More than 100,000 Roman Catholic pilgrims from around the world swarmed Sydney Harbor on Tuesday, waving the flags of their countries and singing as they awaited a Mass opening the World Youth Day festival.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Gregorio Borgia)Pilgrims react as they wait for the opening mass for World Youth Day to begin in Sydney, Australia, Tuesday, July 15, 2008. The massive Catholic youth celebration kicked off Tuesday with an Australian 'G'Day' and a gathering of tens of thousands of international pilgrims at a waterfront site where an opening Mass was to be held.
The star of the show, Pope Benedict XVI, remained ensconced at a retreat on Sydney's outskirts where he was resting before joining the celebrations Thursday.
The scale of World Youth Day was revealed when pilgrims arrived in droves and gathered along a waterfront near the city's landmark harbor bridge for a twilight Mass.
Rites, including the Holy Communion, hymn singing and a sermon delivered by Sydney's Archbishop Cardinal George Pell, left many in tears.
Nearly 250,000 people registered for World Youth Day, more than half from overseas. By Tuesday's opening ceremony, they had arrived — thousands of young people were staying in churches, schools and volunteers' homes. They thronged the city with their official yellow, red and orange backpacks, singing songs, strumming guitars and shouting greetings to strangers on the streets.
The scene resembled a city-sized school camp more than a religious gathering.
Tuesday's Mass began with a procession of groups from 168 countries, waving their national flags as they entered a former commercial wharf in downtown Sydney, renamed Barangaroo.
Aborigines in traditional clothing and white body paint danced and chanted to the strains of a didgeridoo. Addressing the crowd, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd acknowledged the Aborigines as Australia's original owners and read welcomes to pilgrims in various languages, including Italian, French, Korean, the Philippines' Tagalog and Bahasa Indonesia.
"G'day, and have a great time down under," Rudd said.
Rudd, who was raised in a Catholic family but now regularly attends an Anglican church, said Australia would be enriched by the pilgrims' presence.
"Some say there is no place for faith in the 21st century. I say they are wrong," Rudd said to resounding cheers.
In his homily, Pell urged the pilgrims to keep the faith through self-discipline and prayer.
"Many of you have traveled such a long way that you may believe that you have arrived indeed at the ends of the Earth," Pell said. "If so, that's good, for our Lord told his first apostles that they would be his witnesses in Jerusalem and to the ends of the Earth."
As they flooded into the waterfront site, pilgrims scarfed down traditional Australian meat pies, sang and chatted. Parts of the city came to a standstill.
A group of French pilgrims wore stuffed roosters on their heads. Nearby, parishioners from Nottingham, England, sported green felt Robin Hood hats and matching shirts.
"You see so many nationalities and you realize the church is not just Nottingham. It's a world Church," said Father David Cain, who traveled to Sydney with 20 members of the Nottingham diocese.
Later, revelers bopped to a pop concert whose performers pranced on a floating stage in the harbor.
The six-day celebration began when a giant digital countdown clock at the gothic St. Mary's Cathedral downtown ticked past midnight Monday and flashed "G'Day Pilgrims," drawing cheers from youths who had gathered to watch.
There were signs Tuesday the pope is going high-tech. Registered pilgrims received the first of what will be daily text messages from Benedict: "Young friend, God and his people expect much from u because u have within you the Fathers supreme gift: the Spirit of Jesus." It was signed "BXVI."
Meanwhile, a court on Tuesday struck down a law that banned causing "annoyance" to the pilgrims, clearing the way for a protest Saturday by activists opposed to Benedict's policies on contraception, abortion and homosexuality.
"We now have a lot more confidence to take to the streets to condemn Pope Benedict's policies," said Rachel Evans, one of the plaintiffs. "We are glad that the court has ruled that we do have the freedom of expression to communicate our political views."
The New South Wales government had granted authorities extra powers for World Youth Day, saying they were the same as those exercised at big sporting events. Critics said the regulations impinged on free speech.
On Thursday, Benedict will get a traditional Aboriginal welcome and tour Sydney's harbor by boat before delivering a major address at Barangaroo. A papal Mass on Sunday before thousands at a racetrack in the city is scheduled to end the proceedings.
___
Associated Press writer Kristen Gelineau contributed to this report.
RSS
argyle86: Your question is a fair one. Please refer to Matthew 13:24-30 (link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:24-30;&version=31;). He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Regards,
Matthew
What kind of infallible leader system leads a crusade of extreamism to kill infidels if they do not submit to your God. If the Gates of hell wouldnt prevail against your church than how did satan manage to put heartless killers and warmongers at the head of it in the past?
It has a very distinct ring of those prosperity preachers who have private jets, mansions, etc.
Furthermore, how do the words of Christ, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head" square with that of the Pope's lifestyle, who lives in a mansion.
I'm not saying that we should all live homeless, but come on, if Christ said he has no house to live in, how can we, with a clear conscience, live in a mansion with peticured lawns and luxurious fountains complete with peticured gardens?
I don't want to sound insulting, for I simply want to tackle the issues, and call people when they make fallacious statements, but...
The Roman church has incredibly poor theology. It's almost as bad as any heretical sect. Infact, if you look at every heretical sect (e.g. Mormon, Jehovah's W, etc.) you'll notice they have a logical 'lineage' of sorts, in which they can trace their church back to the Apostles - much like the Catholics claim.
The Catholics make the fallacious assumption that when Christ says, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" that there is some sort of continuous lineage built from Peter onwards. Where does it say that Peter will have a successor? There is no logical necessity for this. Christ did not say, "Oh Peter, you are the first Pope, upon you I will build a continuous, successive line of popes after you, from here on to eternity - and they too will be infallible rocks, just as you are."
Infact, it's rather interesting, because anyone who has more than a curisary understanding of Scriptures, knows that the Apostles, and all believers who overcome will be made into the pillars of Christ's temple (cf. Rev. 3:12). So if you understand the Christ's prophecy of the 'rock' of Christ's church, it properly applies to all believers.
"Difference is that we have a Pope who has the final say on all matters of faith and morals and you do not."
So the Pope takes the seat of Christ? Should we start praying to the pope, in addition to praying to Mary?
Should I hold what the pope says above the Word of God? Even when the Pope makes contrary rules to the Bible, such as rules that prohobite priests marrying in the Roman Rite?
msnchris70,
"When you don't have the Holy Spirit leading you into all truth, I'm not surprised how you have it so wrong so often. Without Christ authority and the Holy Spirit guiding you into all truth is it any wonder why Protestants are so confused and divided."
But we do have the Holy Spirit guiding us, which is why we are not following the RCC. As I said, you, the RCC, and Scripture do not line up.
"The Holy Spirit is the God of clarity not confusion."
Exactly! Yet, the RCC is confused about what the Word of God teaches and adds to Scripture.
"The Holy Spirit was only promised to specific people and those people passed down that authority. You simply reject Christ ability to give men authority in His name."
The Holy Spirit is given to those who believe (Acts 10:44) to guide us into all truth (Psalm 25:4-6; John 16:13). Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide us in all truth and bring the Father glory, why is it when the "Virgin" appears that she wants a church built in her honor or for her to be more known, or to make people eat grass and drink dirty water? The RCC is lead by deceiving spirits (1 Tim 4:1-3). In the same way that Saul had priests of the Lord killed (1 Samuel 22:6-21), so has the RCC. In the same way That Saul looked to the dead Samuel, so too does the RCC teach people to look to dead people (1 Sam 28).
"It's funny you accept the Authority of the Bible, yet not the Church that decided how to give it to you. Funny.If it was not for the Authority of the Catholic Church people would have not believed it was the Word of God for certain."
Now THERE's arrogance! So you claim the power and work of the Holy Spirit for the RCC, when you cant provide Biblical support for the doctrines of the RCC.
"Wbmoore and Star and Online, with your relativism it does not make me surprised by any of your answers. "
What's interesting is that none of us know the other and yet still come to the truth. The RCC, on the other hand, is blinded to some of the truths in Scripture and by the paganism adopted by the RCC, and choose to teach doctrine of false spirits instead of the word of God. And when people have tried to point these errors out, they have been persecuted or worse.
Acts 7:51

"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!â€Â
At least we are not fooled by the enemy into matters of faith and doctrine (like the Assumption of Mary and talking to dead people) as the RCC is.
msnchris70 ,
"We have rejected men in authority as well, except we didn't break up the only church founded by Christ, but rather we worked within the structure to create change. Some men in authority have sinned against God, but no one said there would not be bad people in high places...even Jesus picked Judas. Difference is that we have a Pope who has the final say on all matters of faith and morals and you do not. "
The problem is, the popes have been, or are, heretical as well, as we have seen in our discussions. In different times in history the popes have embraced pagan ideas and ideas that go against the Bible. Then they teach these bad ideas. When people have tried to correct these doctrines, they were persecuted. The RCC has proven it does not want to follow the word of God over the ideas of men.
If you think the RCC does not teach bad doctrine, please provide support for the Assumption of Mary.
"This is why heresy is still active in your churches.â€Â
So why is heresy still active in the RCC?
†No one has the authority to do anything, since the pastor is more of a CEO and many times owns the property himself. Not much a board of elders can do with that. "
I think you are out of tune with reality concerning churches, pastors and elders. It may be few pastors has sacrificed for God and provide a building for their flock, but the majority do not have such funds. Rarely do pastors have much authority, as it is hard to lead when its a volunteer organization and if the wolf has gotten among the sheep. The same is true for the RCC.
"We must follow our Bishops in all things except sin and if that Bishop teaches something that is contrary to the Word of God."
I repeat, please provide scriptural evidence for the Assumption of Mary. The RCC teaches pagan heresy, which is why I do not follow them.
"Nothing the Catholic Church officially teaches is contrary to the WORD OF GOD. It all comes implicitly or explicitly from scripture and the Holy Spirit guided our hiearchy through the Bishop of Rome infallibly to the Truth on what these scriptures mean."
I repeat, please provide scripture for the Assumption of Mary. Scripture says we have one mediator between man and God, Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). Scripture that says we are not to consult with the dead (Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:6). Please show in Scripture where we are to go to a dead person for help (Christ is alive and is risen!)?
Isaiah 8:19

When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?
"This is why heresy is still active in your churches."
Hmm, interesting. I thought it was the Roman church who prayed to Mary to interceed for us to Christ. If that's not heresy, I don't know what is. Furthermore, I'd take a second look at your own organization, pretty quick you'll find heretical priests molesting children. Enough said.
msn,
(Wbmoore and Star and Online, with your relativism it does not make me surprised by any of your answers. Your answers sound a lot like Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses).
Relativism; we are not the ones who have introduced countless extra biblical dogmas like your religion has. I have had several discussions with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses who can hold a better argument; they at least will not shy away when apparent discrepancies are found in their faith, they are willing to address them.
Why can’t you address the points that have been made? You know the obvious contradictions of your faith; address them, instead of attacking the characters of those who disagree with you. Refusing to respond to these rebuttals or ignoring the points that have been made in them really speaks volumes.
Wbmoore,
We have rejected men in authority as well, except we didn't break up the only church founded by Christ, but rather we worked within the structure to create change. Some men in authority have sinned against God, but no one said there would not be bad people in high places...even Jesus picked Judas. Difference is that we have a Pope who has the final say on all matters of faith and morals and you do not. This is why heresy is still active in your churches. No one has the authority to do anything, since the pastor is more of a CEO and many times owns the property himself. Not much a board of elders can do with that.
We must follow our Bishops in all things except sin and if that Bishop teaches something that is contrary to the Word of God.
Nothing the Catholic Church officially teaches is contrary to the WORD OF GOD. It all comes implicitly or explicitly from scripture and the Holy Spirit guided our hiearchy through the Bishop of Rome infallibly to the Truth on what these scriptures mean.
When you don't have the Holy Spirit leading you into all truth, I'm not surprised how you have it so wrong so often. Without Christ authority and the Holy Spirit guiding you into all truth is it any wonder why Protestants are so confused and divided.
The Holy Spirit is the God of clarity not confusion. The Holy Spirit was only promised to specific people and those people passed down that authority. You simply reject Christ ability to give men authority in His name.
It's funny you accept the Authority of the Bible, yet not the Church that decided how to give it to you. Funny.
If it was not for the Authority of the Catholic Church people would have not believed it was the Word of God for certain.
Wbmoore and Star and Online, with your relativism it does not make me surprised by any of your answers. Your answers sound a lot like Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses.
MSNCHRIS wrote: Brotheraaron,
"Thanks for finally coming to the Truth of your heretical beliefs. You are against the Church, the authority and teachings of our Lord. Jesus gave His authority to the Bishops, you reject the Bishops, so you are rejecting Jesus. All of our doctrines are implicitly or explicitly from scripture. You reject the authority to bind and lose that was given by Christ to his apostles.
You simply do not like authority. You are anathema."
No rebuttal necessary. I'm grateful that the RCC rightfully considers me, a Christian because Christ died for me, anathema. Not that it really has any bearing upon my salvation or anything... I enjoy the reaffirmation that my beliefs are not in alignment with those of apostate Rome. Thank you.
Msnchris, it is obvious that you love your organization. It is obvious that you love her authority. It is very, very sad that what you love is not the truth; may the Almighty be merciful. You are in my prayers. One day, I would love to call you my brother.
Aaron
msnchris70,
"Christ gave His authority to men to safeguard His teachings. You reject these men, so you reject Christ."
No, we embrace Christ; we reject men in error. There is a difference. Much of the New Testament was written to correct errors being taught in churches. Even men appointed by apostles could apparently teach error, case in point the church at Corinth. It is Christ and the word of God that must be our foundation, not men in error and their thoughts.
msnchri70,
"He Knew we needed leaders and hiearchy, just like any institution does. We have it and you reject it. It is as simple as that."
I do not reject leadership. I reject leadership that does not walk in line with the word of God.
"You reject the Bishops who have Christ authority,"
No, I reject bishops who have the authority of other men and preach error.
" and yet you follow men or yourself who have never had the laying of hands by a person who had proper authority. You follow men or yourself who do not have binding and loosing authority given by Christ and you follow your own interpretation rather than the interpretation of the hiearchy God put over you."
As I said, even the Bereans interpreted the bible, and Paul said that was noble. I should trust you, or any other man, over the Bible? I think not.
"Face it, you all have put yourself as the authority over scripture, which is not only unbiblical but you do not have God's authority. You have created Churches that are not Apostolic. "
We have created churches that teach the word of God. God gives authority, not man.
"Because you reject God's authority to leave men in charge over you, then you will always suffer from your pride and will continue to divide and become weak, while many of your best will continue to come home to the Catholic Church."
It is not pride when you see in the word of God something that directly conflicts with what a church or preist or pastor or bishop teaches and choose to obey God rather than men - this is what the apostles did and it is what we, who recognize the problems in the RCC, do. The weakness is that of men who refuse to acknowledge the word of God over the word of men.
"You cannot claim to be a Bible Christian since you reject the people God put over you and have not followed the laying of hands to receive actual authority. With authority the Bible comes alive and bears fruit, without authority you die on the vine whether you use the Bible or not. "
But I am alive in Christ. Again, the word of God and you are in conflict.
John 15:4
Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
We remain in Christ. We follow His commands, not make up new ones and claim it is the what God wants.
msnchris70,
"We do not take any man's word over the WORD of GOD."
I disagree. You have been shown repeatedly how the RCC has taken unbiblical positions, such as the Assumption of Mary, and made it doctrine. The RCC takes God's word and warps it in some cases, using the thoughts of men over the thoughts of God.
" I take offense to that statment. It is your opinion."
I'm sorry I have offended you, but the fact remains the Bible should take precedence over the word of man, and in the RCC, it does not.
" The men God gave His authority to have bound doctrine for the benefit of God's people. We can see that all our doctrines are implicitly or explicitly in scripture. "
Please show where the Assumption of Mary is in scripture.
"God gave these Apostles and Bishops the power to legislate, discipline and set doctrine. "
God calls many people to be different things, not just bishops. And men, unfortunately can choose to not walk with God, if they ever were walking with God. Everything must line up with the word of God, some doctrines and practices in the RCC do not.
"He also gave these men the power of the Holy Spirit to be drawn into all Truth. This gift of the Holy Spirit was not given to everyone. He was speaking to specific people, just like he called 12 specific men."
Once again, scripture and you do not agree. Believers receive the Holy Spirit.
Acts 10:44
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
"Our Bishops, given authority by God, determine doctrine and interpret scriptures under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
"You simply reject this Christ given authority. A Pope or Bishop of any kind cannot create a doctrine of faith and morals that is implicitly or explictly contrary to Scripture."
But they have. Case in point, the Assumption of Mary and praying to dead people to intercede on their behalf with Christ and the perpetual virginity of Mary.
"Don't you think God knew human nature? "
Yes, that is why He gave us the example of the Bereans checking out everything Paul said in the word of God. I've checked out the doctrines of the RCC and some of them do not line up with scripture.
Article: "100,000 Catholics Gather for Youth Event in Sydney."
We need to take heed as to what we gather around during these perilous times.
At one time (maybe it is still done)...
"When the Sovereign Pontiff dies, his actual death is verified by a quaint ceremony. One of the Cardinals approaches the bedside and strikes the forehead of the dead Pope three times with a silver mallet, calling him by his baptismal name. The death of the Pope being thus legally attested, the Cardinals are summoned to the Conclave to elect his successor." [The Externals of the Catholic Church by Rev. John R. Sullivan of the Diocese of Providence]
Such things like this happen when we start gathering around the imaginations of our own heart, and start diminishing: All scripture is profitable, the work of the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, and Jesus Christ as the head of the church. I appeal to all, do not let churches or men lead you down strange ceremonial paths, and away from the simplicity that is in Christ, and the worship of the Father in spirit and in truth.
believer,
Well said!
chris, why is it when you find yourself in a position where you can't make the practices of your church biblical that you have to take cheap shots at others. Many churches in the SBC do things that are not necessarily biblical, they are extrabiblical and even though I may not agree with their practice I respect their right to practice that way as long as they do not declare it to be biblical and as long as it does not contradict, violate, or supersede the Word of God. But I also believe in the autonomy of the local church which allows each local church to determine before God how they will run their church. One example of that is I have several churches in my Association who are KJV only churches. My concern with you and other Catholics who post here is why do you all have such a problem with simply saying this is a practice of the Catholic Church and leave it at that rather than trying to convince us because we choose not to do it we are showing that we are not the "true" Church or true believers. And I think when you realize you don't have a biblical premise to stand on you either throw in the teachings of past leaders in the Catholic Church and/or if that doesn't work you tend to turn to taking cheap shots at some of us.
msn,
The truth of the matter is, when the obvious contradictions of your religion have been brought to your attention; you have failed to respond specifically to them. Instead you ramble on with false claims that the New Testament speaks nothing of. For example, claiming the Mary is the woman in Revelation twelve; that is humorous to say the least. You continue to misinterpret various portions of scripture, please; do not attempt to interpret the book of Revelation. Eschatology may be too deep for you.
wbmoore,
We do not take any man's word over the WORD of GOD. I take offense to that statment. It is your opinion. The men God gave His authority to have bound doctrine for the benefit of God's people. We can see that all our doctrines are implicitly or explicitly in scripture. God gave these Apostles and Bishops the power to legislate, discipline and set doctrine. He also gave these men the power of the Holy Spirit to be drawn into all Truth. This gift of the Holy Spirit was not given to everyone. He was speaking to specific people, just like he called 12 specific men.
Our Bishops, given authority by God, determine doctrine and interpret scriptures under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
You simply reject this Christ given authority. A Pope or Bishop of any kind cannot create a doctrine of faith and morals that is implicitly or explictly contrary to Scripture.
Don't you think God knew human nature? He Knew we needed leaders and hiearchy, just like any institution does. We have it and you reject it. It is as simple as that.
You reject the Bishops who have Christ authority, and yet you follow men or yourself who have never had the laying of hands by a person who had proper authority. You follow men or yourself who do not have binding and loosing authority given by Christ and you follow your own interpretation rather than the interpretation of the hiearchy God put over you.
Face it, you all have put yourself as the authority over scripture, which is not only unbiblical but you do not have God's authority. You have created Churches that are not Apostolic.
Because you reject God's authority to leave men in charge over you, then you will always suffer from your pride and will continue to divide and become weak, while many of your best will continue to come home to the Catholic Church.
You cannot claim to be a Bible Christian since you reject the people God put over you and have not followed the laying of hands to receive actual authority. With authority the Bible comes alive and bears fruit, without authority you die on the vine whether you use the Bible or not.
Christ gave His authority to men to safeguard His teachings. You reject these men, so you reject Christ.
Brotheraaron,
Thanks for finally coming to the Truth of your heretical beliefs. You are against the Church, the authority and teachings of our Lord. Jesus gave His authority to the Bishops, you reject the Bishops, so you are rejecting Jesus. All of our doctrines are implicitly or explicitly from scripture. You reject the authority to bind and lose that was given by Christ to his apostles.
You simply do not like authority. You are anathema.
Believer,
So now your arguing because we have a gold cup versus a wood cup. There were vestments with the Old Testaments, and even in the first century the Bishops tried to wear different clothes called a uniform because of their office. I know for a fact they didn't wear jeans and a t-shirt or a business suit either. Your argument is a joke.
Also, you are ignorant to the fact that doctrine developed over time. I think you are clearly deceived by your bias and this is clearly Satan coming after you.
You are normally reasonable and usually don't use arguements a kin to a fourth grader or like Online or Star2. Keep your debating points to a level that is respectable of your love for Christ.
Online,
BLAH BLAH BLAH. Satan has you. Revelation 12 talks about How Mary's children are all those who keep her son's commandments and do His will. The dragon tries to attack Mary but God protects her.
You and Wilderness are like the Dragon. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
They say history repeats itself. Each Christian is called to repeat this walk to the cross.
As I look at these pictures, I think to myself that this is what God is asking of me.
I also think that as Christ took this path, was he also thinking about the many ways Satan would go about distracting us from the truth.
Probably so. Nevertheless, that walk to the cross is the most important one.
The problem with the RCC is that they see the thoughts of men as important as the thoughts of God, or more so. When the Bible does not line up with their thoughts, they use the thoughts of other men to support their thoughts instead of using what the Bible says.
Okay, allow me to raise the issue (I raised earlier)again. Why should I ever pray to some saint (e.g. Mary)? I've heard with my own ears a Papist priest pray to Mary to interceed for himself (and the Mass) to Jesus Christ. Why should I ever subscribe to this unbiblical doctrine? Believer and others have raised this point, and the Roman Catholics have never directly made a response to this.
Largely this thread has turned into bantering and bashing on both sides. Let's stick to the issues raised - plain and simple.
Wilderness1 raised the point earlier:
"Ave Maria! thou portal of
Heaven, Harbor of refuge, to
thee do we flee: Lost in the
darkness, by stormy winds driven,
Shine on our pathway, fair Star of the Sea!
(Ave Maria! O Maiden, O Mother, Star of the Sea)
Should we gather around any song, belief, or even an organization that directs us to flee to Mary? Consider that question while meditating on Psalm 143:9: "Deliver me, O Lord, from mine enemies: I flee unto thee to hide me"
How come no Roman Catholic directly responded to this point? I want to know.
I also want to touch on the celebacy point. I hear the popular Roman stance: it's a practice, not a doctrine. Well again, I'll say, it's a coerced 'practice' therefore it's a rule - "You stay celebate, or you can't be in our Rite" - since this is the case, this practice is a rule, an unbiblical rule at that (e.g. ref. 1 Cor. 9:5).
I challenge any Roman Catholic to respond to these points. He (or she) must do so without warping the Scriptures, and must not avoid the issues by bringing in some absurd notions about my biases.
Msn,
I agree that truth is not relative; it is what God has declared it to be in his Word. It is a fallacy to believe that the Catholic Church was (there) at the beginning; history reveals otherwise. The early church was entirely different from what Catholicism is; when one considers the location, doctrine, and teachings of the Scriptures; one understands that the early church were merely believers in Jesus Christ. So, these labels (Catholic/Protestant) are irrelevant; the early believers were known by the doctrines they adhered to and by the Holy Spirit which lived within them.
When we carefully review this joint declaration document, we see how ambiguous the language is. That is, it does not clearly define each churches exact understanding of what grace is, or what they mean when they say, (we are saved by grace through faith). Is it imputed or infused, etc. Anyway, this declaration has not been accepted by all Christians because of its vague language.
You said, (Since we decide that the Gospels are . . .); it was God who gave and preserved his Word to the early Christian church, so your statement is incorrect. Concerning the Good news; you are correct when you say that (Christ died for our sins), he is our substitute; that is he lived a righteous life and gave himself as the Lamb of God as FULL atonement for our sins. We can have FULL assurance that we HAVE eternal life now because of what Jesus did for us.
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life (1John 5:12).
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God (Romans 8:14).
And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life (1John 2:25).
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son (1John 5:11).
chris, "I'd be bugged too if my church did not believe, act, or worship like the early Christians", there you go on your ego trip again, because the reality is most Southern Baptist churches do just that. Show me in Scripture where the Apostles wore the fancy robes, used chalices made of silver, gold, and jewels, and burnt incense as a part of their worship. I'm sure the seven churches were just packed full of icons as well. Plus I did not say that the event was as emotions based event, what I said is that at events like these many of the decisions made are based on emotions and need real folow-up to ensure a genuine decision was made or to allow the person the opportunity to make a real decision. Plus the only thing ihs gave me to respond to was the numbers issue and if you would read his post that is exactly what he said and wondered how Protestants could get those same numbers.
Praise to God I outrightly reject the RCC, the Pope, the Vatican, the extrabiblical traditions, the roseary, the magistrate, Mass, and everything else that She has in the cup of her fornication.
Online,
If God calls you to stay in your sect of Christianity, then be blessed in it. You say it is all about Truth? VERITAS, right? Truth is not relative. What is the Gospel and how are we saved, etc? These are great questions that our Church has answered long before there was a Protestant.
"We are saved by Grace through faith working in love" Joint declaration of Lutherans and Catholics.
What is the Gospel? Well, since we decided that the Gospels are Mathew Mark Luke and John, and since the Gospels are about the Good news, then what is the good news? The Good news is that Jesus Christ died for our sins, so that you don't have to be damned to Hell. By establishing a relationship with Christ through baptism and perservering in that friendship with Christ through an active faith in Him until you die, by God's grace you will be saved.
I hope you will be saved.
Believer,
I was not being patronizing and I apologise if you took it that way. I just felt your analogy of the Air show was silly since it didn't focus on Christ. Also, I was holding you accountable for assuming that this event was just an emotional based, but there actually was a lot of follow up with these kids. I am not being patronizing either when you and some others offer your interpretation, when I do the same and offer my interpretation of scripture but I back it up with historical proofs and Sacred Tradition that came from the Apostles. I would be bugged too if my church did not believe, act or worship like the early Christians.
Brotheraaron,
Yes, millions do believe like you do. In fact, your brand of Christianity represents about 300 million if I was being generous. We on the other hand represent 1.7 Billion or 80% of Christianity which would agree much more with my positions.
It is not about numbers, my friend, it is about Truth. The Authority to "Officially" interpret God's holy word is only with his Bishops who were given this gift of the Holy Spirit and who passed it down to the Bishops we have today.
I pray that all you baptists and Pentecostals will reject your unApostolic roots and come Home to ROME SWEET HOME, like many of your brothers and sisters already have. Baptists and Pentecostals and Seventh Day adventists are truly the extremists of Protestants, so I'm not surprised by your responses.
I say to you brotheraaron, "COME OUT OF THE TRADITIONS OF MEN, to the Only Church founded by Christ, the only church to write the scriptures, the only church to define the basic principals of Christian belief and the only church that is still built on the Rock who is Peter with the Authority given to him BY JESUS CHRIST with the "KEYS". Jesus put Peter in Charge, so in effect if you reject Peter you are rejecting Christ.
If you reject the Bishops who have Christ authority, then you also in some respects reject Jesus Christ."Those who hear you hear me, those you reject you reject me" You reject the authority of His Church, so you reject Jesus.
Msn stated, “People like Online can only go from their own interpretation.â€Â
Millions of believers appeal to the Scriptures as their only rule of faith, so I am not alone my friend. Millions know that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone (Acts 4:12, 1 Corinthians 3:11, John 14:6), know that Jesus demonstrated the scriptures to be the final authority (Matthew 4:4, Mathew 5:17-19, Matthew 22:29, John 10:35), that we are NOT to add to or take away from the Word of God (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Isaiah 8:20, Revelation 22:18, 19), that we are to test and expose all things contrary to the Word (1 John 4:1, 1Thessalonians 5:21, Ephesians 5:11) that the Holy Spirit is Christ’s true representative (John 14:16-18, John 16:7, 8; Romans 8:9, 1 John 2:27), and know that we are warned to avoid false teachers/teachings (2 Timothy 4:3, 4; 2 Peter 2:1, Galatians 1:8, 9; 2 John 1:7).
So; how is one saved? What is the gospel? Who is proclaiming it? Pilate once asked, “What is truthâ€Â- answer? This is what I have been debating; we cannot make claims and expect others to accept them at face value. This is not about biases, resentment, hate, bigotry but it is about TRUTH. Are the answers to be found in religious systems who peddle extra biblical and contrary dogmas or in the Word of God? I choose the latter.
Peace
Chris, and all...
Every time you leave posts like that, all of the Christians here try and turn the other cheek to you. I'm sorry my brothers and sister, but I am having a hard time doing that today. The RCC is the W***E of Babylon. The Pope and his minions are the heritics of heritics, with their spiritual fornication and perverted teachings. I pray for Jesus' swift and final judgement on the whole RCC.
I love you all, but my heart aches when I read this blasphemy. I'm feeling like a raw nerve from this constant rippng on our One and Only authority, and on His followers who worship Him in spirit and truth.
Praise King Jesus!
chris, there you go on your ego trip again and being patronizing of any Christian who does not subscribe to all the extra-biblical teachings of the Catholic Church. As for me I'll continue to rely on God's Holy Spirit to equip and empower me to both read and study God's Word and show me through godly men and women who also are wholeheartedly surrendered to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the control of the Holy Spirit and who are diligent students of God's Word both in knowledge and in living how to take the teachings of His Word and apply it my daily life so that I can be more available to God and can join God in fulfilling His Great Commission.
chris, my question to ihs was based on the fact that the article only talked about the numbers and not the results and I wondered what he was referring to when he said the fruits that resulted.
Also IHS,
Online is right on one thing. The Word of God is the best and most reliable way to know God's wishes for your life and to understand his message. The problem comes to who should interpret? Who has authority?
The problem comes when not all areas of scripture are easy to understand. The easy parts like Jesus being born of a Virgin, Him being our Lord is pretty easy. There are many other parts that are confusing. This is why we need to understand how the earliest Christians understood the scriptures and lived them out. Their witness is undeniably powerful and many of these early Christians had God's authority as Bishop passed down directly by one of the Apostles.
You see, IHS, people like Online can only go from their own interpretation. We Catholics, Orthodox and many other Protestant Groups like Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and many more want the historical record too, to see what matches up.
You see, Ihs, the Catholic Church was present when the scriptures were said and written. It is our book! We wrote it again and again for 1600 years before a Protestant was ever thought of. Their interpretation of scriptures can not be matched with the early Church.
Who's interpretation do you trust? 50,000 different denominations all claiming to go by the Bible and all of them disagreeing on major points like baptism like sanctification and Grace, or go with the only historic Church founded by Christ who gave His almighty power to bind and loose to the Apostles who gave those powers to the bishops and who wrote the actual bible, put the canon together and defined all the christological doctrines which are in every Christian Church today? Do you prefer an interpretation which actually marries the past with the scriptures or are you interested in a Pastor who will redefine things on his own whim?????
WELCOME HOME TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IF YOU ANSWERED LIKE I THINK YOU WOULD ANSWER!!!
IHS,
You have my email so email me anytime to discuss God's Church. You are welcome anytime. Peace.
Believer,
What fruit? I am surprised at you. You are usually very reasonable and you don't usually make grandiose assumptions like other posters do. You assume their was no follow up. We had 50 kids from our parish go to this event. They went to classes while they were there and they were signed up for more education when they came back as a follow up to keep their faith in Christ strong.
The Catholic News Agency reported that the crowd had 30.000 youths who were not Catholic but were Christian who have decided to become Catholic. They saw the fruit.
These non-Catholic youth will be going through RCIA classes immediately to understand the faith. RCIA classes take a year and 91% of all RCIA candidates do become Catholic and those who go through the process rarely if ever leave the Church.
There was a lot of follow up, lots of Bible Study classes and Catechesis. One youth told me they did a scripture Study for 3 days on John in a park where there were 25,000 young individuals. Over 100,000 youth signed a chastity pledge for Christ too. No fruit?
You and I and others on this board use scripture to defend our positions. I use scripture and tradition and historical record to back up my points. However, faith is more than logic or reason it is a compelling force from the Holy Spirit that leads. Many of these converts became interested in the Catholic Church initially because of the beauty of our Churches for God, the Holiness you feel in a Catholic Church, the lives of the Saints which give the strongest testimony to living for Christ. These are the things that get their interest first and then reason and faith takes over and they become Catholic.
ihs,
The clearest and most reliable record of the early church can be found in the Word of God and what you deem as a mere bias does not shed any light on the real issues. How is one saved? What is the gospel? Who is proclaiming it?
ihs, this is all about numbers then. Well if that's the case you Protestants need to hold an Air Show in Europe. When I was stationed at Aviano Air Base in Italy we had an Air Show every summer. We would get over 200,000 on the base and over 300,000 off the base to watch it. The problem is it's not about numbers it's about seeing lost people come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. And events like this tend to birth many emotional professions of faith but without the proper follow-up no genuine profession of faith takes place in the lives of many of those people.
ihs, and what fruit was that?
Tamna,
Welcome to the board. I am an evangelical seminarian. Some of the posts against Catholics have been ridiculous. I totally agree with you!
The more they attack them, the more I want to know more about Catholicism and the early Church. Look at this World Youth Day where 500 Million people watched this event that was all about Jesus Christ dying for their sins. It was amazing! Can we Protestants ever organize to produce anything like that? I think not. Look at the fruit that was produced! Can our fellow Protestant brothers and sisters not see it or is their bias too much?
Be blessed on this board.
In response to my last post our friend "believer" responsded:
"tamna, why would I not be surprised to find out you are either a Catholic or very sympathetic to the Catholic point of view?"
*Sigh* Thank you, "believer," for illustrating my point so succinctly.
Take your meds and go read some of your Hal Lindsey and Left behind books. You know the world might end tomorrow, right. I bet you love the Oliver Stone conspiracy books too.
Relax.
Sorry, I do not subscribe to the fictitious futurist position as do you. I see that your focus has been on everything other than responding to the points that had been made; I guess it is difficult to defend so many contradictions.
chris, plus you still haven't answered my post to you with regards to fundamentalists, I am really wanting to hear your response, thanks believer.
chris, if a Catholic wants to become either a priest or a nun they must take a vow of celibacy, that's called a requirement because if they don't unless he leaves the Catholic Church and joins say the Anglican Church and becomes an Anglican priest and gets married and then he comes back to the Catholic Church he can not become a priest. For a woman it's a done deal she cannot get married and become a nun. There is no choice in the matter other than not to become a priest or nun.
The problems is that the RCC ultimately doesn't teach from the Bible, they teach from the traditions of little men who think they have been give authority. Their interpretation of God's word is a perversion. The position of Pope is non Biblical, and therefore heresey based on the claims of that position. This conversation is getting redundant. I will pray for you. And I'm sure your thoughts will be to pray for me. I submit to the authority of Jesus Christ. I am indwelled by the Holy Spirit. I have absolute assurance that come Judgement day I will be going to Heaven. I pray for the humility and faith to live each day knowing this all to be true.
May God Bless you.
Get Out From Her.
Brotheraaron,
The fact that you reject the Papacy, the Bishops, the Priests, the Deacons, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptism, confirmation, holy orders, reconciliation, which are all in the Bible leads me to surmise that the real problem is authority.
Authority is what you reject in its simplist form. You reject the authority and office of the Apostle. "Are all Apostles?", St. Paul asked. You reject the Bishops that were given the Apostles' authority. We Catholics have continued Apostolic succession which is right out of scripture. You see it, but make excuses how it doesn't exist anymore. I didn't see anywhere in scripture where this authority ends? It continues through the Apostles to the Bishops.
I know the Catholic Church is more biblical because for 2000 years we have kept these offices and we have preserved the hiearchy as given to us through the Holy Spirit. We have preserved the teachings of the Apostles and your faith tradition has not kept any traditions that even St. Paul commanded you to keep. You simply reject his role as Apostle.
The Papacy is the most logical form of Governing people. Much like a President of the US who has real authority given to him by the people our Pope has his authority from GOD. Baptists have an authority, but no one is required to follow and most people don't really care about what he says. This is not an effective role for you, but more of a superficial attempt to be more like us. After 400 years you see the benefit to having one person at the top to serve God's people. We have a Pope and now you have a President. The office of President is completely unbibilical, but I'm sure you know that.
Because of your rejection of so many Scripture, I am never surprised when a new cult arrives that claims to be Christian and is not. The Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons and Unitarians all came out from congregational/baptists groups.
In the end, will you go with your own interpretation where every Pastor becomes his own little Pope or will you submit to the authority that God gave through His Apostles to His Bishops? I'll stick with the hiearchy of God, rather than the unbiblical traditions of men.
Brotheraaron,
So, you give some of us the benefit of the doubt but then you say the hiearchy, Traditions and the Papacy are apostate. Our Traditions come from Christ through the Apostles like celibacy like the Mass which were all instituted by Christ himself. Our hiearchy; Bishop, Priest and Deacon are the hiearchy of the Bible that you reject. Our Holy Father the Pope is scriptural calling Simon the Rock on which the Church is built, giving only him the Keys(Is 22, Matt 16:18) and being asked by Christ to feed His sheep and tend his sheep, the fact Peter is obviously the head of the Apostles is also scriptural and historical.
My friend in Christ, it is because you do not have these things that non-Catholic Christians are wounded and have not enjoyed the fullness of Christ revelation. Any organization who denies these Truths are and cannot see them are like the message of the sower. The Baptists, Pentecostals and the rest simply do not have the type of soil to grow into the fullness and back into communion with Holy Mother Church. This is why you divide, this is why your division makes Christianity weak and makes spreading the Gospel that much more difficult because it looks like Christ never came because of our division.
It sounds to me that you and believer are Christians, but I do not believe all in your faith traditions are Christian. I would not go so far to call your many denomination apostate, because that would imply you know better and I believe that it is severe ignorance caused by the sin of men that has caused your sepparation from communion with Christ Church.
We Catholics see most Protestants like Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Reformed and Presbyterians to have much more Truth in them than Baptists or Pentecostals or non-denominationals. The latter groups have watered down God's Gospel to such a point that there is not liturgy, there is no true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and there is no apostolicity or catholicity.
Believer,
Could you show me in the bible where it says I have to show you celibacy is a requirement? Celibacy like Christ said,"A Gift for the sake of the Kingdom". It is voluntary and again it is not a doctrine of the Church. It is a practice.
Amen to that Believer!
It is great to hear from someone who was a Catholic at one point. There are many like you in our congregation. In fact, our Pastor grew up Catholic. We had a speaker on Church planting in our Church last night. He delivered a very informative lesson on the Biblical Basis and Plan for Church Planting based on the model left for us in Acts. He too had grown up Catholic. All of these fine folks who have "come out of her" have the same thing to say, basically that: The Christian Church is the only true body of Christ and therefore is the only Church capable of teaching these things to the fellowship of the saints.
broaaron, I totally agree with you there is no doubt there are true believers in the Catholic Church and in fact I personally know some. But as far as their traditions and teachings, there are some if not many that are not biblically based. Plus, the whole time I grew up in the Catholic Church I never once heard God's plan of salvation taught from within the Church and many of the born-again Catholics who I know say the same thing.
Please let me clarify again: I am not saying that I believe the RCC to be of God, or that it even teaches what Christ taught in terms of Salvation, Sanctification, Justification, Baptism, Eschatology, Saints, etc... I am saying though, and by this is what I meant when I said "the benefit of the doubt", is that there probably are Catholics who are my brothers and sisters in Christ. But, and again, it is my firm stance that the RCC, that is, the Papacy, the Catchism, the hierarchy, the Vatican, etc.. are apostate, and as a whole, will have to answer to Jesus Christ on judgement day. I believe that chapter 17 of the book of Revelation accurately prophesies this organization.
Now hang on... before you get riled up... again, I don't think that all Catholics are unsaved. It is not my place to judge your salvation. I look forward to God's righteous judgement of all false religions on earth.
God Bless you all today.
Brother Aaron
Article: "100,000 Catholics Gather for Youth Event in Sydney."
People gather all over the world for various reasons and/or events. We must be careful what we gather around in these last days. Take this hymn from The St. Gregory Hymnal and Catholic Choir Book for example:
Ave Maria! thou portal of
Heaven, Harbor of refuge, to
thee do we flee: Lost in the
darkness, by stormy winds driven,
Shine on our pathway, fair Star of the Sea!
(Ave Maria! O Maiden, O Mother, Star of the Sea)
Should we gather around any song, belief, or even an organization that directs us to flee to Mary? Consider that question while meditating on Psalm 143:9: "Deliver me, O Lord, from mine enemies: I flee unto thee to hide me."
chris, please define for us what you call a Christian Fundamentalist? Plus on another post you said that they ignore various teachings in the Bible, would you share what those biblical teachings are that they do not follow?
chris, you still have not shown a biblical foundation for the requirement of celibacy, am I to assume you have not because you can not?
Brotheraaron,
Thanks for giving us Catholics the benefit of the doubt. I know there are millions who do not think we are Christian and maybe 50-100 million in numbers, but there are almost 2billion Christians who like you accept us as we in turn accept them. Also, we still accept fundamentalists like Online and Star2 as Christians because of what they affirm about Jesus. They may hold to beliefs that are contrary to historical Christianity and tend to be bigots toward our Church, but I will still contend that they are Christians in belief alone.
A few million fundamentalists doesn't do anything to us. They are quite hilarious to deal with. They are in the minority world wide and they have a very small stage on which to yell. This is one of their small stages. God hasn't given them anything larger....message of the talens maybe? I pray that one day God will knock them off their horse like he did with Saul and ask them, "Why are you persecuting me?"
God bless you brotheraaron.
Today's helpful prayer hint I saw on TV. Think about the Word A.C.T.S. like the book of ACTS when you pray. If you have a hard time praying the word ACTS will help you organize your prayer; ADORATION OF GOD, CONTRITION to GOD, THANKSGIVING to GOD and SUPPLICATION FOR OTHER TO GOD. Pretty cool way to pray and it covers a lot.
Believer,
That is sad to hear about that Priest and nun, but I'm certain God was happy for their marriage. I've seen the benefit of our Priests in the Roman Rite being celibate. I find them more accessible and able to do a lot more for the church than a married Priest. Just my two cents. I do think it is nice to have both and at our parish we do have both. We have a Roman Rite Priest and a Anglican Use Roman Rite Priest. The Anglican Use Priest is Catholic now but came from the Episcopal Church. He is absolutely fantastic.
Brotheraaron,
There are other groups other than Catholics that can trace themselves historically to the original apostles. However, it all comes through us. The Nestorians, the Orthodox and the Coptics all were of the Catholic Church. We were all the same faith and same church. There is nothing in historical record that would connect Baptists to the original Apostles through any linneage or belief system. All the original Churches of the first 1000 years believe 90% similarly of the Catholic church. They all have the same 7 sacraments, Bishops, Priests, Deacons. They all venerate the Saints, especially Mary, etc, etc.
I can't take you seriously when there is no record of Baptists before the 1600's and all Christians before that time have such strong commonalities in faith, practice and worship with us Catholics.
Online,
Take your meds and go read some of your Hal Lindsey and Left behind books. You know the world might end tomorrow, right. I bet you love the Oliver Stone conspiracy books too.
Relax.
chris, so you're saying that every priest and nun has the gift of celibacy or are you saying it's assumed that every priest and nun has the gift of celibacy? What I believe as I've said before is that men and women feel called of God to become a priest or nun and one of the requirements is that they take a vow to remain celibate and I feel that is why many priests and nuns have left the ministry. The sad thing is I know one man who was a priest and there is no doubt he was a great priest but he made the mistake of falling in love with a nun and they either had to give up their love for one another or leave their orders. Your church lost a good priest and probably a good nun as a result of them choosing their love for one another and I'm sure they are not the only two good people you've lost as a result of the celibacy rule. Plus one has to wonder how many of the sex scandals that happened in the Catholic Church wouldn't have had celibacy not been required. God created us with normal sexual desires to be acted upon in the confines of marriage and while there are some who can remain celibate there are a whole lot more who cannot and should not and in the long run your church has lost many good priest and nuns as well as candidates for these positions. And the saddest thing of all is there is no biblical mandate for the requirement of celibacy for those in the ministry.
Phillip Schaff writes of these Decretals,
“Fictitious documents, canons, and decretals were nothing new; but the Pseudo-Isidorian collection is the most colossal and effective fraud known in the history of ecclesiastical literature.â€Â
History of the Christian Church, by Phillip Schaff, Volume IV, Chapter IV, § 60
“I'm willing to debate scripture and tradition and historical proofs all day long, but please don't keep with this fanciful notion of Baptists coming from the time of Christ. It is rather silly.â€Â
Is it not just as fanciful if not more to claim that the Catholic Church was there at the time of Christ? Where do we find it? The first believers abided in the region of Palestine and spread out due to persecution (Acts 8:1).
Why did the Church (papacy) deem it necessary to forge many false documents to prove their identity?
It was in the latter half of the eighth century that there appeared a document purported to be a legal title granted by the emperor Constantine, in the fourth century, to Sylvester bishop of Rome. It granted to the Roman bishop, among other things, "…supremacy... over the four chief seats Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in the whole world." Before this document the papacy could not effectively assert itself, because the Church had only the Scriptures and the documents of the various councilsâ€â€none of which established or supported any such office as the papacy. But here emerged a forgery, that was received everywhere as genuine, that exalted the Roman See not only above the other four principal Sees, but over the entire Church.
The Donation of Constantine provided the bishop of Rome with what appeared to be a legal claim to everything he had sought, but to which he previously had no right. He was now 'rightfully' acknowledged to be the sole and supreme spiritual ruler over the entire Church, as well as the temporal ruler over a large swath of Italy that became known as the Papal States. The Donatio was proven to be a forgery by Lorenzo Valla in 1440 in his Declamatio. But, by that time the structure of the papacy was set in place, and its adherents were well under its control, and largely either unable or unwilling to forsake it.
Not long after the Donation, there appeared in the late eighth or in the ninth century another forgery, or rather, collection of forgeries, which was widely accepted as genuine, and which also served to greatly strengthen the power and prestige of the papacy. The False Decretals were a collection of forged letters or 'decretals' purporting to have been written by earlier bishops of Rome. These decretals made vast and far-reaching claims of power and authority for the bishop of Rome that was made to appear as though they had long been established in antiquity.
It true that there have always been Christian groups outside of the Catholic church from 313 AD and on (Keep in mind that on this premise I am not trying to exclude all Catholics as heathen.) From 313 to Christ's baptism there were obviously Christians as well. We Baptists have been persecuted by the RCC and other groups throughout this history. Etymologically, yes, we've only been around since the 1600's. Religiously, we (that is, faithful believers in Christ) have been around since the beginning. The RCC has never had a monopoly on God. You must consider that unless your truth-claim is founded on absolute exclusivity, this is undeniable. And through this I am giving the RCC (i.e.: "you") the benefit of the doubt; that is, that the RCC teaches according to the Word of God, which millions believe it absolutely does not.
Brotheraaron,
Yes, we can all learn from people beyond our own North American boarders. You made some good points. There should be both celibate and married in the clergy. There are in the Catholic Church, but I do not see this witness anywhere else.
Also, as we have a good exchange here let's stick to things that are true. I'm willing to debate scripture and tradition and historical proofs all day long, but please don't keep with this fanciful notion of Baptists coming from the time of Christ. It is rather silly. This kind of thing isn't even taught at Baylor. It is an extremist view, yet they are unable to provide any credible evidence.
Peace.
Keep in mind that by the "Baptist fray" you are referring to generations of Christians going back in time to Christ. I think that it may be safe to assume that some of these from our past could have been celebate. Also consider that we often talk about these things from a North American context. I don't know how many Baptist Churches, or Independant Baptist Churches there are around the world, but "thousands at any moment" is probably a safe estimate. We can't be guilty of being so narrow minded in our platforms that we are not talking about local phenomenon. This, praise God, is a faith that is made up out of the meek and faithful from the four corners of the world. And from our milquetoast North American perspective, there is so much to learn from our brothers and sisters abroad...
wbmoore,
The body has many functions. I am married with kids. If I wanted to be a married Catholic Priest I can. I would then inquire to the other 21 Rites within our universal church. The Roman Catholic Church looks for individuals who are willing to renounce marriage. The other Rites look for both. Moreover, there are quite a few married priests within the RCC. They have all come from Lutheran, Methodists and Anglican Churches.
In the RCC, we have both married and unmarried. If it was a definitive rule, then there would be absolutely zero married Priests within the RCC without exception. This is not the case. Again, the RCC looks for those who voluntarily choose celibacy. You can still be a Priest, but maybe in another rite. You would still be a Catholic Priest.
I'm glad there are celibate people within the Baptist fray, but where are they in your leadership? Paul was celibate and a leader, so my point is why don't you have celibates in leadership roles?
In the end, we are not going against scripture. It is voluntary. We do have married Priests in the RCC.
Chris,
You accused me of spin, but I think your statement here is a fine example of exactly that:
" you use that scripture as if it is DEMANDING marriage"
No one is saying the scripture demands marriage. What we are saying is that Scripture provides for pastors/elder/priests to be either married or celebate. However the RCC effectively demands (with few exceptions) celebacy. The two are not the same.
"Where are your pastors who have this gift of celibacy? You mean out of 36 million baptists you can't find one man who will be celibate for "the sake of the kingdom of God?"
Oh please. I know men and women who are celebate for the sake of the Kingdom, but it is a private thing between them and God.
"In fact there are more married priests in Catholicism, than make up some denominations in total. "
Please provide source. Also, do you speak to Catholicism as all churches, or only those in the 21 rites affliated with the Roman Catholic Church?
According to the webpage you provided,
"In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn't wish to take such a vow doesn't have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church's blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage."
While it is 'voluntary' to take the pledge of celebacy, it is the de facto position of the church to not have priests who are married (with few exceptions).
This leads me to repeat my previous statement:
Yes, it is voluntary, but if you feel called to be a priest or a bishop, you cannot, because the vow of celibacy is enforced upon priests.
I agree a celibate person can focus more fully on the Lord. But not everyone is called to this. However, many are called to ministry and leadership in the church. To require celibacy to be in leadership is to force people to choose between a manmade rule and what God has called them to do, or at best to accept a manmade rule in order to do what God has called them to do.
I apreciate your answer, thus it seems to come down to a choice in the end, but why doesnt the catholic church also elect more church leaders who are married as well. Peter even got married, and your church regards him as the first pope. Shouldn't the popes try to be like the first. I dont say they have to do either but rather its a choice.
Believer,
Paul was celibate and he was a leader and was in the ministry of the Church. He was a Bishop and yet celibate, so you use that scripture as if it is DEMANDING marriage. What if the wife dies, then is the Bishop suppose to marry again or lose his office? Follow your logic to its end and you will see that in no way was this passage of scripture demanding that a Bishop marry. It was rather setting limitations since the majority of new Christians and new Bishops were Jews and Jews took more than one wife.
Being celibate is a gift. If you have that gift then you can become a Roman Catholic Priest and if you do not have that gift then you can become a Coptic, Maronite, Melkite, Byzantine, Ruthenian, Armenian, Syrian, Greek, Ukrainian CATHOLIC Priest.
So, celibacy is the discipline for only one rite of 21 Rites. There is no rule that all the Priests of the entire Catholic church must be celibate.
It is good to be a married Priest and it is good to be a celibate priest. We have both.
Where are your pastors who have this gift of celibacy? You mean out of 36 million baptists you can't find one man who will be celibate for "the sake of the kingdom of God?"
You should read this too.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp
argyle86,
Here is a link to why Catholic Priests are both celibate and not celibate. You can read this for yourself, if you like. When I was a Reformed Minister, I had a problem too with Priestly celibacy, but now I do not.
This article is extremely reasonable and shows the practice of celibacy to be very scriptural. After all, Paul was a Bishop or overseer and he was celibate.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp
Once you read it you will hit yourself in the head like the V8 commercial, and say,"duh, it does make sense". Much like I did when I first read it.
Then you will think to yourself possibly, "why don't protestant churches have celibate Pastors as well as married?" "Why isn't there even one celibate Pastor in my denomination?".
Argyle86,
Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine it is a practice. The Catholic Church does have married Priests. In fact there are more married priests in Catholicism, than make up some denominations in total. The majority of Catholic Priests choose Priestly celibacy as a discipline "For the sake of the kingdom".
Yes, a Bishop should only have one wife. This is to say the Bishop should not have two. It also doesn't say that a Bishop cannot be celibate. This line of scripture is merely placing limitations on the office of overseer. When reading scripture it is important to not take one line of scripture and try to make a doctrine or rule out of it. It must have supporting evidence and it must respond to the continuity of the whole revelation of Scripture. Polygamy was practiced in the Old and now in the New a man should be of one wife only.
A Bishop IF he chooses to marry should be of ONE wife. Any Catholic would say yes to this. He should not have more than one wife. What if he chooses to be celibate for the Glory of God?
Are there any scriptures that say celibacy is a good and noble thing?
tallguy, taking scripture out of context as usual are we. Paul was talking to the fact that it was permitted for a person to remain single not that it was required for people to stay single if they wanted to serve the Lord. And while there are benefits to staying single in ministry there are also benefits to being married in ministry. No where does Scripture prohibit those in the ministry from getting married. Let's hear your spin on 1 Corinthians 9:5, where it speaks to the fact that some of the apostles including Peter were married and yet Christ called them to ministry.
believer, so what if Tamna is "very sympathetic to the Catholic point of view"? Wonderful, I can see that where she/he is Catholic or Protestant, this person's heart is in the right place, right where it supposed to be, thankful that God's Kingdom is being advanced!
You're comments show me believer what's in your heart. You couldn't give a rip about the Kingdom of God being advanced. No matter what, it seems that you will be un-sympathetic (not that we need your sympathy) toward anything Catholic. What a shame. Would you rather have 400,000 youth out doing drugs instead?
Peace in Christ my brother <><...
tallguy, so you know with all certainty that all 400,000 youth present were saved and not a one of them was there with a friend or out of curiousity? That's like saying that every person who goes to church on Sunday is saved.
Believer and Argyle, be patient people! Don't worry so much about priestly celebacy, go out and feed the hungry instead.
Celibacy for priests - simply put, comes right out of scripture, as St. Paul encouraged in 1 Cor 7:
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs - how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world - how he can please his wife 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world - how she can please her husband.
And our Lord Jesus speaks without criticism for those who renounce marriage (Matt 19:12) "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." -- so guess what, our priest have choosen to accept it.
Think of priestly celibacy as a gift. The Church has concluded that a priest may better be able to devote himself single-heartedly both to God and his flock if he remains unmarried. My evangelical friends always say to me “yeah but our married pastors are more able to understand marriage and can help us through our difficulties". Could be true, could be debated, none the less a little narrow minded. There are more then just married couples in church. There are also the sick, the elderly, the shut-ins, and the singles. A single priest is often able to drop what he is doing and tend to any of the flock for any of their reasons. Paul observed that celibacy has distinct advantages for the man who must give himself wholly to God in the ministry of His church. He encouraged people to remain unmarried as he was.
The Holy Catholic Church makes exceptions; a handful of men, usually clergy converts from other Christian traditions, may remain married as they serve as priests. The Eastern Rite (Ukrainian for example) allows for married priests.
A young man who prays and discerns about giving his life to Christ through the priesthood makes his decision freely, knowing that he must make a vow of Poverty and of Celibacy.
Tamma, very well said! AMEN!
I feel the exact same way, that each and every one of us reading this post should be on our knees thanking our Lord for the gift of (a more acurate number) 400,000 people, mostly youth, coming together to celebrate and worship our Lord Jesus Christ! 400,000 saved souls, 400,000 for Jesus!
tamna, why would I not be surprised to find out you are either a Catholic or very sympathetic to the Catholic point of view?
argyle, perhaps nobody has responded because there is no biblical support for requiring priests or nuns to be celibate.
This is ridiculous.
Sorry if I hurt anyones feelings, but my gosh, are we that wrapped up in our own little Catholic vs. Protestant garbage that we can't take a breath long enough to celebrate the fact that thousands of young traveled thousands of miles to celebrate and worship God? What has happened to us? Is it any wonder that the church is becoming less and less relevant in todays world. We spend all of our time with this Catholic vs. Protestant garbage ad nauseum.
When I read the article I asked myself how long it would be before some person trotted out the tired old anti-Catholic stuff. I also asked how long before the first "Protestant proof-text shot" would be fired at a Catholic. I didn't have to wait long, did I? We are predictable, aren't we?
Rant over. You can go back to your arguments or start flaming away at me. I'll spend my time marveling at, and thanking Our Lord for, the thousands of CHRISTIANS from many different countries that came together in peace in Australia to celebrate Our Lord.
PAX
No one has yet responded to my post, so again I will quote scripture,
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." (1 Timothy 3:1)
"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Timothy 3:4-5)
Now why does the RC forbid their leaders to marry when this quote from the Bible say they can? The RC claim to go with what scripture says yet I see exactly the opposite when i read this...
Please respond back with "scriptural" evidence that church leaders should not marry.
James was left to take care of Jerusalem, as Peter and Paul left the area after the resurrection. When the council of Jerusalem took place James was the bishop in Charge of that specific Church. Since he was the host of the council it was prudent for him to speak, since the early church still had jewish cultural ties. However, this in now way diminishes Peter's primacy. James agreed with Peter's revelation. James basically concurred and spoke it authoritatively as the one who was hosting the event. This is very jewish.
It was Peter's revelation though that they all agreed upon. Also, Peter's office of Bishop is not that just of antioch or rome but of the entire church. Peter was the chief shepherd and his successors were always considered "first among equals".
Moreover, there has always been a great deal of respect to the Bishop who is in charge of an area where a council takes place. This is also very jewish. However, the Bishop of Rome(Peter's successor) must be present to hold an ecumenical council.
This is why the Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans and some others hold Synods because they cannot hold an ecumenical council because they must have the Pope to validate it. Moreover, the Pope in past history usually just gave his seal of approval. He did not try to act extra big or anything of the sort. He already had the place of honor among the churches and he was the final court of appeal.
I imagine when the Orthodox come home, this will again be its structure.
wbmoore:
Thanks for the information. What an excellent thread this has been!
God bless you all
Brother Aaron, you asked:
"From where do you get this?:
"but the Pope can never officially teach a heretical position because of the protection of the Holy Spirit to guide Christ church into all Truth. No exceptions." "
I think he was referring to the idea of pope infallibility in matters of faith and morals when the pope speaks 'ex cathedra'. Pope Pius IX presented this idea to the First Vatican Council of 1870. Interesting, this council did not get a chance to formally end of its own accord, and had to be ended in 1960 by Pope John XXIII. Many were in disagreement with it, and at least one of the people in attendance called it blasphemy.
Its supposed to go back in time to cover ex cathedra pronouncements from previous popes, but there's disagreement with what those are.
As far as I can figure out, it has only been used once on purpose since its acceptance as doctrine. That as 1950 when the pope presented the Assumption of Mary as doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope
Why do people always revert to using words like (hate/bigot) when others disagree with them? This is absolutely ridiculous and a poor way to refute an argument or position. History does demonstrate that the Catholic Church has introduced MANY unbiblical doctrines; here is yet another example:
Most Roman Emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primary on one particular god, or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc. so the Catholic Church has a saint who is (in charge) over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided (patron saints) for the cities.
Peter had a wife, and the Bible also says:
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." (1 Timothy 3:1)
"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Timothy 3:4-5)
And he was a Pope? But he married?
And the verses quoted In black and white tells me that Church leaders were allowed to marry...
If Peter is the Prime Minister of the church, why did James preside over the first church council?
From where do you get this?:
"but the Pope can never officially teach a heretical position because of the protection of the Holy Spirit to guide Christ church into all Truth. No exceptions."
"Before Christianity was made legal; we celebrated the Mass, had Bishops, Priests, Deacons, prayed through the Saints, fasted, gave alms to the poor, venerated Mary, went to confession to a Priest privately or publicly. This was what the church practiced before Constantine and it is what the church practiced after Constantine. Does this church sound more like the Catholic Church or like Baptists or evangelical Christians? The answer is obvious."
How can you say that the church did all these things between 313 AD and the time of Peter? Without the 'novelty' of eisegesis and the traditions of a few heretics whose beliefs BARELY agree with eachother, few of these practices are found in the Bible. However, with plain exegetical interpretation, with Solo Scriptura, the Apostate root of Rome becomes self evident.
brotheraaron,
Yes, it was good that Paul was angry at Peter. Remember, Peter was only infallible in setting doctrines but not impeccable. Also remember that it was Peter who made the decision to allow Gentiles in the Church and it was Peter who brought the first Gentiles into the church as members.
Peter had bad manners and was acting like a hypocrite when he decided to sit with the Jews. Why did he do that? We can only speculate that he didn't want to ruffle the jewish people's feathers who were considering Christianity.
Notice also how the Bible talks about Paul speaking right to Peter's face. Why does scripture make such a big deal of this? Well, because Peter was the Head of the Apostles and no one had spoken to Peter like this before especially from Paul who wasn't even one of the originally called Apostles. Paul was brash but effectively got his point across.
Remember, Paul is only the first in a long line of Saints who had the courage to stand up to the Bishop of Rome when something was not right. Notice that it wasn't about doctrine or splitting up the Church and Paul isn't starting his own church. St. Charles Borromeo, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Sienna are just a few examples of people who demanded that the Pope do things better.
Pope's can make personal mistakes and can even hold heretical view, but the Pope can never officially teach a heretical position because of the protection of the Holy Spirit to guide Christ church into all Truth. No exceptions.
The Papacy never arose like how ONLINE claims. No objective historian would agree with him either. Constantine only allowed Christianity to be practiced legally within the empire. Armenia was the first country to make Christianity it's official religion.
Constantine was not a good example of a Christian. What Online said about bringing Pagan practices into the Church is false. While he had secular power, he had no authority within the Church. Yes, Constantine did call a council which was good because it helped affirm that all Christians believed the same thing; The Nicene Creed. A Creed that ONLINE DOES NOT SAY or believe byt the way, OR DOES BAPTISTS or DOES PENTECOSTALS OR EVANGELICALS. So, the Creed that was agreed upon ONLINE DOES NOT say!
The Bishop of Rome had always had Primacy because of the fact that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. The Bishop of Rome also had primacy because of the authority of the keys given by Christ to Peter. All other Patriarchs at the time called the Bishop of Rome "First among equals".
The Catholic Church did not just start when Constantine made it legal, as if a secular person can make the Church of God begin. The Catholic Church was the only surviving group of Christians who were started by the Apostles.
The beliefs of the 1st century Christians are the same as 4th century Christians. This is why Constantine did not start us, Christ founded his Church on Peter. So, whereever Peter is there is the unity of the Church because he is the Prime Minister of Christ. Before Christianity was made legal; we celebrated the Mass, had Bishops, Priests, Deacons, prayed through the Saints, fasted, gave alms to the poor, venerated Mary, went to confession to a Priest privately or publicly. This was what the church practiced before Constantine and it is what the church practiced after Constantine. Does this church sound more like the Catholic Church or like Baptists or evangelical Christians? The answer is obvious.
Mathewr1,
The Pope does not just "ALL OF A SUDDEN" say something infallible by the way. He never has and never will. Also, The Pope has never issued an infallible statement that was ever contradicted by another Pope. This is a historical fact.
ONLINE4HIM,
Is not a theologian nor has any accademic credentials and is a bigot towards the Catholic Faith, so reading a historical narrative from him about the Catholic Church is like having Prime Minister AMENIDAJAD of IRAN doing a historical expose on the Jews and the Holocaust.
Reality has never been Online's strong suit and does not mesh with what the majority of Protestants know and understand about Catholicism.
broaaron, that is a great question, plus who in the world does Paul think he is to come in and rebuke Peter, the head of the Church.
Why were the apostles squabbling about who would be the greatest after Peter had been called the rock upon which Christ would build the church?
Matthew1,
It is an interesting study; another example of how pagan practices entered the church is the Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother/goddess religion that was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as (Queen of Heaven), (Mother of God), and (theotokos/God-bearer) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshipers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.
That's very interesting Online. I've been wondering how the papacy arose to power.
For the first 300 years of Christianity, the “Roman†Catholic Church simply did not exist. Constantine “legalized†Christianity at the edict of Milan in A.D. 313; later in A.D. 325, he called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify the empire. He believed Christianity could unite the Roman Empire, which at the time was beginning to fragment and divide. The results were anything but positive. Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so he allowed and even promoted the “Christianization†of pagan beliefs.
The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized†the pagan religions, and “paganized†Christianity. One example of this is the “supremacy†of the Roman bishop; the supremacy of the Rome bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of Roman Emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire, and with the emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman Emperors. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.
Chris, last point I want to make, I don't want to irritate you too much. But if you were a Reformed pastor at one point, doesn't praying to Mary for her to interceed for you bother you in the least bit?
Chris,
I think the Catholic church has produced a huge number of excellent Christians throughout history. So don't get me wrong, when I appear to be blunt about some of the theological issues that I have with the Roman church.
I do want to research more into the Catholic church, and understand their doctrine more as well. However, 'binding and loosening' that Christ speaks of is not 'picking and choosing' doctrine that suits the day - if we'd do that, we'd end up just like the pagans in no time. Rather, it's on church issues, not doctrinal issues.
Again, I think both sides can get ignorant towards each other - the Catholic side, in thinking they're the 'only Church'; and the Protestant side, in thinking that 'all Catholics are headed to hell'.
Regardless, I'm with Luther in saying 'The Bible alone'.
Another point, somewhat off topic, who does the pope think he is when he all of a sudden, just decides to issue an infallible statement (my apoologies, I forget the technical term, when a Pope issues an infallible statement)? And why do these 'infallible statements' contradict one another from pope to pope?
mathewr1,
You have reasonable questions. It is better to do your own research. Rather than going by what you hear, just do your homework like I did.
I was a Reformed Pastor for many years and I got tired of people from the Protestant side telling me what they thought Catholics believed. Finally, I did my own research and read hundreds if not a thousand books by Catholic authors.
In the end, I converted to Catholicism. It was a long process of discernment. I left my pastorate because Jesus did found a Church and The Pope is the Prime Minister or supreme Shepherd of Christ flock.
It is all over scripture about Christ giving the Keys to Peter, telling him to feed and tend his sheep(Shepherd allusion) and the fact that Peter had primacy among the Apostles a primacy that was dynastic and fell to whoever filled Peter's office as Bishop of the Universal Church.
Isaiah 22 is the Old Testament pre-cursor to Matt 16:18 where both talk about the "KEYS". The "KEYS" signify an authoritative office given by the King. With the Keys this pastor can bind and loose doctrine and that is exactly what the Pope does still today.
Reason and faith made me Catholic.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard the Catholic church says basically (in a nutshell) that Christ is the Head, while the Pope is the head of the church, for the time being - here on earth.
Whoa there mister, slow down and re-read what I just said in my first line of text, Christ is still the Head. Relax. May you be blessed with the Peace of Christ that surpasses all knowledge...<><...
'Supreme pastor' of the 'universal Church'? I thought Christ was that. Furthermore (correct me if I'm wrong) the Romish church holds the Pope as the 'head of the Church on earth'. I thought Christ alone held that title as well.
Not actually matthewr1. It simply means he is the supreme pastor of the Universal Church, Christ is still the head. Pontiff or Pontificate has always been the title of certain religious leaders, now used principally to refer to the Pope of the Catholic Church. So you see, you don't have worry about it. Just as you likely have a head pastor in your church, and then assistant pastors, so shall we. When it comes right down to it, I really couldn't care less what you call your pastor or what he called himself when he opened the doors to his newly inspired church last year, so please extend us the same courtesy.
And anyone who doesn't like me using the term 'Popedom' will have to contend with the words of the Pope himself, when he calls himself the 'Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church'. A title like that makes the term 'Popedom' quite appropriate.
Very interesting. I would imagine the extra financial 'burden' would basically bring the Popedom to its knees. Perhaps, God willing, this will happen, then the rules of Popedom will become a thing of the past.
believer,
Yes, this seems to be one of the main underlying reasons for celibacy within the RCC; this has been reiterated several times by those that I have spoken to.
online, my own Mom who is a Catholic said the same thing when all these abuse issues came up and she said that is what she was told in her church and she read in the local Catholic weekly newspaper.
While visiting the campus of Norte Dame I was told by Catholics that the real reason their church requires priests to be celibate is because it does not want to bear the financial burden. That is that they do not want to bear the cost of providing for entire families.
chris, but can't you see the huge risk a man takes if he remains celibate when God hasn't called him to be celibate? It can very well become a deadly scenario of an accident looking for a place to happen.
Chris: We do have celebate pastors, but they do it from their own free-will and as a precious gift to the Lord. Not by force or coersion.
Let us never forget the freedom we have in Christ - freedom from man-made rules instutited for various reasons such as 'discipline', freedom from the Law, freedom to act righteously according to the Spirit of Grace.
The great thing is, if you are called to the Priesthood, and you want to marry to then you can still become a Catholic Priest in another rite. Within my city alone there are at least 5 other rites where this person could serve as a Priest.
It is only the Roman Rite, where they must be celibate. Many who are called to both the Priesthood and Marriage pick one of these other rites within our universal church.
I think it is wonderful to have both married and celibate clergy. I think the Protestant churches would benefit highly if they had celibate Pastors.
Wbmoore and Believer hit the nail on the head. It's best to remain celebate, as the Holy Spirit through Paul says, but there are no restrictions on marriage on anyone. Infact, the Holy Spirit makes clear that a man ought to marry if he's prone to temptations in that area. Also, as believer pointed out, 1 Corinthians 9:5 says, "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" So even apostles have the right to get married, if they choose. So it's not a forced rule of 'discipline' that the Roman church instituted on priests.
Wbmoore was right in saying "To require celibacy to be in leadership is to force people to choose between a manmade rule and what God has called them to do, or at best to accept a manmade rule in order to do what God has called them to do."
Celebacy in the divine Scriptures is something to be a precious free-will gift offered to the Lord, not some forced rule for 'discipline'.
Plus how many priests are called to celibacy as opposed to how many are called to the priesthood and must remain celibate if they are to answer that call, there is a huge difference. And while I agree there are some advantages to being celibate there are many advantages to having leaders who are married. My wife has always seen herself as a vital part of the pastoral ministry with me. In fact I have a huge problem when I hear of a pastor whose wife does not feel called to ministry with him. To me that very much weakens that pastor's ability to effectively minister to his congregation and community.
Yes, it is voluntary, but if you feel called to be a priest or a bishop, you cannot, because the vow of celibacy is enforced upon priests.
"The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy
http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp
I agree a celibate person can focus more fully on the Lord. But not everyone is called to this. Howver, many are called to ministry and leadership in the church. To require celibacy to be in leadership is to force people to choose between a manmade rule and what God has called them to do, or at best to accept a manmade rule in order to do what God has called them to do.
It is only the "Practice" or "Discipline" in the Latin or Roman Rite that Priests remain celibate. They do this to more completely immitate Christ.
The Catholic Church has many rites within her fold and the vast majority of other Rites like Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, Coptic and Chaldean have married Priests.
A practice or discipline may change over time like priestly celibacy in the Latin rite or eating fish on friday, etc. It is doctrines that may never change.
tallguy, what do you do with 1 Corinthians 9:5, "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" This cleary shows that some of the apostles along with Peter were married.
Matthew 19:11-12
11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
This does not say the apostles renounced marriage. It says some have renounced it because of the kingdom. But it only for those who can accept it.
1 Cor 7:32-36
" 32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs - how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world - how he can please his wife - 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world - how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord."
What I find interesting is that Paul said why it is good to be single, but then said he was not adding a restriction. And the Roman Catholic Church decided that what Paul wrote was not good enough - they had to go farther than God did.
You'd think following the example of Peter would be good enough. Peter was married.
Matthew 8:14
When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.
Also, given the problems that 'celibate' priests have had, you would think the church would follow the rest of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 7
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
You know, Paul also wrote to beware of people who forbid marriage.
1 Timothy 4:1-3
1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
Sounds like the Roman Catholic Church.
First off matthewr1 it's not the "papal church", you're just trying to be insulting.
But you do have a good question and a legitimate concern about priestly celibacy. Thanks for your concern.
Let's examine what St. Paul had to say about this in 1 Corinthians (and I'm surprised your pastor hasn't preached about this already, what else isn't he telling you) and see where the Catholic Church gets this from.
32 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. 33 But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.
Now let's see what Jesus had to say about it. If you flip your bible open to Matt 19:12, you will see, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."
Hey matthew1, always remember when you see Catholic priest walking down the sidewalk that nobody put a gun to his head and "forced" him into celibacy. He choose the priesthood freely, usually through prayer and discernment. He knew before he became a priest that he would be accepting a vow of poverty and of chastity. He accepts this so that he can be the very best servant for Jesus, and for you. Anxious only of the things of the Lord!
May the peace of Christ be with you <><....
What are you talking about MSN Chris? I don't think people 'hate' the Papal Church. I think the quarrel people have with the Roman Church is the major unbiblical doctrines that they espouse (e.g. forcing Priests to remain celebate).
Anyways, let's hope that God uses this in some way to have the Good News spread to the far corners of the earth.
May God use this World Youth Day where 500 Million people watched the Stations of the Cross on TV and INternet, to spread the fullness of Christ Gospel.
It must be tough for people that hate the Catholic Church to see God use it so effectively to preach His Holy Word.
Peace of Christ.
Today’s mass actually resembles if not duplicates the old Roman cult of Mithraism; it was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official†status in the Roman Empire, it was the de-facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman Emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present†in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of one’s god).
Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,†making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian Communion. Sadly, some early Christians (church fathers) had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the Biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Nor yet that he should offer himself OFTEN, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
For then must he OFTEN have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now ONCE in the end of the world hat he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
So Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation (Hebrews 9:24, 25, 26, 28).
The questions, it seems to me, are who qre the priests, who should sacrifice, what should the sacrifice be?
Christ is our high priest and is our intercessor.
Hebrew 7:24-28
24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. 26 Such a high priest meets our need - one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
Christ is the atoning sacrifice.
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Romans 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.
We are a royal priesthood and our sacrifices are spiritual in nature.
1 Peter 2:5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
We should be offering ourselves, gifts for those who do God's service, and praise.
Romans 12:1
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship.
Philippians 4:18
I have received full payment and even more; I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God.
Hebrews 13:15-16
15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise - the fruit of lips that confess his name. 16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.
John 4.31 - Rabbi, eat...But He said to them, -I have food to eat of which you do not know -
WHAT FOOD IS JESUS TALKING ABOUT?
John 4.34 - My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work...
Hence, when Jesus asks others to eat His flesh, and His blood...he is speaking symbolically, urging people to BELIEVE in Him.
Believing in Him(His sacrifice at the cross) would obtain them life...eternal life. Hence eating(in order to live naturally) is the metaphor for believing(in order to live eternally)in Christ. And that is why it is more than appropriate to also go back to the discussion which Jesus had with Nicodemus as regards to being born again...and the new life that is fed by Christs Spirit and Word that is able to produce Fruit (Spiritual Fruit) mentioned in Galatians by Paul.
Jesus, as God incarnate avails much to those that believe in His sacrifice. BELIEVE is the key word. BELIEVE that Jesus ransomed us from death by His sacrifice at the cross. Believe that He walked in the flesh, so that He could qualify as our High Priest and at the same time our payment for sin.
In the natural life, we live by eating of the flesh. In the new life we live only by believing in Jesus.
John 11.25 - Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life. He who BELIEVES in ME, though he may die, he shall live, and whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?
Theo,
In both the Old Testament and the New Testament the drinking of blood is forbidden...Why would the disciples have us drink the blood of Christ when it is clearly a sin? Why would Christ have us sin?
In Acts 15.6, the Jerusalem Council clearly states in verse 20:
but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
Why would the Apostles then turn around and tell us that it is ok to drink the blood of Christ?
It is patently false and sacrilegious to teach such rubbish as Christian doctrine. In fact, people are being led to worship an idol created by the RC church, in order to establish a false priesthood that is intent on ruling those that are ignorant of the Gospel.
Hence, this doctrine, is not only false, but it leads to idol worship.
Theo,
I am left to wonder whether you really understand what you are posting.
You posted:
The fact is that Christ�s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ�s flesh profits us more than anyone else�s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b�18)....
All this to convince me and others that the bread and wine truly change to the flesh and blood of Jesus?!
And you talk about circumlocution?!
This says nothing in regards to the bread and wine being the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. Who are you trying to brainwash with your circumlocutions?
Hello everyone,
..."It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"â€â€is that what he was saying? Hardly.
The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).
In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.
And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own fleshâ€â€the context makes this clearâ€â€but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
Peace
The Mass is not the communal meal of Scripture; the communal meal of Scripture was a festive meal that called to remembrance the death of Christ for the salvation of his followers. As the Passover foreshadowed the Lamb of God which would take away the sins of the world, the Lord’s Supper is time in which believers can reflect upon the ONE time offering of Christ and enjoy the hope we have through him. Surely, no one believes that Jesus became the actual lamb during Passover.
Around the time of Tertullian, the bread and the cup began to be separated from the meal and by the late second century, this separation was complete. By the fourth century, the love feast was prohibited among Christians . . . (The Council of Carthage in AD 397). Irenaeus (130 – 200) was on of the first to call the bread and cup an offering; the table where the bread and cup were placed came to be seen as an altar where the victim was offered. This mystique associated with the Eucharist was due to the influence of the pagan mystery religions, which were clouded with superstition. For example, [This round cake was of course a symbol, both of the Sun, and of his Son, or incarnation, for the circle represented both the Sun’s disk and (The Seed). Hence the round cakes made of flour which were sacrificed to the goddess represented in their mystic sense, [the Son], or [promised seed], The False Christ of Paganism (p. 345, 6).
Also, the Mexicans and Peruvians are shown to have had a similar custom. Their (Spaniards) surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of the Christian communion. On these occasions, an image of the tutelary deity of the Aztecs was made of the flour of maize, mixed with blood, and after consecration, by the priests, was distributed among the people, who, as they ate it, showed signs of humiliation and sorrow, declaring it was the flesh of the deity! (William Hickling Prescott, The Conquest of Mexico; Vol. 2, p. 388).
We have drifted too far away from the communal meal that is spoken of in Scripture: this do in REMEMBRANCE of me (1Corinthians 11:24).
FullGospel,
You avoid taking note of what is written(John 6.63), and add what is not written(your additions to Genesis 14.18).
Eating bread and drinking wine was not unusual as a way to celebrate. In fact if you read further, you will note that they ate together. NO SACRIFICE is mentioned.
Yet, you avoid John 6:63, when Jesus s desciples ask Jesus to explain what He said to the Pharisees, and Jesus, as He does often with His parables, explains the meaning of what He said to His desciples.
In John 6:63, Jesus says: It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
It is the spirit that gives life...the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
The natural man gets life from eating other flesh...
The spiritual man gets life from partaking of Christs WORDS and CHRISTS SPIRIT.
As regards to Jesus having to say: this is the symbol of my blood...why would HE?, it was obviously wine. The bread was obviously bread. He was using a metaphor. Just like when Jesus says: I am the door...He does not say...according to what you pretend: I am the symbol of the door...
We can excuse Nicodemus for being ignorant, but the RC priest today have no excuse.
But, there is more. For by rightly asserting that Christ is OUR HIGH PRIEST who is an EVERLASTING PRIEST, and whose sacrifice is for all time, and then unashamedly raising up new priests, RC doctrine becomes heretical.
For by continuing with priests, RC doctrine, is denying the Priesthood of Christ. Christ became a man so that as a Priest He could be approached by any man.
RC doctrine introduces a new priesthood that, as you have noted, has the power to withhold the mass from those that according to RC doctrine are not priests. And if according to RC doctrine, the mass is where Christs sacrifice is made effective, then this new priesthood is capable of denying men and women salvation...unless people submit to the papacy.
Hence, it makes sense that RC are encouraged to pray to Mary, and to the other dead...but not encouraged to access Christ.
Having therefore set themselves a priesthood, these are competing if not challenging Christ Himself.
As far as I'm concerned, when the Papists pray to Mary, or any other saint - they are worshiping those people - thus making them into idols. For we are only to pray to God.
Our prayers go out to the saints in Popedom that they would read the Scriptures and realize the myriad of errors Popedom is in.
Okay, I've been to Catholic Mass before. They pray to Mary!!! It is a truly discusting practice the papists pray to saints. Any Catholic who tries to weasel his way out of this is only playing a word game - for I heard with my own ears the papists praying to Mary for intercession to Christ.
The Bible tells us to pray to Christ for Him to interceed to God the Father. Not pray to Mary, so she can interceed for Christ. I have never ONCE read in the Bible we are AT ANYTIME supposed to pray to saints.
Note: Genesis 14:18 says nothing about a sacrifice of bread and wine.
It does say that Melchizidek was a Priest (first time it's used in the Bible) and priests offered up sacrifices. What was his sacrifice? Bread and wine.
Note: Psalm 110:4 says that Jesus would be a priest Forever in the order of Melchizedek.
The rest: Bread, Wine, Sacrifice is not there. It is your addition.
My friend, going back to Melchizidek, the sacrifice offered by Melchizidek was bread and wine. Jesus would tie together the bread and wine, the manna and the sacrificial lamb together into one: Himself. He would be the Priest and Victim, together.
FG - John 6: Jesus tells His followers they must eat His body and drink His blood to abide in him and have eternal life. They don't know how.
Okay, couple of points here, so let's not get them mixed up. When you go back to Leviticus, drinking blood was forbidden. Not symbolic blood, literal blood. Now, Jesus tells them they have to eat and drink His body and blood, not symbolic. If it was symbolic, that would be easy. Jesus would say "think of me when you eat bread and drink wine." No one would leave over that. They left because it was in direct contradiction to Leviticus. Literal, not symbolic.
Born again, we'll talk about some other time, unrelated to the news article, probably. :)Note: The PRIEST is Christ, and He also was the offering at the Cross. He did this once and does not need to do it over and over again.
We AGREE that He doesn't have to die over and over again. But remember, friend, he's a priest FOREVER. Scripture doesn't say you are a priest one time in the order of Melchizidek. Forever offering Himself to the Father. He doesn't have to die to do that, in the same way that when we say every morning "Jesus I give you my life again," we don't have to die to do that.
When we go back into the writings of the earliest Christians we see a question arising about "is it a symbol or is it really Jesus?" Before I add this quote, I'd encourage all my brothers and sisters in the Lord to buy the book "Eucharistic Miracles" by Joan Carroll Cruz. There was more proof in there than a one-time skeptic like me could argue away. Now, here's a historical quote:
Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
This last quote from the same generation of Christians that gave us the Bible. No barnacles here. 1,200 years later when Christianity began disintegrating into ever-splintering denominations, symbol crept back in. It wasn't so in the beginning.
Peace.
steiner, my friend, you are right, that's what I'm saying. In order for the Holy Spirit to change unleavened bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus, we have to keep the commandments of Jesus on this. Jesus said it has to be a priest.
FullGospel,
It seems to me that by what you are saying, a layperson is not allowed to perform the mass. If I have misunderstood, please kindly clarify.
msnchris70,
Please clarify for me what you think. If a Roman Catholic lay person does the mass, will it turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus, as it does, according to RC doctrine when an RC priest does the mass?
FullGospel, it seems that you are in full agreement with msnchris70, just in a little deeper…
I asked: If a Roman Catholic layperson would conduct the mass instead of a priest, would (according to RC doctrine) the wine and bread turn to the blood and flesh of Jesus?
FG - If we start with Gen. 14:18, Melchizidek was a PRIEST who offered BREAD and WINE as a SACRIFICE
Note: Genesis 14:18 says nothing about a sacrifice of bread and wine.
FG - Psalms 110:4 said Jesus would be a priest FOREVER in the order of Melchizidek. FOREVER. Priest. Bread. Wine. Sacrifice.
Note: Psalm 110:4 says that Jesus would be a priest Forever in the order of Melchizedek.
The rest: Bread, Wine, Sacrifice is not there. It is your addition.
FG - John 6: Jesus tells His followers they must eat His body and drink His blood to abide in him and have eternal life. They don't know how.
Note: read further down where Jesus explains what he means when the disciples also have trouble understanding: John 6:63 – It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Tie this with what Jesus said to Nicodemus: that we have to be born again, to which Nicodemus could not imagine going back to his mother s womb, and to which Jesus was amazed that a senior religious leader did not understand. Born again by His Spirit..and growing as a new creature by being renewed in Christ s Word and Spirit. Unfortunately many senior religious leaders are in the same place Nicodemus was and therefore still think that Christ s flesh is his blood and organs…..Like Nicodemus they seem confused, but they have their own reasons, unlike Nicodemus.
FG - He tells them at the last supper, when He, as the Priest and the Victim, allows the Apostles to fulfill this for the first time. Then, He tells the Apostles "do THIS."
What is "this?" You have to be a PRIEST who offers up BREAD and WINE as a SACRIFICE and God, working through the Holy Spirit, brings about a miracle. We get to fulfill John 6...every day.
And when we present the only thing that pleased the Father (i.e. Jesus) to the Father, what is our eternal High Priest in heaven doing? Presenting Himself to the Father. Think of the graces that fall from heaven at that moment when we participate in the Eternal Sacrifice of Jesus...... to the Promised Land (i.e. Heaven).
Note: The PRIEST is Christ, and He also was the offering at the Cross. He did this once and does not need to do it over and over again. That is why we are asked to remember. We remember what has taken place in the past.
FG - "Softly and tenderly, Jesus is calling..."
here I kindly agree .
Mary's Praise on Every Tongue by P.J. Chandlery, S.J.
"Jesus is the Author of Grace. Mary is the dispenser of grace. St. Bernard says God wills that we should receive all His good gifts through Mary." [End quote]
Let's compare what Bernard said with a few scriptures:
I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge... (1Co 1:4-5)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Ac 2:38)
That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:7)
Bernard took a wrong turn from the biblical straight path. Let's not do the same.
Steiner, my friend, you ask:
msnchris70
If a Roman Catholic layperson would conduct the mass instead of a priest, would (according to RC doctrine) the wine and bread turn to the blood and flesh of Jesus?
According to God/Jesus (not Catholic doctrine), we would NOT be doing what Jesus asked. Let me do this from memory...
If we start with Gen. 14:18, Melchizidek was a PRIEST who offered BREAD and WINE as a SACRIFICE.
Psalms 110:4 said Jesus would be a priest FOREVER in the order of Melchizidek. FOREVER. Priest. Bread. Wine. Sacrifice.
John 6: Jesus tells His followers they must eat His body and drink His blood to abide in him and have eternal life. They don't know how.
He tells them at the last supper, when He, as the Priest and the Victim, allows the Apostles to fulfill this for the first time. Then, He tells the Apostles "do THIS."
What is "this?" You have to be a PRIEST who offers up BREAD and WINE as a SACRIFICE and God, working through the Holy Spirit, brings about a miracle. We get to fulfill John 6...every day.
And when we present the only thing that pleased the Father (i.e. Jesus) to the Father, what is our eternal High Priest in heaven doing? Presenting Himself to the Father. Think of the graces that fall from heaven at that moment when we participate in the Eternal Sacrifice of Jesus.
Doesn't matter how we want to change it. God will do His part when we do ours. And Malachi 1:11 prophecies that non-Gentiles (i.e. Christians) will offer up the "pure offering" (i.e. Jesus) every day to the glory of God. It's been done as Jesus said for 2,000 years by those faithful to Him, no matter the cost.
We also find these points reflected in historical writings from "The Didache" (40-80 AD) onward. Ignatius of Antioch, 110 A.D.; Justin Martyr, 155 A.D. (the Mass, in great detail). It's all there, friends. And Google provides for free!
And the miraculous bread (i.e. Jesus) still comes down from heaven every day to sustain God's chosen people (i.e. Christians) on their journey to the Promised Land (i.e. Heaven).
"Softly and tenderly, Jesus is calling..."
msnchris70
If a Roman Catholic layperson would conduct the mass instead of a priest, would (according to RC doctrine) the wine and bread turn to the blood and flesh of Jesus?
Also, 500 Million people watched the Stations of the Cross in Sydney through Catholic Television. The second largest television audience ever since Pope JPII Funeral.
Look at those fruits!!
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new (2 Corinthians 5:17).
Many will be disappointed at the end; they will be turned away because their faith was misplaced; (in their own futile attempts at righteousness and in external/visible things which could not save).
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his (Romans 8:9).
brotheraaron,
Thank you for providing info on your church. It sounds pretty solid. I would add there are some limitations within what you wrote which is why there are 50,000 Protestants all claiming to go by the Bible and yet make huge errors on doctrine. I am happy to explain. It doesn't mean you are not a Christian and I accept you as a fellow Christian.
I would be happy to discuss any of your church's beliefs offline and ours' too. Use my handle @hotmail.com
Steiner,
Yes, a Catholic Priest of any "Rite" can conduct the Liturgy. I as a Catholic lay person do not have the faculties to conduct the Mass. Remember, there are at least 21 Rites or Traditions within the Catholic Church. The Roman Rite is the largest, that is why we are the Catholic Church with Roman Christians, Byzantine Christians, Melkite, Coptic, Greek, Ukraine, Chaldean, etc. Any of these Rites with their Priests can conduct the Mass. It must be a Priest or Bishop with Apostolic succession or the Mass would be invalid.
Your second question is a good one. When the Priest prays over the bread and wine using the words of consecration from scripture, the bread and wine always becomes the body and blood of our Lord. The accidentals remain bread and wine to our senses, but they do truly become the body and blood of our Lord because He said so.
Preaching the Gospel and good works are absolutely meaningless without salvation; salvation comes through repentance and faith in Jesus; faith and repentance comes by knowledge; knowledge (usually)comes from true evangalism; evangalism comes from men and women of God, led by the Holy Spirit, who worship God in spirit and truth, and are saved by God's grace alone.
I flagged myself for spelling errors...
Hey Canadian Christian,
May I ask in who's humble opinion is it that Grand churches and Cathedrals do nothing to further the image of Christ? Yours or God's? Do you even know what a Cathedral is?
Quit worrying about Catholics, our salvations is by Grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Don't be concerned that we trim and furnish our churches with paintings and stained glass windows which are usually of bible scenes, and statues in tribute to the particular Saint of which that particular parish is named. This is only art, meant to bring beauty and reverence to the sanctuary of our worship. Don't worry about we Catholics; trust that we are able to distinguish the difference between art and worship of Jesus, trust that like you we have Jesus in our hearts too! We are placed on this earth to Love and Serve our Lord Jesus Christ!
Now go feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, and clothe the naked. Don't worry so much about our statues, it'll be ok. Instead, make better use of your time and preach the Good News to a muslim today or a drug addict on the street. Show them the Love of Christ <><...
Hey Canadian Christian,
May I ask in who's humble opinion is it that Grand churches and Cathedrals do nothing to further the image of Christ? Yours or God's? Do you even know what a Cathedral is?
Quit worrying about the Catholics, our salvations is by Grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Don't be concerned that we trim and furnish our churches with paintings, stained glass windows which are usually bible scenes, and statues in tribute to the Saint of which that particular parish is named. This is only art, meant to bring beauty and reverence to the santuary of our worship. Don't worry about us, trust that we have Jesus in our hearts too!
No go feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, and clothe the naked. Don't worry about us. Preach the Good News to a muslim today or a drug addict on the street. Don't be worried about our status, we're going to be ok! <><...
brotheraaron,
It sounds like you have a pretty good church there-you are blessed.
It says a lot when catholics have to look at something,statue,candle,paintings,etc... to reflect/meditate/pray on the LORD.If the LORD is truly in your heart you don't need images of HIM plastered all over the place,catholic churches are way over the top with statues/icons/imagery,etc...what happened to the humility and the meekness of being a body of believers ?? Grand churches and cathederals do nothing to further the "image" of CHRIST, and I don't recall reading in the bible of the apostles meeting in such grand buildings-dank,dark caves and simple homes me thinks.
Steiner, good questions that need answering.
Praise to our LORD & MASTER JESUS CHRIST!!!
msnChris70
I have some more questions.
1. Can a Catholic who is not a Roman Catholic priest conduct the mass?
2. Is it possible (supposing that it is not fiction)that in a mass, the bread and wine will not turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus? Or is it a given that it always turns into the flesh and blood of Jesus?
Dear msnChris,
I hope that this clears up the aweful mess some Christians may have left you with. We are all so very imperfect, but continually and tenaciously cleave to God. We are a part of the Body... the bride of Christ... His Church... His Children. By the power of the Holy Ghost do we resist the spiritual adultry found in many Churches today, to be as a virgin to the Groom, who is God.
Praise God!
To jump in on this discussion of statues, what God commands us NOT to do is bow down and worship a statue. We all agree on that. On that Exodus 20:4 verse, don't take it out of context. Read verse 5: "you shall not bow down to them or serve them."
If anyone's told you that Catholics worship statues, you've been misled. That same line of logic could be used by anyone who sees a believer with their head bowed and their hands clasped in prayer in front of their Bible. They could mistakenly conclude that you were worshiping your Bible. It would be untrue.
Also, anyone who's been told that Catholics are re-sacrificing Jesus over and over again has been misled. We are simply doing what Jesus told us to do, offering to the Father the only thing that ever pleased Him, His Son Jesus. It is the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 "for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to may name, and A PURE OFFERING."
That, my friends in Christ, is Jesus in the Eucharist. Peace.
...continued...
Section 2. Church Covenant
As a bond of unity among us, this church accepts for its members the following covenant:
Having been led as we believe by the Holy Spirit to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour and on the profession of our faith in Him, having been baptized by immersion in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we do now most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another as one body in Christ in this local church. (I Cor. 12:12,13)
We purpose to watch over and counsel one another in the spirit of brotherly love; to remember each other in prayer; to aid each other in sickness and distress; to cultivate Christian sympathy in feeling and courtesy in speech; to be slow to take offense, but always ready for reconciliation.
We agree, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to walk together in Christian love; to strive together for the advancement of this church in knowledge, holiness, and comfort; to promote its prosperity and spirituality; to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline, and doctrines; and to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, and the spreading of the Gospel to all nations.
We further covenant to maintain family and private devotion; to train up our children in the ways of the Lord; to seek the salvation of our kindred and acquaintances; to walk circumspectly in this present world; to be just in our dealings, faithful in our engagements, and exemplary in our deportment; to avoid all backbiting and excessive anger; to abstain from the sale and non- medical use of intoxicating beverages and other drugs, and everything that would cause our brother to stumble or that would bring reproach upon the cause of Christ; and to strive to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, that amidst evil and good report, we will humbly and earnestly seek to live to the honour and glory of Him who loved us and gave Himself for us.
...continued...
SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH ALONE
Men are justified on the single ground of faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. (II Cor. 5:18-21; I John 2:2; Titus 3:5; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8,9)
THE BODY OF CHRIST ON EARTH
The body of Christ on earth consists of all born - again believers. A New Testament Church is a local organized body of baptized believers practicing scriptural ordinances and actively engaged in fulfilling the Great Commission. (Eph. 5:23,24; I Cor. 5:4; Acts 15; Matt. 28:19,20; Eph. 4:11-16; Heb. 10:25)
BELIEVERS BAPTISM
Baptism is a scriptural ordinance of the church requiring immersion of believers only and to be administered by a local church. (Matt. 28:19,20; Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47; Acts 16:33)
LORD'S SUPPER
The Lord's Supper is a scriptural ordinance of the church to be partaken of by born - again baptized believers of like faith. (I Cor. 11:23,24)
LITERAL RESURRECTION OF ALL MEN
The physical resurrection of both the saved and the lost; the saved unto the resurrection of life, and the lost unto the resurrection of damnation. (II Cor. 5:8; I Cor. 15:51-57; I Thess. 4:14-17; Rev. 20:3-10)
THE LORD'S CALLING THE CHURCH TO GLORY
The pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture of the saints. (Titus 2:13; I Thess. 4:14-17; Rev. 3:10)
I know this isn't really the thread for it, but I thought I'd clear up some often repeated misunderstandings about fundamentalists. Here is a simple cut and paste from our Church's Statement of Beliefs and Church Covenent:
Article IV - STATEMENT OF FAITH AND CHURCH COVENANT
Section 1. Statement of Faith
The Statement of Faith is irrevocable and cannot be amended by the church.
WE BELIEVE IN THE:
INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE
The Bible is the verbally and inerrant inspired Word of God in its original Scripture and the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. (I Cor. 2:9-13; II Peter 1:19-21; II Tim. 3: 16,17)
TRIUNE GOD
There is one God eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (John 4:24; James 1:17; Psalms 139:1-16; Psalms 2:2,7; Isa. 63:10; John 16:7,15,26)
DEITY OF CHRIST
In the Deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His shed blood for atonement, His bodily resurrection, His ascension, and His personal return to establish His kingdom on earth. (John 1:1,2; Rom. 9:5; II Peter 1:1; Luke 1:31-35; Isa. 7:14; Phil. 2:6-8; II Cor. 5:14,15; I Cor. 15:1-4; Rev. 3:10; Matt. 24:29-31)
TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF MAN
All men are by nature sinful and lost and that for eternal salvation, Holy Spirit regeneration is absolutely essential. (Eph. 2:8,9; Rom. 6:10; I John 2:3; Rom. 3:24; John 3:5; Titus 3:5; Rom. 5:1)
PERSONHOOD OF SATAN
Satan is a person and that the Lake of Fire is a place of eternal conscious punishment for all unsaved. (Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:14; Rev. 20:7; Rev. 20:11-15)
PERSON AND WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
The Holy Spirit's relationship to man is to convict of sin and bring one to Christ, (John 6:44; John 12:32; John 15:26; John 16:7-14) to indwell, (Rom. 8:9), seal, (Eph. 1:13,14; I Cor. 12:12,13) and to fill. (Epli. 5:18)
continued...
Brotheraaron,
Also, the largest statues in the world other than the Statue of Liberty are images of Jesus or of the Cross.
If a statue of Jesus or a picture of Jesus helps you think of him even just for a second in our busy day, then it is a good thing. We Catholics put images all over the place, so that we have constant reminders to think of Jesus. We put them in our homes, wallets, car and office.
I know I especially need pictures of Jesus in my car. I have to drive a lot and I get so angry when people get in the fast lane and they are only going 50mph. It drives me nuts, and then I look at my dashboard and remember who is my King.
If you are going to correct me in the future, please be even handed. We Catholics get called apostates, papists, worshippers of Mary, etc. My temper does get very irrate about this because it is untrue and is the same stuff over and over again and it is always from fundamentalist types.
On my own word, I will try to do better as scripture says I should. I do appreciate your keeping me accountable. I should have turned the other cheek. Mia culpa, Maxima mia culpa. Sorry.
Despite our disagreements, I admire your reverence for God. Pax Christi.
Steiner,
I think it is funny that I got rebuked by brother aarone for calling you a fundamentalist and yet he did not rebuke you for calling us Catholics "Papists" which is a highly derogative term from the 16th Century first used by Martin Luther. That's fine though. Unfair discrimination happens a lot on this post.
I'm glad you were watching the Mass. Yes, the Priest says please accept our Sacrifice. You bet. The Mass is a timeless offering of the timeless sacrifice that took place on Calvary 2000 years ago. We are re-presenting this one time sacrifice for the forgiveness of all our sins as Christ commanded that we do this in memory of Him. We offer bread and wine which become the body and blood of Christ as a sacrifice, which represents the body and blood of our Lord that was for all time crucified once for all of us. We are not crucifying him over and over and it is not a new sacrifice we offer, but it is the one time sacrifice of calvary which is with us always. It is also the one time sacrifice that is par excellence. We can add nothing to what Christ did on the Christ, so we simply re-present this sacrifice in memory of Him for all of our current sinning.
Calvary was a one time sacrifice. Christ asked us to offer bread and wine as the sacrifice and do it in memory of Him. We are only doing exactly what Christ commanded in Scripture.
Dear IHS
But images of a Holy God?
I see your point though. However, the infant Jesus is different from Jesus the Messiah. That, and I wouldn't send a 'picture of Jesus' on a Christmas card to anyone. Even if it was not condemned by scripture, I still couldn't imagine even wanting to attempt to draw, carve, hang or mount such a thing anywhere. GOD is HOLY... to be loved, revered and glorified. We do this through prayer and worship, not through drawing pictures.
Kind regards,
Brother Aaron
Brotheraaron,
In our church we have a large picture of Jesus in the back of the church. If we say all images whether carved or painted are graven, then photographing your family and putting them up in a place of honor on the walls of your house would logically go against this commandment. Also, sending out Christmas cards or Easter card with pictures of Jesus would be against this commandment too if God meant it to be all images.
I think it is important to understand what Graven is, especially when right after God gave the commandments He commanded them to make images or statues of angels and a serpent too. You simply may not create an idol for worship.
We don't have statues at our church, but we have a lot of pictures of Jesus and during Christmas we put a nativity scene on our lawn in front of our Church. Is this graven?
Our Church, which is evangelical and very conservative in nature, uses these pictures of Jesus to remind of us of our Lord that we do know what God looked like and having images of him helps us realize he was fully man and fully God at the same time. We don't worship the picture and we don't worship the statues of the nativity scene, but from an evangelical standpoint it helps remind us that they were real human beings.
Catholics have a lot of statues and many icons or images of Christ in their churches, plus saints and angels. I think this is a little over the top for me, but I do not believe this violates the commandment since they do not worship these objects or pictures.
God bless you.
To those that wish to know what I am, I am a Christian.
As regards to my giving protestants a bad name, or not understanding Catholics...I find such comments irrelevant.
If I made a point regarding sacrificing Christ over again...it is because as I was listening to Pell, I heard him say...please accept our sacrifice...before he performed the mass...
The implications I thought worth mentioning.
For it would be uncomplementary to Roman Catholic dogma to not notice what their priests are saying.
Essentially, is Roman Catholicism bringing back the priesthood of the old testament? Those priests used to sacrifice lambs and goats...and depending on the purity of the lamb and goat would hope that the sacrifice would be good enough.
Is Roman Catholicism telling us that the priesthood of the Old Testament is now still with us?
And in the Old Testament only the recognized levitical priests were allowed to offer the sacrifice...
Are papists hoping to keep this power without anyone noticing...but yet still think that they are true to the Gospel?
Hi,
our Church is in a normal, older church building. It has pews on either side of the aisle and a pulpit at the front. There is a piano on one side of the pulpit and an organ on the other. Our place of worship is somewhat plain. It is unadorned on the outside, but wow! the inside has the glean of the Holy Spirit. We have not placed any statues of God within or without.
I don't think that using a machine shop or a gym to worship God would be glorifying to Him or edifying to His Children, therefore a humble church will suffice.
I'm sorry, I should't have said that about machine shops, you probably have a nice building to worship in. But I, and I'm sure you have too, seen many examples of "church" being held in ratty old machine sheds, back of restarants, gymnasiums, rented space in a strip mall. All contrary to Scripture. <><...
Thanks for your concern! Again, you can relax, Catholics are Christian and our Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ! You don’t need to worry about us.
Go ahead, grab your concordance. For sure, no graven images, but if you read further for the deeper meaning of this scripture (like you should always do), the rest of the commandment makes clear, God has forbidden only the making of such images with the intention of worshiping them as the pagans did. He has by no means banned the creation of all religious images!
On the contrary, the Lord actually instructed the Israelites to store those very commandments, carved in stone, within a sacred container (ark) to be decorated with golden images of angelic beings called cherubim (see Ex 25:10-22). He also commanded the people to decorate the places where they worshipped with gold, bronze, and wooden images of animals and plants (see Ex 25:33-36, 26:1, also 1 Kings 6:23 to 7:51, and also 2 Chronicles 3:10 - 4:22).
So, how's your church looking these days? Are you following scripture and worshiping in a Holy sanctuary, a place set apart from the world, trimmed and furnished as God would have it, or will just about any old machine shop or gymnasium do?
My friends,
In light of the scriptures, we simply don't have the right to create an image of our holy God. It's blasphemy to try and render him in human form. I'm not saying that anyone bows down in worship to images, that would be a whole other conversation. I personally believe that God didn't leave for us a description of the Christ for a reason...
Tallguy,
thanks for the clarification, but I wasn't claiming at all to be without sin. Nor was I accusing you of anything. I was illuminating someone's abusive, hurtful, and uninformed attack to emphasize the fruit of their religiosity.
I apologise for coming into the middle of the conversation concerning statues etc...My family are devout Catholics, I don't know one who "worships" a statue. What I do find is that they use them as an aid to reflect/meditate/ pray about some aspect of Jesus' life or that of a saint etc...You get the picture, I'm sure. How diffrent is that do using the gospels which are printed on paper etc..to do the same thing?
Kind regards
Steve
Actually, there are about twenty more similar verses in the OT, but I didn't want to concordance you to death.
Hello Tallguy,
good to hear back from you.
Here are a few reasons, in answer to your question which was in answer to my question:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:" - Exd 20:4 KJV
"Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God." - Lev 26:1 KJV
"Lest ye corrupt [yourselves], and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female," - Deu 4:16 KJV
"And when he had restored the eleven hundred [shekels] of silver to his mother, his mother said, I had wholly dedicated the silver unto the LORD from my hand for my son, to make a graven image and a molten image: now therefore I will restore it unto thee." - Jdg 17:3 KJV
"And the five men that went to spy out the land went up, [and] came in thither, [and] took the graven image, and the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image: and the priest stood in the entering of the gate with the six hundred men [that were] appointed with weapons of war." - Jdg 18:17 KJV
"And the priest's heart was glad, and he took the ephod, and the teraphim, and the graven image, and went in the midst of the people." - Jdg 18:20 KJV
"And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land." - Jdg 18:30 KJV
"And they set them up Micah's graven image, which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh." - Jdg 18:31 KJV
"And he set a graven image of the grove that he had made in the house, of which the LORD said to David, and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever:" - 2Ki 21:7 KJV
"The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains." - Isa 40:19 KJV
I hope this answers your question.
May God bless you,
Brother Aaron
Aaron, if you look in a mirror you might find just what you are accusing us of, so drop it already! We are all sinners, and it is for this reason that Jesus came to save all of us.
These are the fruits of the Catholic spirit, or at least the fruits that Catholics are encouraged to strive for:
Peace, Patience, Joy, Love, Kindness, Gentleness, Godliness, Meekness, Faithfulness, Poverty of Spirit, Love of Neighbor, Humbleness, Purity of Mind and Body, Obedience, Gratitude of the Gift of Faith, Fidelity, Desire for Holiness, Spiritual Courage, Love of our Eucharistic Lord, God's Will be done, Reign of Christ in our heart, Patient bearing of trials, Pardoning of Injuries, Christian Hope, Grace of Perseverance.
So, please forgive me Brother Aaron if I don't live according to these at all times of my life, I often fall short. But I, like many am still God's work in progress. <><....
Aaron, why wouldn't anyone put up a statue of Jesus?
Have you ever put up a Nativity scene at Christmas? If so, did you bow down and worship it? Likely not. Are you or any of your friends an Oilers or Eskimos fan? If so, have you ever displayed a jersey or license plate of your favorite team? Why then wouldn't you display something of reverence for your leader and King, Jesus Christ, who is far more important (or at least should be) more important then the Edmonton Oilers, the one who displayed Himself bloody, publicly, on the Cross when He died for your sins
Why would anyone put up statues of Jesus?
msnchris:
Sir, you are a sinner. Jesus loves you.
Are these the fruits of the Catholic spirit:
Sarcsm - Insult - Sarcasm - Information - Finish
I find it sad how you try and stereotype Christians with contempt prior to investigation... and then set yourself up as a fruitless, impotent, Catholic sterotype yourself.
May you see Jesus.
May the Pope repent. Take off his silly hat and gown. Put down his golden stick. Completely discard the vatican's wealth... and come to the feet of Jesus.
"The star of the show, Pope Benedict XVI..."
Actually, they weren't putting up statues of Benedict 16th, they were putting up statues of the REAL star of the show: Jesus.
Steiner, you're in our prayers. You can go to www.catholic.com and get truthful answers to many of your misunderstandings. Come, be part of those within the body of Christ who love and who work for unity among all those who follow Jesus.
Steiner,
As a Reformed Minister, I would also appreciate if you did some credible research about Catholic practices. Your approach gives us Protestants a bad name. I hold you as a fellow Christian accountable.
You paint a picture about the Mass that is incorrect. This week in Australia many Protestant leaders will be meeting with the Pope to pray for him and his mission to bring people to Christ. All of us denominations do and believe things that others may seem as strange some may even interpret it as a practice or belief that is unbiblical. We Protestants have just as many problems dealing with interpretation and doctrine inside of Protestantism, as we do with the Catholics. Protestant leaders throughout the World Council of Churches accept Catholics as Christians and people like you need to work for unity.
Yes, we have some profound differences but these differences are not insurmountable and with the Grace of God we must come to one understanding of faith in Christ.
May everyone hear the call of God and come to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Steiner,
Are you fundamentalist or something and get your education from Jimmy Swagart? Please do some research before you make yourself look like a low educated fundamentalist.
Be informed. It is not a re-sacrifice and never has been, but a representation"do this in memory of me"of the ONE-TIME sacrifice on Calvary. We don't re-crucify Christ!
The representation of the one time sacrifice is offered to God the Father, because that is the greatest Sacrifice for all man-kind. It is finished, Jesus said and we do this in rememberance of HIM.
May the Pope bring hundreds of thousands of people to Christ this week in Australia.
And think of the implications. If a priest will not sacrifice Christ, will salvation be withheld?
Can a priest not perform Christs sacrifice as a means to stop forgiveness?
I also protest.
How many are willing to stand by with their eyes shut and their minds closed as the papist priests sacrifice Christ over and over again...