent. Children are incapable of consenting to marriage. Adults generally are capable of giving consent, but may lack authentic consent in particular circumstances. A Sacramental marriage requires a life long commitment and an openness to children. If one party participates in the wedding ceremony with no intention to have a lasting marriage (I'll give it a few years, and if it doesn't work then I will leave), or if a person refuses to have children, the marriage is more than likely invalid from the start even if this was kept a sercret and the ceremony goes off as planned. The annulment process is a very long process. When a person files for an annulment both parties submit evidence, as well as name witnesses to the relationship. The witnesses will also fill out forms telling the Church tribunal what they know about the marriage. After the tribunal has reviewed all the evidence and in some cases interviewed the couple and witnesses they decide if the marriage was valid or not. If a declaration of nulity is given, the Church deams that the marriage was never valid and the people are free to marry again. If the tribunal deams that the marriage was a valid Sacramental bond then the couple are married for life. This doens't mean they can't seperate, but they are not allowed to marry again not only in the Catholic Church, but in any church. To do so would be commiting adultry.

Sure, but someones mouth filled with germs is still going to be placed on the cup. Then the next person is going to put their mouth on the cup and on for 300 people. It isn't the contents one is worried about, but rather the germs from ones mouth that will be on the edge of the cup. I personally would drink the precious blood of Christ, but if I had a cold I wouldn't out of respect for others. I wouldn't want them to get sick. A Catholic isn't obligated to drink the precious blood of Christ and essentially one is receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. The parish I belong to only offers the precious blood to all the lay people during two masses a year. Easter, and Christmas. However the Eucharist is offered at each mass. Some parishes will offer both at each mass.

The Mormons use other scripture...are you saying they are correct? Not at all. Do the Mormans have two thousand years of history? No, about 150. Did the early Church fathers align themselves with Joseph Smith? Nope he wouldn't be born for 1850 more years. They aligned themselves with the apostles who followed Jesus Christ. Do the Mormans believe in the Trinity? Nope. Mormans are not Christians, just as Muslims aren't. Catholics are Christians, just as you are.

Actually according to scripture God uses His word and individuals to lead people into the kingdom. There was never a discussion of any institution that would do so. This is an excellent example of the clear differences between Catholics and some protestants. It will be up to individuals to decide which view they think is scriptural ...and furthermore, the Bride of Christ is NOT an institution but rather the Body of Believers, followers of the Way. When the Lord returns for His Bride, he is coming for all those who confess Him as Lord & Savior. I respectfully disagree... ...and that is okay. It is what distinguishes from one another.l You seem to be in a little better mood today....

And this is a key difference, and one that is important for people to see. We hold that every doctinal truth must be fully stated in scripture for it to be truth. Now we have identified a key difference. No further discussion is needed. I would remind everyone of this aspect of our Statement of Faith here at Worthy: We believe that the 66 books of the Canon, from Genesis to Revelation are the exhaustive, inerrant and inspired word of God. Because we believe this is the final authority for all faith and practice, we expect those who come with truth claims to be able to fully justify those claims based on that source. Ironic thing EricH is that you hold your hat on the idea that every doctrinal issue must be stated in scripture for it to be truth, and the Bible doesn't even say this. So you are going outside of the the Bible to form this argument. The closes you can come is: 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God and is usefull for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." I would fully agree with this as would any Catholic, but notice the first word of the verse is ALL. It doesn't say ONLY Scripture. If it did I would be a Protestant. This is all I will say on this matter and would love it if you started a thread on this issue.

Actually according to scripture God uses His word and individuals to lead people into the kingdom. There was never a discussion of any institution that would do so. This is an excellent example of the clear differences between Catholics and some protestants. It will be up to individuals to decide which view they think is scriptural ...and furthermore, the Bride of Christ is NOT an institution but rather the Body of Believers, followers of the Way. When the Lord returns for His Bride, he is coming for all those who confess Him as Lord & Savior. I respectfully disagree...

Man, My hands are tied. Catholicism doesn't hold to Sola Scriptora, so to only site Bible verse doesn't paint an accurate picture of Catholicsm. However, I will honor the wishes of the moderators and give you only Biblical verses. Every Catholic doctrine must have some Biblical backing. Of course this isn't going to be word for word and as I stated above Catholics don't base their entire faith on the Bible. This post is an excellent example of why we as moderators allowed it to continue. It will allow people to see what the Catholic Church uses as its ultimate source of truth. If I am understanding you correctly, there are certain Catholic doctrines that are not fully defendable from scripture alone. Catholics need to rely on other truth sources. I don't think it is appropriate to criticize that on this thread. The point of this thread was to identify what Catholics believe, and how they get there. It is now up to individuals to decide if they think this is a correct methodology. But this does identify a clear difference: Scripture as the final authority vs. scripture as one source of authority I agree ErichH this is the fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants. Yes, you did misunderstand me. Every Catholic doctrine is mirrored at least implicitly with scripture. The issue is that I will use scripture to define doctrine, and then man will say "hey that's not what scripture is saying, and then lady C will, say no scripture is saying this." There will be as many ideas as there are Protestant Churches. The Catholic Church has always taught that there are two aspects of God revealing himself to humanity for salvation. These are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The role of safeguarding this deposit of faith in Scripture and Tradition is given to the Magisterium of the Church (Magisterium is the Pope in union with all the Bishops). These three pillars make up the Catholic Church. Protestants hold to the bible alone. So Fiosh, myself, and KD can answer questions with only Bible Verses and we will be happy to do this, but your not getting the whole picture of the Catholic Church.

Man, My hands are tied. Catholicism doesn't hold to Sola Scriptora, so to only site Bible verse doesn't paint an accurate picture of Catholicsm. However, I will honor the wishes of the moderators and give you only Biblical verses. Every Catholic doctrine must have some Biblical backing. Of course this isn't going to be word for word and as I stated above Catholics don't base their entire faith on the Bible.

Agrees. Also, I find it kind of funny(or sad), when,why is it that the first prayer that comes out of your mouth, you mention a saint and not God? Now I won't say that this is a doctrine that is teached by catholics, but, it's the first thing that happens... There is just one Mediator between God and Man, and that Mediator is Jesus Christ, not the saints that the RCC so much worships. Ok now to the questions. Where in The Bible did it say that Mary was Sinless?I want to know, I have looked, but have never found that... Also, where in The Bible does it mention the pope?To add to this, what is the pope exactly to you? I will let Fiosh tackle the Mary question, but I will try answer your question about the Pope. Please refer to Mathew 16: 18-19. This is the biblical reference that the Catholic Church states to show that Jesus Christ intended there to ba a Human figure to give guidance when He is gone. You will notice in the verses that Christ is telling Peter (a mortal man) that "you are Peter , and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Christ is clearly telling Peter that he will be the guiding figure of the one Church after He leaves. The Catholic Church believes in apostoloc succession and the See of Peter continues to this day with Pope Benedict XVI being the 275 Pope to guide the Church. The role of the Pope is to give guidance to the Church established by Christ. You also won't find the word Pope in the Bible, just like you won't find the word Trinity in the Bible. I believe Pope means papa or father. Notice how He commanded it to Peter, not any other man in earth. I can't see how you are trying to make a point out of this verse. In my opinion, the pope is not anything more than any other mortal man, sorry to say this but, he is a sinner, caught in bad ways, I don't know if he honestly believes this, or he knows it's a lie and just wants to play along with it(I can say other things, but you so the thread doesn't become a hard debate) Do you see God when you look at that image of Christ? When I look at an image of Christ I see an artist's depiction of what he/she imagines Christ looks like. And this "artist's depiction" is what brings you closer to God? man, bro I love ya but you are missing the point. Catholics don't worship idols but some feel inspired when they see Jesus nailed to the cross, for some it gives them hope when they feel they are missing something, for others these things carry different meanings that may keep them coming back to church and living in faith. The enviornment also gives a sense of peace and holiness for some. Each individual knows God and God knows their hearts. The important thing is that they go to get inspiration and peace regardless of all the "schtuff". I look at is Holy Art work, beautiful, serene and intense detail. Well, they may feel inspired, but it's not Biblical, they should feel inspired seing the Jesus resurected from the death, not when He was dying. Don't answer my questions with questions. Is it ok?....no. The bible speaks out against making these things. I don't know how many times I've asked you to show me where in the bible we are given permission to make images of God. Why can you not do that? You say you adhere to scripture but are unable to show me the verse or verses that teach you to do these things. As far as movies...I don't see them as anything holy or sacred. They are the visual interpretation of what's going on inside the director's head. So, what you are saying is that pictures depicting Jesus are ok, as long as they are not in a Catholic Church or in a Catholic home???? That's not at all what I'm saying. And it's not only catholics who are guilty of this. Any image of God and all that pertain to Him...no matter where it is or who has it or what it's purpose is...is wrong. Ok, so you don't go to movies of a spiritual nature because it is wrong. I accept that is your belief and I respect you for sticking to it. But you are of a different opinion than most Christians. Are you saying you did or did not see The Passion of the Christ??? Hmm, I am also kind of offended to some way when I also see this type of things, actors that are constantly doing bad things, portraying God. No Man is worth enought to act as God in a movie, we don't even know how Jesus looked like. Btw I saw The Passion, I do not agree with it, for other reasons too. Back to topic. I still need a good answer to who the pope is to you.And how does the Bible support him in anyway? And my Mary question wasn't answered. I'm not sure what Mary question you are talking about and will let Fiosh handle it. If you read Mathew 16:16-19 you will see where the Catholic Church gets it's Pope. Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven from Jesus. The Catholic Church teaches in apostolic succession, which means the See the Peter is passed on to give guidance to the Church. Pope Benedict XVI is the 275th Pope to lead the Church.

Yes...but not the Roman Catholic Church. That is where we differ Pax and you know that. I thought this wasn't going to be a debate. It's not a debate, I respect your views. When you respond like you did to Floatingaxe, you spark debate. The original intent of this thread is to clarify the doctrinal views of the Roman Catholic Church (refer to the original post). It should be a simple question & answer format. No explanation needed and definitely no more "cut & paste" extracts from non-Biblical sources. Yes, you have been and will be challenged by the brethren but once you have clarified your position and belief, that's all that is needed. We have allowed this thread to go on this long out of respect for Fiosh and her desire to share her viewpoint. Regardless, please do not forget that this is NOT a Catholic Apologetics forum but a Christian Apologetics forum. It is intended to defend Jesus Christ, not an institution. Brother, please respect not just our views but our ministry as well. May the Lord Bless you richly, Wayne Fiosh, myself, and Kansasdad have spent 28 pages of post trying not to engage in an argument. I don't really understand this post. I don't want to spark a debate, but rather keep answering questions about the Catholic Church. I also haven't ever cut and paste one item on this site, heck I don't even know how to do that. I did copy out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church of which I sited my source. Fiosh has done this numerous times throughout this thread. I'm also glad the Worthy Boards has allowed Fiosh to start this thread and let it continue. It is good for people to see that Catholics and Protestants can have a civil conversation without it turning into a name calling argument. And like Fiosh stated in her opening post, if your going to let an Atheist spending 100 plus pages telling all of you what he believes than what is wrong with a Catholic doing the same thing?

I couldn't tell you. I haven't been to Rome, but will some day. My wife has been there a couple of times and she might know.

Could you give me a verse please. Is this church you speak of, spiritual or physical? Physical visible Church would be the Catholic Church. Of course there are also spiritual elements/graces contained within the Church.

very sad