Catholicism vs Scripture

[csuguy]

An oldie but a goodie: Catholicism vs Scripture. I'm starting this thread to continue an off-topic conversation started in another thread.

Some sample points to explore:
* The Eucharist
* Papal Infallibility
* The Papal Authority via Peter
* The Immaculate Conception
* The Worship/Idolatry of Saints
* The restriction that priests can't marry

Feel free to bring up any other such topics for discussion.

 

[Dartman]

An oldie but a goodie: Catholicism vs Scripture. I'm starting this thread to continue an off-topic conversation started in another thread.

Some sample points to explore:
* The Eucharist
* Papal Infallibility
* The Papal Authority via Peter
* The Immaculate Conception
* The Worship/Idolatry of Saints
* The restriction that priests can't marry

Feel free to bring up any other such topics for discussion.

Let's add these Scriptures;

Matt 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


Acts 20:28-31 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.


2 Cor 11:3-4 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.


2 Thess 2:1-8 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

 

[csuguy]

Agree to disagree that the Trinity contradicts Scripture.

So you concede the point :chuckle:

Fake news. Nobody does that.

So you are telling me that Catholics don't pray to saints? They don't decorate their churches and homes with graven images of them and use them in worship? They don't elevate them above mere men and women, exemplary fellow believers (example: the Immaculate Conception)? You are simply wrong here.

Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself [c]an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

Deutoronomy 4:15-20 So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, 16 so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth. 19 And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. 20 But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, from Egypt, to be a people for His own possession, as today.
​

You don't think that the Apostle Peter held a pastorate in Rome?

There's some debate about whether Peter was Bishop at Rome, but it's not important. What is contradictory vs scripture is the idea that Peter had predominant authority in the church - and that someone inherits this special authority when elected to the position of Bishop of Rome (vs Bishop of somewhere else).

The entire idea that the Bishop of Rome specifically is special isn't biblical, nor is it the historical position of the Church. The Bishop of Rome gained political power thanks to Constantine, and theology was subsequently invented to give a false spiritual basis for this assumed authority. Hence you have the Orthodox Churches and Old Catholic Church which recognize the Bishop of Rome as just one of many bishops - holding no special spiritual authority.

Infallibility of the Apostles to teach the Word of God does not contradict the Scripture.

First off, the scriptures don't teach that they are infallible - so it is an extra biblical belief not rooted in scripture.

Secondly, it is a belief that directly contradicts the testimony of scripture. The Apostles made doctrinal mistakes and had to be corrected, they had disputes that they had to settle through debate. For instance, Paul famously had to correct Peter:

Galatians 2:11-14 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from [j]James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing [k]the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not [l]straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?​

The issue of circumcision of gentiles was a hot debate topic in the early church - and it wasn't settled by something so easy as infallibility or by some special authority given to Peter. In fact, Peter wound up being rebuked - Paul even going so far as to claim he stood condemned.

This is literally Scripture.

A faulty interpretation of scripture is not the same as scripture itself. Hence Jesus rebuked the people and Pharisees regarding the Sabbath (John 7:19-24).

The idea that the Eucharist literally transforms into flesh and blood when partaken is a direct violation of the Law.

Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.​

In fact, even with many of the dietary restrictions lifted under Christ, the prohibition against blood continued - even for Gentiles:

Acts 15:19-20 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from [j]things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
​

Furthermore, when Christ gave them the Eucharist and when spoken of subsequently by Paul - it is treated as an act of remembrance.

1 Cor 11:23-26 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.​

Which heeds 1st Corinthians 11:27 KJV.

Inappropriate application. Paul isn't talking about doctrinal issues in this verse - he is talking about one's disposition, their behavior. Hence he goes on to say...

1 Cor 11:33-34 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.​

Show where the Scripture teaches that bishops cannot make a decision about whether priests can marry, or must instead be celibate.

Decisions concerning marriage were made by Paul and the Apostles long before Catholicism decided to prohibit marriage for priests - and the act of prohibiting marriage directly violates what was established by Paul and the Apostles.

1 Cor 7:1-2 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

1 Timothy 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

1 Timothy 3:12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.

Titus 1:5-9 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the [d]overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
​

Note how while Paul lifts up staying celibate as the ideal, he doesn't force the issue due to immoralities. While not the ideal - having a wife is the next best thing, and still a good thing. Catholicism threw this wisdom out the window - and now they are plagued by sexual scandals. Coincidence? I think not.

You haven't identified one yet.

I'd say the evidence is to the contrary - I've pointed out numerous examples and followed it up with scripture.

What examples can you show to clarify what you mean by "beyond the dogma."

See above for examples. However, "beyond the dogma" simply means to study above and beyond your church's dogma. Challenge their interpretation - study the opposition, see if there isn't a more logical answer, etc.

If this site had more than a dozen registered users that would make sense but it's basically no mans land here so this thread is probably fine.

This site definitely doesn't have the numbers that it once had, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it is rude to take over a thread with an off topic discussion. Also, having a separate thread makes it easier to navigate a particular conversation chain.

'Pretty clear from your link that the disagreement surrounded civil power of the papacy, and not its teachings in faith and morals. Of course there have always been reasonable objections that the charism of infallibility would be abused, but when properly understood, such objections are quelled. It in plain language means that if two bishops' received Apostolic oral traditions conflict, that the papacy's received Apostolic oral tradition is the more complete one, because the papacy's received Apostolic oral tradition is both Peter's and Paul's own teachings.

First off, attempting to silence discussion via claims of infallibility is inherently an abuse of power. Secondly, one of the major reasons for dissent was because traditionally core doctrinal beliefs and disputes were established via ecumenical councils. This was a power grab that violates that tradition.

They're just another type of Protestant.

You need to do some studying - they aren't the product of the Reformation. They are Catholics who refused to break with established tradition and give into the Pope's power grab.

 

[csuguy]

Part 2 of the above video concerning the Old Catholic Church (you can only put one video in a post now apparently):

 

[csuguy]

Let's add these Scriptures;

Matt 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

...

I wouldn't take it so far as to say Catholics worship a false Christ or aren't Christian - though you could certainly argue that the Pope is a kind of false prophet.

 

[Bright Raven]

The Church having authority over Scripture

 

[Dartman]

I wouldn't take it so far as to say Catholics worship a false Christ or aren't Christian - though you could certainly argue that the Pope is a kind of false prophet.

The falling away was beginning as Paul was writing the epistle to the Thessalonians, and isn't going to be destroyed until Jesus returns. So, we are looking at a perfect match for the gradual development of the trinity, and "immortal soul" doctrine, which both contradict the Scriptures... and the world dominance exercised by the HRE... from about 500AD to 1760AD.

 

[Squeaky]

CATHOLIC
Col 2:8-10
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
Col 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Col 2:23
23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
1 Cor 1:10
10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1 Cor 1:12-13
12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1 Cor 1:9
9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Cor 3:4-6
4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?
6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.
1 Cor 3:7
7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.
1 Cor 3:10-13
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!"
28 But He said, "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"
John 2:2-4
2 Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.
3 And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine."
4 Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come."
Mark 3:31-35
31 Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him.
32 And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You."
33 But He answered them, saying, "Who is My mother, or My brothers?"
34 And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers!
35 "For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother."
John 5:22-23
22 "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,
23 "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
Acts 4:12
12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
Eph 4:4-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1 Cor 11:1-4
1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
Matt 23:9-10
9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
2 Cor 3:17
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
2 Cor 5:5
5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
1 Cor 9:5
5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
1 Cor 7:1-2
1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
1 Tim 2:5
5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
II Jn 1:9
9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
John 3:17-18
17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
1 Tim 4:1-4
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Acts 4:11-12
11 "This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.'
12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
[Eph 5:11
[11] And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose [them].

XXX No Christian should ever call any man on earth Father. No Christian man should ever pray with his head covered. No Christian should ever use vain idles. No Christian should ever pray to anyone other than God through Jesus. Not through mary, not through a pope.

Luke 20:46-47
46 "Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes, love greetings in the marketplaces, the best seats in the synagogues, and the best places at feasts,
47 "who devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation."
Matt 6:5-8
5 "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.
6 "But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.
7 "And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.
8 "Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.
Mark 7:6-9
6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-- the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do."
9 And He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
(NKJ)



This is what catholics think is a heretick. I strongly disagree.

A Heretic is a baptized person who rejects an authoritative teaching of the
Roman Catholic Church.A schismatic is a
person who refuses communion with a true Pope or refuses communion with true
Catholics.An apostate is a person who
rejects the Christian faith completely.All heretics, <SPAN class=SpellE1>schismatics</SPAN> and apostates sever
themselves from the Catholic Church automatically Therefore, if one is a
heretic he is not a Catholic (Pope Leo XIII,And most heretics
convince themselves that they are not denying any dogma when they actually
are. Heresies from Benedict XVI


Matt 23:1-11

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3 "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
4 "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.
6 "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
7 "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.'
8 "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.
9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant.
(NKJ)

Matt 23:14-15
14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
(NKJ)

2 Tim 4:3-4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
(NKJ)

Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.
26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I myself am also a man."
(NKJ)

Rev 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
(NKJ)


HIERARCHY

Heb 9:6-17
6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services.
7 But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people's sins committed in ignorance;
8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing.
9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience--
10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
(NKJ)

1 Cor 11:1-3

1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
(NKJ)
[1Co 5:11
[11] But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person.

 

[Idolater]

So you concede the point :chuckle:

No.

So you are telling me that Catholics don't pray to saints?

Catholics do pray to saints, and so do I. First and foremost, to Mary the mother of the Lord Jesus. You accused Catholicism of worshiping saints and committing idolatry. Praying to saints does not equal worshiping them or committing idolatry.

They don't decorate their churches and homes with graven images of them and use them in worship?

Nobody worships saints, certainly not licitly.

They don't elevate them above mere men and women, exemplary fellow believers (example: the Immaculate Conception)?

No. Any 'elevation' that you perceive is due to their example of faith, and much more importantly than that, it is due to what the Lord Jesus has done. All honor and glory is His.

You are simply wrong here.

Likewise.

Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself [c]an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

Deutoronomy 4:15-20 So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, 16 so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth. 19 And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. 20 But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, from Egypt, to be a people for His own possession, as today.
​

There's some debate about whether Peter was Bishop at Rome, but it's not important.

Well of course you believe that. If you believed the opposite, that it Is important (cf. Mt16:18-19KJV), you'd be Catholic. So saying this is equal to simply stating what we already know, that you're not Catholic, not bodily (same here) nor theologically (I am Catholic theologically however---I'm Catholic "on the way to full communion" but am not there yet).

What is contradictory vs scripture is the idea that Peter had predominant authority in the church

Vs. Peter is portrayed everywhere in the Gospels as the leader of the Disciples, plus John 21:15 KJV, John 21:16 KJV, and John 21:17 KJV, in which the Lord Jesus is quoted as authorizing Peter as the Church's supreme pastor (compare with Ac20:28KJV, where the Spirit made the other bishops, not the Lord Himself like with Peter).

- and that someone inherits this special authority when elected to the position of Bishop of Rome (vs Bishop of somewhere else).

It's the same as President Trump 'inheriting' George Washington's authority. It's completely normal, not some strange notion you're unfamiliar with. The Pope holds the same office that Peter himself held when he walked the earth. Peter presided over the whole Church then, and the Pope today does the same. He is the 'seniorest' of senior pastors.

The entire idea that the Bishop of Rome specifically is special isn't biblical, nor is it the historical position of the Church.

It's arguable that it's biblical, but it's not reasonably arguable that it isn't the 'historical position of the Church.' It took 1000 years for any significant cluster of bishops to reject /protest the papacy, Peter's Roman pastorate.

The Bishop of Rome gained political power thanks to Constantine, and theology was subsequently invented to give a false spiritual basis for this assumed authority.

The Pope at the time of Nicaea was not involved in that council. The Aryan bishops' received Apostolic oral tradition was found to be slightly deficient, and the received Apostolic oral tradition of the whole Church's college of bishops was brought up to snuff in one way during this council.

Hence you have the Orthodox Churches and Old Catholic Church which recognize the Bishop of Rome as just one of many bishops - holding no special spiritual authority.

And they each of them came to that judgment because they chose to hold on to their own ideas instead of do what we are all instructed to do as Christians, which is to submit to our bishops.

First off, the scriptures don't teach that they are infallible - so it is an extra biblical belief not rooted in scripture.

Agree to disagree, since I see in 1st Thessalonians 2:13 KJV Paul saying exactly that.

Secondly, it is a belief that directly contradicts the testimony of scripture. The Apostles made doctrinal mistakes and had to be corrected, they had disputes that they had to settle through debate. For instance, Paul famously had to correct Peter:

Galatians 2:11-14 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from [j]James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing [k]the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not [l]straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?​

That was about Peter's hypocrisy, not a 'doctrinal mistake.' And it exemplifies how in the New Covenant, the same standard that applied to those who sat in Moses' seat in the Old Covenant applies still. Hypocrisy on the part of the authorized teachers does not invalidate their office.

The issue of circumcision of gentiles was a hot debate topic in the early church - and it wasn't settled by something so easy as infallibility or by some special authority given to Peter. In fact, Peter wound up being rebuked - Paul even going so far as to claim he stood condemned.

Not in the Jerusalem council he wasn't. He is depicted as opening the council with words that by its end, James (the then bishop of the Jerusalem diocese) essentially repeated and therefore confirmed.

A faulty interpretation of scripture is not the same as scripture itself. Hence Jesus rebuked the people and Pharisees regarding the Sabbath (John 7:19-24).

Which has nothing to do with the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is a verbatim 'interpretation' of the very words of the Lord, repeated for us not twice, nor three times, but four whole times in the New Testament, "This is My body," He said. The Church from the outset has believed and taught nothing but this 'interpretation.' Save for some early gnostics, who didn't believe that Jesus was ever physically present on the earth in the first place, it wasn't until the Reformation that any Christian got it in their head to reject the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of the validly celebrated Eucharist.

The idea that the Eucharist literally transforms into flesh and blood when partaken is a direct violation of the Law.

Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.​

John 6:53 KJV John 6:54 KJV John 6:55 KJV John 6:56 KJV

You at least can concede that it was an easy mistake to make.

In fact, even with many of the dietary restrictions lifted under Christ, the prohibition against blood continued - even for Gentiles:

Acts 15:19-20 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from [j]things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
​

Furthermore, when Christ gave them the Eucharist and when spoken of subsequently by Paul - it is treated as an act of remembrance.

1 Cor 11:23-26 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.​

And? The Eucharist is celebrated as remembrance and as making His sacrifice on the cross present to the Church. There isn't any conflict between this and the Real Presence.

Inappropriate application. Paul isn't talking about doctrinal issues in this verse - he is talking about one's disposition, their behavior. Hence he goes on to say...

1 Cor 11:33-34 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.​

Agree to disagree on your interpretation. Catholic bishops protect people from receiving the Eucharist illicitly and becoming guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Decisions concerning marriage were made by Paul and the Apostles long before Catholicism decided to prohibit marriage for priests - and the act of prohibiting marriage directly violates what was established by Paul and the Apostles.

1 Cor 7:1-2 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

1 Timothy 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

1 Timothy 3:12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.

Titus 1:5-9 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the [d]overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
​

Note how while Paul lifts up staying celibate as the ideal, he doesn't force the issue due to immoralities. While not the ideal - having a wife is the next best thing, and still a good thing. Catholicism threw this wisdom out the window - and now they are plagued by sexual scandals. Coincidence? I think not.

Well the more accurate explanation for the scandal is the propensity of people everywhere to 'protect their own' from police. This same behavior has always occurred within organizations and businesses, families, governments, and even within the ranks of the police themselves. We always want to try to protect our own from the police, and this idea has wound up being very wrong, as it harbors murderers and rapists, protecting not the innocent but the guilty, from what they deserve. It is a miscarriage of justice wherever it occurs, and it does still occur today. It must be stamped out of human behavior for good somehow, to protect innocent people from criminals.

I'd say the evidence is to the contrary - I've pointed out numerous examples and followed it up with scripture.

You elaborated more in this post than in the one I actually responded to in making this comment. I still maintain that Catholicism is the authentic expression of the one Christian faith (Eph4:5KJV).

See above for examples. However, "beyond the dogma" simply means to study above and beyond your church's dogma. Challenge their interpretation - study the opposition, see if there isn't a more logical answer, etc.

Oh. Well, I did all that. Catholicism passed every one of my tests.

This site definitely doesn't have the numbers that it once had, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it is rude to take over a thread with an off topic discussion. Also, having a separate thread makes it easier to navigate a particular conversation chain.

OK.

First off, attempting to silence discussion via claims of infallibility is inherently an abuse of power.

Not if the claim of authority is valid.

Secondly, one of the major reasons for dissent was because traditionally core doctrinal beliefs and disputes were established via ecumenical councils. This was a power grab that violates that tradition.

As I explained, nothing was ever invented in a Church council. Bishops, each of whom possess their own Apostolic oral tradition, handed on to them by their elder bishops, 'compared notes,' and deficiencies were addressed and corrected. The whole college of bishops emerged from Church councils with a clearer and more uniform knowledge of what all of the Apostles taught.

You need to do some studying - they aren't the product of the Reformation.

No, but they came after the Reformation, so the spirit of rebellion was already in their air. Protestants are protesting something, not just general protest, and what they protest is the valid teaching authority of their bishops. We are all to submit to our bishops in matters of faith and morals, as Christians. It is how it's always been, and nothing has changed on that point.

They are Catholics

They are not Catholics. Catholics submit to the papacy.

who refused to break with established tradition and give into the Pope's power grab.

And in what way was this submitting to their bishops in matters of faith and morals? It wasn't. It was a power grab, yes, but on the part of insurrectionists, not on the part of the papacy, whose teaching authority is valid, as the same teaching authority of the Apostle Peter, who received his teaching authority from the Lord and from the Spirit of truth.

 

[csuguy]

No.
Catholics do pray to saints, and so do I. First and foremost, to Mary the mother of the Lord Jesus. You accused Catholicism of worshiping saints and committing idolatry. Praying to saints does not equal worshiping them or committing idolatry.
Nobody worships saints, certainly not licitly.
No. Any 'elevation' that you perceive is due to their example of faith, and much more importantly than that, it is due to what the Lord Jesus has done. All honor and glory is His.
Likewise.

First off, you don't pray to your mother or father, you don't pray to your priest. Prayer is something done towards God/deities/idols. So right off the bat you are in clear contradiction of the scriptures. Even Jesus, when asked how to pray, didn't tell people to pray to him - but to the Father.

Second off, let's look at the definition of idolatry (dictionary.com):

1. the religious worship of idols.
2.excessive or blind adoration, reverence, devotion, etc.​

So you pray to them, you create graven images of them and with which you fill churches and your own homes, you use these graven images in worship, show them excesssive adoration/reverence/devotion. So, yea, idolatry.

If I prayed to you, would you hear it? No. If you did hear it, would it help answer my prayers? No. We are to pray to God. If God won't answer your prayers, then what makes you think a righteous saint would answer them or pass them on in your place? Do you imagine that if your prayers are multiplied that they will then be answered?

In Catholicism they are very clearly treated as much more than mere holy men.

Well of course you believe that. If you believed the opposite, that it Is important (cf. Mt16:18-19KJV), you'd be Catholic. So saying this is equal to simply stating what we already know, that you're not Catholic, not bodily (same here) nor theologically (I am Catholic theologically however---I'm Catholic "on the way to full communion" but am not there yet).

Incorrect. Even if, for the sake of argument, I accepted that Peter was Bishop of Rome, that wouldn't change any of my theology one iota. Because it isn't significant.

Vs. Peter is portrayed everywhere in the Gospels as the leader of the Disciples, plus John 21:15 KJV, John 21:16 KJV, and John 21:17 KJV, in which the Lord Jesus is quoted as authorizing Peter as the Church's supreme pastor (compare with Ac20:28KJV, where the Spirit made the other bishops, not the Lord Himself like with Peter).

Get some reading glasses and then actually read those verses. None of them say what you are saying.

It's the same as President Trump 'inheriting' George Washington's authority.

Oh, don't tell me you are a trumptard.... Also, you skipped a president there

It's completely normal, not some strange notion you're unfamiliar with. The Pope holds the same office that Peter himself held when he walked the earth. Peter presided over the whole Church then, and the Pope today does the same. He is the 'seniorest' of senior pastors.

Don't got any disagreement with the notion that the Pope is one of many Bishops in the church. He has no predominance over the rest of the church, however, and he most definitely isn't infallible. Just another man.

It's arguable that it's biblical, but it's not reasonably arguable that it isn't the 'historical position of the Church.' It took 1000 years for any significant cluster of bishops to reject /protest the papacy, Peter's Roman pastorate.

It took that long for the theology of the papacy to form - and indeed continued to transform (hence the infallibility doctrine in the 19th century). No one rejected the papacy in the early church because there was no papacy to begin with. When the Bishop of Rome gained power in the 4th century, it wasn't regarded as any kind of special spiritual power - but purely political. Hence when the capital was moved to Constantinople from Rome there was a power struggle that ultimately divided east and west.

The Pope at the time of Nicaea was not involved in that council. The Aryan bishops' received Apostolic oral tradition was found to be slightly deficient, and the received Apostolic oral tradition of the whole Church's college of bishops was brought up to snuff in one way during this council.

The Council of Nicaea was merely the beginning of a long debate that was heavily mixed with politics and war. It wasn't until an Emperor said "enough is enough" and forced compliance or death that the debates ended within Rome. Outside of Rome, divergent views persisted.

And they each of them came to that judgment because they chose to hold on to their own ideas instead of do what we are all instructed to do as Christians, which is to submit to our bishops.

Incorrect - the other bishops disagreed with the bishop of Rome. He is only one bishop in the church - he isn't their bishop. Besides, bishops are men - they error and can be (and have been) corrupted.

Agree to disagree, since I see in 1st Thessalonians 2:13 KJV Paul saying exactly that.

Incorrect - Paul doesn't assert in the least in that verse that bishops, nor the bishop of Rome, is infallible. He is speaking of the Word of God, the seed of our rebirth. Furthermore, you are cherry-picking scripture to ignore the wealth of scriptures that clearly contradict you. This isn't a matter of opinion - you are choosing to remain ignorant.

That was about Peter's hypocrisy, not a 'doctrinal mistake.' And it exemplifies how in the New Covenant, the same standard that applied to those who sat in Moses' seat in the Old Covenant applies still. Hypocrisy on the part of the authorized teachers does not invalidate their office.

It was a doctrinal mistake - hence Paul confronted him on doctrine:

Galatians 2:14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?​

Peter had fallen in line with those of the circumcision - his actions and words in agreement with theirs.

If you want to say he knew better - and yet did so anyways - fine. That just further establishes him as a fallible human being who cannot be blindly trusted on matters of doctrine.

Not in the Jerusalem council he wasn't. He is depicted as opening the council with words that by its end, James (the then bishop of the Jerusalem diocese) essentially repeated and therefore confirmed.

Doesn't matter if he was rebuked at a council or not. He fell into line with doctrine that condemned him, according to Paul. It wasn't Peter who was leading the church on the correct path - but Paul.

Which has nothing to do with the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is a verbatim 'interpretation' of the very words of the Lord, repeated for us not twice, nor three times, but four whole times in the New Testament, "This is My body," He said. The Church from the outset has believed and taught nothing but this 'interpretation.' Save for some early gnostics, who didn't believe that Jesus was ever physically present on the earth in the first place, it wasn't until the Reformation that any Christian got it in their head to reject the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of the validly celebrated Eucharist.
John 6:53 KJV John 6:54 KJV John 6:55 KJV John 6:56 KJV

That is simply incorrect. I've actually read through the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, and the ones who commented on it maintained it as symbolic. Here's a quote from Tertullian, for instance, where he clearly maintains the Eucharist as being symbolic:

“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).​

You at least can concede that it was an easy mistake to make.

There's no mistake on my part. Your literal interpretation would have us believe that Christ explicitly directed us to break the Law. The mistake is all yours.

And? The Eucharist is celebrated as remembrance and as making His sacrifice on the cross present to the Church. There isn't any conflict between this and the Real Presence.

The conflict is that this is how they treated it: as symbolic. There's no notion that they thought it to literally be flesh and blood (which they even prohibited Gentiles from consuming).

Agree to disagree on your interpretation. Catholic bishops protect people from receiving the Eucharist illicitly and becoming guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

If you disagree then make your case from the scriptures. All you have done so far when the scriptural evidence so clearly conflicts with you is to say "agree to disagree." You say you haven't seen any evidence to show that Catholicism is wrong - but that is a lie. You intentionally shield your eyes from scripture lest you turn from your error.

Well the more accurate explanation for the scandal is the propensity of people everywhere to 'protect their own' from police. This same behavior has always occurred within organizations and businesses, families, governments, and even within the ranks of the police themselves. We always want to try to protect our own from the police, and this idea has wound up being very wrong, as it harbors murderers and rapists, protecting not the innocent but the guilty, from what they deserve. It is a miscarriage of justice wherever it occurs, and it does still occur today. It must be stamped out of human behavior for good somehow, to protect innocent people from criminals.

That is part of the problem - but it isn't the root of the problem. Being protected from police isn't what makes these priests engage in sexual abuse - that is simply what prevents them from being brought to justice. At any rate - the point stands. The Catholic Church are in contradiction of the wisdom of the scriptures and early church in this matter, and find themselves in a huge scandal as a result.

You elaborated more in this post than in the one I actually responded to in making this comment.

Naturally - the previous post was just bullet points. You can invest significant time on each one when you really get into it. Such is theology

Not if the claim of authority is valid.

False - even if, for the sake of argument, their authority were valid - it is an abuse of their power to silence sincere critics and skeptics. If the Pope were really so wise, he'd put forth his arguments and convince his fellow bishops through reason - not attempt to force them to submit to doctrine which historically was optional. The Pope was the cause of division here - not those who kept believing as they always had as Catholics.

As I explained, nothing was ever invented in a Church council.Bishops, each of whom possess their own Apostolic oral tradition, handed on to them by their elder bishops, 'compared notes,' and deficiencies were addressed and corrected. The whole college of bishops emerged from Church councils with a clearer and more uniform knowledge of what all of the Apostles taught.

That says more about your blind devotion to Catholicism than anything else. Like KJV-onlyists who insist there's old English translation is the only valid/reliable translation. The idea that modern Catholicism is a direct reflection of the early church is simply non-sense that is easily dismissed by the evidence.

The church didn't suddenly find new evidence or wisdom that compelled them to make the Immaculate Conception and such mandatory doctrine (else they could have put forth such evidence and discussed it reasonably). The Bishop of Rome decided on a whim to make it a mandatory doctrine, against the existing traditions of the Catholic Church, and thereby forced a schism. The one at fault was the Pope and his cohorts. Hence he claimed infallibility to silence them.

No, but they came after the Reformation, so the spirit of rebellion was already in their air. Protestants are protesting something, not just general protest, and what they protest is the valid teaching authority of their bishops. We are all to submit to our bishops in matters of faith and morals, as Christians. It is how it's always been, and nothing has changed on that point.

The "spirit of rebellion" is likely a factor that inspired the Pope to claim infallibility and to try to force other Catholics to change their long-standing beliefs and practices on his whims. The Pope was the source of schism, not those who refused to bend to his power grab.

They are not Catholics. Catholics submit to the papacy.
And in what way was this submitting to their bishops in matters of faith and morals? It wasn't. It was a power grab, yes, but on the part of insurrectionists, not on the part of the papacy, whose teaching authority is valid, as the same teaching authority of the Apostle Peter, who received his teaching authority from the Lord and from the Spirit of truth.

Because Paul submitted to the papacy... Oh, no, he rebuked Peter as standing condemned. Peter was a good man - but just a man. He led people away into false doctrine. The Bishop of Rome was only ever a fallible human being - and it is our duty to stand up to them when they fall into error.