What are your thoughts about the Catholic Church?

[Unveiled Artist]

Not my own words, sis. No interpretation, just read and then think. From the Bible - even the Catholic Bible

Matthew 23:8-9
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven.

1 Timothy 3:1-2
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher,

What would happen if all christian churches followed every single rule in the bible?

I call my dad father when talking to a stranger. Calling a priest father is like calling trump the president.

The scriptural context (and emphasis you made with a capital F) is made for god the Father. No Catholic calls a father, the Father.

That's just silly.

Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. It is a different vocation than being a priest. Priest choose to be celibate because when they take the role of the priest, they want to be "married to serving god".

Instead of the vocation of marriage, they want the vocation of priesthood. It's a choice of the priest to take up this vocation. Very beautiful actually.

Priest celibacy wasn't originally a Catholic teaching. EWTN Marriage and Bishops married If you're going to attack the Church, attack the early Fathers.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Nothing different than the Christian church. Both brainwash the minds of make them fear for no reason. I have gained to hate abrahamic religions.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

I thought God was a Supreme Being free of human limitations, needs and wants. You are chatting about Jesus as if to him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth.

I thought God was the Hidden One.

And if God is all poweful why don't he help others who are suffering?

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

God can do whatever he wants to. If He wants to share in human weakness, he can

So if God wants to kill someone it will be ok?

 

[metis]

However, nowhere in the Bible we can read that the whole Church was led by a “pope.”

Because that title was not used until much later.

In regards to Peter, here's an article from Colombia University on Peter's history with citations from early church leaders that Peter indeed was martyred in Rome, and please do note that Colombia is not a Catholic institution: Saint Peter

Also, you might check out even Wikipedia's article on the papacy, which can be found here: Pope - Wikipedia (scroll down to the part on "Early Christianity")

“But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:8-9 NKJV)

The term used by Jesus in Aramaic was "abba", which means father, but the word used in reference to the priests and the pope is from the word "presbyter", which means "elder". Therefore, what happened is that the words in Aramaic and Greek, when translated into English, became "father" in both cases even though their root is different. Needless to say, Catholics are well aware of the fact that the pope and the priests are not the same as God the "Father".

BTW, the "mark" of the early church was whether your bishops could trace their assignments back to the apostles, and your church doesn't qualify because it can't. And yet you continue to ignore the fact that the books of the Bible that you quote was chosen by the Catholic Church during the 4th and 5th centuries. So, that church, which you keep claiming was and is so corrupt, actually chose the scriptures you read, therefore can't you tell just how inconsistent your position really is?

 

[MJFlores]

What would happen if all christian churches followed every single rule in the bible?

I call my dad father when talking to a stranger. Calling a priest father is like calling trump the president.

The scriptural context (and emphasis you made with a capital F) is made for god the Father. No Catholic calls a father, the Father.

That's just silly.

Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. It is a different vocation than being a priest. Priest choose to be celibate because when they take the role of the priest, they want to be "married to serving god".

Instead of the vocation of marriage, they want the vocation of priesthood. It's a choice of the priest to take up this vocation. Very beautiful actually.

Priest celibacy wasn't originally a Catholic teaching. EWTN Marriage and Bishops married If you're going to attack the Church, attack the early Fathers.

When Jesus said, don't - I don't.
I call my father, dad or daddy
I call a old man, tatay (Tagalog, which is equivalent to dad)
I used to call a man in habit (priest) - "Father" but that was a long time ago, when I was ignorant of all of what Jesus said.

So if some priest say

I would say: Noooooooo!

As a former Catholic, I know better so I left.
The doctrines of the Catholic Church has been there for centuries and nobody can change that.

But one thing is for sure, the Bible says something and we notice something else. I don't need to interpret something that is very loud and clear, that is why I woke up.

Again from the Catholic Bible, an example of which:

1 Timothy 4:1-3Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,

Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared,

Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again from the Catholic Bible, an example of which:

1 Timothy 4:1-3Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,

Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared,

Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.

Why do you assume that this passage is about priestly celibacy and not, say, same-sex marriage?

 

[roger1440]

In regards to Peter, here's an article from Colombia University on Peter's history with verification from early church leaders that Peter indeed was martyred in Rome, and please do note that Colombia is not a Catholic institution: Saint Peter

What did the Church use to authenticate it, tradition? Even if the story claimed to have been written by an eye witness, how can the story be authenticated?

 

[metis]

As a former Catholic, I know better so I left.

Actually you have well proven that you actually don't "know better".

The doctrines of the Catholic Church has been there for centuries and nobody can change that.

You're being inconsistent now because you have kept claiming all along that the CC changed for the worst, and now you're claiming that "nobody can change" it. The reality is that it has changed quite a bit over the centuries as all other denominations have.

Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats,

Didn't Paul say that the ideal was to not marry and devote one's life to Jesus instead? Didn't Paul (I think it was him) say that it's OK to fast? I believe Jesus also said much the same that could be done after he was gone, but I don't have the time to look either up right now, so maybe someone can help me here?

 

[metis]

What did the Church use to authenticate it, tradition? Even if the story claimed to have been written by an eye witness, how can the story be authenticated?

By those who who were early church leaders immediately following the apostles, such as Clement, Irenaeus, Ignatius, etc., who obviously would know. The early church always taught this, and there's simply no other early source that says anything different.

Also, in one of Peter's epistles, he says that he's in "Babylonia", as found in the oldest Greek manuscripts (the feminine form in Greek implies smallness), which was code for the city of Rome, versus "Babylon the Great", which was code for the Roman Empire.

Also, in the early church, although I can't remember exactly when we first see it first in writing, "the chair of Peter" is used as a reference to the Bishop of Rome, thus descending from Peter.

Now, whether one believes in all this is obviously going to be up to the individual since going back and trying to recreate what actually took place 2000 years ago is always problematic. However, even some of the Protestant theologians I've read acknowledge that Peter being martyred in Rome is probably what happened.

As for me personally, I don't lose any sleep over this one way or the other.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When Jesus said, don't - I don't.
I call my father, dad or daddy
I call a old man, tatay (Tagalog, which is equivalent to dad)
I used to call a man in habit (priest) - "Father" but that was a long time ago, when I was ignorant of all of what Jesus said.

So if some priest say

I would say: Noooooooo!

As a former Catholic, I know better so I left.
The doctrines of the Catholic Church has been there for centuries and nobody can change that.

But one thing is for sure, the Bible says something and we notice something else. I don't need to interpret something that is very loud and clear, that is why I woke up.

Again from the Catholic Bible, an example of which:

1 Timothy 4:1-3Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,

Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared,

Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.

View attachment 17299

View attachment 17300

I do not see the connection of the word father and how it is wrong. You can blindly obey but if there is no reasoning behind your views, why expect people to adhere to it as truth?

Calling someone father is not against the bible. Calling someone THE Father "as if he were god" is against the bible.

I am not a literalist. If you dont understand the difference between father and Father, I dont know what to say.

 

[MJFlores]

Because that title was not used until much later.

In regards to Peter, here's an article from Colombia University on Peter's history with citations from early church leaders that Peter indeed was martyred in Rome, and please do note that Colombia is not a Catholic institution: Saint Peter

Also, you might check out even Wikipedia's article on the papacy, which can be found here: Pope - Wikipedia (scroll down to the part on "Early Christianity")

The term used by Jesus in Aramaic was "abba", which means father, but the word used in reference to the priests and the pope is from the word "presbyter", which means "elder". Therefore, what happened is that the words in Aramaic and Greek, when translated into English, became "father" in both cases even though their root is different. Needless to say, Catholics are well aware of the fact that the pope and the priests are not the same as God the "Father".

BTW, the "mark" of the early church was whether your bishops could trace their assignments back to the apostles, and your church doesn't qualify because it can't. And yet you continue to ignore the fact that the Bible you quote, the canon of which was chosen by the Catholic Church during the 4th and 5th centuries. So, that church you keep claiming was and is so corrupt actually chose the scriptures you read, therefore can't you tell just how inconsistent your position really is?

Here we go again with the infamous "Apostolic Succession" theory.

The last apostle to die was:

John was the only one of the original disciples not to die a violent death. Instead, he passed away peacefully in Patmos in his old age, sometime around 100 AD.

And then you have the list of popes, one of which is Peter.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes

Peter died in 67 A.D. according to this Catholic Encyclopedia.

I find it strange that Linus succeeded Peter instead of apostle John who is still alive, well if Linus really succeeded Peter. The Catholic Encyclopedia isn't even sure about this as it states:

"We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope St. Linus

Then after Linus, he was succeeded by St. Anacletus (Cletus) in 76 AD again apostle John is still alive when Cletus assumed "the papacy" and the Catholic Encyclopedia said there was confusion as to the order of succession:

"To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope St. Anacletus

Anacletus ended his reign in 88 A.D. then comes in St. Clement I again apostle John is still alive when Clement I assumed office. Well John was probably exiled at Patmos by this time by the orders of Emperor Domitian. But then again, John the favorite apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ was defeated by Linus, Anacletus and Clement I? Unbelievable, isn't it? Clement I ended his reign in 97 A.D. and John was still alive by this time.

Apostle John is the most loved (favorite) disciple of Jesus Christ and this is recorded in the following verses: John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:7 and John 21:20. It is quite strange that, assuming Peter were to hand over "the papal post" (assuming it was really ever used by the apostles) to Linus??? Then to Anacletus??? Then Clement I??? I think the first pope was Linus and the making Peter the first pope was just a story and an insertion. Apostle John was in full physical and mental capacity - his captors even tried to boil him in a cauldron of boiling oil without any effect and was able to write down the Revelation of Jesus Christ at the island of Patmos, where he was exiled.

I think Paul wrote about this:

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

They are false apostles, lying workers. They only pretend to be apostles of Christ. That does not surprise us, because even Satan changes himself to look like an angel of light. So it does not surprise us if Satan’s servants make themselves look like servants who work for what is right. But in the end those people will get the punishment they deserve.

Like a house of cards, when the top falls

so is the fable of Apostolic Succession

 

[MJFlores]

I do not see the connection of the word father and how it is wrong. You can blindly obey but if there is no reasoning behind your views, why expect people to adhere to it as truth?

Calling someone father is not against the bible. Calling someone THE Father "as if he were god" is against the bible.

I am not a literalist. If you dont understand the difference between father and Father, I dont know what to say.

Didn't interpret anything sis.
What the bible says, the bible says.
What the pope says, well he said it - not the bible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not see the connection of the word father and how it is wrong. You can blindly obey but if there is no reasoning behind your views, why expect people to adhere to it as truth?

Calling someone father is not against the bible. Calling someone THE Father "as if he were god" is against the bible.

I am not a literalist. If you dont understand the difference between father and Father, I dont know what to say.

The distinction you're describing isn't in the Bible. It does say "call no man father" (and "call no man teacher").

 

[MJFlores]

Actually you have well proven that you actually don't "know better".

You're being inconsistent now because you have kept claiming all along that the CC changed for the worst, and now you're claiming that "nobody can change" it. The reality is that it has changed quite a bit over the centuries as all other denominations have.

Didn't Paul say that the ideal was to not marry and devote one's life to Jesus instead? Didn't Paul (I think it was him) say that it's OK to fast? I believe Jesus also said much the same that could be done after he was gone, but I don't have the time to look either up right now, so maybe someone can help me here?

Which is which?
Marry or not to marry - that is for the laity (in Catholic term)

But when you forbid marriage - celibacy
And you forbid eating meats
That is also in the Catholic Bible and it says?

1 Timothy 4:1-3
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
Douay–Rheims Bible - Wikipedia

Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,

Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared,

Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.

When it is there, it has been sitting there for centuries.

 

[metis]

Here we go again with the infamous "Apostolic Succession" theory.

If you actually read Acts and some of the epistles, you should see rather clearly the power of authority being passed on to the appointees of the apostles. It's in your Bible that comes from the CC, but you do have the choice as to whether you believe in what's written there or even putting any faith in the Bible itself.

 

[metis]

But when you forbid marriage - celibacy

• 1 Cor. 7:8, “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.”
• 1 Cor. 7:24,27, “Brethren, let each man remain with God in that condition in which he was called… 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.”

to abstain from meats

Matthew 6[16]"And when you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
[17] But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,
[18] that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

 

[metis]

I find it strange that Linus succeeded Peter instead of apostle John who is still alive, well if Linus really succeeded Peter.

That's undoubtedly because leadership is not based on just being an apostle as different apostles and different leaders had different talents and duties. For example, Jesus chose Peter to "feed my sheep" even though John was Jesus' favorite-- at least according to John.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes. In the bible it's based on context. Call no one god/creator. Father (caps) is a title of authority. When I call my father, father it's because he is my biological parent. When I call father, father in the Church it's because his responsibility and devotion to the Church. It's respect just as Mr. and Ma'am. Nothing biblical.

Just because it's in a religious setting does not make a Catholic think the priest is Jesus Christ. That's silly. If a Catholic thought that then calling him Father would be against the bible. All Catholics I know and their scripture doesn't teach to call a priest The Father.

It's a protestant debate. Has nothing to do with how the Church sees it.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The Bible very clearly says that a bishop should be the husband of one wife. Not that he may choose to be married or not. But like so many other things the church chooses to ignore this and demand that priests and bishops must be unmarried. They make up there own rules for whatever reason they may have.