Promoting Half-truth

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Feb 3, 2010
1,238
3
0
Originally Posted by aspen

Ahh....so it is okay to repeat prayers as long as it is classified as worship?

You are making my point Gray - reciting the Rosary and repeating worship songs are both pleasing to God. Unfortunately, many Protestants simply refuse to acknowledge a practice that is not familiar to them could be meaningful to others and pleasing to God.


I don't get it. HOW is reciting the Rosary pleasing to God? Most of everything you recite is towards Mary, no matter what you may be thinking.

Sounds like you REALLY understand the Rosary, while I am simply repeating it blindly. You are right about one thing – you really don’t get it. I already addressed how the rosary is pleasing to God.

It's the modern-day golden calf.

Well, we all have our potential idols if they are misused – uneducated Catholics can over emphasize Mary, uneducated Protestants can overemphasize the Bible…….
 
Feb 3, 2010
1,238
3
0
Originally Posted by joint-heir

I AM AGAINST CONFESSING SINS TO HUMAN BEINGS
Okay....well, yeah...the Bible is clear on this. James 5:16 says Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Now I understand, we shouldn't confess things to someone such as the pope, or the ''fathers'' of the catholic church and so on...not in the manner they do...asking him to forgive them and what not. However, yeah we should confess to a brother or sister in Christ if we have committed a sin and we need help praying we'll be delivered from that.


So we can confess our sins to each other, as long as it is not to a Catholic?

We don't have to say what that sin is, but we can just say ''I must confess I sinned, and I rather leave it unspoken, but could you help me pray?''. Or if we want, and feel led to do so, we can confess what that sin was, and pray. Anyhow, with respect, that's my view on things. God bless.

A proper confession to a Priest only occurs after you have gone to God and asked for forgiveness. The confession is always general, and follows the 10 commandment – ‘forgive me, I have committed murder in my heart’ – after you are finished you feel great because you know that God and your church – the body of Christ has heard you and forgiven you.
 
Feb 3, 2010
1,238
3
0
If traditions are from God, then all must be correct, including those that have been eliminated over time, and those that are recent additions.

Really? So there is no way that the God could tell us something that we misunderstand completely? Wow, we must be a lot smarter and insightful then those chosen people were in the OT and those disciples in the NT – they were misunderstanding Him, right and left!

Does the same go for the Bible? If so, we better get to work – covering our heads during worship, not letting woman speak in church, not letting women teach men, dropping our employment to follow Jesus, forgiving our slaves, worshiping on the true Sabbath, and on and on and on…….

I'm sure the practice of indulgences should be resumed since this practice must have existed before the bible.

When did we stop teaching the practice of indulgences?

Perhaps we should resume the traditions of the inquisition.

Or slaughtering Anabaptists for not being Calvinists! Or resume witch trials, like the Puritans!

I'm saying this must be true because if they are from God they are infallible.

You would be correct if the Inquisition was a part of sacred Tradition.

I also guess since the Church doesn't support revelation, God always intended Latin to be the language of worship, and ex cathedra proclamations are opinions without power.

Well, since Latin was the written language of educated people – the only people who could read, for about 1100 hundred years after Christ; and used to preserve the faith from heretics like the Cathars who wanted to translate it into their own language, and their own interpretations.

However, I am unaware that Latin was declared the only language of worship from the chair. If it was, do you really think that the scholars assembled at Vatican II would be stupid enough to contradict Tradition? You may disagree with Catholicism, but it is consistent, sometimes painfully consistent.


Based on your testimony, one would think that every tradition has been unbroken since the Resurrection of Christ, but that isn't the case. Like a plate of food where some is poison, one would have to wonder if some were incorrect, why could others not be, and how would you know the difference?

Well, if you understood the difference between sacred Tradition and traditions then you would be less confused. For example, celibacy in the priesthood is a tradition – it could end tomorrow. It was never declared Ex Cathedra – in fact not many things are. The doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the Incarnation (which Protestants adopted), the Assumption of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception are examples of Tradition – they can never be changed.

There is much to admire about the Catholic Church; I for one have appreciated the staunch stand against abortion for instance.

I like that to. It is nice to know that there is never going to be a looming Presbytery meeting to decide that homosexuality is now going to be celebrated due to the will of a liberal faction within the leadership. As a Presbyterian, I was told that homosexuality was a sin until I went to church one Sunday after Presbytery had met and discovered that my minister had come out of the closet, based on the new understanding of scripture declared by the ruling body!

And as I first said, I consider Catholics fellow Christians, but in error.

We are all in error.

My assumption was that, for most at least, the fundamentals remained the same. Now I'm not so sure.

Fundamentalism is a new movement. It is a reaction to liberalism in the High Church.

Confessing to a priest being the same as talking to someone who has wronged you, Elijah and Moses were present must mean they were prayed to...we don't even comprehend the same way.

Well, then you learn something new! How exciting! I’ve learned a lot of new things too – and I have only been on the board for less than a month.

I'm curious what version of the bible has Romans 14 saying we don't stand or fall on our own? I must be missing that one from the collection, and am wondering how to interpret "each should be sure in his own mind, for each will NOT stand or fall on his own."

Well, first of all, Christ can save anyone for any reason that He wills; secondly, I have never claimed that we could be saved because someone else prayed for the sanctification of our heart. Look, all people who have a real understanding of who Christ is (not people who were raised as Muslims and indoctrinated to hate Christ – they have no way of determining who He is unless Christ breaks though their prejudice.) have to personally allow Him to justify and sanctify their hearts. If not they will be sanctified by the serpent and remain in their narcissism – hell awaits them not matter how hard their grandmother prays for them.

Still, you are evidently one of the educated Catholics rather than the hypothetical pew-sitter and must therefore accept that the doctrine is as you state it.

I am educated on Catholic doctrine, however I do not have a complete understanding – the Catholic Catechism is the authority.

Unfortunately, it widens the gulf rather than narrows it. I have read the whole bible several times and don't see even a hint of what you're espousing.

That is too bad. I am feeling closer to many people on this board because of the information shared. I have a sneaky suspicion that you have had definitive, negative opinions about Catholicism long before you started reading my posts. Anyone who can talk about Ex Cathedra and the council of Trent has strong, well established opinions about Catholicism.


But then again, perhaps it's in the books that didn't make the cut at the Council of Trent.

Which ones are those? I know about the books Luther wanted to cut out, Revelation, Hebrews, James, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, The book of Wisdom, and Sirach…..but I am unaware that the council of Trent removed any books. Are there books in the Protestant bible that are not in the Catholic Bible? I know we read books not contained in the Protestant Bible.

Fortunately, I read those also (my handy "the Other Books of the Bible") I don't recall seeing it there either. So I considered what you said...perhaps there are two completely different Gospels, one based on that old book, and one a rich oral tradition handed down since the beginning of time, uncorrupted and complete. Sort of like the Hadiths are to the Koran.

That is some Christian’s fantasy, isn’t it? Catholics worship a different Jesus and read a different Bible…..we don’t have different views on the same scripture – we have different scriptures! Heck those Catholics aren’t Christian at all – they are terminally ‘other’ and must be dismissed – ah much better!!

No, I would prefer to continue to believe that my Catholic brothers and sisters are at heart Christians, and the differences or errors I see are forgiven and entered into for the best intentions, and with the intent to honor God. I will continue to pray, will continue to read that old maligned Book to seek insights into the will of God, the sinful nature of man, and the plan for reconciliation.

Well, I am glad to hear it…….thank God you can be mature enough in the Lord to persevere past my negativity about Catholicism, and choose to continue to believe Catholics are well-intentioned if not orthodox! And I am glad to hear that you are continuing the noble practice of reading the scripture that I have completely bastardized – You are indeed a noble and decent person, and in the mists of such tribulation!

I nearly forgot, you asked what verses did Jesus indicate the importance of Mary. Try Matt, 12:46, 48, 49; and John 20:17 (and by the way, the translation "touch me not" is not fully accurate translation...in original Greek it is "May Mou Aptou" which means "stop clinging to me") ... on her continued virginity, references to her other children Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3 (I already know the "James the Less" argument).

Those verses about Mary are actually about Jesus. Wow – can a Catholic actually take their eyes off of Mary to acknowledge Jesus? Well just for a moment, I suppose. He is taking nothing away from Mary, He is simply telling the people that He is God and Mary is creation – yep, He was right. Ok, that was tough – back to Mary!

The word for brother and cousin are the same. BTW, if it ends up that Mary was not a perpetual virgin or a virgin at all, and God corrects my understanding in Heaven – I’ll say oops, guess I blew it! And sorry for making such an issue about your mother’s sex life – not only is it embarrassing and disrespectful, it took away from time I could have been serving others.

How are you going to respond? This issue is only important for people who want to discredit the Catholic Church – no one else cares.

I guess if it really helps your faith to think about Mary’s sex life – knock yourself out. I prefer to love God, myself, and my neighbor.