Anonymous wrote:
I don't think Catholics are going to burn in hell for graven images, and I've never said that. No one burns in hell because they commit any specific sin. We're all sinners, myself included. But if you believe in Christ, you are forgiven those sins. But it's one thing to say you're forgiven, and another thing to say that God condones it. And I don't understand what this means about being Christian and not following the Old Testament. The Old Testament was the foreshadowing of Christ, and Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures. He said so as much in John 5:39: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me." My original question pages back is why Catholics add so much that's not in Scripture. Transubstantiation, papal infallibility, papal succession, Mary's sinless state, priests not marrying -- why do you need them? They aren't mention in Scripture, and what IS mentioned in Scripture is sufficient for your salvation.

Transubstantiation - Last Supper - in the bible. Papal infallibility - Jesus' promises to St Peter both before and after his resurrection - in the bible. Papal succession - St Peter was the first Pope when he was crucified they needed a new leader hence the succession - not in bible but makes sense. Mary's sinless state - debatable but it is dogma within the catholic church getting into that debate would take pages but short answer - God prepared a sinless vessel for His son. Priests not marrying - I agree, this was a rule change because of land ownership it could be changed back now.

Why do we need them? Because as been said ad naseaum by several posters - Catholics are not biblical literalists. Their dogma grew over many years as they built Christianity and the church.

If you are a bible literalist - awesome for you. I'd rather believe Mary's birth was immaculate and papal succession than the world is 6000 years old and there is no evolution and Adam and Eve lived with dinosaurs.

Anonymous wrote:Re: Transubstantiation--This is clearly Biblical and any view that the sacrifice is symbolic is not.

The words of Christ are plain: "This is my body." This is my blood." "Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life in you." "My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink."

Christ did not say: "This symbolizes my body, this represents my blood."

I always have found it puzzling that Protestants like the PP who consistently prefer a literal reading of the Bible find do not do so for these particular words of Christ.

Posters like the PP prefer a literal bible that suits them. They pick and choose what works to justify their lives and beliefs and ignore the rest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18.29 - but please explain to me (I'm asking nicely, no snark) why 1) the necessity of the body of Christ on the cross and on necklaces; 2) the statues that do indeed adorn Catholic churches- I do see these as graven images; 3) the Saints - no mention in the bible; 4) the adoration or worship or whatever you want to call it of Mary - also not in the ible so I just don't get it - people says she's "revered not worshipped" - I don't undersand the difference; 5) and how do the saints and Mary intercede? That's not in the bible either. I guess I don't buy Transsubstantiation either so I'm probably a hopeless protestant but am curious.

Not sure what bible you've been reading but everything you say isn't in the bible absolutely is.

Please provide citations then. I know the Bible very well. Catholic theology is filled with things that cannot be substantiated Biblically.

There is an entire post about this a page back.

Only one misused scriptural passage in that.

How was it "misused?" And you didn't respond to the post that reminded you that the church is the one that assembled the bible to begin with.

No, I didn't. That would require a history lesson that I doubt anyone on here is willing to undertake. But much of Catholic doctrine that is taught today was formalized many centuries after the apostles spread the Gospel of Christ through the world. The early church knew nothing of, and wrote nothing of, transubstantiation, the veneration of "saints," the immaculate conception, papal infallibility and much else. In fact, the Catholic Bible in use today has about 12 books that are not in the Protestant Bible. If you read the Book of Acts, there is nothing at all recognizable as what the Roman Catholic church looks like today. The very idea of a canon of Scripture is so that you can recognize what is Biblical Christianity and what is not. If all you have to appeal to is church "tradition" and can't find it in Scripture, then I would ask why it wasn't written down in Scripture, to which Christians look as the authority on the life and teachings of Christ.

I'm not sure what part of "Catholics don't really follow the Old Testament" you don't understand. Also I had to roll my eyes as I read your post. The "early church" was the Catholic church. Catholic monks wrote the bible. Please stop spouting lies as fact just to justify your dislike of Catholics.

You think Catholics are going to burn in hell for graven images. Several Catholics have told you these are symbols and not graven images. You can choose to ignore that and continue believing whatever you wish.

I don't think Catholics are going to burn in hell for graven images, and I've never said that. No one burns in hell because they commit any specific sin. We're all sinners, myself included. But if you believe in Christ, you are forgiven those sins. But it's one thing to say you're forgiven, and another thing to say that God condones it. And I don't understand what this means about being Christian and not following the Old Testament. The Old Testament was the foreshadowing of Christ, and Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures. He said so as much in John 5:39: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me." My original question pages back is why Catholics add so much that's not in Scripture. Transubstantiation, papal infallibility, papal succession, Mary's sinless state, priests not marrying -- why do you need them? They aren't mention in Scripture, and what IS mentioned in Scripture is sufficient for your salvation.

Catholics differ from some Christian Churches which accept the Scripture as the only source of God’s revelation. Catholics have a strong belief in the truth of Scripture, but we also believe in tradition as a way in which God continues to reveal truth to us. Tradition can include beliefs, customs, prayers, and worship, the teaching of popes, bishops, theologians and Church councils. It’s our process of continually reflecting on the way in which the Word of God encounters our own experience as a community of faith.

Your argument is silly and circular. Its like saying "My favorite color is blue and yours is red. Why do you need red as your favorite color when blue is sufficient."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18.29 - but please explain to me (I'm asking nicely, no snark) why 1) the necessity of the body of Christ on the cross and on necklaces; 2) the statues that do indeed adorn Catholic churches- I do see these as graven images; 3) the Saints - no mention in the bible; 4) the adoration or worship or whatever you want to call it of Mary - also not in the ible so I just don't get it - people says she's "revered not worshipped" - I don't undersand the difference; 5) and how do the saints and Mary intercede? That's not in the bible either. I guess I don't buy Transsubstantiation either so I'm probably a hopeless protestant but am curious.

Not sure what bible you've been reading but everything you say isn't in the bible absolutely is.

Please provide citations then. I know the Bible very well. Catholic theology is filled with things that cannot be substantiated Biblically.

There is an entire post about this a page back.

Only one misused scriptural passage in that.

How was it "misused?" And you didn't respond to the post that reminded you that the church is the one that assembled the bible to begin with.

No, I didn't. That would require a history lesson that I doubt anyone on here is willing to undertake. But much of Catholic doctrine that is taught today was formalized many centuries after the apostles spread the Gospel of Christ through the world. The early church knew nothing of, and wrote nothing of, transubstantiation, the veneration of "saints," the immaculate conception, papal infallibility and much else. In fact, the Catholic Bible in use today has about 12 books that are not in the Protestant Bible. If you read the Book of Acts, there is nothing at all recognizable as what the Roman Catholic church looks like today. The very idea of a canon of Scripture is so that you can recognize what is Biblical Christianity and what is not. If all you have to appeal to is church "tradition" and can't find it in Scripture, then I would ask why it wasn't written down in Scripture, to which Christians look as the authority on the life and teachings of Christ.

I'm not sure what part of "Catholics don't really follow the Old Testament" you don't understand. Also I had to roll my eyes as I read your post. The "early church" was the Catholic church. Catholic monks wrote the bible. Please stop spouting lies as fact just to justify your dislike of Catholics.

You think Catholics are going to burn in hell for graven images. Several Catholics have told you these are symbols and not graven images. You can choose to ignore that and continue believing whatever you wish.

I don't think Catholics are going to burn in hell for graven images, and I've never said that. No one burns in hell because they commit any specific sin. We're all sinners, myself included. But if you believe in Christ, you are forgiven those sins. But it's one thing to say you're forgiven, and another thing to say that God condones it. And I don't understand what this means about being Christian and not following the Old Testament. The Old Testament was the foreshadowing of Christ, and Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures. He said so as much in John 5:39: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me." My original question pages back is why Catholics add so much that's not in Scripture. Transubstantiation, papal infallibility, papal succession, Mary's sinless state, priests not marrying -- why do you need them? They aren't mention in Scripture, and what IS mentioned in Scripture is sufficient for your salvation.

Someone gave you a very detailed answer a few pages back. Seems that isn't good enough for you. When someone tells me about their belief and faith I tend to believe them. Because I haven't lived it and they have.

You are not catholic. Catholics believe different things. Why is that so hard to understand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18.29 - but please explain to me (I'm asking nicely, no snark) why 1) the necessity of the body of Christ on the cross and on necklaces; 2) the statues that do indeed adorn Catholic churches- I do see these as graven images; 3) the Saints - no mention in the bible; 4) the adoration or worship or whatever you want to call it of Mary - also not in the ible so I just don't get it - people says she's "revered not worshipped" - I don't undersand the difference; 5) and how do the saints and Mary intercede? That's not in the bible either. I guess I don't buy Transsubstantiation either so I'm probably a hopeless protestant but am curious.

Not sure what bible you've been reading but everything you say isn't in the bible absolutely is.

Please provide citations then. I know the Bible very well. Catholic theology is filled with things that cannot be substantiated Biblically.

There is an entire post about this a page back.

Only one misused scriptural passage in that.

How was it "misused?" And you didn't respond to the post that reminded you that the church is the one that assembled the bible to begin with.

No, I didn't. That would require a history lesson that I doubt anyone on here is willing to undertake. But much of Catholic doctrine that is taught today was formalized many centuries after the apostles spread the Gospel of Christ through the world. The early church knew nothing of, and wrote nothing of, transubstantiation, the veneration of "saints," the immaculate conception, papal infallibility and much else. In fact, the Catholic Bible in use today has about 12 books that are not in the Protestant Bible. If you read the Book of Acts, there is nothing at all recognizable as what the Roman Catholic church looks like today. The very idea of a canon of Scripture is so that you can recognize what is Biblical Christianity and what is not. If all you have to appeal to is church "tradition" and can't find it in Scripture, then I would ask why it wasn't written down in Scripture, to which Christians look as the authority on the life and teachings of Christ.

I'm not sure what part of "Catholics don't really follow the Old Testament" you don't understand. Also I had to roll my eyes as I read your post. The "early church" was the Catholic church. Catholic monks wrote the bible. Please stop spouting lies as fact just to justify your dislike of Catholics.

You think Catholics are going to burn in hell for graven images. Several Catholics have told you these are symbols and not graven images. You can choose to ignore that and continue believing whatever you wish.

I don't think Catholics are going to burn in hell for graven images, and I've never said that. No one burns in hell because they commit any specific sin. We're all sinners, myself included. But if you believe in Christ, you are forgiven those sins. But it's one thing to say you're forgiven, and another thing to say that God condones it. And I don't understand what this means about being Christian and not following the Old Testament. The Old Testament was the foreshadowing of Christ, and Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures. He said so as much in John 5:39: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me." My original question pages back is why Catholics add so much that's not in Scripture. Transubstantiation, papal infallibility, papal succession, Mary's sinless state, priests not marrying -- why do you need them? They aren't mention in Scripture, and what IS mentioned in Scripture is sufficient for your salvation.

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe in a direct line of apostolic succession to today's pope. They believe that the traditions handed down from the time of the apostles and the first popes and the Nicene councils are basically on par with the Bible. If you look at a timeline you will find that many of these decisions (iconography, veneration of Mary) were occurring at the same time as the canonical bible was taking shape. To ignore Church history or dismiss it is pretty silly, I think. You are basically saying

300 AD: Bible decided on --->1200 years of nothing important happening --->Martin Luther figures out what Christianity really is.

A lot of people appreciate having a church with a deeper history and tradition, as messy as history may sometimes be.

Re: Transubstantiation--This is clearly Biblical and any view that the sacrifice is symbolic is not.

The words of Christ are plain: "This is my body." This is my blood." "Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life in you." "My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink."

Christ did not say: "This symbolizes my body, this represents my blood."

I always have found it puzzling that Protestants like the PP who consistently prefer a literal reading of the Bible find do not do so for these particular words of Christ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18.29 - but please explain to me (I'm asking nicely, no snark) why 1) the necessity of the body of Christ on the cross and on necklaces; 2) the statues that do indeed adorn Catholic churches- I do see these as graven images; 3) the Saints - no mention in the bible; 4) the adoration or worship or whatever you want to call it of Mary - also not in the ible so I just don't get it - people says she's "revered not worshipped" - I don't undersand the difference; 5) and how do the saints and Mary intercede? That's not in the bible either. I guess I don't buy Transsubstantiation either so I'm probably a hopeless protestant but am curious.

Not sure what bible you've been reading but everything you say isn't in the bible absolutely is.

Please provide citations then. I know the Bible very well. Catholic theology is filled with things that cannot be substantiated Biblically.

There is an entire post about this a page back.

Only one misused scriptural passage in that.

How was it "misused?" And you didn't respond to the post that reminded you that the church is the one that assembled the bible to begin with.

No, I didn't. That would require a history lesson that I doubt anyone on here is willing to undertake. But much of Catholic doctrine that is taught today was formalized many centuries after the apostles spread the Gospel of Christ through the world. The early church knew nothing of, and wrote nothing of, transubstantiation, the veneration of "saints," the immaculate conception, papal infallibility and much else. In fact, the Catholic Bible in use today has about 12 books that are not in the Protestant Bible. If you read the Book of Acts, there is nothing at all recognizable as what the Roman Catholic church looks like today. The very idea of a canon of Scripture is so that you can recognize what is Biblical Christianity and what is not. If all you have to appeal to is church "tradition" and can't find it in Scripture, then I would ask why it wasn't written down in Scripture, to which Christians look as the authority on the life and teachings of Christ.

My understanding is that the development of the canonical bible was occurring somewhat in parallel with the seven ecumenical councils which made the decisions you appear to hold so in contempt and occurred before the separation of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church. I am not Catholic so I would not defend theological decisions made much later. But those are separate issues from the veneration of Mary, saints, and religious iconography. These were all decisions made by the very very early church.

TL; DR: Calling a crucifix or icon or stained glass window or statue or whatever else a "graven image" is just silly nonsense, lady.

Exactly.

It is also very telling that they still won't answer if they follow everything in Leviticus or just what they pick and choose. If you are going to take the bible literally then you can't leave out the inconvenient things.

I thought I'd answer about Leviticus when I had more time, but the basic answer is that the laws handed down there were for the Jewish people to set themselves apart from the pagan populations (many of whom engaged in child sacrifice) that surrounded them. Christ was the fulfillment of all Old Testament law, and the Jewish laws were not for the Gentiles, and with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, there is no longer any laws about circumcision, shellfish, mixing fabrics, or any of the other red herrings that people play gotcha with. The New Testament makes this clear. Read especially the books of Galatians and Hebrews. This is a line of sophistry that is undertaken only by people who have not read the Bible to understand it.

That was pretty much the point. Going on and on about graven images is spouting old testament.

But, that's not Catholicism and that's why you aren't Catholic. Catholics don't believe that believing in Christ alone grants you salvation or that the bible is the sole source of our knowledge of God.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18.29 - but please explain to me (I'm asking nicely, no snark) why 1) the necessity of the body of Christ on the cross and on necklaces; 2) the statues that do indeed adorn Catholic churches- I do see these as graven images; 3) the Saints - no mention in the bible; 4) the adoration or worship or whatever you want to call it of Mary - also not in the ible so I just don't get it - people says she's "revered not worshipped" - I don't undersand the difference; 5) and how do the saints and Mary intercede? That's not in the bible either. I guess I don't buy Transsubstantiation either so I'm probably a hopeless protestant but am curious.

Not sure what bible you've been reading but everything you say isn't in the bible absolutely is.

Please provide citations then. I know the Bible very well. Catholic theology is filled with things that cannot be substantiated Biblically.

There is an entire post about this a page back.

Only one misused scriptural passage in that.

How was it "misused?" And you didn't respond to the post that reminded you that the church is the one that assembled the bible to begin with.

No, I didn't. That would require a history lesson that I doubt anyone on here is willing to undertake. But much of Catholic doctrine that is taught today was formalized many centuries after the apostles spread the Gospel of Christ through the world. The early church knew nothing of, and wrote nothing of, transubstantiation, the veneration of "saints," the immaculate conception, papal infallibility and much else. In fact, the Catholic Bible in use today has about 12 books that are not in the Protestant Bible. If you read the Book of Acts, there is nothing at all recognizable as what the Roman Catholic church looks like today. The very idea of a canon of Scripture is so that you can recognize what is Biblical Christianity and what is not. If all you have to appeal to is church "tradition" and can't find it in Scripture, then I would ask why it wasn't written down in Scripture, to which Christians look as the authority on the life and teachings of Christ.

I'm not sure what part of "Catholics don't really follow the Old Testament" you don't understand. Also I had to roll my eyes as I read your post. The "early church" was the Catholic church. Catholic monks wrote the bible. Please stop spouting lies as fact just to justify your dislike of Catholics.

You think Catholics are going to burn in hell for graven images. Several Catholics have told you these are symbols and not graven images. You can choose to ignore that and continue believing whatever you wish.

I don't think Catholics are going to burn in hell for graven images, and I've never said that. No one burns in hell because they commit any specific sin. We're all sinners, myself included. But if you believe in Christ, you are forgiven those sins. But it's one thing to say you're forgiven, and another thing to say that God condones it. And I don't understand what this means about being Christian and not following the Old Testament. The Old Testament was the foreshadowing of Christ, and Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures. He said so as much in John 5:39: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me." My original question pages back is why Catholics add so much that's not in Scripture. Transubstantiation, papal infallibility, papal succession, Mary's sinless state, priests not marrying -- why do you need them? They aren't mention in Scripture, and what IS mentioned in Scripture is sufficient for your salvation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18.29 - but please explain to me (I'm asking nicely, no snark) why 1) the necessity of the body of Christ on the cross and on necklaces; 2) the statues that do indeed adorn Catholic churches- I do see these as graven images; 3) the Saints - no mention in the bible; 4) the adoration or worship or whatever you want to call it of Mary - also not in the ible so I just don't get it - people says she's "revered not worshipped" - I don't undersand the difference; 5) and how do the saints and Mary intercede? That's not in the bible either. I guess I don't buy Transsubstantiation either so I'm probably a hopeless protestant but am curious.

Not sure what bible you've been reading but everything you say isn't in the bible absolutely is.

Please provide citations then. I know the Bible very well. Catholic theology is filled with things that cannot be substantiated Biblically.

There is an entire post about this a page back.

Only one misused scriptural passage in that.

How was it "misused?" And you didn't respond to the post that reminded you that the church is the one that assembled the bible to begin with.

No, I didn't. That would require a history lesson that I doubt anyone on here is willing to undertake. But much of Catholic doctrine that is taught today was formalized many centuries after the apostles spread the Gospel of Christ through the world. The early church knew nothing of, and wrote nothing of, transubstantiation, the veneration of "saints," the immaculate conception, papal infallibility and much else. In fact, the Catholic Bible in use today has about 12 books that are not in the Protestant Bible. If you read the Book of Acts, there is nothing at all recognizable as what the Roman Catholic church looks like today. The very idea of a canon of Scripture is so that you can recognize what is Biblical Christianity and what is not. If all you have to appeal to is church "tradition" and can't find it in Scripture, then I would ask why it wasn't written down in Scripture, to which Christians look as the authority on the life and teachings of Christ.

My understanding is that the development of the canonical bible was occurring somewhat in parallel with the seven ecumenical councils which made the decisions you appear to hold so in contempt and occurred before the separation of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church. I am not Catholic so I would not defend theological decisions made much later. But those are separate issues from the veneration of Mary, saints, and religious iconography. These were all decisions made by the very very early church.

TL; DR: Calling a crucifix or icon or stained glass window or statue or whatever else a "graven image" is just silly nonsense, lady.

Exactly.

It is also very telling that they still won't answer if they follow everything in Leviticus or just what they pick and choose. If you are going to take the bible literally then you can't leave out the inconvenient things.

I thought I'd answer about Leviticus when I had more time, but the basic answer is that the laws handed down there were for the Jewish people to set themselves apart from the pagan populations (many of whom engaged in child sacrifice) that surrounded them. Christ was the fulfillment of all Old Testament law, and the Jewish laws were not for the Gentiles, and with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, there is no longer any laws about circumcision, shellfish, mixing fabrics, or any of the other red herrings that people play gotcha with. The New Testament makes this clear. Read especially the books of Galatians and Hebrews. This is a line of sophistry that is undertaken only by people who have not read the Bible to understand it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18.29 - but please explain to me (I'm asking nicely, no snark) why 1) the necessity of the body of Christ on the cross and on necklaces; 2) the statues that do indeed adorn Catholic churches- I do see these as graven images; 3) the Saints - no mention in the bible; 4) the adoration or worship or whatever you want to call it of Mary - also not in the ible so I just don't get it - people says she's "revered not worshipped" - I don't undersand the difference; 5) and how do the saints and Mary intercede? That's not in the bible either. I guess I don't buy Transsubstantiation either so I'm probably a hopeless protestant but am curious.

Not sure what bible you've been reading but everything you say isn't in the bible absolutely is.

Please provide citations then. I know the Bible very well. Catholic theology is filled with things that cannot be substantiated Biblically.

There is an entire post about this a page back.

Only one misused scriptural passage in that.

How was it "misused?" And you didn't respond to the post that reminded you that the church is the one that assembled the bible to begin with.

No, I didn't. That would require a history lesson that I doubt anyone on here is willing to undertake. But much of Catholic doctrine that is taught today was formalized many centuries after the apostles spread the Gospel of Christ through the world. The early church knew nothing of, and wrote nothing of, transubstantiation, the veneration of "saints," the immaculate conception, papal infallibility and much else. In fact, the Catholic Bible in use today has about 12 books that are not in the Protestant Bible. If you read the Book of Acts, there is nothing at all recognizable as what the Roman Catholic church looks like today. The very idea of a canon of Scripture is so that you can recognize what is Biblical Christianity and what is not. If all you have to appeal to is church "tradition" and can't find it in Scripture, then I would ask why it wasn't written down in Scripture, to which Christians look as the authority on the life and teachings of Christ.

I'm not sure what part of "Catholics don't really follow the Old Testament" you don't understand. Also I had to roll my eyes as I read your post. The "early church" was the Catholic church. Catholic monks wrote the bible. Please stop spouting lies as fact just to justify your dislike of Catholics.

You think Catholics are going to burn in hell for graven images. Several Catholics have told you these are symbols and not graven images. You can choose to ignore that and continue believing whatever you wish.

I think PP believes that any beliefs or forms of worship not set down in the New Testament are non-Biblical and, by extension, non-Christian. The Catholic Church and for that matter most of its offshoots believe the Church is its people and it evolves over time. Thank God!

Slavery was taken as a fact of life in the New Testament; we now revile it. The early church was small and like most small organizations very loosely managed. But growth into a bigger organization requires different structures for success. (How many tech companies run the same way they did when their headquarters was a garage?) The followers of the early Church found some members exceptional examples of Christian faith and so they especially respected them and remembered them after their death--these were the early saints, who could not have existed in the Bible because they died after the period it was written.

If you want a Church that looks like what people think it was like in the early days, you'd get people fighting over what really was the example we are to be following and inevitably you'd get extremist elements. This is not always pretty as mainstream Muslims are finding with ISIS, which claims to be following the example of the earliest Islamic community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18.29 - but please explain to me (I'm asking nicely, no snark) why 1) the necessity of the body of Christ on the cross and on necklaces; 2) the statues that do indeed adorn Catholic churches- I do see these as graven images; 3) the Saints - no mention in the bible; 4) the adoration or worship or whatever you want to call it of Mary - also not in the ible so I just don't get it - people says she's "revered not worshipped" - I don't undersand the difference; 5) and how do the saints and Mary intercede? That's not in the bible either. I guess I don't buy Transsubstantiation either so I'm probably a hopeless protestant but am curious.

Not sure what bible you've been reading but everything you say isn't in the bible absolutely is.

Please provide citations then. I know the Bible very well. Catholic theology is filled with things that cannot be substantiated Biblically.

There is an entire post about this a page back.

Only one misused scriptural passage in that.

How was it "misused?" And you didn't respond to the post that reminded you that the church is the one that assembled the bible to begin with.

No, I didn't. That would require a history lesson that I doubt anyone on here is willing to undertake. But much of Catholic doctrine that is taught today was formalized many centuries after the apostles spread the Gospel of Christ through the world. The early church knew nothing of, and wrote nothing of, transubstantiation, the veneration of "saints," the immaculate conception, papal infallibility and much else. In fact, the Catholic Bible in use today has about 12 books that are not in the Protestant Bible. If you read the Book of Acts, there is nothing at all recognizable as what the Roman Catholic church looks like today. The very idea of a canon of Scripture is so that you can recognize what is Biblical Christianity and what is not. If all you have to appeal to is church "tradition" and can't find it in Scripture, then I would ask why it wasn't written down in Scripture, to which Christians look as the authority on the life and teachings of Christ.

I'm not sure what part of "Catholics don't really follow the Old Testament" you don't understand. Also I had to roll my eyes as I read your post. The "early church" was the Catholic church. Catholic monks wrote the bible. Please stop spouting lies as fact just to justify your dislike of Catholics.

You think Catholics are going to burn in hell for graven images. Several Catholics have told you these are symbols and not graven images. You can choose to ignore that and continue believing whatever you wish.

I'm the pp who was addressing the FIRST poster with the detailed and over the top Catholic practices that has children living underfoot while she lives with her fiancé. The unmarried couple living together without sex is what it is...pretty common especially with coed university housing etc. I believe a priest might say whatever on those logistics.

I still call BS on the poster with the kids and the altar and the scapular and the holy water font. If you are going to all that trouble, you aren't going to be living in sin with a fiancé in fact you'd likely still be married to the first spouse bc divorce is a no go in the church. I'm a lapsed Catholic and even *i* wouldn't have a fiancé spend the night with my children in the house, the guilt runs too deep even if I haven't been to church aside from Christmas in a decade. The whole thing does not compute and I maintain the original poster was joking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18.29 - but please explain to me (I'm asking nicely, no snark) why 1) the necessity of the body of Christ on the cross and on necklaces; 2) the statues that do indeed adorn Catholic churches- I do see these as graven images; 3) the Saints - no mention in the bible; 4) the adoration or worship or whatever you want to call it of Mary - also not in the ible so I just don't get it - people says she's "revered not worshipped" - I don't undersand the difference; 5) and how do the saints and Mary intercede? That's not in the bible either. I guess I don't buy Transsubstantiation either so I'm probably a hopeless protestant but am curious.

Not sure what bible you've been reading but everything you say isn't in the bible absolutely is.

Please provide citations then. I know the Bible very well. Catholic theology is filled with things that cannot be substantiated Biblically.

There is an entire post about this a page back.

Only one misused scriptural passage in that.

How was it "misused?" And you didn't respond to the post that reminded you that the church is the one that assembled the bible to begin with.

No, I didn't. That would require a history lesson that I doubt anyone on here is willing to undertake. But much of Catholic doctrine that is taught today was formalized many centuries after the apostles spread the Gospel of Christ through the world. The early church knew nothing of, and wrote nothing of, transubstantiation, the veneration of "saints," the immaculate conception, papal infallibility and much else. In fact, the Catholic Bible in use today has about 12 books that are not in the Protestant Bible. If you read the Book of Acts, there is nothing at all recognizable as what the Roman Catholic church looks like today. The very idea of a canon of Scripture is so that you can recognize what is Biblical Christianity and what is not. If all you have to appeal to is church "tradition" and can't find it in Scripture, then I would ask why it wasn't written down in Scripture, to which Christians look as the authority on the life and teachings of Christ.

My understanding is that the development of the canonical bible was occurring somewhat in parallel with the seven ecumenical councils which made the decisions you appear to hold so in contempt and occurred before the separation of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church. I am not Catholic so I would not defend theological decisions made much later. But those are separate issues from the veneration of Mary, saints, and religious iconography. These were all decisions made by the very very early church.

TL; DR: Calling a crucifix or icon or stained glass window or statue or whatever else a "graven image" is just silly nonsense, lady.

Exactly.

It is also very telling that they still won't answer if they follow everything in Leviticus or just what they pick and choose. If you are going to take the bible literally then you can't leave out the inconvenient things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18.29 - but please explain to me (I'm asking nicely, no snark) why 1) the necessity of the body of Christ on the cross and on necklaces; 2) the statues that do indeed adorn Catholic churches- I do see these as graven images; 3) the Saints - no mention in the bible; 4) the adoration or worship or whatever you want to call it of Mary - also not in the ible so I just don't get it - people says she's "revered not worshipped" - I don't undersand the difference; 5) and how do the saints and Mary intercede? That's not in the bible either. I guess I don't buy Transsubstantiation either so I'm probably a hopeless protestant but am curious.

Not sure what bible you've been reading but everything you say isn't in the bible absolutely is.

Please provide citations then. I know the Bible very well. Catholic theology is filled with things that cannot be substantiated Biblically.

There is an entire post about this a page back.

Only one misused scriptural passage in that.

How was it "misused?" And you didn't respond to the post that reminded you that the church is the one that assembled the bible to begin with.

No, I didn't. That would require a history lesson that I doubt anyone on here is willing to undertake. But much of Catholic doctrine that is taught today was formalized many centuries after the apostles spread the Gospel of Christ through the world. The early church knew nothing of, and wrote nothing of, transubstantiation, the veneration of "saints," the immaculate conception, papal infallibility and much else. In fact, the Catholic Bible in use today has about 12 books that are not in the Protestant Bible. If you read the Book of Acts, there is nothing at all recognizable as what the Roman Catholic church looks like today. The very idea of a canon of Scripture is so that you can recognize what is Biblical Christianity and what is not. If all you have to appeal to is church "tradition" and can't find it in Scripture, then I would ask why it wasn't written down in Scripture, to which Christians look as the authority on the life and teachings of Christ.

My understanding is that the development of the canonical bible was occurring somewhat in parallel with the seven ecumenical councils which made the decisions you appear to hold so in contempt and occurred before the separation of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church. I am not Catholic so I would not defend theological decisions made much later. But those are separate issues from the veneration of Mary, saints, and religious iconography. These were all decisions made by the very very early church.

TL; DR: Calling a crucifix or icon or stained glass window or statue or whatever else a "graven image" is just silly nonsense, lady.