Should Women Be Ordained Into the Roman Catholic Priesthood?

Bonnie

Super Member
Romish, I cannot keep answering your posts like this; they are too long and hard for me to see.

If someone answers questions about the nature of something in our faith, then we answer as honestly as possible, based upon the biblical witness. If we do not know, or the bible is silent about it, then we say so. But that is not the same thing as asking if something is NECESSARY for salvation.

Your stuff about infallible is confusing. Jesus didn't think human traditions were infallible "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." And that is what your church does--teach man-made teachings as doctrines. So, it worships God in vain.

This is gibberish:



Ah, I see--all of this is just to justify Catholics blindly following their leaders, no matter how ubiblical the teachings are, so as to be exempt from the responsibility of "searching the scriptures" and "test{ing} all things". How...convenient. "Well, Jesus , it isn't MY fault I thought it was okay to pray to Mary and say she is the only hope for sinners, and trust in her to save me--our popes said it was okay and we are supposed to obey our leaders, so it is all THEIR fault."

We jump to NO conclusions. The Bible has all we need to know when it comes to salvation. HOW we do some things in practice, the customs, in our churches is up to us, so long as those things do not contradict scripture or profane God and His teachings--things like following a liturgical year or not; pastors wearing robes or just suits--things that are "adiophora--neither commanded nor forbidden."

No, when it comes to matters of faith, the Bible is enough. The Scriptures have all we need to know.

Not rocket science, Romish.

I do not arbitrarily reject Roman teachings; I reject many of them BECAUSE they are nowhere taught in Scripture, and actually contradict Scripture:

1. Praying to saints dead in the Lord
2. Mariolatry and all it has in it
3. Obeying the pope is necessary for salvation
4. Salvation by grace through faith and our works
5. Handing out indulgences
6. Purgatory
7. Celibate priesthood/pastors

None of these things can be found in Scripture, not even a hint.

We Protestants have proven that no. 4 is incorrect, by quoting the Bible all over the place, especially from Paul's letters--but no Catholic on here will see those Bible verses as proof. They will turn a blind eye to them. Though they have seen the verses quoted and had them explained, they refuse to believe them. They willfully blind themselves to the truth; therefore, there sin remains. It is more important to uphold Mother church at all cost--even at the cost of the truth.

There are no scriptures that "sufficiently prove" the above list to be true. Catholics are deluded if they think the Bible upholds any of these teachings in my list.

I reject Roman beliefs about these things because there IS ZERO PROOF for any of them in the Bible. The few "proofs" I have seen Catholics try to show over the years came only from blatantly twisting the plain words of Scripture. The rest is simply from human speculation.

But here is you chance to show us FROM THE BIBLE the things in my list. Go for it!
Romish, when I wrote that your posts are hard to see, I meant in reply form. When I respond to you, I cannot see what I wrote that you are responding to. I have to open up a window and find my post to you, then keep going back and forth, so I know what I originally wrote, that you are responding to. My apologies for not explaining better. So this has nothing to do with my eyesight or being Lutheran. Because, as you can see, I have no problem answering your points. Ever.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
And that would be fine--but what happens why people start asking questions about the nature of this presence and how to understand it? In other words--what happens when people start asking questions like "Christ is really present. Fine. What does it mean to say that Christ is present? How should we describe this presence?"



Because Infallibility and Inspiration are two distinct things. The Bible is infallible because it is inspired. The Bible is inspired because God authored the Bible.

That which is Theopneustos, is by definition infallible, but not only that which is Theopneustos manifests the authority of God. Any place the authority of God is manifested would by definition have to be infallible.

The mistake the Sola Scriptura adherents make is in-----jumping to conclusions. How do they do this? They assume that because only Scripture is Theopneustos that God's authority is manifest in the Scriptures alone. That conclusion in my mind does not follow. The inspired authority of God is manifest in the Scriptures alone, but the authority of God itself is not manifest in the Scriptures alone. God manifests his authority in distinct ways. Because the Church is the divinely authorized teacher of the Scriptures, God works in and through the Church, guaranteeing her teaching.

Not rocket science Bonnie.


Okay Bonnie, let me try it this way:

So you tell me that I should not believe any teaching that does not have sufficient proof from Scripture, correct? Good. I reject what you teach me because I have arbitrarily decided that YOU have not sufficiently proven your teaching from the Scriptures. When I decide that you have sufficiently proven your teachings, then I will consider them.

So--how is this NOT how Protestantism works exactly?


But I believe the Church has sufficiently proven these doctrines from Scripture; therefore, under your own standard I am fine with accepting them.

In other words: just because YOU think the Church has not sufficiently proven these doctrines from Scripture, why does that mean I have to reject them, if I think sufficient proof has been offered?


But you just so happen to conveniently believe that the doctrines taught by the Lutheran Church are scriptural and that the Lutheran Church is correctly (however you define correctly) using the Scriptures to prove their doctrines.



Not all questions can be answered that way Bonnie.


I wasn't denying the legitimacy or the intimacy of the relationship.


Yes; but, they reject Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation, well, you can't get much more really present then that. So why would I want anything that the other churches are offering with regard to the Eucharist?


Yes, and I fully agree with Jeremiah 17. You are assuming that my heart has not been regenerated and that I cannot recognize Truth when I see it.



Quite the reverse actually; I trust popes and the magisterium BECAUSE I trust Christ.


Why can't Mary or any of the saints help us and pray for us?


No; Faith alone is in Christ. That does not mean I cannot love and be devoted to Mary and the saints. Love is not zero sum. WORSHIP is zero sum, but love is not.


Well, as I have said and will say again--The Catholic Church is the real deal. All the other churches are imitations. It it turns out that the real deal is, in fact, not the real deal, the cheap imitations---aren't even cheap imitations in such a case--so why would I want them at that point?


No, Bonnie it doesn't. We are the real deal. All other Christian sects are imitations--some better than others. If the real deal, is, in fact, fake, then what does that make the fakes? How can something be faker than fake?


It is.


Why belong to a Church that does not think it is the true Church? I might disagree with the Mormons, JW's and other false religions, but they got one thing right: any Church that isn't certain of what they believe and teach, does not deserve to be called a Church.


Yes, it exists outside the visible boundaries of my church body, but only because my church body exists in the first place. If my church body did not exist, there wouldn't be anything to exist outside the visible boundaries of my church body.

I didn't say Protestantism was the gates of Hell prevailing.

I said--IF you think Protestantism is an example of the gates of Hell NOT prevailing, you can have it. You can also have the God of Protestantism.
Once again, a reeeeaaaaallllll long post. If I reply, and deal with every single point, then it will go over the 10,000 character limit and I would need to break it up into two posts. So I will only respond to some of your points.

So, Catholics trust Christ to keep their leaders teaching the truth.....but they don't trust in Christ fully to save them...no, they must add their own imperfect works onto what Jesus did for us, proving that they don't and didn't trust in Jesus' perfect finished work on the cross to save them. They are taught that Jesus paid for our guilt on the cross, but not our punishment, so they don't really believe Jesus when He cried out "It is finished!" And they don't really, fully trust in Jesus Christ to save them, because they have turned His mother into a priestess, whom they go through to get to Christ, calling HER the "only hope for sinners", rendering Jesus as only so much chopped liver....

Some "trust."

Sorry you think Protestantism is so bad. I guess our beliefs that we are saved by grace alone in faith alone in Jesus Christ and not by any of our works to be a "bad" thing--anathema. But OUR God is the same God Catholics worship. It is unworthy of you to imply that He is not. I don't recall any Protestant on here claiming that Catholics worship a different God than we do.

Of course my church thinks it is a true church. I never said my church isn't confident in what it teaches and confesses. But what I am saying is that my church is NOT the only true church on the planet and belonging to it isn't what saves us--Jesus saves us, not belonging to this or that church denomination. That would make the denomination our Savior, not Jesus Christ.

It is sad and telling that you agree with cults like JWs and Mormons, about their believing that their churches are the ONLY true churches on the planet. That is something most cults teach....

Transubstantiation is false. It is obvious that the bread and wine still remain bread and wine after consecration. In one of the Gospels, Jesus referred to what is in the cup as "the fruit of the vine." So, even during the Last Supper, even after saying "This is My blood" Jesus still referred to the wine as the "fruit of the vine." Ergo, He recognized that it was BOTH His blood and wine. The bread and wine have a dual nature after consecration--fully Jesus' body and blood, but still fully bread and wine. You know, kinda like Jesus is fully God and fully man, two natures present. Also, what would happen if one of your priests imbibed too much on the wine after consecration? What would it do to him?

We have already answered umpteen time on here why Mary and the saints dead in the Lord cannot help us or hear us. Why don't you ever remember?

No, Catholicism isn't the "real deal." It has some truth, but that has been buried for centuries under many unbiblical teachings, with zero Scriptural backing for them--like indulgences. Show us scriptural support for those, Romish.

My church can and does prove its doctrines using the Bible. But your church cannot prove any of its man-made doctrines using the Bible, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THERE. Doctrines like: Mariolatry, praying to saints dead in the Lord; purgatory; indulgences; obedience to the pope being necessary for salvation....say, are we Protestants damned because we do not subject ourselves to your pope's leadership, even though we believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and God and Savior, and trust in Him only for salvation, great and free?
 
Last edited:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Your teacher is a wolf and that shows in its false teachings. Yep but scripture tells us we can interpret for ourselves. So this is just another example of going against scripture.
If Scripture says we can interpret for ourselves, then that is exactly what I am doing. I am interpreting it for myself. My interpretation is that Catholic doctrines are found in Scripture.

So I am doing exactly what you claim I should be doing: reading Scripture and interpreting it for myself.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I agree that is what the document says. But I and other Protestants reject it. When it comes to faith and morals, matters that affect salvation, Protestants look to the BIBLE, and it is the BIBLE that is decisive--Catholics look to their POPE.

Therein lies the difference.
I see; so I was right, then in what I was saying. Contextually the pope was claiming to be head of the Church as opposed to the emperor.

You were just equivocating.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
read post 258 on the ' pope backs civil unions' thread.
And Pope Francis has upheld Church teaching on gay marriage as well as blessings of gay couples. We cannot marry or bless gay couples because homosexuality is sinful and the Church cannot bless sin.

As for gay unions---I am not in favor of them, I do not support them. At the same time, that is a state issue. The state can do what it wants. As long as the state does not force the Church to condone, approve or otherwise bless gay unions--I can tolerate it at the level of the state. It isn't the job of the state to teach morality. That is our job in our churches and families.
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
read post 258 on the ' pope backs civil unions' thread.
And Pope Francis has upheld Church teaching on gay marriage as well as blessings of gay couples. We cannot marry or bless gay couples because homosexuality is sinful and the Church cannot bless sin.

As for gay unions---I am not in favor of them, I do not support them. At the same time, that is a state issue. The state can do what it wants. As long as the state does not force the Church to condone, approve or otherwise bless gay unions--I can tolerate it at the level of the state. It isn't the job of the state to teach morality. That is our job in our churches and families.
what does all of that have to do with post 258 on the other thread?

nothing.

you posted this on here (above, the post I replied to). 1Thess had just replied to a like post regarding that vs on another thread -

romishpopishorganist said:
...
When Scripture says "The Church is the pillar of Truth" I believe it. ..

by 1Thess -
there is never any mention of "the pillar and foundation of truth" in the Bible

Do you know the difference between
(a) "a pillar of gold"
and
(b) "a pillar of the gold" ?
 
Last edited:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
what does all of that have to do with post 258 on the other thread?

nothing.

you posted this on here (above, the post I replied to). 1Thess had just replied to a like post regarding that vs on another thread -
It so happens that I DO know the difference between a "Pillar of Gold" and "A pillar of THE God."

A pillar upholds or holds something up. As the pillar of truth, the Church upholds and teaches God's Truth. Note what happens if a pillar falls: since the pillar upholds God's truth, if the pillar falls, God's truth falls with it. But God's truth cannot fall, therefore the pillar that upholds it cannot fall. Thus, the pillar must always uphold the truth. The pillar cannot cease upholding the truth.

Sounds an awful lot like God must endow his Church with infallibility so that she can teach the truth. In calling the Church the pillar of truth, the Bible is indicating that while the Church and the Truth are distinct, nevertheless they are intimately related and bound up with each other.
 

mica

Well-known member
It so happens that I DO know the difference between a "Pillar of Gold" and "A pillar of THE God."
maybe you should look again at the post by 1Thess... and / or review your own posted reply.

A pillar upholds or holds something up. As the pillar of truth, the Church upholds and teaches God's Truth.
the problem with what you've posted is - the RCC does not uphold (or teach) the truth of God's word.

Note what happens if a pillar falls: since the pillar upholds God's truth, if the pillar falls, God's truth falls with it.
That's exactly what happens with the RCC. the RCC isn't a pillar upholding the truth of His word. It doesn't believe or teach the truth of His word.

But God's truth cannot fall, therefore the pillar that upholds it cannot fall. Thus, the pillar must always uphold the truth. The pillar cannot cease upholding the truth.
no, His word will never fall. It is upheld by His church (those who do believe in Him and His word).

The RCC doesn't uphold His truth. That's a major difference between His church (believers) and the RCC.


Sounds an awful lot like God must endow his Church with infallibility so that she can teach the truth. In calling the Church the pillar of truth, the Bible is indicating that while the Church and the Truth are distinct, nevertheless they are intimately related and bound up with each other.
that's the fallible perversion of His word as taught by the RCC.

He gives those of His church the Holy Spirit to guide and teach them. The RCC does not have that guidance and teaching by the Holy Spirit.

church = those that God has called out of the world and to Himself thru His Son, Jesus Christ.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
maybe you should look again at the post by 1Thess... and / or review your own posted reply.


the problem with what you've posted is - the RCC does not uphold (or teach) the truth of God's word.


That's exactly what happens with the RCC. the RCC isn't a pillar upholding the truth of His word. It doesn't believe or teach the truth of His word.


no, His word will never fall. It is upheld by His church (those who do believe in Him and His word).

The RCC doesn't uphold His truth. That's a major difference between His church (believers) and the RCC.


that's the fallible perversion of His word as taught by the RCC.

He gives those of His church the Holy Spirit to guide and teach them. The RCC does not have that guidance and teaching by the Holy Spirit.

church = those that God has called out of the world and to Himself thru His Son, Jesus Christ.
Yes--false churches do not uphold or support the truth of God's word.
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
In the Catholic Faith, the essence of the priesthood is sacrifice. A priest offers the atonement sacrifice. A priest is an "icon of Christ" that is, the priest stands in persona Christi when celebrating the sacraments and the Mass. It is Christ who is working through the priest. Because Christ is the great high priest, because Christ is male, because the one who offered the once for all sacrifice of atonement, those who are his "icons" must also be male. There is a reason God incarnated as a male and not a female and it has nothing to do with cultural expectations of the time--but that is another discussion. Priests in the Catholic Faith are ontologically different then the people in the pew. They have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders (Ministerial Priesthood) so that they can function as icons of Christ.
By what authority is this doctrine established? It is not found in the Bible.
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
The Sacrament of Holy Orders is based on Apostolic Succession. In the New Testament we plainly see the Apostles ordaining successors to lead Christian communities.
Except you have added the whole concept of successor or succession to the text. Not once does the scriptures use or imply succession, especially not in the office of Apostle. This is the fundamental flaw of Catholicism.
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
It so happens that I DO know the difference between a "Pillar of Gold" and "A pillar of THE God."

A pillar upholds or holds something up. As the pillar of truth, the Church upholds and teaches God's Truth. Note what happens if a pillar falls: since the pillar upholds God's truth, if the pillar falls, God's truth falls with it. But God's truth cannot fall, therefore the pillar that upholds it cannot fall. Thus, the pillar must always uphold the truth. The pillar cannot cease upholding the truth.

Sounds an awful lot like God must endow his Church with infallibility so that she can teach the truth. In calling the Church the pillar of truth, the Bible is indicating that while the Church and the Truth are distinct, nevertheless they are intimately related and bound up with each other.
A pillar upholds or holds something up. As the pillar of truth, the Church upholds and teaches God's Truth. Note what happens if a pillar falls: since the pillar upholds God's truth, if the pillar falls, God's truth falls with it. But God's truth cannot fall, therefore the pillar that upholds it cannot fall. Thus, the pillar must always uphold the truth. The pillar cannot cease upholding the truth.

1. All rc doctrinal and dogmatic distinctives are not found in the bible. How does it hold up 'truth' that God never said?
2. The 'pillar' isn't some inner circle of one institution. The church is people, all truly born again people. The church collectively will never fall into heresy as we are promised to overcome, endure and persevere. If a person chucks his/her christianity and swims the tiber has the pillar fallen? Of course not because there are millions of other faithful pillars out there that haven't fallen and won't fall. The rcc has cranked out more heresy and mislead more people than all other religions put together. It doesn't have a pillar of truth.
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
Sir,

If there was another Church of Christ aside from the RCC, you would be quite correct--as then perhaps I did choose wrongly. But I know of no other option besides the RCC. I am not aware of another Church of Christ aside from the RCC.

Are you aware of another option, another Church aside from the RCC? If so, where is it and who are its leaders? How do you know it is the Church of Christ?
Allow me to introduce you:

 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
1. All rc doctrinal and dogmatic distinctives are not found in the bible. How does it hold up 'truth' that God never said?
2. The 'pillar' isn't some inner circle of one institution. The church is people, all truly born again people. The church collectively will never fall into heresy as we are promised to overcome, endure and persevere. If a person chucks his/her christianity and swims the tiber has the pillar fallen? Of course not because there are millions of other faithful pillars out there that haven't fallen and won't fall. The rcc has cranked out more heresy and mislead more people than all other religions put together. It doesn't have a pillar of truth.
The Catholic Church is THE truth established by Your Lord and Savior [and mine], Christ! You just haven't accepted it [yet?]
 

Mik

Well-known member
The Catholic Church is THE truth established by Your Lord and Savior [and mine], Christ! You just haven't accepted it [yet?]
The rc catholic denomination ISN’T THE truth established by our Lord and Savior, Christ! You just haven’t accepted it [yet]?
Really? SMH
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Top