• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why don't Catholics read the Bible?

U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
BilliardsBall said:
The Roman church actively teaches that Jesus is angry with man but Mary can calm Him, so pray to Mary for help (and etc.). None of this nonsense is in the scriptures.

I stand on the scriptures as teaching salvation via trusting Christ, not by mass attendance, extreme unction, last rites, Cana marriage and other teachings and traditions the Roman church pushes, but which thousands of biblical sects know nothing about.
Click to expand...

Its historical. Jesus was potrayed as a lamb doing one era and later on, renaissance I think, The Church changed christ to more judgemental. You'll get that in the older Churches most likely. Its history and politics.

Their doctrine (the bible) does not teach an "angry christ." They started going away from that after awhile. @metis could probably educate you more on that given experience and age differences. The Church today, least the "progressive ones" I was confirmed in didnt teach christ as mean or angry. Our priest said we need to get back to the "love" of god and "communion" with the saints.

If you read their doctine (the bible) and the cathecism (their tradition), you'd see you and most are disliking christian politics. Look more into the body of christ and there should be no seperation between you and the people in christ. Years ago, protestants werent considered christians. Dont know when, but little after my life time, now the Church accepted all trinitarian churches as christian when they are baptized in water And in spirit.

Got to go a lot deeper than politics. Messes* people up all the time.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
BilliardsBall said:
It is not anti-Catholic bigotry to tell you what I've experienced from Catholic priests. Don't hide your head in the sand, but approach your local priests and experiment--telling them you are very, very sure salvation is via faith alone, and see what shakes out. Come out of the darkness towards light. In my opinion, only Christ can save.
Click to expand...
It is bigotry when you only can find evil whereas there is obviously some good or the CC would not have survived for almost 2000 years.

I didn't hide my head in the sand when I decided as a non-Catholic to actually do objective research and not continue to believe in the anti-Catholic bigotry that I was being taught at my church and in the home I was brought up in.

And even though I showed showed you many verses that insist that doing the good works that Jesus taught was essential, such as in the Sermon On the Mount and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats, you come back with the above. How can you ignore what's in the Bible and then claim you believe in the Bible? How can you claim you believe in Jesus but then ignore what he taught about not judging others?

Maybe you should seek out a church that actually teaches what's in the Bible and why it's necessary to act morally, because the one you're attending doesn't seem to be doing that.
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Unveiled Artist said:
Its historical. Jesus was potrayed as a lamb doing one era and later on, renaissance I think, The Church changed christ to more judgemental. You'll get that in the older Churches most likely. Its history and politics.

Their doctrine (the bible) does not teach an "angry christ." They started going away from that after awhile. @metis could probably educate you more on that given experience and age differences. The Church today, least the "progressive ones" I was confirmed in didnt teach christ as mean or angry. Our priest said we need to get back to the "love" of god and "communion" with the saints.

If you read their doctine (the bible) and the cathecism (their tradition), you'd see you and most are disliking christian politics. Look more into the body of christ and there should be no seperation between you and the people in christ. Years ago, protestants werent considered christians. Dont know when, but little after my life time, now the Church accepted all trinitarian churches as christian when they are baptized in water And in spirit.

Got to go a lot deeper than politics. Messes* people up all the time.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, other than Metis having his head completely in the sand, I often see modern missives and "words from Mary" and etc. that Jesus is angry with humans, including the saved ones!
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
metis said:
It is bigotry when you only can find evil whereas there is obviously some good or the CC would not have survived for almost 2000 years.

I didn't hide my head in the sand when I decided as a non-Catholic to actually do objective research and not continue to believe in the anti-Catholic bigotry that I was being taught at my church and in the home I was brought up in.

And even though I showed showed you many verses that insist that doing the good works that Jesus taught was essential, such as in the Sermon On the Mount and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats, you come back with the above. How can you ignore what's in the Bible and then claim you believe in the Bible? How can you claim you believe in Jesus but then ignore what he taught about not judging others?

Maybe you should seek out a church that actually teaches what's in the Bible and why it's necessary to act morally, because the one you're attending doesn't seem to be doing that.
Click to expand...

It's bigotry to describe a current manipulative and errant practice requiring reform? I know your church doesn't like reform or reformers, but still...

Let's say works ARE taught in the Bible as you claim? What is the purpose of haranguing parishoners and telling them NOT to read the Word of God as often? You clearly haven't done the experiment I suggested. Why not?
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
BilliardsBall said:
Unfortunately, other than Metis having his head completely in the sand, I often see modern missives and "words from Mary" and etc. that Jesus is angry with humans, including the saved ones!
Click to expand...


:eek: really! I just went through a whole art history class on what metis posted so far. Its historical knowledge and has been in papal history since god knows when.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
BilliardsBall said:
It's bigotry to describe a current manipulative and errant practice requiring reform? I know your church doesn't like reform or reformers, but still...

Let's say works ARE taught in the Bible as you claim? What is the purpose of haranguing parishoners and telling them NOT to read the Word of God as often? You clearly haven't done the experiment I suggested. Why not?
Click to expand...
Now all you are doing is using circular-reasoning and bringing up elements that were not being discussed at this point. Also, you repeat the same pathetic lie over and over again as it has been covered by several here, including moi, that this is no longer the case and hasn't been as such since Vatican II. I said I was involved with two Bible study projects at my wife's Catholic church last year, with the priest's blessing since I'm not Catholic, and I'm going to be involved in an 18 week study of Matthew starting in the fall.

BTW, I don't need to do your "experiment" because, as I already covered it on a previous post since it's a nonsensical question devoid of what the scriptures say that I showed you with the numerous verses I posted. I thought you say you believe in the Bible, BB, and yet you just ignore that which doesn't fit you preconceived paradigm?

As far as the CC supposedly not liking reform, have you even heard of the "Counter-Reformation"? How about Vatican II? If your church is teaching you this pathetic and immoral bias, then I would suggest that it is in really bad need of reform.
 
Last edited:
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
@BilliardsBall

You dont need to be defensive to have a conversation. We all have things we learn from, others in which we're corrected, while some info we have to share ourselves. We have something to give, gain, and corrected.

Spirituality is no exception.
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Unveiled Artist said:
:eek: really! I just went through a whole art history class on what metis posted so far. Its historical knowledge and has been in papal history since god knows when.
Click to expand...

And Metis has never done the experiment I suggested on the thread, daring to tell the Roman priestly magicians that salvation is via faith ALONE.
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
metis said:
Now all you are doing is using circular-reasoning and bringing up elements that were not being discussed at this point. Also, you repeat the same pathetic lie over and over again as it has been covered by several here, including moi, that this is no longer the case and hasn't been as such since Vatican II. I said I was involved with two Bible study projects at my wife's Catholic church last year, with the priest's blessing since I'm not Catholic, and I'm going to be involved in an 18 week study of Matthew starting in the fall.

BTW, I don't need to do your "experiment" because, as I already covered it on a previous post since it's a nonsensical question devoid of what the scriptures say that I showed you with the numerous verses I posted. I thought you say you believe in the Bible, BB, and yet you just ignore that which doesn't fit you preconceived paradigm?

As far as the CC supposedly not liking reform, have you even heard of the "Counter-Reformation"? How about Vatican II? If your church is teaching you this pathetic and immoral bias, then I would suggest that it is in really bad need of reform.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the many changes and reforms that Vatican II brought.

You are hereby invited to ask three Roman priests, "I've been talking with a CATHOLIC friend in another parish who is very certain the Bible teaches no works are required for salvation, how might you counsel them?" also, you might explain this passage to me, if you would: Romans 4:5-8

Thanks!
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
BilliardsBall said:
You are correct. The more Bible a person knows, the less likely they will adhere to Roman Catholicism. Therefore, the priests discourage Catholics from Word study.
Click to expand...
Patently untrue. I know PLENTY of biblically-literate RCC people, and one of my most favorite scholarly commentaries that got me through biblical exegesis in seminary was an RCC commentary.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
BilliardsBall said:
Where in the Bible does it teach that the Roman church should burn living people for believing differently, or bar born again Christians from communion now, for believing differently?

And by the way, defending bad Roman doctrine by quoting the scriptures without understanding is what the Catholic church does, still, my point to you for which you're responded to defend Catholic doctrine as a sometimes attendee--so don't tell me Roman priests don't believe this nonsense.

Salvation NOT by faith alone is the heresy IMO!
Click to expand...
Operative term: in your opinion
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
BilliardsBall said:
You are hereby invited to ask three Roman priests, "I've been talking with a CATHOLIC friend in another parish who is very certain the Bible teaches no works are required for salvation, how might you counsel them?" also, you might explain this passage to me, if you would: Romans 4:5-8
Click to expand...
Yes, and I know a guy who robbed a bank but that doesn't make him an expert on banking.

Actually, what I didn't say, if you check back through my posts, is that good works were necessary for "salvation". Unlike you, I have repeatedly stated that I do not judge who is to be "saved" or not. What I did say is that obeying the teachings of Jesus is a requirement for one who says (s)he's a Christian, according that which is found in the NT.

For example, the man on the cross who repented was told by Jesus he would be saved, so he obviously wasn't in a position to live out the gospel dictates beyond repentance. OTOH, the "Goats" in Matthew 25 were condemned because they didn't do what Jesus taught was expected of them. See the difference?

And this latter teaching is what the Catholic Church teaches is a must for its flock. IOW, Catholic Christianity is not just some sort of religion-- it's gotta be a lifestyle based on Jesus' teachings, and part of that lifestyle is to not judge others. IOW, doing "good works", in terms of following and doing Jesus' teachings if possible, is a requirement for "salvation", according to the NT.

I personally don't believe that, since I really don't get into the who's saved and who's not, but that's neither here nor there.
 
Last edited:
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Anna Therese said:
So, you believe a person who has reached the age of reason and knows how to read doesn'y have the ability to understand what he's reading?
Click to expand...
Serious bible interpretation is specialty reading, using tools that most people have not learned, including ancient languages.
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
sojourner said:
Patently untrue. I know PLENTY of biblically-literate RCC people, and one of my most favorite scholarly commentaries that got me through biblical exegesis in seminary was an RCC commentary.
Click to expand...

This is not untrue. The RCC put to death people for translating the scriptures into local languages, and an emphasis on Word study underpinned and drove the Reformation.

In more modern times, I have encountered a number of Roman priests who tell parishoners who ask them about salvation by faith, "Please lay off the Bible study for a while, and also, I took vows and went to seminary, and God will help me interpret the Bible for you."

The real issue with the RCC, of course, is adding works to what Christ accomplished on the cross. At stake are the souls of countless persons, so let's be careful in our own Bible studies.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
BilliardsBall said:
This is not untrue. The RCC put to death people for translating the scriptures into local languages, and an emphasis on Word study underpinned and drove the Reformation.

In more modern times, I have encountered a number of Roman priests who tell parishoners who ask them about salvation by faith, "Please lay off the Bible study for a while, and also, I took vows and went to seminary, and God will help me interpret the Bible for you."

The real issue with the RCC, of course, is adding works to what Christ accomplished on the cross. At stake are the souls of countless persons, so let's be careful in our own Bible studies.
Click to expand...
And Protestants burned innocent people for being witches. I suspect the reason why they may have told people to stop the Bible studies is because there is a glut of really crappy “bible studies” making the rounds that are full of really crappy, eisegetical “scholarship” promoting really crappy theology. All being marketed under the guise of “sound, biblical teaching.” I say, “Please leave the exegetical work to those who have been trained and know how to do it responsibly.” And I’m Protestant.
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
metis said:
Yes, and I know a guy who robbed a bank but that doesn't make him an expert on banking.

Actually, what I didn't say, if you check back through my posts, is that good works were necessary for "salvation". Unlike you, I have repeatedly stated that I do not judge who is to be "saved" or not. What I did say is that obeying the teachings of Jesus is a requirement for one who says (s)he's a Christian, according that which is found in the NT.

For example, the man on the cross who repented was told by Jesus he would be saved, so he obviously wasn't in a position to live out the gospel dictates beyond repentance. OTOH, the "Goats" in Matthew 25 were condemned because they didn't do what Jesus taught was expected of them. See the difference?

And this latter teaching is what the Catholic Church teaches is a must for its flock. IOW, Catholic Christianity is not just some sort of religion-- it's gotta be a lifestyle based on Jesus' teachings, and part of that lifestyle is to not judge others. IOW, doing "good works", in terms of following and doing Jesus' teachings if possible, is a requirement for "salvation", according to the NT.

I personally don't believe that, since I really don't get into the who's saved and who's not, but that's neither here nor there.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtful response, however, official RCC teaching includes:

1. Faith/trust in Jesus is insufficient for salvation
2. Those who adhere to sola fide are heretical and anathema
3. The blood and body of Jesus is truly present in the eucharist--and is effectual towards salvation per John 6--but non-Catholics cannot have it

I would say 1) and 2) are non-biblical heresy. I would say that once I realized 3) I realized that the church was saying they were going to withhold communion with Jesus Christ from non-Catholics and/or have them spend longer in purgatory on purpose--and it was hard to maintain respect for the RCC following this.

Taking communion can bring me closer to God, the body and blood are present in the elements, and I can enhance salvation/spend less time in purgatory through the mass--and the church disallows "separated brethren" from having the mass. Why do evangelical churches allow Catholics to break bread with them in the Lord's Supper?
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
BilliardsBall said:
This is not untrue. The RCC put to death people for translating the scriptures into local languages, and an emphasis on Word study underpinned and drove the Reformation.

In more modern times, I have encountered a number of Roman priests who tell parishoners who ask them about salvation by faith, "Please lay off the Bible study for a while, and also, I took vows and went to seminary, and God will help me interpret the Bible for you."

The real issue with the RCC, of course, is adding works to what Christ accomplished on the cross. At stake are the souls of countless persons, so let's be careful in our own Bible studies.
Click to expand...
The issue with the RCC is based upon one possible perspective of soteriology. Substitutionary atonement is not the only (or even most plausible) example. Fundies always put forth the “added to” argument, and it never holds water. It most always represents a gross misunderstanding of the nuances of orthodox theology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top