Should Women Be Ordained Into the Roman Catholic Priesthood?

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
He did? I think it's more like a bull in a china shop.
mica said:

Peter wasn't (and isn't) the leader of Christ's church.

romishpopishorganist said: - Yet above you admitted albeit sarcastically that Peter sure acted like he was the leader.
No, I sure didn't post anything like that! Why do you think I posted 'He did? ' ? Did that sound like I agreed with you?

You don't know what like a bull in a china shop means? I wouldn't put it on a list of leadership qualities.

He often blundered ahead into things without thinking first. the same with speaking, when he took one foot out of his mouth, his other foot was ready to jump in.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
No, I sure didn't post anything like that! Why do you think I posted 'He did? ' ? Did that sound like I agreed with you?

You don't know what like a bull in a china shop means? I wouldn't put it on a list of leadership qualities.

He often blundered ahead into things without thinking first. the same with speaking, when he took one foot out of his mouth, his other foot was ready to jump in.
But Peter still greatly served his Lord, after the Ascension, despite his faults. But then, so did the other Apostles. :)
 

Bonnie

Super Member
OH, so it is NOT necessary to obey the pope in order to be saved....is that it?


Hopefully most Catholics would not follow some Catholics and believe that Christianity is false and become athesits...


Yes. But if Francis made a decision on those things, speaking ex cathedra, would the dissenting bishops be required to obey him then?

If popes don't have absolute authority over the church, then why did that one pope decree that it was necessary to be subject to the pope in order to be saved? Sounds like absolute authority to me....


Why don't you look it up? But no, it was NOT James.


I am jumping at nothing. Nowhere does the NT say that Peter was the head of the church. Gotta go facetime with family.
I will finish answering g this later. Busy day today.
 
Last edited:

balshan

Well-known member
No, I sure didn't post anything like that! Why do you think I posted 'He did? ' ? Did that sound like I agreed with you?

You don't know what like a bull in a china shop means? I wouldn't put it on a list of leadership qualities.

He often blundered ahead into things without thinking first. the same with speaking, when he took one foot out of his mouth, his other foot was ready to jump in.
I know you have never indicated any such thing. When you see the problems some RCs comprehending our posts, you get an understanding of their problems with the reading of scripture.
 

balshan

Well-known member
So says the Protestant fundamentalist.

Time and time again I have told you that I do not accept your characterizations of the Catholic Faith.

I believe that there IS a connection; what I believe is what is relevant here--not what you believe.
So what none of us accept your institution as being part of Christian faith or accept your charactizations of sola fide, sola scripture, Christian faith and so many other things.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Part 2:

How is Consubstantiation different from what Lutherans assert about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

I don't know; but I do know we do not label what we believe about it, as we think there is no label that adequately describes what happens after the Pastor consecrates the Bread and Wine. We call it the "Real Presence" and leave it at that.
No we do not. Nothing equals Scripture. Scripture is unique. Scripture is supreme. Scripture is God breathed. Tradition is infallible, not God Breathed. Tradition is situated below Scripture and is normed by Scripture. Tradition is human, Scripture is Divine. The authority of the Church is divine in the sense that the Church is the divinely established teacher, instructor and interpreter and guardian of Scripture, but the Church is subject to Scripture.

So, how can tradition be "infallible" if it is NOT "God-breathed"? It is "man-breathed"--is man infallible?
Tradition is the human testimony to God's deeds, works and revelation in salvation history, Scripture is the Divine testimony. There is nothing in Scripture that isn't in Tradition and visa-versa. Catholics just believe that God guarantees this human testimony throughout time, guarantees that the Church will always testify truthfully to God's revelations collectively.

Tradition is your man-made dogmas that have no basis in Scripture whatsoever.
Yes; if you assume that God does not guide the Church and is not the guarantor behind what the Church teaches, sure. If I shared your assumptions, I would be saying the same thing.

God guides His church, but His people must listen when He does so. And the fallible human beings leading your church have blatantly led it astray from the true teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, with its false dogmas of Indulgences, Purgatory, praying to saints dead in the Lord; Mariolatry, salvation by grace through faith AND works; etc. and etc. None of these things is found or even hinted at in the Bible.
And why are "Roman Catholic glasses" any worse than Lutheran glasses exactly?

I take the entire Bible into consideration and don't isolate verses. I also let the Bible be the final arbiter of truth, not my church's president.
Yes, but surely you know that that no document, even that which is divine is approached objectively. This is why people establish acceptable rules of interpretation

And yours sure got it wrong in some places, big time.
And I am glad to hear that your Church rejects the Historical Critical Method. I reject that method too.


Again, if I shared your assumptions I would believe as you believe.
If you shared my assumptions, you would no longer be a Roman Catholic. But again, if you go to the Apologetics board, I will then tell you about which churches I think are true churches.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
For those who know better, yes.

So, it is NOT necessary, right?
If Pope Francis changed Church teaching on gay marriage, abortion, divorce and remarriage, women's ordination, contraception, sacraments, etc, and that was not challenged and that was ultimately allowed to stand--I would become atheist. The Church cannot change that which is not changeable. The Church does not have authority over God's Word.

So, if you would become an atheist if your Pope did these things, then that shows me that your faith is ultimately in your pope and not in Jesus Christ. HE doesn't change, but man DOES. MAN adds man-made doctrines to your church and puts them over what the bible actually teaches--which shows that it DOES think that it has authority over God's word.
But sad, sad, sad that you would become an atheist if the Pope did these things. Instead of admitting that your pope is a false leader, instead of simply going to Bible believing church that teaches Biblical truths, you would reject God altogether--showing that the pope and your church are your "God."
So you are asking----if Pope Francis attempts to bind the universal Church to that which is heresy are the bishops bound to obey him? NO! HELL NO! Is that clear enough? I certainly wouldn't obey him.

Good for you.
Now, what would happen if Pope Francis did such a thing? That is unknown and untested. In other words---would--by the fact that he attempted to bind the Church to heresy mean he ceases to be pope, would be be deposed, how would his removal happen, etc? No one knows--as something like that has never happened before. But whatever happens--it would likely involve a lot of controversy, division and a Church council to figure it out.


I answered that already. I am not answering it again. If you are not going to read my responses to you, do not ask me questions that you do not want the answers to

Did you? You attempted to answer it, by saying that the pope was saying he was the head of the church, not the secular government (paraphrasing). But that isn't what the Pope meant, so try again. IS it necessary to obey your popes in order to be saved? Yes or no?
Yes he did; it is not specified but James had a prominent role, then Peter.

Do not play games Bonnie. Are you looking for me to say "God" or "The Holy Spirit" or "The Apostolic College?"


Why is the testimony of the Church, and for that matter Peter's own actions not evidence o his headship? In other words--for a man that wasn't in charge--he sure acted like he was in charge.
 
So, it is NOT necessary, right?

That isn't the question. Again, you Protestants have such a penchant for turning everything into "essential" "necessary" "either/or."

What is absolutely necessary and essential for salvation is a relationship with Jesus Christ in some form. Everything else is secondary.

I am not Catholic because I think I will go to Hell if I am not Catholic; I am Catholic because it is only in Catholicism where I can have the fullest expression of my relationship with Jesus. Though---because I know in my heart that Catholicism is true, I am compelled to be Catholic. Since I know in my heart that Catholicism is true, I would be dammed if I left.
So, if you would become an atheist if your Pope did these things, then that shows me that your faith is ultimately in your pope and not in Jesus Christ.

I would not become atheist if the pope did those things; I would become atheist if the pope did those things and it was allowed to stand.

When Scripture says "The Church is the pillar of Truth" I believe it. When Jesus says "The gates of Hell will not prevail" I take him seriously. Obviously if Jesus allows his Church to embrace heresy and teach it, he isn't much of a god now is he? And Protestantism is the fulfillment of "The gates of Hell will not prevail" well----there again, Jesus ain't much of a god now is he? The one thing Jesus prayed for was unity; Protestantism is nothing but division upon division upon division each believing as they wish, doing as they wish--every time they get into a snit.

Bonnie---if you think that is what God intends for his Church, then you can have it--and you can have your God.
HE doesn't change, but man DOES. MAN adds man-made doctrines to your church and puts them over what the bible actually teaches--which shows that it DOES think that it has authority over God's word.

We do not place our doctrines over the Bible. We believe them because they are revealed. Because they are revealed, it follows the Bible teaches them.
But sad, sad, sad that you would become an atheist if the Pope did these things. Instead of admitting that your pope is a false leader, instead of simply going to Bible believing church that teaches Biblical truths, you would reject God altogether--showing that the pope and your church are your "God."

Again, Bonnie, I take God seriously when He says that the Church is the pillar of truth and the gates of Hell will not prevail. What don't you understand about that?
Did you? You attempted to answer it, by saying that the pope was saying he was the head of the church, not the secular government (paraphrasing). But that isn't what the Pope meant, so try again. IS it necessary to obey your popes in order to be saved? Yes or no?

That isn't what the pope meant? Care to tell me how you know this?
 

mica

Well-known member
...
We do not place our doctrines over the Bible.
that says it right there...

We believe them because they are revealed.
Who reveals them? Who are they revealed to? How are they revealed? Do they align with God's word?

Because they are revealed, it follows the Bible teaches them.
...
no it does not. not if they are not found within scripture.

that's just another lie of the RCC.
 
that says it right there...

Yes; our doctrines are not placed over the Bible. That says it. Correct. I am so happy to see that you can read and understand simple English.

God.
Who are they revealed to?
The Church; the Body of Christ.
How are they revealed?

In the Apostolic Deposit of Faith given to the Apostles and handed on to the Church.

But you are asking the wrong question. The question is "How do we know these doctrines are revealed when they are not explicitly and formally taught in the Scriptures? The answer is: We know these doctrines are revealed because the Church believes them and because the Church believes them, they have been formally defined as belonging to the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. We know they are taught by the Scriptures because the Church believes them and they have been formally defined. The Church cannot believe something or formally define something that isn't taught by the Scriptures at least implicitly. Thus, if the Church believes it, it is by definition scriptural.
Do they align with God's word?

By definition, they must align with God's Word. If they did not align with God's Word, that would mean that the Church could believe something and formally define something that God has not taught and revealed--and that is a metaphysical impossibility. The Church cannot teach and believe that which is not scriptural.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
"Thus, if the Church believes it, it is by definition scriptural."
"The Church cannot teach and believe that which is not scriptural."

So, the Church cannot teach and believe that which the Church believes not.

--Rich
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
that says it right there...

Yes; our doctrines are not placed over the Bible. That says it. Correct. I am so happy to see that you can read and understand simple English.
...
yes they are, otherwise they'd be found within scripture but they are not. example - scripture nowhere says anyone must submit to a pope to be saved. The NT never speaks of a pope. The only One we submit to for salvation is Christ Himself.

catholics continually show us that they have problems doing both of those.

mica said:
Who reveals them?
If He did, they'd be in alignment with His word. catholic beliefs / doctrines are not found within His word, nor are they in alignment with His word.

mica said:
Who are they revealed to?

The Church; the Body of Christ.
the RCC is not the body of Christ.

mica said:
How are they revealed?

In the Apostolic Deposit of Faith given to the Apostles and handed on to the Church.
...
that's a 'where', not a 'how'.
If given to the apostles to hand down to His church, it'd be in His word. What the RCC teaches is not found in His word.

the RCC is not His church and it does not teach what Jesus and / or the apostles taught.
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
Yes; our doctrines are not placed over the Bible. That says it. Correct. I am so happy to see that you can read and understand simple English.


God.

The Church; the Body of Christ.


In the Apostolic Deposit of Faith given to the Apostles and handed on to the Church.

But you are asking the wrong question. The question is "How do we know these doctrines are revealed when they are not explicitly and formally taught in the Scriptures? The answer is: We know these doctrines are revealed because the Church believes them and because the Church believes them, they have been formally defined as belonging to the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. We know they are taught by the Scriptures because the Church believes them and they have been formally defined. The Church cannot believe something or formally define something that isn't taught by the Scriptures at least implicitly. Thus, if the Church believes it, it is by definition scriptural.


By definition, they must align with God's Word. If they did not align with God's Word, that would mean that the Church could believe something and formally define something that God has not taught and revealed--and that is a metaphysical impossibility. The Church cannot teach and believe that which is not scriptural.
That's a lot of circular reasoning there. And it sounds like the rcc is your version of sola scriptura. Except you don't have to actually test anything. If the church says it, then it must be so. Scripture never tells us to blindly receive anything.

We know they are taught by the Scriptures because the Church believes them and they have been formally defined. The Church cannot believe something or formally define something that isn't taught by the Scriptures at least implicitly.

No papacy in scripture. Or mary's ic, pv, assumption, theotokos, penance.....The only reason you believe them is your church says so. That's the wrong reason.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
And the thing is, apparently Karl Keating was (or is) a lawyer. Keating should know better. Catholic Answers could be so much better; if only Keating would realize that Jack Chick is not representative of actual mainstream Protestant thought.
Keating retired from Catholic Answers four years ago [June 30, 2017].
 
Top