Catholic Church only true church, Vatican says [Archive]

kobuk

14th September 2007, 03:58 AM

I'm offering to have a fair and square honest debate with RC's on this subject. Using principles of debate that disallow personal attacks or hazing of opinions etc. Sorry to have to qualify things this way. But i'd really like to have frequent honest debates with RC's on clear and easy to understand topics.

I'm a veteran of watching Dr. Walter Martin have several dozen debates both on video and on audio tape with often times RC's. He was the original 'Bible Answer Man'. He used a debate style that was very respectful of all the best principles of fair communication and even with a flair for humor thrown in where appropriate. I will follow his example and not deviate from it. You believe your position. I believe mine. Let's go a few rounds shall we? Keeping in mind that we don't have to beat the topic to smitherines or play king of the hill. Let's cover the bases on our respective beliefs and have the decency to agree to disagree amicably when we're through. Letting our audience enjoy the exercise as much as we do. Our topic with an article for very accurate referance purposes is listed below. ;)

Catholic Church only true church, Vatican says

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/10/vatican-church.html

BlackSabb

16th September 2007, 05:09 AM

So what's new? Many other defective Christian denominations claim this same gargage. Other sects that also believe they are the only true church are JW's, SDAs, Mormons etc.

SpiritualAntiseptic

18th September 2007, 09:35 PM

So what's new? Many other defective Christian denominations claim this same gargage. Other sects that also believe they are the only true church are JW's, SDAs, Mormons etc.

Catholicism isn't a denomination- it is the Church created by the apostles and carries with her Christ's very authority.

The protestant denominations were created by European kings and extremists who wanted to change the make-up of the world and push their version of the truth over the objective, divine reality of Christianity.

Hentenza

18th September 2007, 11:02 PM

Catholicism isn't a denomination- it is the Church created by the apostles and carries with her Christ's very authority.

The protestant denominations were created by European kings and extremists who wanted to change the make-up of the world and push their version of the truth over the objective, divine reality of Christianity.

You are missing quite a few historical points. Maybe some honest reading of the history of the church might shed some light.

For one European Kings and princes used to bow to the Catholic Church. Heck, there was even one king that was made to walk in the snow with no shoes dressed in sackcloth for three days by the pope. Oh the power. The Catholic Church should have not strayed from biblical teaching and probably all of us would be Catholics now.;)

SpiritualAntiseptic

18th September 2007, 11:18 PM

You are missing quite a few historical points. Maybe some honest reading of the history of the church might shed some light.

For one European Kings and princes used to bow to the Catholic Church. Heck, there was even one king that was made to walk in the snow with no shoes dressed in sackcloth for three days by the pope. Oh the power. The Catholic Church should have not strayed from biblical teaching and probably all of us would be Catholics now.;)

Well, let's think here- the Church canonized and preserved the bible. She existed before the bible was written and her teaching have remained unchanged.

"biblical teachings" is a fun little phrase that just means "my interpretation of scripture". Well, Catholics don't follow individual interpretations- they follow the teachings of the apostles.

Hentenza

18th September 2007, 11:30 PM

Well, let's think here- the Church canonized and preserved the bible. She existed before the bible was written and her teaching have remained unchanged.

"biblical teachings" is a fun little phrase that just means "my interpretation of scripture". Well, Catholics don't follow individual interpretations- they follow the teachings of the apostles.

The RC did not exist before Constantine. Yes, the "c"atholic, as universal church, existed since 33AD, however, the Roman "C"atholic church was the brainchild of Constantine.

Secondly, God preserved the bible. Frankly, most books of the bible were considered scripture way before the councils of the 4th century. As a matter of fact, the first cannon was the Muratorian Cannon which was compiled around 170AD. But even before that, the gospels and other books were considered scripture by the apostles themselves.

The "C"atholic church merely compiled what had already had been decided by God. The RC is a church like any other so you should not idolize the church. Concentrate on Jesus. He is the one.:thumbsup:

SpiritualAntiseptic

18th September 2007, 11:41 PM

The RC did not exist before Constantine. Yes, the "c"atholic, as universal church, existed since 33AD, however, the Roman "C"atholic church was the brainchild of Constantine.

You do know that no secular account of history believes that, right? You won't find that in an serious textbook.

Constantine had no power over the Church.

Secondly, God preserved the bible.Through whom?

Frankly, most books of the bible were considered scripture way before the councils of the 4th century. As a matter of fact, the first cannon was the Muratorian Cannon which was compiled around 170AD. But even before that, the gospels and other books were considered scripture by the apostles themselves.The Syrians consider the Apocalypse of Peter to be scripture, so pray tell, how do you come to the conclusion that wasn't scripture?
The Gospels could not have been considered scriptures by the apostles because they didn't exist. Even John Chapter 21 admits it was written after all the apostles and those that lived at the same time of Jesus were dead.

The "C"atholic church merely compiled what had already had been decided by God. The RC is a church like any other so you should not idolize the church. Concentrate on Jesus. He is the one.:thumbsup:
The Church isn't idolized- it is just what Christ established. Anything else is just man-made.

Hentenza

19th September 2007, 12:06 AM

[quote=SpiritualAntiseptic;38938079]You do know that no secular account of history believes that, right? You won't find that in an serious textbook.

And I guess you just believe the RC party line. Rome wasn't even Christian until Constantine. Look, the history is there for all to see. No need to sugar coat it.

Constantine had no power over the Church.

mmmmm....... So choosing the bishop of Rome does not count?

Through whom?
LOL!!! All by himself. Consider the way that the scriptures where preserved through the pre-Constantine times. The early church, with the help of God, preserved the scriptures. God always finds a way. No RC involvement here!!

The Syrians consider the Apocalypse of Peter to be scripture, so pray tell, how do you come to the conclusion that wasn't scripture?
The Gospels could not have been considered scriptures by the apostles because they didn't exist. Even John Chapter 21 admits it was written after all the apostles and those that lived at the same time of Jesus were dead.

The Muratorian Canon did not include the Apocalypse of Peter. A good book to read on the subject is "The Canon of the New Testament" by Bruce Metzger.

The Church isn't idolized- it is just what Christ established. Anything else is just man-made.
The RC is no where near what Christ established. Christ established the catholic church not the Roman Catholic Church. There is a difference.;)

Project 86

19th September 2007, 12:10 AM

Catholicism isn't a denomination- it is the Church created by the apostles and carries with her Christ's very authority.

The protestant denominations were created by European kings and extremists who wanted to change the make-up of the world and push their version of the truth over the objective, divine reality of Christianity.

You certainly have rewrote historical reality. Catholicism has strayed so far from what Jesus and the apostles taught that they are bordering on the line of not even being Christian yet alone a denomination. Some important problems are their teaching that it is not faith alone that saves. Faith alone is clearly taught in the Bible but Catholicism wants to add to that. So the salvation message is different and that is key to the Christian faith. Also they believe you can lose your salvation which is certainly not true and was not taught by the apostles. I would keep listing things and go into more detail but I better get to bed before I fall asleep at the keyboard. ;) :sleep:

SpiritualAntiseptic

19th September 2007, 12:41 AM

You certainly have rewrote historical reality.

Not one bit.

Catholicism has strayed so far from what Jesus and the apostles taught that they are bordering on the line of not even being Christian yet alone a denomination.

Catholicism is the original and only Christian Church. Everything else is man-made. Everything the Church teaches comes from Christ and the apostles.

Some important problems are their teaching that it is not faith alone that saves. Faith alone is clearly taught in the Bible but Catholicism wants to add to that. So the salvation message is different and that is key to the Christian faith. Also they believe you can lose your salvation which is certainly not true and was not taught by the apostles. I would keep listing things and go into more detail but I better get to bed before I fall asleep at the keyboard. ;) :sleep:

The bible says nothing about 'faith alone'- that was something created by Martin Luther. James speaks of faith and works.

To say that people can lose their faith is absurdity. First of all, to believe this, you have to believe that people lose their free will. You have to have a totally warped understanding of grace as well.

This goes absolutely against the parable about the seeds and contradicts everything taught in early Christianity. It was an idea fabricated in the 16th Century.

Vambram

19th September 2007, 02:12 AM

Ephesians 2:8-9 -
These verses explain "the incomparable riches of His grace" Ephesians_2:7 , expanding the parenthetical statement in Ephesians_2:5, It is by grace you have been saved, and adding that the means of this salvation is through faith. Hence the basis is grace and the means is faith alone (cf. Romans_3:22, Romans_3:25; Galatians_2:16; 1 Peter_1:5). Faith is not a "work." It does not merit salvation; it is only the means by which one accepts God’s free salvation.
Paul elaborated, And this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. Much debate has centered around the demonstrative pronoun "this" (touto). Though some think it refers back to "grace" and others to "faith," neither of these suggestions is really valid because the demonstrative pronoun is neuter whereas "grace" and "faith" are feminine. Also, to refer back to either of these words specifically seems to be redundant. Rather the neuter touto, as is common, refers to the preceding phrase or clause. (In Ephesians1:15 and Ephesians 3:1 touto, "this," refers back to the preceding section.) Thus it refers back to the concept of salvation (Ephesians_2:4-8), whose basis is grace and means is faith. This salvation does not have its source in man (it is "not from yourselves"), but rather, its source is God’s grace for "it is the gift of God."
Ephesians_2:9 reinforces this by showing that the means is not by works since its basis is grace (Romans_3:20, Romans_3:28; Rom_4:1-5; Romans_11:6; Galatians_2:16; 2 Timothy_1:9; Titus_3:5 , and its means is faith Romans_4:5 Therefore since no person can bring salvation to himself by his own efforts, no one can boast (cf. Romans_3:27; 1 Corinthians_1:29. Their boasting can only be in the Lord 1 Corinthians_1:31.

kobuk

19th September 2007, 03:47 AM

SpiritualAntiseptic

19th September 2007, 04:36 PM

Just further confirmation of the main topic in this thread. Though everyone is always free in any thread that i start to attach a tether and do some space walking sort of speak.

Catachism of the Catholic Church

(paragraph)181 "Believing" is an ecclesial act. The Church's faith precedes, engenders, supports and nourishes our faith. The Church is the mother of all believers. "No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother"

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a2.htm

Somebody show me that in Scripture and i promise to eat my hat and post the photo too. ;)

There are two elements of the Church.
- The first is as the Body of Christ, the assembly of believers.
- 2 The second is the authority within that Church. This authority was given by Christ who gave it to the apostles. The apostles then passed it on to Bishops, who gave it to elders/presbyters/deacons and so on.

Obviously, (1) would be essentially because to receive life after death, you must be part of the Body of Christ.
(2) is needed because in order to have a proper understanding of Christ and a true unity among believers, you must put yourself under the authority of Church- which is ultimately Christ.

In order to follow Christ, you must follow those He gave His authority to. Much like the military- it couldn't work nor be united unless you put yourself under the authority of another.

Both (1) and (2) are obviously scriptural.

SpiritualAntiseptic

19th September 2007, 04:38 PM

Ephesians 2:8-9 -
These verses explain "the incomparable riches of His grace" Ephesians_2:7 , expanding the parenthetical statement in Ephesians_2:5, It is by grace you have been saved, and adding that the means of this salvation is through faith. Hence the basis is grace and the means is faith alone (cf. Romans_3:22, Romans_3:25; Galatians_2:16; 1 Peter_1:5). Faith is not a "work." It does not merit salvation; it is only the means by which one accepts God’s free salvation.
Paul elaborated, And this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. Much debate has centered around the demonstrative pronoun "this" (touto). Though some think it refers back to "grace" and others to "faith," neither of these suggestions is really valid because the demonstrative pronoun is neuter whereas "grace" and "faith" are feminine. Also, to refer back to either of these words specifically seems to be redundant. Rather the neuter touto, as is common, refers to the preceding phrase or clause. (In Ephesians1:15 and Ephesians 3:1touto, "this," refers back to the preceding section.) Thus it refers back to the concept of salvation (Ephesians_2:4-8), whose basis is grace and means is faith. This salvation does not have its source in man (it is "not from yourselves"), but rather, its source is God’s grace for "it is the gift of God."
Ephesians_2:9 reinforces this by showing that the means is not by works since its basis is grace (Romans_3:20, Romans_3:28; Rom_4:1-5; Romans_11:6; Galatians_2:16; 2 Timothy_1:9; Titus_3:5 , and its means is faith Romans_4:5 Therefore since no person can bring salvation to himself by his own efforts, no one can boast (cf. Romans_3:27; 1 Corinthians_1:29. Their boasting can only be in the Lord 1 Corinthians_1:31.

You seem to have a misunderstanding on how works relate to salvation. Works do not merit salvation, only Christ merits our salvation and gives it to us a gift.

James makes it clear that we are saved by faith and works are necessary to keep that faith and grace alive.

I really don't see what the big hub-bub is all about. People make the faith and works arguments into something it is not because they don't understand the purpose of works. They aren't to 'merit' anything, they merely keep the faith alive and continue to invite grace that began with faith.

Albion

19th September 2007, 11:28 PM

"biblical teachings" is a fun little phrase that just means "my interpretation of scripture". Well, Catholics don't follow individual interpretations- they follow the teachings of the apostles.

Actually, the fun little phrase there is "teachings of the apostles." What the Vatican decides its people are to believe--their particular "my interpretation" IOW--is merely labelled as "teaching of the apostles." There is no connection between the apostles and these dogmas, just that some explanation for the creation of them has to be made.

Albion

19th September 2007, 11:34 PM

There are two elements of the Church.
- The first is as the Body of Christ, the assembly of believers.
- 2 The second is the authority within that Church. This authority was given by Christ who gave it to the apostles. The apostles then passed it on to Bishops, who gave it to elders/presbyters/deacons and so on.

This is surely one of the most widely travelled myths in church history. In fact, the authority that Jesus gave to his Apostles is nowhere described as transferrable to any successors, and bishops and presbyters were the same office in the early church and as described in the NT.

In order to follow Christ, you must follow those He gave His authority to.

Quite a rationalization. Actually, in order to follow Christ, you must follow...Christ. That's what he said himself.

Albion

19th September 2007, 11:39 PM

Catholicism is the original and only Christian Church. Everything else is man-made.

Why don't we just avoid the denominational puffery for the sake of discussing the bigger issues? If every member of every denomination were to constantly make a "plug" for his own church as THE best, THE only, THE one Jesus had in mind, etc. we wouldn't accomplish anything--and that goes for Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or whoever subscribes to the idea that Jesus started a club instead of a church.

SpiritualAntiseptic

19th September 2007, 11:46 PM

SpiritualAntiseptic

19th September 2007, 11:58 PM

This is surely one of the most widely travelled myths in church history. In fact, the authority that Jesus gave to his Apostles is nowhere described as transferrable to any successors, and bishops and presbyters were the same office in the early church and as described in the NT.

It's described throughout patristic writings and stated plainly in Acts with the appointment of Matthias.

Bishops and presbyters were not the same in the NT.

Quite a rationalization. Actually, in order to follow Christ, you must follow...Christ. That's what he said himself.

And who is Christ? The prophet? The western avatar? The good rabbi that was misunderstand?

kobuk

20th September 2007, 12:06 AM

Why don't we just avoid the denominational puffery for the sake of discussing the bigger issues? If every member of every denomination were to constantly make a "plug" for his own church as THE best, THE only, THE one Jesus had in mind, etc. we wouldn't accomplish anything--and that goes for Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or whoever subscribes to the idea that Jesus started a club instead of a church.There is no Scriptural basis to begin with, for there being ANY denominations.

So I never support the perception that there is. I believe the whole entire concept of "denominationalism" is an entirely man-made religious construct. Yahshua in Revelation spoke to each of the seven Local Churches seperately and held each of them accountable for their deeds seperately. The Apostle Paul could have created a denomination out of a grouping of several Local Churches but he never did. Neither did any other Apostle. It was not until centuries later that men seeking power over vast blocks of populations invented denominationalism. The pinnacle of that errant achievement that was produced outside of Yah's will is the subject of this thread. Where we have one man who claims to be god, proclaiming that there is no salvation for anyone outside of his denomination. What level of extreme arogance is that? We don't have to just imagine it. We are observers of it. What does Yahshua think of this? That's clear in Revelation as well.

SpiritualAntiseptic

20th September 2007, 12:16 AM

Dude, don't repeat the same thing over and over like a parrot. This has already been addressed- why not reply?

Albion

20th September 2007, 09:12 AM

It's described throughout patristic writings and stated plainly in Acts with the appointment of Matthias.

Not really. In Matthias we have the replacement of one of the twelve with another, in order to have twelve. There is no indication of them intending to have hundreds or thousands of "Apostles" proliferate as is the case with all the bishops that were to come along in church history. And the appointment of Matthias cannot be compared to any bishop mentioned in the NT since these were elders and every congregation had one, originally.

Bishops and presbyters were not the same in the NT.

They are not "the same," that's right. But they are the same office. The words are used interchangably in the NT. The council of elders which governed the congregation/parish/ekklesia did usually name one of their number to head up certain projects and from this came the idea of a senior pastor or bishop.

As for the idea that patristic writings tell us about bishops as we know them, there are none until the end of the Apostolic Age and they merely tell us that those men who were ordained by one or another of the Apostles were more to be trusted in their teachings than others of less prestigeous background. This is not at all a recognition of a special power being given to some but not to others.

Albion

20th September 2007, 09:16 AM

Jesus did start a Church- which consists of all baptized believers.

That's right.

He created only one authority to govern it.

Well, no, that is not to be found in scripture, although almost every denomination has its own theory pointing to itself as the unique apple of his eye.

Everyone outside that authority is in fact, just a club that deprives themselves of full sacramental grace.

And almost all of them say that or something close to it.

Being that this is the Fundamentalist forum, it might be worth mentioning that this is a problem addressed by Fundamentalism at its beginning, in addition to the more familiar fact of Fundamentalism opposing liberal theology. It is what Bible principles unite believers that Fundamentalism is all about, over and above all the parochial claims of whatever church organization to the the one and only one Christ founded.

Miss Shelby

20th September 2007, 09:33 AM

The Catholic Church should have not strayed from biblical teaching and probably all of us would be Catholics now.;)
You are Catholic if you've been baptized with water in the triune formula. ;)

Albion

20th September 2007, 09:45 AM

You are Catholic if you've been baptized with water in the triune formula. ;)

Not quite. If she is convinced that the minister performing the baptism was acting properly, the Catholic Church will recognize it as a valid baptism. It will also claim to have supervision over you, in as much as the church claims a universal jurisdiction over all Christians. But it doesn't make you a Catholic in the RCC's eyes.

Miss Shelby

20th September 2007, 10:07 AM

well not fully initated, but Catholic enough.

Rhamiel

23rd September 2007, 04:00 AM

Matthias and was not Paul counted as an apostle? show it shows that the number was growing

kobuk

23rd September 2007, 11:58 AM

Matthias and was not Paul counted as an apostle? show it shows that the number was growing
hi Rhamiel

here's the straight shot non sugar coated

After Paul that's it. Yahshua made no more men into Apostles. Yah's Word nowhere indicates otherwise. Not just my opinion but a well established fact backed by the KJV Bible and other reliable translations..

Rhamiel

23rd September 2007, 01:43 PM

Albion

23rd September 2007, 06:56 PM

Matthias and was not Paul counted as an apostle? show it shows that the number was growing

Not really. The Apostles chose Matthias, and there is no question that it was in order to maintain their number at 12. This was before Paul's conversion and completely independent of it. In other words, there may be nothing "set in concrete" about there being twelve, but the Apostles obviously thought this to be the way they were to go--maybe just because of the symbolism of it.

However, it also has no relationship to the proliferation of bishops in later times, either.

Albion

23rd September 2007, 06:59 PM

show me in the Bible (KJV or anyother reliable translation) where it says Paul would be the last Apostle, I showed that it grew past 12 during the time of the original Apostles, during the time that you would call the early church there got to be even more Bishops, you can not just say that because the Bible does not talk about more apostles that it never happened, I thought sola scriptura denominations had the "when the scripture is silent so are we"

I guess that's something for you to argue out with kobuk, but we can't lose the crtitical point here. If there were twelve or if there were thirteen Apostles, thanks to Paul announcing himself one, this has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession as we know it.

PROPHECYKID

31st October 2007, 01:13 PM

Can someone tell me why the Roman Catholic church withheld the bible from its members and allowed only the pope to read it for many many years. Where can i find the principles of infant baptism, purgatory, Confession of sins to a priest which is blasphemy by the way on the part of the priest. I mean where does the bible support these teachings. ISN'T THE BIBLE THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH. Can as RC prove these things from the bible or will he have to use the words of his priest. The book of Revelation and Daniel gives a lot of church history. Another thing.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was enraged over the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Aren't these the identifying marks of the true church?

PROPHECYKID

31st October 2007, 01:34 PM

It was Rome that was responsible for killing the apostles and persecuting christians . When Constantine came on the scene he decided to end christian persecution and become christian himself. Being a former Pagan and ruler of his pagan dominated empire he transferred most of the pagan celebrations and gave them a christian meaning as an effort to help the poeple adjust from paganism to christianity. Dec 25 was the birth of a Pagan God, The celebration of Easter was honoring Eostre, the great mother goddess of the Saxons. Their day of worship was sunday when they used to worship the sun so he attempted to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday to be of convenience to the people. It was also Rome that changed times too. A biblical day starts from evening to morning and goes from sunset to sunset.Rome changed that from 12 - 12.
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High: and he shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time.

Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.
"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
"Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."

The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.
"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."
Catholic Virginian Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. "To Tell You the Truth."
"For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the[Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible."

PROPHECYKID

31st October 2007, 01:57 PM

Wear out the saints of the most high - It is a known fact that the Catholic Church was responsible for the persecution of many christian. And by Catholic church i don't refer to the members i refer to those on the top of the chain.
Think to change times and laws - (Sunset - sunset || 12 - 12)
Sabbath - Saturday to Sunday
Time, Times and half a time - the bible said that Nebuchadnezzars had an animal change for 7 times and history reveals that it was actually 7 years. This is not the only time this expression of time appears in the bible.
Rev 12:14 And there were given to the woman the two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness unto her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. If a time is a year then it must be 1yr (a time) + 2yrs (times) + 1/2 yr (1/2 time) bringing us to 1260 days.
Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that there they may nourish her a thousand two hundred and threescore day.
1260 days = 42 months
Rev 13:4 and they worshipped the dragon, because he gave his authority unto the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? and who is able to war with him?
Rev 13:5 and there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and there was given to him authority to continue forty and two months.
So the beast persecutes (makes war with the saints or the woman) who flees to the wilderness for refuge.
The time is still a bit confusing though so lets dig deeper.

Num 14:34 After the number of the days in which ye spied out the land, even forty days, for every day a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my alienation.
Eze 4:6 And again, when thou hast accomplished these, thou shalt lie on thy right side, and shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah: forty days, each day for a year, have I appointed it unto thee.

In the past God has used a day year principle for his people to understand his times. Using this principle it leads us to 1260 years. There is only one power that persecuted saints, thought to change times and laws and ruled supreme for 1260 years. 538 - 1798. We all know who it is. The Papacy

Rhamiel

31st October 2007, 02:08 PM

Can someone tell me why the Roman Catholic church withheld the bible from its members and allowed only the pope to read it for many many years.
??? well for most of history only very very few people could read. In southern France the english Bible was banned because there were a lot of very poorly translated bibles floating around, these poor translations were used to convert people to gnostic sects. It was never "only the Pope" who could read the bible
Where can i find the principles of infant baptism, purgatory, Confession of sins to a priest which is blasphemy by the way on the part of the priest. The bible talks about entire households being baptised, it is safe to assume some children bellow the age of reason were in there, Purgatory is not directly spelled out in scripture but there are lots of little referances, In one of St.Pauls letters to the Corinthians it talks about being thrown in prison until the debt was paid, and Jesus says blasphamy agianst the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this life or the next, leading us to assume some things might be forgiven in the next life, Jesus tells His apostles to go forth and forgive sins in His name
I did a poor job explaining these things, please if you want to hear more drop by OBOB and ask your questions there

Rhamiel

31st October 2007, 02:18 PM

It is a known fact that the Catholic Church was responsible for the persecution of many christian. And by Catholic church i don't refer to the members i refer to those on the top of the chain
and a lot of catholics were burned at the stake in protestant nations, these were bloody times when there was no seperation of Church and State, to go agianst the religion of the King was treason, in Catholic and protestant nations

IamRedeemed

5th November 2007, 01:24 PM

Yes, better check which Simon started the Church, because it wasn't Simon PETER.

You are missing quite a few historical points. Maybe some honest reading of the history of the church might shed some light.

For one European Kings and princes used to bow to the Catholic Church. Heck, there was even one king that was made to walk in the snow with no shoes dressed in sackcloth for three days by the pope. Oh the power. The Catholic Church should have not strayed from biblical teaching and probably all of us would be Catholics now.;)

IamRedeemed

5th November 2007, 01:31 PM

God bless you Rhamiel,

I love you, but that is a fallacy.. Check your history. What they didn't speak or read was LATIN. Which was the only language the RCC would allow the Bible to be printed in,and would only allow Priests to have. There were many educated scholars and even the simple could read, ENGLISH. That is why people like William Tyndale were KILLED by the RCC because he translated the Bible into English and gave copies to the common folks and ROME (the same Rome who was governing Jerusalem at the time Jesus was crucified) was AFRAID that they would lose power and control, (same thing they were afraid of when people were following JESUS in person) if people knew what the Bible actually says. Check out the history of the CC and why Constantine made the "religion" the national religion of Rome. It was for the same reason. Fear of losing control. It was strictly POLITICAL. Even to this day the RCC does not encourage Catholics to read their Bibles for themselves. They regard Church doctrine over Scripture and they call the Pope the vicar of Christ, when the ONLY vicar that was ever appointed by JESUS Himself was THE HOLY SPIRIT. (I do understand there are some Catholic churches who have become independent and are charismatic, I am not talking about them. I am talking about those under the authority of the Vatican of Rome.)

??? well for most of history only very very few people could read. In southern France the english Bible was banned because there were a lot of very poorly translated bibles floating around, these poor translations were used to convert people to gnostic sects. It was never "only the Pope" who could read the bible
The bible talks about entire households being baptised, it is safe to assume some children bellow the age of reason were in there, Purgatory is not directly spelled out in scripture but there are lots of little referances, In one of St.Pauls letters to the Corinthians it talks about being thrown in prison until the debt was paid, and Jesus says blasphamy agianst the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this life or the next, leading us to assume some things might be forgiven in the next life, Jesus tells His apostles to go forth and forgive sins in His name
I did a poor job explaining these things, please if you want to hear more drop by OBOB and ask your questions there

Rhamiel

5th November 2007, 05:25 PM

for houndreds of years latin was the language of the educated, the problems were not with the idea of translations but rather mistranslations or foot notes that were heretical in nature
the Douay-Rheims Bible was an english translation made in 1582 (New Testement) yearly 1600 for the old testement. The Catholic Church holds the scripture in the highest regards, and all Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible, also we hear the scripture in Mass, with a reading from the old testement, a psalm, a reading from the gospels and one from a one of the other books in the NT

IamRedeemed

8th November 2007, 03:45 PM

Dearest Rhamiel,

I think you are a very sweet person, just so you know, but try telling that to William Tyndale who was killed by the RCC for translating the Bible to English and giving it to the common folks and explain that to all of the people who were killed in the inquistions who owned copies and explain to the Lord why the RCC burned every copy they could find that was not in Latin.......

My ancestry is Roman Catholics. Unless you are referring to the new movement of Charismatic Catholics, then, it isn't true that the Bible is encouraged to be read by the congregation on their own at home.

Sure, whatever Scripture is prescribed and printed in the mass they can read freely, but you know as well as I do, that reading the Bible at home is not in any way promoted. The Catechism and the Rosary are though.

The Pope is the authority of the church, even if he speaks things that oppose Scripture (as many a Pope has done). He even refers to himself as the "vicar of Christ", which no man on earth has been elected to that office. It is the job of the Holy Spirit alone.

If you would like, I would be willing to go over with you, point by point, some serious anti-Scriptural teachings of the RCC, and anti-Scriptural statements made by Popes. (and I am talking about a lengthy lengthy teaching...probably take about 6 months to discuss it all). If you would be willing to commit to attending faithfully, such an expository teaching, I would be willing to faithfully commit to delivering it.

God bless

for houndreds of years latin was the language of the educated, the problems were not with the idea of translations but rather mistranslations or foot notes that were heretical in nature
the Douay-Rheims Bible was an english translation made in 1582 (New Testement) yearly 1600 for the old testement. The Catholic Church holds the scripture in the highest regards, and all Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible, also we hear the scripture in Mass, with a reading from the old testement, a psalm, a reading from the gospels and one from a one of the other books in the NT

Rhamiel

8th November 2007, 08:33 PM

That is very kind of you to make such an offer.
I have been going through a rough time recently and a lot of good catholics, a priest being one of them, have told me I should read the bible more, to pray the rosary more has been another sugestion. You are right, many catholics do not read the Bible as much as they should. On the other hand I think some Protestants put too much emphasis on reading the Bible. Reading the Bible is good, living the gospel is better. There are a lot of things I like and respect about Fundamentalist Christians, very alive, very active, but many of you do not see the good things in the Catholic Church, the introspective nature, the emphasise on helping the poor, the importance of penance

Albion

8th November 2007, 10:31 PM

PR1

16th November 2007, 04:53 AM

Fellow christians,

The assumption that catholics don't read the bible much is not accurate. Within 3 years, almost ALL the bible is read just in church alone. Catholics are encouraged to read at home. We may not carry 30pounders into church sunday morning because the scriptures are already there--but most of us do read them.

I understand the stereotypes--I even perpetuated some when I was a fundamentalist "with all the answers" getting a bible degree at an evangelical university--and also as a youth min.

The thread is about the vatican saying that the catholic church is the one church. Because it is rome saying this, everyone is up in arms! How about the other million churches who say the same thing? Are people "surprised" to hear such "news"???

Yes, there are hints in scripture that answer the questions that start with, "Where in the bible does it say [fill in stereotype about RCC]. The problem is that they are not accepted by prods because those "hints" are not fleshed out in a way that modern-christians want. But just because RCC fleshes some "hints" out in a cat doesn't discredit the fact that the bible DID INDEED hint to them.

Here are a few assumptions that prods REALLY should just get over:

If you are catholic, you don't read the bible.
If you are catholic, you don't know history.
If you are catholic, I can teach you.
If you are catholic, you are a pagan.
If you are catholic, you worship mary.
If you are catholic, you don't understand grace.

Well, that list could just keep going but I'll leave it at that.

Anyway, this is bizzare first comment for me and I'll just say GOOD NIGHT and GOD BLESS you all.

Albion

16th November 2007, 11:18 AM

Fellow christians,

The assumption that catholics don't read the bible much is not accurate. Within 3 years, almost ALL the bible is read just in church alone.

I think that when it is said that Catholics do not read the Bible, it is meant that they tend not to study the Bible for themselves or in groups. To have snippets read to them during the Epistle and Gospel, and often without any follow-up analysis or exegsis, is not the same thing. I would also observe that the Pope recently urged Catholics to take Bible study more seriously, which suggests some deficiency at the moment or else he wouldn't have felt the need to say this.

The thread is about the vatican saying that the catholic church is the one church. Because it is rome saying this, everyone is up in arms! How about the other million churches who say the same thing? Are people "surprised" to hear such "news"???

Well, in fact, there are not a million other churches saying the same thing. Most reformed churches hold that the true church is not to be associated with any particular denomination, not the RCC and not theirs either.

Here are a few assumptions that prods REALLY should just get over:

If you are catholic, you don't read the bible.
If you are catholic, you don't know history.
If you are catholic, I can teach you.
If you are catholic, you are a pagan.
If you are catholic, you worship mary.
If you are catholic, you don't understand grace.

Well, that list could just keep going but I'll leave it at that.

OK. Now let me add one. Here's something Catholics should get over

If you are a Reformed Christian/Protestant, it's fine to call you a dirty and condescending name like "prods."

I'm relatively confident that you would be posting at least one other gripe on your list if we were to speak of your church with a parallel insult.

PR1

16th November 2007, 02:07 PM

Albion,
In real life. One million might be tooo small a number. I wide brush can only be used to describe prods (protestants, protesters, denoms, denominations, derivitives, whatchamacallits).

You are right about ONE thing, there aren't a million churches--that's the whole point. There is one church and "millions" of christian communinties.

So if I can find a popular prod pastor, say... Walter Martin.. to say you all need to read the bible more then it should be just as fair to assume that evangelicals don't read their bibles. OH the hypocracy.

Albion

16th November 2007, 10:11 PM

Albion,
a weeee bit of hypersensitivity! "dirty name" get over it.

If you say so. I only thought a gentle word to the wise might help you see things in perspective before you began your career posting on these forums.

In real life. One million might be tooo small a number.

It's a ridiculous number that no one would give a second thought to.

There are several thousand denominations in the USA and even the wildly exaggerated figure of 30,000 worldwide that some people like to cite from one report includes over 300 Roman Catholic denominations.

I wide brush can only be used to describe prods (protestants, protesters, denoms, denominations, derivitives, whatchamacallits).

Well, it isn't only Protestants, but your unreformed Christians and all the cults are included in addition.

So if I can find a popular prod pastor, say... Walter Martin.. to say you all need to read the bible more then it should be just as fair to assume that evangelicals don't read their bibles. OH the hypocracy.

Over 6,000 posts and nothing to say other than your feelings are hurt? The scandal of the evangilical mindless.

"Nothing to say?" Come back when you've read the other 6000. LOL

Rhamiel

17th November 2007, 12:40 AM

would also observe that the Pope recently urged Catholics to take Bible study more seriously, which suggests some deficiency at the moment or else he wouldn't have felt the need to say this.

every one should take bible study more seriously, there are baptists who do not know the Bible like they should, methodist, penecostal, but you only hear the charge being made agianst Catholic and Orthodox, this shows a social pregidous agianst Catholics

Albion

17th November 2007, 11:09 AM

every one should take bible study more seriously, there are baptists who do not know the Bible like they should, methodist, penecostal, but you only hear the charge being made agianst Catholic and Orthodox, this shows a social pregidous agianst Catholics

Not at all. This is easily seen when we take the time to examine the situation. When you hear roman catholics say that they study the Bible like Protestants do, merely because they have small sections read to them once a week in the Epistle and Gospel at Mass--as was the argument on this thread--you can see that this is not Bible study or even private readingas Protestants are used to.

For those who are now beginning to get active in Bible study groups, good for them. But it's a new thing for most of them.

PR1

17th November 2007, 05:11 PM

Interesting how you KNOW how much (and in what way) others study the bible. In my circuit of prod churches, I've been anything but impressed with the amount of "study" but then perhaps Albion wasn't in charge.

IamRedeemed

17th November 2007, 05:43 PM

I agree.

We can't settle it here, but in my experience it has been the case that Protestants/Fundamentalists usually do appreciate those aspects of Catholicism while disagreeing with other aspects of Catholic belief and practice.

IamRedeemed

17th November 2007, 05:46 PM

Yes, I have an Uncle and Aunt who are involved in such a group, they have home cell groups where they do Bible study once a week etc., They have always been RCC, and yes this is a fairly new thing for them and they are amongst the minority.

My mother in law will still attend a latin mass, even though she doesn't speak or understand latin. I could never understand that. Sincerely, it is not only in my opinion
but Biblically speaking a waste of time to listen in a language you do not understand.
Of what benefit is it?

Not at all. This is easily seen when we take the time to examine the situation. When you hear roman catholics say that they study the Bible like Protestants do, merely because they have small sections read to them once a week in the Epistle and Gospel at Mass--as was the argument on this thread--you can see that this is not Bible study or even private readingas Protestants are used to.

For those who are now beginning to get active in Bible study groups, good for them. But it's a new thing for most of them.

Albion

17th November 2007, 09:56 PM

It's been a slowly developing trend over the past decade or so. The change to ordinary language instead of Latin, using more modern wording, making a place for the laity to participate as readers and as eucharistic ministers, and permitting more modern musical instruments during Mass, etc. all are also borrowed from the Protestant experience. But regardless, it's good to have the church at last urge its members to study the Bible in groups or by themselves.

The few who still attend the limited number of Latin Masses are usually also those who favor all the old ways as they were before any of these reforms. Some just like tradition, others think that their church has become too accomodating to change and has somehow lost its way. They usually do know the meaning of all the Latin wording used during worship because they had many years to get used to it. That's part of why they didn't care for the change to English in this country.

I know some of these folks, and they still insist upon confession to a priest before every reception of Communion, ladies to wear hats or veils, and so on, but of course, your relatives may well have their own, and different, reasons.

JohnChapter14

22nd November 2007, 09:36 AM

(sippin on some coffee)

Koontzy

30th November 2007, 03:06 PM

This is definatly interesting lol..... I for one love ot debate with Catholics, and since I have an 18 year background as a catholic..... Not ot mention I actaully was attending school to become a Bishop, I have alot of experiance and knowledge in the doctrines of the RCC... I actually know things, that most catholics dont..... But heres what I want catholics to prove to me in scrioture..... and some of these I did, till I actaully read my bible.....

so tell me catholics, and rem I used ot be one:) so dont try your little bullcrap excuses on me... I want scriprure, to back up what you say.
Where are these in the bible?
Bowing down to statues: The only places I find in the bible say its an adbomination
RosaryThe bible says not tp pray in vain repitations as the heathan do......
Praying to the deadNot in the bible sorry!
Purgatory Not in the bible sorry!
Priest as a Mediator between you and God Sorry but also not in the bible...... Jesus is the only mediator
Mary was sinlessRCC Lie!!! Mary wven said herself she needed a savior....
Peter was the first PopeFalse..... dont evne use when Jesus said though art petros(which means pebble), Jesus built the church on Himself!!!
I have many many more.... The RCC is a church that will send people to hell.
I am 24, been truely saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ for around 6 years now, but I was a catholic... so I said my rosary, prayed to mary and the saints, prayed to the dead, ect.....

Lets start with bowing down to idols.....The pope bows down and kneels before statues of Mary, as do Priests, and RCC members http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/the_great_whore.jpg (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/bowing_to_mary_is_a_sin.htm)
and Mary is called the Co-redeemer in the Church....Sorry but my bible says Mary is not the way to heaven, that Jesus Only....... RCC members deny this, and say its taken out of context... You cant do that with me,, I was a Catholic sorry....
since I put up one picture let me post some others....
file:///C:/Users/koontzy/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-3.jpgfile:///C:/Users/koontzy/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.jpg

Koontzy

30th November 2007, 03:08 PM

Heres some more RCC pictures...
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/popecross.jpg
Look an upside down cross... Please dont say that that was a cross used by early christians because it wasnt..... Nor is it there to symbolize Peters death.......RCC lies...

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/pope4.jpg (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/pope_worships_mary.htm)
Blasphemy!!!! Plain and simple
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/salvationtract.jpg (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/howtobesaved.htm)
file:///C:/Users/koontzy/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.jpgfile:///C:/Users/koontzy/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-6.jpg

Rhamiel

30th November 2007, 06:23 PM

RosaryThe bible says not tp pray in vain repitations as the heathan do......
we do not have vain repitation like the heathans do, the heathens saw it like magic, the more they prayed the more they could force a god to do what they want,
the rosary is based on meditating on the life of Mary, Jesus and the early Church, the repitition is based on changing yourself not God

Rhamiel

30th November 2007, 06:24 PM

Nor is it there to symbolize Peters death
yes it is, that is why the upside down cross is there, Peter was crusified upside down

BBAS 64

30th November 2007, 07:45 PM

JohnChapter14

30th November 2007, 07:54 PM

Heres some more RCC pictures...

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/popecross.jpg

Look an upside down cross... Please dont say that that was a cross used by early christians because it wasnt..... Nor is it there to symbolize Peters death.......RCC lies...

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/pope4.jpg (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/pope_worships_mary.htm)
Blasphemy!!!! Plain and simple
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/salvationtract.jpg (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/howtobesaved.htm)
file:///C:/Users/koontzy/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.jpgfile:///C:/Users/koontzy/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-6.jpg

I seriously, seriously hope that the pope did not bow down to a statue with a crown on it....

- Rob

Albion

1st December 2007, 10:50 AM

yes it is, that is why the upside down cross is there, Peter was crusified upside down

I think you're right about that; the idea that it's
"upside down" doesn't hold up when we consider that there are about 100 commonly-used versions of the cross, any one of which except the standard Latin Cross could be called a distortion or deliberate alteration by the uninformed or overly-suspicious.

As for the Rosary, it's "VAIN" repetitions that are wrong, not repetitions in themselves. But of course, that's only part of it. Praying the Rosary is praying to Mary, not merely meditating on her life, as you said. Praying to any deceased human is wrong.

So...I agree with you partially and disagree partially.

VCViking

7th December 2007, 04:20 AM

Catholicism has strayed so far from what Jesus and the apostles taught that they are bordering on the line of not even being Christian yet alone a denomination.

Agreed!:thumbsup:

Anglian

8th January 2008, 01:03 PM

I am not a Roman Catholic and my Church disagrees with some of the doctrinal developments which Rome claims to have discerned; that said, fair play makes me feel that some of the claims made here are more than a little tinged with anti-Catholic statements that have been around for years and combatted by the Church itself on sites such as http://www.catholicqanda.org/ or http://www.catholic.com/

To equate the Pope's veneration of the image of the blessed Virgin with idol worship (which is what seemed to be implied) is to mistake what you think you are seeing. The Catholics would respond thus:
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
Not idol worship - unless you insist on seeing it there.

As for the praying to Saints not being biblical, well the Catholic Church would cite (as one example) Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." Some may disagree on this and do, but to state baldly that one's own reading invalidates that of the Catholic Church is, surely, to do exactly what Catholics get accused of - deciding what the right conclusion is before the discussion begins.

As I say, I'm not a Catholic, and my own Church would strongly argue that Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory are all misreadings of what the early Church believed. One can have a good discussion of such things, but not, surely, if people insist on quoting things like Jack Chick's anti-Catholic tracts as though they were an authoritative source on Catholic teaching, as seems to happen here on occasion.

Right at the start Kobuk suggested an outline for such a discussion, and it may be that the reluctance of many Catholics to engage tells its own story (however one interprets that), but some of the 'evidence' and 'facts' cited seem disrespectful to a Church which, whatever its faults, deserves respect for the global witness it makes to Christ Risen.

Anglian

Albion

8th January 2008, 04:38 PM

As I say, I'm not a Catholic, and my own Church would strongly argue that Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory are all misreadings of what the early Church believed. One can have a good discussion of such things, but not, surely, if people insist on quoting things like Jack Chick's anti-Catholic tracts as though they were an authoritative source on Catholic teaching, as seems to happen here on occasion.

Right at the start Kobuk suggested an outline for such a discussion, and it may be that the reluctance of many Catholics to engage tells its own story (however one interprets that), but some of the 'evidence' and 'facts' cited seem disrespectful to a Church which, whatever its faults, deserves respect for the global witness it makes to Christ Risen.

Anglian

I wouldn't put the blame at the doorstep of the non-Catholics. As you said, Kobuk's OP addressed Catholics and suggested a debate. So did any or them take him up on the invitation? NO.

Only one poster identified as a Roman Catholic has posted at any time in this thread and that on a sidelight that came up later, not in response to Kobuk's OP.

I also have grown very weary of asking Catholics here to explain the basis for this or that belief that their church holds. Most often, the reply is a blunt statement of what the belief is, minus any jusitification or basis which might allow a discussion. If not that, it's an accusation about how invalid all Protestant churches are, saying nothing at all about the doctrine inquired about. And sometimes, it's the sincerity of the inquirer that is immediately challenged, as for instance, with the familiar "What is your agenda in asking that?"

Yes, it would have been great if some Catholics had responded to the OP, but they made their own decision not to from the start and long before any disrespect, if that's accurate to say, even could be posted.

Anglian

8th January 2008, 05:40 PM

Dear Albion,

You may, of course, be quite correct; but since we can none of us know why so few Catholics bothered answering the initial question, anything either of us says is speculative.

Perhaps Catholics don't look here; perhaps they can't be bothered arguing the same old prejudices; perhaps they haven't got any answers any way. Still, any which way, it is a shame, since I suspect we both know that they do have answers to some of the points made here - even if neither of us is convinced by some of them.

In peace,

Anglian

JohnChapter14

9th January 2008, 02:09 PM

Anglian,

You know, I have no problem with the Saints and the bretheren using images to aid them in worship for God and for aiding in understanding the Scriptures. But here is where I do not agree with: Statues. It is true statues are used in Judaism, but nonetheless, what statues are used? To my current knowledge only of the cherubs, which were placed on the Ark of the Covenant. Other than this, I have no knowledge of Jews using statues to aid them in worship. After all, God made it part of the plans to do so.

But moving on to Christianity. I see no reason at all to make a statue of a living person. And I see no reason that statues are needed for aiding people in worship. People already do this and it is called idols.

God didn't command people to make statues of Mary and Jesus and have them aid in worship.

Stained glass and such is not a problem, but statues....it is deceptive thinking in my belief.

I had a talk with my girlfriend over this. We both agree using images for worship is fine, but involving statues just goes too far.

My girlfriend told me this Catholic church she went to had a statue of Jesus and Mary and that the Mary statue was bigger than the Jesus one.

I threw away this statue of Jesus someone gave me, by the way.

Anglian

9th January 2008, 02:48 PM

Albion

9th January 2008, 03:04 PM

Dear Albion,

You may, of course, be quite correct; but since we can none of us know why so few Catholics bothered answering the initial question, anything either of us says is speculative.

Perhaps Catholics don't look here;

I think that's probably the reason.

However, I was just thinking today that the Catholics here are far more likely to give a stock recitation of Church policy in reply to a question about Christian principles--and assume that that is discussion. The Protestants normally do have some explanation for why they believe as they do other than "my church tells me to believe that."

Anglian

9th January 2008, 03:14 PM

I think that's probably the reason.

However, I was just thinking today that the Catholics here are far more likely to give a stock recitation of Church policy in reply to a question about Christian principles--and assume that that is discussion. The Protestants normally do have some explanation for why they believe as they do other than "my church tells me to believe that."

Dear Albion,

That's a fair point, and emphasises what has been said before about the importance of 'Tradition' being a living part of a living Church, not a fossilised millstone around the neck.

In peace,

Anglian

Albion

9th January 2008, 03:43 PM

Dear Albion,

That's a fair point, and emphasises what has been said before about the importance of 'Tradition' being a living part of a living Church, not a fossilised millstone around the neck.

Well, it may emphasize why Tradition WOULD BE important, if it were as claimed.

But no one here -- not RCC, EO, OO, or Anglican wishing to be one of the others -- can tell me the beliefs that come to us from that source, even though they say that they are so important.

They also say that they are necessary for salvation, even though they don't know what they are.

And that's in addition to the fact that they don't have any way of knowing if these unknown beliefs are from the Apostles or not, i.e. if they are part of Tradition. I gather than just saying one believes in Tradition is supposed to be the most important doctrine, whether or not one knows any such belief, or whether or not he knows where it originated.

To me, its indisputable that you cannot actually believe something that you don't know.

JohnChapter14

9th January 2008, 03:55 PM

Dear JohnChapter14,

My own Church does not use statues, but does use icons, over which there was, of course, a great fuss in the early Church during the iconoclast controversy.

I wonder whether this isn't really a matter of personal preference and experience? I am uneasy with statues myself, but don't see any theological reason why, if it suits Catholics, they should not use them.

On the matter of opinion, I tend to be with you.

In peace,

Anglian

I am unfamiliar with icon usage within the Church

I am unfamiliar with the "iconcast controversy"

As for statues. I looked at some pictures on the yahoo and google search engines. I can understand why some people want to have them around: To aid in visual worship and to get an idea about a particular person, i.e. a Saint being martyred or Jesus dying on the cross.

But I am against putting a statue at the front of a church congregation with various images in it's midst as if it were a shrine.

JohnChapter14

9th January 2008, 04:11 PM

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/mary_worship34.jpg

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/mary_devil_worship.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/241/458887037_90d4f7273e.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/267553565_15d7149779.jpg

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/in-thefootsteps-bibletrans/Graphics%204/minerva-mary.jpg

JohnChapter14

9th January 2008, 04:12 PM

http://www.fairview.ws/sjoa_church/images/shrine_mary.jpg

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/msm/singleton/church10.jpg

http://www.stpetersphibsboro.ie/Our%20Lady%27s%20Shrine3.gif

JohnChapter14

9th January 2008, 04:26 PM

Another thing I do not agree with

http://www.boston-catholic-journal.com/images/Boston%20Catholic%20Journal%20Graphics/Pope%20Benedict%20Visits%20Brazil%20May%202007%20-%20FINISHED%20photos%20by%20Brazil/Kissing-Pope%27s-Ring.jpg

JohnChapter14

11th January 2008, 08:43 AM

What do RC's have to say about this?

Anglian

11th January 2008, 09:06 AM

Dear JohnChapter14,

I'm unclear what you are asking of Catholics. They would no doubt say that the veneration of objects and the honouring of Christ through paying honour to a bishop, have long been a part of the Christian faith and are practised in other Apostolic Churches.

They might add that those who think that what the pictures respresent is the 'worship' of 'idols' are not understanding what is going on.

All Churches have their styles of worship, and some will seem strange to those of us not used to it, but let us just accept their ways and not seek to make our objections into some objective standard.

In peace,

Anglian

Albion

11th January 2008, 05:26 PM

What do RC's have to say about this?

What they have to say is:

1. It's been done for a long time.
2. It seems like a nice idea to them.
3. Their churches say it's OK, and they follow their churches no matter what, and
4. They know that this is a lesser kind of worship, not the ultimate worship that they reserve for God. It's worship in the sense that we see people recorded in scripture as having come to Jesus and "worshipped" him, even though they were apparently not believers. In that sense of the word, it means a high regard only.

JohnChapter14

11th January 2008, 09:20 PM

What they have to say is:

1. It's been done for a long time.
2. It seems like a nice idea to them.
3. Their churches say it's OK, and they follow their churches no matter what, and
4. They know that this is a lesser kind of worship, not the ultimate worship that they reserve for God. It's worship in the sense that we see people recorded in scripture as having come to Jesus and "worshipped" him, even though they were apparently not believers. In that sense of the word, it means a high regard only.

Oh i see. So it is alright to bow down to a statue of Mary and kiss it? Yet this kind of bowing down is not a worship? Its alright to have a shrine which you venerate of Mary and kiss the statue?

JohnChapter14

11th January 2008, 09:35 PM

Lets also talk about how some RC's combine Mary to the crucifix as if she is co-redeemer with Christ.

JohnChapter14

11th January 2008, 09:36 PM

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/in-thefootsteps-bibletrans/Graphics%204/Mary-Jesus-Cross.jpg

JohnChapter14

11th January 2008, 09:38 PM

Albion

13th January 2008, 02:33 PM

Oh i see. So it is alright to bow down to a statue of Mary and kiss it? Yet this kind of bowing down is not a worship?

You asked what they'd say. I told you.

Its alright to have a shrine which you venerate of Mary and kiss the statue?

Personally, I'd say "no," but not because it's supposed to be "idolatry."

Anglian

14th January 2008, 02:12 PM

DearJohnChapter14,

Of course there are some who find the Catholic manner of worship not to their own taste, but it is to a billion Catholics and that is surely their business?

My earlier point about icons was that the Church hammered out this point about 'images' many centuries ago and came to a consensus about it which made clear the difference between 'idol worship' and veneration.

People have always made mistakes about what Christian practices mean. The Romans used to think that the Christians were cannibals because they misunderstood the notion of 'eating' His 'body and blood'.

It is often said that Catholics regard the blessed St. Mary as 'coredemptrix', but I have never seen that in any authoritative Catholic document, nor is it in their Catechism.

In peace,

Anglian

Albion

14th January 2008, 02:19 PM

DearJohnChapter14,

Of course there are some who find the Catholic manner of worship not to their own taste, but it is to a billion Catholics and that is surely their business?

But this is a debate forum, so debating the proposition made in the title of this thread is certainly in order.

My earlier point about icons was that the Church hammered out this point about 'images' many centuries ago and came to a consensus about it which made clear the difference between 'idol worship' and veneration.

Probably the underlying point about that historic fact is that the decision can have been wrong.

Rhamiel

14th January 2008, 02:21 PM

Don't forget all about those pagan statues in the past with a woman bearing a child. Sound very familiar to all those pictures Catholics on these forums use with Mary holding a baby:

a statue of a mother holding a child looks like other statues of mothers holding children?????? stop the presses. also your other post about Maary being joined to the crucifix seems out of place, on one side you see Jesus as a baby, on the other side it is Jesus on the cross, the picture is also outside, looks like a public squar or courtyard, looks more like just decoration the putting mary on the cross with Jesus

Albion

14th January 2008, 02:26 PM

a statue of a mother holding a child looks like other statues of mothers holding children?????? stop the presses.
If the figure is of an Egyptian deity, he may have a point.

also your other post about Maary being joined to the crucifix seems out of place, on one side you see Jesus as a baby, on the other side it is Jesus on the cross

I agree. That was exactly what I also thought of that picture.

Anglian

14th January 2008, 02:35 PM

But this is a debate forum, so debating the proposition made in the title of this thread is certainly in order.

Probably the underlying point about that historic fact is that the decision can have been wrong.

Dear Albion,

Of course debate is in order, but thus far what John appears to be saying is that the Catholic style is not to his taste; if he has a less subjective point to make it would take the discussion onwards, perhaps?

Of course the decision may have been wrong - but most Catholics and Orthodox continue to agree with the decision made back then.

Those outside the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are, of course, free to hold what they like, but those of in one of those Churches tend to go with what the Church holds. If we have a new point to make on iconoclasm it would be refreshing to hear it, but most of the arguments are rehashes of old ones, and to insist on one's view against the consensus of the faithful is to elevate one's own point of view to a position which most Catholics and Orthodox would not care to hold.

In peace,

Anglian

Albion

14th January 2008, 02:43 PM

Dear Albion,

Of course debate is in order, but thus far what John appears to be saying is that the Catholic style is not to his taste

As I read his posts, I understood that he considers the practice wrong, not merely "not to his taste."

if he has a less subjective point to make it would take the discussion onwards, perhaps?

I agree that he's made his point, and simply posting more pictures doesn't change much.

Of course the decision may have been wrong - but most Catholics and Orthodox continue to agree with the decision made back then.

But he's not a Catholic or Orthodox Christian and this is not a Catholic or Orthodox forum, so if a thread is created in which Catholic practice is questioned, the fundamentalist Christian answer is certainly in order. While I don't agree with him entirely, it's not wrong of him to present his views here--views shared by many fundamentalist Christians. Were this the Oriental Orthodox or TAW forum, I'd be more in sympathy with your POV, but not here.

Anglian

14th January 2008, 02:59 PM

Dear Albion,

But he's not a Catholic or Orthodox Christian and this is not a Catholic or Orthodox forum, so if a thread is created in which Catholic practice is questioned, the fundamentalist Christian answer is certainly in order. While I don't agree with him entirely, it's not wrong of him to present his views here--views shared by many fundamentalist Christians. Were this the Oriental Orthodox or TAW forum, I'd be more in sympathy with your POV, but not here.

Indeed, and I hope that no-one thought that I was trying to preclude debate - simply pointing out what my own tradition and some others hold. Obviously others hold different povs - but did anyone imagine they did not? John's pov, if it is more than a matter of taste, is a well-known one in non Orthodox and non Catholic circles, but if it is an attempt to prove that Catholics 'worship' St. Mary, then it is one many Protestants will accept - and no Catholics or Orthodox accept.

In peace,

Anglian

Albion

14th January 2008, 03:18 PM

Dear Albion,

Indeed, and I hope that no-one thought that I was trying to preclude debate - simply pointing out what my own tradition and some others hold. Obviously others hold different povs - but did anyone imagine they did not? John's pov, if it is more than a matter of taste, is a well-known one in non Orthodox and non Catholic circles, but if it is an attempt to prove that Catholics 'worship' St. Mary, then it is one many Protestants will accept - and no Catholics or Orthodox accept.

In peace,

Anglian

Well, when the Bible says that there is nothing new under the Sun, I suspect that online religious debate forums was part of what God had in mind. There is nothing new posted on any of these forums; we just retread the same old stuff again and again. So when I see it, I take it for granted.

Rhamiel

14th January 2008, 04:54 PM

AlbionOriginally Posted by Rhamiel http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=42579459#post42579459)
a statue of a mother holding a child looks like other statues of mothers holding children?????? stop the presses.
If the figure is of an Egyptian deity, he may have a point.
the image of a mother holding a child is a universal image, when the Child is Jesus it makes sense that the image might have some things in common with pagan images of child gods, in superficial ways only

Albion

14th January 2008, 05:43 PM

Albion
the image of a mother holding a child is a universal image, when the Child is Jesus it makes sense that the image might have some things in common with pagan images of child gods, in superficial ways only

Not so fast. That particular image/picture was not some generic mother and child. The attire, headgear, etc. probably indicate who it is supposed to be. I don't recognize it right now, but if it refers to a particular Egyptian goddess, the mother of Osiris for example, there's an issue.

Anglian

15th January 2008, 07:11 AM

Not so fast. That particular image/picture was not some generic mother and child. The attire, headgear, etc. probably indicate who it is supposed to be. I don't recognize it right now, but if it refers to a particular Egyptian goddess, the mother of Osiris for example, there's an issue.

It would appear to be Isis. Such statues are often used to imply a link between Catholicism and ancient Egyptian paganism. Since there is no link in Coptic Egypt, which is where one would expect it to be, it would be interesting to see some scholarship on this supposed link and where it came from.

The notion that Catholics should not have a statue of the Virgin and child because pagans once had such statues is one that would, itself, bear examination.

In peace,

Anglian

JohnChapter14

15th January 2008, 07:23 AM

JohnChapter14

15th January 2008, 07:25 AM

It would appear to be Isis. Such statues are often used to imply a link between Catholicism and ancient Egyptian paganism. Since there is no link in Coptic Egypt, which is where one would expect it to be, it would be interesting to see some scholarship on this supposed link and where it came from.

The notion that Catholics should not have a statue of the Virgin and child because pagans once had such statues is one that would, itself, bear examination.

In peace,

Anglian

Yes, but no where in the scriptures do we find, even with Israelis bearing statues in their religion (such as Angels) as ones that people crouch to and kiss. No one in Judaism kissed any statue. I don't recall anyone making any statues of King David either. I don't recall statues ever working miracles in the N.T. and O.T. such as healings which Catholics in the philipines believe can happen by coming into contact with a Jesus statue, and there are no instances of miracle statues bleeding in Judaism.

I believe statues that bear miracles are not from God because there is no reason for me to believe so as a result of the Holy Scriptures in O.T. and N.T.

Bartek

15th January 2008, 07:30 AM

Maybe the best is just to ask some catholic theologist about the place of Mary in our Church ? And not to find next "revelations" about Catholic Church.

I'm profesional archeologist since 10 years. Sorry, but it is just very boring for me, when i have to hear next time from my friends protestants, what i'm realy believing in. :sleep:
For example - i did hear exactely 4 versions what from rosary came to Church. From 1.buddhism, 2.braminism, 3. ancient Egipt and 4. european paganism.
Maybe in fact from Aliens ^_^

I will allways ask the Best Mother for help of Her Most Holly Son. :prayer: :help:

best regards. ;)

Anglian

15th January 2008, 10:37 AM

Yes, but no where in the scriptures do we find, even with Israelis bearing statues in their religion (such as Angels) as ones that people crouch to and kiss. No one in Judaism kissed any statue. I don't recall anyone making any statues of King David either. I don't recall statues ever working miracles in the N.T. and O.T. such as healings which Catholics in the philipines believe can happen by coming into contact with a Jesus statue, and there are no instances of miracle statues bleeding in Judaism.

I believe statues that bear miracles are not from God because there is no reason for me to believe so as a result of the Holy Scriptures in O.T. and N.T.

Dear John,

Indeed; but we don't find people driving to Church in cars in the Bible, or communicating the Gospel by Youtube; nor, on the whole, do we observe the full rigour of the rules laid down in Leviticus.

The Protestant habit of using private judgement to intepret the Scriptures might profitably be extended to whole Churches; if the Catholic Church finds such aids to devotion useful it is welcome to them; it isn't telling you or I what to do, and our view that interpretation of scripture without tradition is not the Catholic one, so we can, I hope, live and l;et live.

In peace,

Anglian

Albion

15th January 2008, 11:55 AM

Dear John,

Indeed; but we don't find people driving to Church in cars in the Bible, or communicating the Gospel by Youtube

Nor--in fairness--does anyone consider those things to possibly be wrongful worship practices.

The Protestant habit of using private judgement to intepret the Scriptures might profitably be extended to whole Churches; if the Catholic Church finds such aids to devotion useful it is welcome to them;

I'm somewhat in the middle between you two on this matter, but at some point, you need to come to grips with the real issue, which is that what anyone finds "profitable" or a matter of personal taste is not more important than what God expects of us. Our faith is not made up of a bunch of "what seems good to us to do" when we have His own guidance in front of us.

Anglian

15th January 2008, 02:17 PM

Dear Albion,

You write:
Nor--in fairness--does anyone consider those things to possibly be wrongful worship practices.

which possibly shows a (fortunate) want of association with parts of Orthodoxy!

I'm somewhat in the middle between you two on this matter, but at some point, you need to come to grips with the real issue, which is that what anyone finds "profitable" or a matter of personal taste is not more important than what God expects of us. Our faith is not made up of a bunch of "what seems good to us to do" when we have His own guidance in front of us.

Indeed it is not, but where we may differ is what is meant by 'His own guidance in front of us'. My own Church, like the other Orthodox Churches and the Catholic would hold Holy tradition to be crucial part of what 'is in front of us'.

In peace,

Anglian

Albion

15th January 2008, 03:21 PM

which possibly shows a (fortunate) want of association with parts of Orthodoxy!

I think I'll have to ask for a further elaboration on what you mean here.

Indeed it is not, but where we may differ is what is meant by 'His own guidance in front of us'. My own Church, like the other Orthodox Churches and the Catholic would hold Holy tradition to be crucial part of what 'is in front of us'.

Certainly that's one view, but I have noted that several times in this thread the opposition to going by the Bible has taken the form of saying that how one feels and what's profitable to believe or useful is what should govern our beliefs. That's what I was speaking to.

Anglian

15th January 2008, 03:48 PM

Dear Albion,

You ask:
I think I'll have to ask for a further elaboration on what you mean here.
to which my response is that there are those who hold that the whole 'western' approach to spirituality is essentially wrong and condemns us to hell; 'the west' and all its works get condemned. Fortunately most Orthodox are not thus, and those who are - well, most people can make their minds up on that.

Certainly that's one view, but I have noted that several times in this thread the opposition to going by the Bible has taken the form of saying that how one feels and what's profitable to believe or useful is what should govern our beliefs. That's what I was speaking to.

Here, as elsewhere, we are at one. Tradition, of course, always refers to Scripture for support, and together they form something of an antidote to the 'my own feeling/view/opinion is'.

In peace,

Anglian

Rhamiel

15th January 2008, 04:17 PM

Not so fast. That particular image/picture was not some generic mother and child. The attire, headgear, etc. probably indicate who it is supposed to be. I don't recognize it right now, but if it refers to a particular Egyptian goddess, the mother of Osiris for example, there's an issue.
there are superficial similarities, but I do not connect the act of pentacostals speaking in tongues to that of voodoo practitioners going into trances, because it is a differant thing. Jesus was a child, God was a child this is an amazing thing, the Madonna and Child iconography shows Christ as a Child and it shows His Mother presenting Him to the viewer, this does two things that Catholics like to stress, the humanity of Christ and that His Mother leads us to Him, it is an artistic style

Albion

15th January 2008, 07:59 PM

there are superficial similarities,

They may not be superficial. If they are, then OK, but you don't know that they are. They could be significant. It would take a little research for either of us to know.

but I do not connect the act of pentacostals speaking in tongues to that of voodoo practitioners going into trances, because it is a differant thing.

Of course it is, but this business of Egyptian predecessors may not be.

Jesus was a child, God was a child this is an amazing thing, the Madonna and Child iconography shows Christ as a Child and it shows His Mother presenting Him to the viewer, this does two things that Catholics like to stress, the humanity of Christ and that His Mother leads us to Him, it is an artistic style

That's great, but if there is a copying of a pagan concept of divine parents and a divine child, that would be different. Just don't be so determined before you know all the facts about this particular image.

Albion

15th January 2008, 08:06 PM

to which my response is that there are those who hold that the whole 'western' approach to spirituality is essentially wrong and condemns us to hell; 'the west' and all its works get condemned. Fortunately most Orthodox are not thus, and those who are - well, most people can make their minds up on that.

I see.

Here, as elsewhere, we are at one. Tradition, of course, always refers to Scripture for support,

That doesn't make it right in our opinion--merely taking a verse, torturing it, and then claiming that an purely novel doctrine is actually of Biblical origin. That's what we'd reply. However, I was not speaking against the idea of Tradition in these last two posts, just against the idea that feelings, practicality, and usefulness (as was mentioned) are ways of determining proper religious practices. If you want to make a case for Tradition, that's fine, but what I was replying to was not Tradition.

together they form something of an antidote to the 'my own feeling/view/opinion is'.

If you say so, but it was you who repeatedly made the feelings/practicality argument that brought my comments in response. Now it seems as though you are taking the opposite side of that issue.

Hentenza

16th January 2008, 12:48 AM

Here, as elsewhere, we are at one. Tradition, of course, always refers to Scripture for support, and together they form something of an antidote to the 'my own feeling/view/opinion is'.

In peace,

Anglian

Hi Anglian,

I find a problem with your post in the sense that Tradition is subordinate to scriptures, not the other way around. All churches have some kind of tradition which helps interpret scripture so it is not private interpretation. The problem is not really Tradition but the perception of some churches that their traditions are superior or equal to scripture.

Blessings.

Anglian

16th January 2008, 07:42 AM

If you say so, but it was you who repeatedly made the feelings/practicality argument that brought my comments in response. Now it seems as though you are taking the opposite side of that issue.

Dear Albion,

Sorry if I gave that impression. As my own Church is one of the most conservative in the world, we don't really engage with the feelings/opinion line as it doesn't have many (or even any) advocates!

In peace,

Anglian

Anglian

16th January 2008, 07:48 AM

Dear Hentenza,

Hi Anglian,

I find a problem with your post in the sense that Tradition is subordinate to scriptures, not the other way around. All churches have some kind of tradition which helps interpret scripture so it is not private interpretation. The problem is not really Tradition but the perception of some churches that their traditions are superior or equal to scripture.

Blessings.

I see what you are saying, and having met those who do what you describe, have much sympathy with your point of view.

The Orthodox Church would maintain that scripture is part of tradition and that to see either one as superior to the other is to get off-balance.

But then the generally accepted canon can be dated to one of St. Athansius' festal letters, so his Church might be expected to take that view.

I suspect there is a real difference here between Orthodox and Catholics, and Protestants.

In peace,

Anglian

LivingWordUnity

25th January 2008, 06:18 AM

I find a problem with your post in the sense that Tradition is subordinate to scriptures, not the other way around. All churches have some kind of tradition which helps interpret scripture so it is not private interpretation. The problem is not really Tradition but the perception of some churches that their traditions are superior or equal to scripture.Here are a couple of quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church about it:

II. The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PL.HTM#$25) Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PL.HTM#$26)

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PL.HTM#$27)
"and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PL.HTM#$28)

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PL.HTM#$29)

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

V. Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church
131 "and such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigour, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life."109 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PS.HTM#$42) Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."110 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PS.HTM#$43)

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. the ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."111 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PS.HTM#$44)

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.112 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PS.HTM#$45)