And therein lies the biggest 2 faults of the Catholic church. 1) Form over substance and 2) ignorance of the Bible by a great part of the laity and parishioners. These two fit hand in glove with the idea of Papal Infallacy. The Catholic Church is "stuck" in a form that separates the body from the Father by intentionally placing a clergy between them and God and replaces worship and study with rote and routine.

This is NOT just a Catholic issue. It fits with the other denominations too. They want to come in on a Sunday morning, open their minds slightly sometimes at best, have the preacher pour 3 points and 3 applications in their heads and live for the week.

You completely misunderstand. IMO, DO have to "earn" your way to Heaven. Otherwise, I would have to believe that there would be no Ten Commandments, no Beatitudes. Those Biblical passages very clearly outline the "work" we have to do to see the Face of God.

Then what was the purpose of Jesus?

 

The Bible clearly indicates that there are rewards in Heaven for the works we do but no works will ever get us into Heaven. ONLY in a faith as Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior is the way to know the Father.

 

That is not PC to say and whomever has issue with it, can take it up with God on the day that every knee bows and every tongue confesses.

I don't understand....you have an issue with following the 10 Commandments? :lol:

 

Some people in this thread are deliberately focused on tearing down the structure of the Catholic Church, or focused on details that, in the scope of things, are inconsequential.

 

How many people do you know that profess to be good Christians, but do nothing to help the needy, support their church or talk trash about everyone them? These "rules" of the Catholic church clearly spell out that it is not acceptable. They in effect give us a cheat sheet into acceptable behavior.

 

Your post completely takes only the last part of information I posted, and ignores the information about loving God above all else, and loving your neighbor. It completely ignores the call to believe in the teachings of Jesus, the Incarnation, the Holy Trinity et al.

 

You zoomed in on one part of the whole picture and pronounced the sum to be erroneous.

I tried to do that in an earlier thread about giving expectations of my church's congregation on "acceptable behavior" and got ripped for it. Good luck.

 

I agree that there should be an outline on the way a Christian SHOULD live but not a "You live this way and you get in heaven" stance. Rather a "you want to call yourself a Christian, than this is what your life should look like" stance.

I agree that there should be an outline on the way a Christian SHOULD live but not a "You live this way and you get in heaven" stance. Rather a "you want to call yourself a Christian, than this is what your life should look like" stance.

 

Well said.

No they were rumored to have a female pope, look for Pope Joan on Wikipedia. That is why they have an odd number of Johns.

Wasn't that the sequel storyline for the Da Vinci Code????

So....those of whom your faith consider to have a higher knowledge of God are not to be respected?

 

Peter was a go-between between the people and Christ. Anyone who imparts the message of God to His people is a go-between. In essence, your minister is a go-between. There are people who are called to "spread the Word". Wouldn't those be go-betweens? The signs of reverence are traditions of respect for the man we know to have a higher calling. Traditions do not superced true Faith in God.

I don't ever think I have disagreed more with a statement that you have made than the bolded.

 

Christ is the mediator between us and God. That is sufficient and all that is needed. There were no other mediators between the people and Christ. Peter was a disciple (yes it seems the leader of the disciples).

 

The minister is a teacher who will be held to a higher scrutiny than those who do not teach but is NOT a mediator between me and God or Jesus.

mexitucky, I don't even know how to respond to your questions anymore. It's not because of the questions, but because you've stated that you are Catholic, and I have a hard time understanding why you ask them. I feel that you must know what the Church teaches, and why. I see that you don't agree with what the Church teaches, so then I wonder why you choose to remain Catholic.

 

I'm not saying that questioning is wrong. But your posts have such a tone of animosity toward the Catholic Church, that it astounds me.

 

To attempt to answer your question above:

 

It's not about a woman's "word". It's not about the value of gender. It simply is about what I, as a Catholic, am bound to support as a member of the Catholic Faith. In the end, is the issue of whether a Pope can be female, or whether priests could be married more important than the teachings of the Church on Salvation, Grace and the way to Heaven? The traditions, the rites, why are they such obstacles?

On the bolded, do you know the reasoning behind that decision or do you accept it blindly?

 

I ask because the leadership at my church had a similar stance on women teaching. I disagreed. We sat down and they laid out in a 4-week, 2 hour class why they have come to the decision with a tremendous amount of Scripture support on their decision. But they did not stop there. They looked at Scriptures that would argue against their stance and discussed those.

 

I could see the thought process that led them to that decision and while I don't understand why God made it that way, I do see why the decision was made that way and support it. Don't like it but that is not my call. That was God's and I will abide by it.

 

It wasn't a group of men getting together and trying to suppress women but a logica, Scripture-supported decision that is extremely non-PC.

Lets go back to the Bible. (Its a known fact that the Jehovah Witnesses will bypass my house) This verse is long but I'll break it down.

Its in Phillippians 1:12:18

 

First look at Paul more than say Peter. Peter was a firsthand disciple of Jesus, but Paul was chosen by Jesus to carry on his work. Paul traveled to share the ministry of Jesus and Pauls letters to the churches dealt with issues and problems in those churches.

 

Paul gave advice, rebuked, and lifted up the churches (made up of who?) Paul even rebuked Peter because Peter had gone back and started acting out with the Old Law Jewish customs.

 

Now to the verses..."now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the Gospel. I'm in chains for Christ. Because of these chains brothers have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously.

 

"It is true some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do it in love, knowing that I am put here to defend the Gospel."

Verse 18..."what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way Christ is being preached".

 

The Pope has to like the Fact even though he doesn't think we are right...we are still teaching about Christ. The JWs, Mormans, Islam, teach a different "Gospel" and could be doomed.

Interesting point and I am off to do some reading of Phillipians

I don't ever think I have disagreed more with a statement that you have made than the bolded.

 

Christ is the mediator between us and God. That is sufficient and all that is needed. There were no other mediators between the people and Christ. Peter was a disciple (yes it seems the leader of the disciples).

 

The minister is a teacher who will be held to a higher scrutiny than those who do not teach but is NOT a mediator between me and God or Jesus.

 

You completely misunderstand.

 

Did Peter not go forth and spread the Word of God, as told to him by Jesus? THAT is a go-between. There is nothing in the structure of the Church that says that there is an obstable in the form of a person between us and God. We can speak to God, and God speaks to us. HOWEVER, when it comes to interpreting the Word of God, there are those who are Divinely inspired. That is why we seek the counsel of those who are called to ministry, whether Pope, priest, ministry, or deacon. They have answered a calling, and I believe that calling was from God. I believe that they have a higher understanding of the Will of God.

mexitucky, I don't even know how to respond to your questions anymore. It's not because of the questions, but because you've stated that you are Catholic, and I have a hard time understanding why you ask them. I feel that you must know what the Church teaches, and why. I see that you don't agree with what the Church teaches, so then I wonder why you choose to remain Catholic.

 

I'm not saying that questioning is wrong. But your posts have such a tone of animosity toward the Catholic Church, that it astounds me.

 

To attempt to answer your question above:

 

It's not about a woman's "word". It's not about the value of gender. It simply is about what I, as a Catholic, am bound to support as a member of the Catholic Faith. In the end, is the issue of whether a Pope can be female, or whether priests could be married more important than the teachings of the Church on Salvation, Grace and the way to Heaven? The traditions, the rites, why are they such obstacles?

 

I love Catholicism. I agree with most teachings of it. You attack me as if I am anti-church and anti-faith. You confuse my argument. Because you love the Catholic faith does not mean that you can not question the political intenty of the church. You have an inability to seperate faith from the organization that tells us how to believe. I agree with what the church teaches as it spreads the word of God. I enjoy listening to priest give their interprations of the Gospel, or what Paul had to write. I truly believe that the majority of priests' hearts are in the right place. However, there are things that can be improved. I guess that my main argument is that the Catholic church's traditions disallow a lot of people from taking leadership roles in the church who could be just as qualified, and maybe more effective. Maybe I'm just bitter over how the Diocese of Covington has botched up the city of Newport. Maybe it has to do with how the priest in Newport has botched up much of the administration. I believe that the church must have a central figure for important decisions. I don't agree that things can't be changed. Remember, as the church was being formed, Paul and the Gentiles presented a challenge for Peter. The early church adapted with its new members, now it can't?

I love Catholicism. I agree with most teachings of it. You attack me as if I am anti-church and anti-faith. You confuse my argument. Because you love the Catholic faith does not mean that you can not question the political intenty of the church. You have an inability to seperate faith from the organization that tells us how to believe. I agree with what the church teaches as it spreads the word of God. I enjoy listening to priest give their interprations of the Gospel, or what Paul had to write. I truly believe that the majority of priests' hearts are in the right place. However, there are things that can be improved. I guess that my main argument is that the Catholic church's traditions disallow a lot of people from taking leadership roles in the church who could be just as qualified, and maybe more effective. Maybe I'm just bitter over how the Diocese of Covington has botched up the city of Newport. Maybe it has to do with how the priest in Newport has botched up much of the administration. I believe that the church must have a central figure for important decisions. I don't agree that things can't be changed. Remember, as the church was being formed, Paul and the Gentiles presented a challenge for Peter. The early church adapted with its new members, now it can't?

 

My comment is that DRASTIC change is not what is need. Gradual change is what is needed. At the same time we must remember our sacred traditions while changing. You have to understand your tone does not indicate a Catholic that is respectful of the church at all. Question all you want, that is fine. I still question too.

 

Believe me, I am bitter about the things that have happened in the Archdiocese of Louisville. That is why I am ecstatic that we have a new Archbishop coming in who will reign in the excesses. This is one of the reasons why I feel Benedict is probably what the church needs right now. I don't look at him as reactionary at all I look at him as a man devoted to the church maintaining its identity.

 

The church is not the entity it was in the Middle Ages. You question the political intents of the church I argue that the church is not the political entity it once was. Your cynicism to the church is well noted, I have had those same questions in my life as well. Believe me, rockmom can attest to this, I have had many things over the last few years that led me to question it quite a bit.

 

After much introspection, study and meditation on the matter I have come to terms with my own issues and have put those answers in my heart. You may come to a different conclusion and that is fine, but I still feel your desire for drastic change comes more from personal reasons. Could I be wrong on that? Of course I could, I don't know you nor do I know your heart and faith. I am just saying how it is coming across to me, and likely to rockmom as well.

You completely misunderstand.

 

Did Peter not go forth and spread the Word of God, as told to him by Jesus? THAT is a go-between. There is nothing in the structure of the Church that says that there is an obstable in the form of a person between us and God. We can speak to God, and God speaks to us. HOWEVER, when it comes to interpreting the Word of God, there are those who are Divinely inspired. That is why we seek the counsel of those who are called to ministry, whether Pope, priest, ministry, or deacon. They have answered a calling, and I believe that calling was from God. I believe that they have a higher understanding of the Will of God.

That is a teacher. Do you consider every teacher as a go-between. A go-between is necessary when the two parties cannot get together on their own accord.

 

I don't see anywhere in Scripture that indicates that with prayer and ROCKMOM asking God to reveal Scripture to you that He would not send the Holy Spirit to you to reveal those things that He feels needs to be revealed to you.

 

I don't need a pope, a minister or any other religious leader for me to understand Scripture. I need one thing: the Holy Spirit.

That is a teacher. Do you consider every teacher as a go-between. A go-between is necessary when the two parties cannot get together on their own accord.

 

I don't see anywhere in Scripture that indicates that with prayer and ROCKMOM asking God to reveal Scripture to you that He would not send the Holy Spirit to you to reveal those things that He feels needs to be revealed to you.

 

I don't need a pope, a minister or any other religious leader for me to understand Scripture. I need one thing: the Holy Spirit.

 

A go-between can be a teacher. A go-between is anyone who helps another understand something from someone/somewhere else.

 

As to your last statment, BRAVO! More power to you! I, on the otherhand, DO need someone to help me understand. I guess that's why I value my Catholicism so highly, and you scorn Catholicism so vocally.

A go-between can be a teacher. A go-between is anyone who helps another understand something from someone/somewhere else.

 

As to your last statment, BRAVO! More power to you! I, on the otherhand, DO need someone to help me understand. I guess that's why I value my Catholicism so highly, and you scorn Catholicism so vocally.

Holy Spirit is the only thing and the BEST thing you can have.

 

I am not turning my back on others. I have favorite authors John Eldridge, John MacArthur who have focused my thoughts on issues and topics. I too reasonly finished the Mary in the New Testament book.

 

I just know that I and you don't need someone to be a go-between. God may someone my way to help me understand but he has not setup a system that requires one.

 

I love the Catholic religion for the humanity issues they help in and their conversion of so many to Christianity. I disagree with many of their requirements as things that are not Scripture based.

 

I don't need a pope, a minister or any other religious leader for me to understand Scripture. I need one thing: the Holy Spirit.

 

I agree with everything you've said, LBC, but I'm reminded of what the Ethiopian eunuch said when Phillip asked him if he understood all that he was reading.

 

I think the common ground here is a scriptural guide can be very helpful, but in the end it is up to each of us to read and pray for understanding. Accepting another's view at face value without doing our own study is how cults are formed.