Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Jesusman | 50849 | ||
Hello, As for your first question, One of the main differences between being Christian and being a Catholic was started by the Catholics themselves. When the Great Reformation grew more and more, the Catholic church excommunicated most of those involved. As a result, those people were viewed not only as non-catholic, but non-christian as well. In fact, you will find it a popular belief among catholics that the Catholic church is the only true christian church and all others are phoney. In addition to that, they believe that they haven't changed since Christ first started the Church, which is laughable when you read some of their history and beliefs. The "true" church is stated clearly with in the Bible (Old and New Testament). When you look at some of the Catholic traditions and practices, you see many heresies, falsehoods, and questionable practices. For example, there is no office of Pope mentioned by name, described, or explained at all in the Bible. According to Catholic beliefs, the Pope is infallible, sinless, and the head of the Church. That is the description of Jesus Christ alone, not some man. In fact, Paul in Romans clearly teaches that all people have sinned. Paul also teaches that Jesus alone is the head of the Church. Jesus christ himself even confirms all of this in numerous places. It is clear that the office of Pope is a non-biblical role, and is even heretical because it goes against Biblical teachings. Another example, from many, is their teaching about Mary. According to Catholic tradition, Mary was born of a special birth just as John the Baptist and Jesus was. According to tradition, if I remember correctly, Mary's parents were visited by an angel and told about the importance of their future daughter. Now, on the surface, this appears to be okay. However, it goes against the Old Testament Prophecies. Allow me to clarify. The Prophet Micah speaks of a period of darkness in which the Prophets will go blind, and where God will NOT speak to mankind at all. According to Micah, this period of Darkness begins with the return of the Isrealites to their homeland after the Babylonian Exhile, and ends with the coming of the Messiah. Now, the Prophet Malachi, the last prophet of the Old Testament period, prophecied during the Return from the Exhile. He prophecied that the Messiah will arrive after Elijah. A prophet will come before the Messiah, will be in the spirit of Elijah, and will prepare the way for the Messiah. So, in all, you have the Period of Darkness ending with the Coming of Elijah, or John the Baptist as Jesus confirms. Now, according to biblical teachings, an angel being sent to earth is the same as God speaking. Any miracles happening is God speaking. So, if Catholic tradition is true, then Mary the Mother of Jesus is Elijah returned, John the Baptist is the Messiah, Jesus is wrong, the entire Bible is false, and we've all been practicing the wrong religion for 2000 years. Athiests could have a field day with this one! Also, those two prophecies of Micah and Malachi prove that the Apocrypha is not canon and should not be in the Bible. Why? The Apocrypha is proven to have been written during the 400 year period between the Testaments. To be canonical, a book must be insired, or spoken, by God. So, how can the Apocryphal books be canonical if they were written in a time when God was not speaking? See my point? As you can see, the Catholic church has some major areas to work on if they want to be concidered the "True" Church. Now for you other question. The matter of not being able to show how you feel about God in church is a matter of tradition, privacy, and fear. First off, the main factor is fear. Many people are afraid to show anything in public for fear of looking like fools. The Second factor is privacy. Jesus commanded that our prayers should be private. In fact, many of the prayers in the Bible were done in private. IN fact, the Bible teaches that our relationship with God should be largely private. The idead being that if our private lives are in sinc with God, then our public life will reveal that as well. The final factor involves tradition. This goes all the way back to the hebrew worship practices. Much of the hebrew worship services were quiet occasions. Then add on the Catholic Church's influence on that, and you have people not speaking or anything during worship. Also you have the verse from Paul being majorly distorted that reads, "Women should keep silent in church ...". Bring all of these together, and you have your answer. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
2 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Emmaus | 50916 | ||
Jesusman, Here is a link to The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please read it in it's entirety before you give your next lesson on Catholic doctrine. You seem to be somewhat misinformed. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html Emmaus |
||||||
3 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Jesusman | 50918 | ||
Hello, I am misinformed?? Alright. Let's take a look at some of the things I said. Let's start with what I said of Mary. According to Catholic tradition, Mary's parents were Joachim and Anna. Through their "fervent prayers", Mary was born to them in their old age. This is viewed by Catholics as a special intervention of God's power, just as in the birth of John the Baptist. This birth is viewed as an "Immaculate Conception". This is the same identification they place up the Birth of Jesus. On top of that, this identification of her birth includes that she was immune from original sin. According to Pius IX, Mary was as sinless as Jesus was. They are making Mary out to be just like the Messiah. This was all done "PRIOR" to the birth of John the Baptist. As I showed in my previous post, this all goes against the prophecies of Micah and Malachi. Am I mistaken about this? Not in the least! How about the office of Pope? According to Catholic Tradition. Peter was assigned to be the first Pope in Matthew 16:16-20. They claim that Jesus ordained Peter to be the first Pope and that the Church will be built upon Peter. However, when you examine this passage in the Greek, using proper usage of Greek, you find that Jesus is saying something different. When Jesus says, "Upon this rock I will build my Church ..." He isn't talking about Peter. Yes, Peter means "rock" in Greek, but it carries the implied meaning of a pebble or stone. A small rock. In the quoted phrase, the word is Petra, and means a large rock, a boulder. Jesus is refering to what Peter said, not about Peter himself. Also, you have the continuous themes throughout the Bible of Jesus being the Chief Cornerstone. Jesus is referring to himself in the quoted phrase. He is telling Peter that the future Church will be built upon Christ's work and that Peter and the rest of the Apostles will be the shepherds of it. All of this is confirmed by Paul. No where in Paul's writings does he acknowledge Peter as the Head of the Church or as it's foundation. He always refer to Jesus Christ in this role. Again, the Catholic church is mistaken when they call Peter the first Pope. So, am I misinformed? Nope. Perhaps you should take a step back and look at the Catholic Church in light of what the Bible says. Jesusman |
||||||
4 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Emmaus | 50938 | ||
Jesusman, As I pointed out in my previous post, an accurate and contextual presentation of what the Catholic Church teaches is available from the Catehchism. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html You are not an accurate or reliable source on the broad subject. I would not presume to tell you or others what you believe as Baptists. Although I may have a limited knowledge of the subject, what I know may be flawed or inaccurate and from unreliable and inaccurate secondary sources. Or I might misinterpret, through misunderstnding or faulty information, some aspect of Baptist doctrine or belief. I believe that is exactly the case in your postings about Catholic teaching and beliefs, your protestation of an infallible knowledge ("So, am I misinformed? Nope. ") of the subject notwithstanding. Emmaus |
||||||
5 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Jesusman | 50945 | ||
Hello, My sources on this matter were Catholic sources. So, if my information is incorrect, then it is the Catholic who are incorrect. I stated what the Catholics believed as dictated from the online Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org. I also have numerous texts in my personal library which confirm the information listed on the website. With that information, I then turned to the Scriptures to examine the information in accordance to what the Scriptures teach. I found that the information was unbiblical. So, I will stand beside my findings. Jesusman |
||||||
6 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Emmaus | 50962 | ||
Jesusman, Next time, just quote the primary sources directly. They seem to loose some details and add others in the translation. I would paticularly like to see the quote on the Catholic belief in a sinless pope. Even the pope would be surprised to hear about his condition.That is one only heard from people who are not Catholic and who seem to confuse infallability with inpeccability. Emmaus |
||||||
7 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | danieln | 50973 | ||
Well i looked up the meanings of the two words and i guess you have a point Emmaus. Papal infallibility (R. C. Ch.), the dogma that the pope can not, when acting in his official character of supreme pontiff, err in defining a doctrine of Christian faith or rule of morals, to be held by the church. This was decreed by the Ecumenical Council at the Vatican, July 18, 1870. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. Still i would like to know the reason the pope is considered infallible, surely the bible is our infallible guide to the christain faith and morals |
||||||
8 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Emmaus | 51080 | ||
danieln, "Still i would like to know the reason the pope is considered infallible, surely the bible is our infallible guide to the christain faith and morals" A reasonable question and statement. Surely the bible is the innerent and inspired word of God. But an infallible book that is subject only to fallible interpretations among many readers and belivers can be a source of problems as well as a blessing. In response to your question: I addressed this issue before a few months ago at the request of another forum member. You can view those four posts by scrolling down to the highlighted thread line and clicking on my name, then at my profile click on Total Posts and all my postings will be listed. Go to page #23 and scroll down to entry # 458 then follow the thread through # 455. Or for a another article on the question go to this link: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/papacy.htm Emmaus |
||||||
9 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | ilikeu | 51083 | ||
The issue of PAPAL INFALLIBILITY evokes strong reactions from those who oppose it. This is usually due to a misunderstanding of what the Church means by “Papal Infallibility.” The most common misconception is that the Church claims that the Pope himself is infallible, the in all things he is incapable of error. This, of course, is not true! It is a necessity of Christian theology that ever person be allowed the exercise of free will. Everyone ,the pope included, must be free to accept or reject Christ for himself. If God were to make the pope infallible in the ultimate sense, he would be depriving him of his free will. Infallibility does not mean that the pope is incapable of sin. Infallibility is not something that endows a pope with divine powers, but rather it is a gift of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from the human frailties of a pope. The First Vatican Council taught that three conditions must be met in order for a pronouncement to be considered infallible: 1. The pope must speak ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter] in his official capacity. 2. the decision must be binding on the whole Church. 3. It must be on a matter of faith or morals. The first two conditions can be reasonably deduced from Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The acts of binding and loosing in the context of the verse would by necessity be something more than casual remarks. The passage begins with Jesus saying, “YOU ARE PETER and upon this rock I will build my Church” [Mat 16:18]. The acts of binding or loosing would have to be official and meant for the whole Church. |
||||||