Sry, but I've got lots of questions


#1

Well, if you knew me before, hello again! I’m not sure why I was banned, but I came across a page and I really need help. Here’s the part that gets me:

The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,

**1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6). **
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
**4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11). **
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).
**9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11). **
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
**11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). **
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

I’ve seen most answered, so I bolded the ones that I need clarification on. Just answer this for me, and I promise I’ll never return to this site again…


#2

[quote=kyle2189]Well, if you knew me before, hello again! I’m not sure why I was banned
[/quote]

Well, first off, I don’t know what your username was, but reading on your post here, you must have not been paying attention to the threads made. Many of the questions you ask have been answered already and have been recurring topics time and again.

The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book

I’ll answer some of the points here (others can answer the whole lot really):

**1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6). **
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
**4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11). **
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
My own take on this: the understanding here is that Paul wants Christians at that time to understand that they will face martyrdom for their beliefs, and must be prepared for it. If we’ll take this verse seriously, then all Christians regardless of how they live should be considered saints, right? But how many who call themselves Christian even live lives worthy to be called a saint? Hence the Church was right in restricting this use to those who, after much review of their lives, are deemed as saints.

  1. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).

Why do Protestants not condemn the images of national heroes and indeed call for their demolition? I think the term used in Exodus is “worship”, and with that, does the Catholic actually fall into idolatry? Hardly any Catholic I know worship images.

  1. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).

  2. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).

Again, seriously considering this, then Protestants should refrain from calling their Bible and Sunday school teachers as teachers, because Jesus condemns that as well. Remember though that Jesus’ point here is not to abuse one’s title, but to be humble about it. Jesus was not above in referring to Abraham as Father Abraham in his story about Lazarus, nor was Paul out of line when he referred to himself as a father.

**9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11). **

  1. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).

True that there is only one mediator, though does that mean we’re forbidden to pray for one another?

**11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). **

Must? Where in that reading does it imply to be must?

12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).

  1. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

I’ve seen most answered, so I bolded the ones that I need clarification on. Just answer this for me, and I promise I’ll never return to this site again…

Which site–CA or the site you got these from?


#3

[quote=kyle2189]Well, if you knew me before, hello again! I’m not sure why I was banned, but I came across a page and I really need help. Here’s the part that gets me:

I’ve seen most answered, so I bolded the ones that I need clarification on. Just answer this for me, and I promise I’ll never return to this site again…
[/quote]

You listed your religion in your profile as catholic, but not very strong. I was like that, and I think I’m getting stronger.

Some of the ones you have in bold make for pretty good discussions. I remember getting into it once about the bishops being marrieda and having families.

Dunno why you were banned (or that you were banned for that matter) but right off the bat it does look like you have quite a laundry list, and the list itself contains foregone conclusions.

Are you compiling this list as your own questions about Catholicism that you need to be answered, or are you looking for answers that you can then try to refute? When you say “we” who do you mean? Are you trying to help others understand Catholicism, or perhaps (no offense please just asking) are you seeking justification for disagreeing with the Church.

Alan


#4

Okay…I’ll take 'em in order.

  1. It doesn’t. Read the passage. (and stop playing with n-Cs and the Bible)
  2. Wrong again. There is NO adoration of the Blessed Virgin in the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you think so then you don’t know what you’re talking about. Take these real Catholic courses. The Catholic Home Study Service They’re FREE so you’re without excuse if you’re really sincere.)
  3. Why does it say that there are bishops, deacons and presbyters, and why does the ECF say that they appointed others to validliy offer the Eucharist? See this letter from a bishop of the church of Antioch and a close friend and disciple of St. John. (y’know…as in Book of Revelation, John?)
  4. It doesn’t. See Romans 14:5
  5. So? The saints that are acknowleged by the Catholic Church are just those that are noted for particularly holy lives and the miraculous help of their intercession.
  6. Wrong again. It condemns the making of an image TO WORSHIP IT, which no Catholic does. If the iconoclastic heresy was right, then why did God COMMAND the images of the two cherubim on the top of the Ark of the Covenant and why did He tell Moses to make the image of the brass serpent and then occupy the temple of Solomon which was adorned with all manner of images. The Iconoclasts were messed up by the influence of Islam and fundametalist Moslems even today are like that. Ask anyone who lived in Afghanistan under the Talliban…
  7. It doesn’t… It doesn’t teach any one specific “style” over any other. The Bible talks about immersion, sprinkling, nad pouring. You get this error of yours from talking to people who take their beliefs from passages out of context as oopposed to te whole context of the NT.
  8. It doesn’t. Read Call No Man Father
  9. Jesus is! But HE chose to build it upon Peter. See Peter the Rock And while you’re there see The Rest of the Articles
  10. There are not many “mediators” Get it right there are many intercessors. If you disagree then you better stop asking people to pray for you. See James 5:16.
  11. It doesn’t. It says that if he’s going to be married, he should have only one wife. Ask your n-C coaches why they don’t practice celibacy for the Kingdom of God when Jesushimself as well as St. Paul said it was the best way? Celibacy and the Priesthood
  12. The Bible isn’t… it supports the primacy of Peter. The opposing view is a misinterpretation of scripture that began to blow through the church with the other new doctrines of the “reformation” less than 500 years ago. Read This
  13. It doesn’t. See this post
  14. This is a scatter-gun shot.
    Do you suppose that the whole families that were baptized included no children? Ludicrous! If St. Paul compares Baptism to circumcision, when were the Jewish baby boys circumcised?
    There is a truck load to verses in the Bible that talk about the use of instruments in the praise of God.
    Indulgences? Ever read the NT verses about the church having the authority to “bind and loose”

Matthew 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Matthew 18:18 **Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. **
Confession? John 20:23 and James 5:16, as well as the passages that I cited above.

The Rosary? And just what exactly is wrong with a prayerful meditation on the life of Christ?

The Mass? Read This

If you are a young, weak Catholic (in your knowlege of the faith) then you don’t need to be out playing apologist with your n-C friends and relatives, but be busy fulfilling a verse from the NT that the N-Cs love to quote.
2 Timothy 2:15 Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
Pax tecum,


#5

First of all Kyle, I hope this wasnt a hit and run. You should come back here if you have any questions, nobody is stopping you, you can remain anonymous.

That list is very popular in protestant circles and is mostly an out of context and unfounded list of bogus claims which are regularly refuted.


#6

[quote=kyle2189]Well, if you knew me before, hello again! I’m not sure why I was banned, but I came across a page and I really need help. Here’s the part that gets me:

The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,

**1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6). **
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
**4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11). **
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).
**9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11). **
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
**11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). **
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

I’ve seen most answered, so I bolded the ones that I need clarification on. Just answer this for me, and I promise I’ll never return to this site again…
[/quote]

Hi, Kyle. If you are an honest person, who is humble enough to believe that there just MIGHT be an answer to his questions, then WHY write, “Just answer this for me, and I promise I’ll never return to this site again…”?

Is it possible that you have faith in YOU, and not really in Christ?

(1) Matthew 23:5-6 does NOT condemn clerical dress. It condemns (a) OSTENTATIOUS (b) NON-CLERICAL dress.

(a) Jesus EXPRESSLY condemns “wide” phylacteries and “huge” tassels – not phylacteries and tassles. The King James translation agrees. (“broad,” “enlarge”). So, instead of leaving, why not hang around and join up with the Catholic Way?

(b) Though they *started-out *as clergy about 250 years before Christ, by the time of Christ the Scribes were totally separated from the Jewish priesthood. The Pharisees were never associated with the priesthood, per se.

That is why, in the SAME Gospel, at Matthew 8:4, Jesus tells a cured leper to show himself to a “priest.” He DOESN’T say, “Go show yourself to a Scribe,” or “Go show yourself to a Pharisee.” So, instead of leaving, why not hang around and join up with the Catholic Way?

My friend, you seem to be sitting there, thinking, “Ho, ho, ho! Those poor, deluded Catholics! They just don’t know their Bible!”

Yet, we see here that it is YOU who does not know his Bible, right?

Please, friend, proceed in humilty, which translates to dignity and love. And please stay with us.

More later.


#7

Church Militant…you are a Godsend. Great post.


#8

Congratulations, Church Militant


#9

If anyone wants to see where he got his questions from, you may check out the following completely evil and horrible site:
bible.ca/catholic-doctrine.htm

kyle,

Please know that we love you and want you home. In your asking, please stay open to the answers. Also, if you could please ask your own questions, that would help us to understand what exactly you have a problem with. Cut and pasted lists don’t really tell us what *you *think, and that’s really where the heart of the matter lies.

May God bless you and your family richly,
RyanL


#10

I dont think hes coming back, confused catholic or sly protestant?


#11

[quote=Magicsilence]I dont think hes coming back, confused catholic or sly protestant?
[/quote]

I hardly think 6 hours between 3 and 9 am is long enough to assume someone is not coming back!

As to your question, I think he was trying for the latter, but may have missed on the sly part :stuck_out_tongue:

If that is completely untrue, please forgive me, Kyle2189!

Peace,
javelin


#12

If you do this search:

forums.catholic.com/search.php?searchid=897646

you will see Kyle’s other anti-Catholic-posing-as-a-Catholic posts, from his other user name, before he was suspended.


#13

[quote=AuntMartha]If you do this search:

forums.catholic.com/search.php?searchid=897646

you will see Kyle’s other anti-Catholic-posing-as-a-Catholic posts, from his other user name, before he was suspended.
[/quote]

It didn’t work. :frowning:


#14

Click here then:
[/font][font=Verdana]kyle8921

Then click on “Find all posts by kyle8921

Actually if you click on the abnove, it should link you to the search. I don’t know why the other doesn’t work for you - it works for me!


#15

Many of his posts seem a bit “troll-ish”, which is probably why he was suspended. And he may not make it much longer since I think you are supposed to wait for the suspension to be lifted rather than sign up again. Oh, well.


#16

I’ll answer one of his bolded questions. Maybe he’ll read this thread and pick up on something Catholic. His past posts don’t make me hopeful, though.

  1. Why is it opposed the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27)

It’s not.
First, read John 13:3-9 Jesus himself (the God-man) washes the feet of the apostles, even Judas’ feet, as an example of what the leader of his Church shoud do.
Now, return to Luke 22. A few verses down from Kyle’s quote, beginning in verse 31 and ending with verse 33.
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (you-all, as in all of the apostles), that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you (just you, Peter) that your faith may not fail; and when you have trurned again, strengthen your bretheren.
So, you see,Kyle, Jesus expected Peter to strengthen the rest of the apostles, as a leader should.
And I’ll give you a bonus. It’s a little miracle and not too many people pick up on it right away.
John 21:8 He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, for the quantity of fish.
John 21:11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three of them; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.
Here, Peter hauled the net full of fish (the Church & the faithful) all by himself when it six men (John 21:1-3) could not able to haul it in together.
This is a little-noticed but powerful demonstration of the primacy of Peter and Jesus’ trust in him to lead his Church (just one Church), when Jesus ascended to the Father.


#17

According to his profile, the OP is only 16. Perhaps some of his questions are just based on youthful rebellion? I would ask the poster, how do your parents feel about your questions to their religion? Have you talked to them about your doubts?


#18

Kyle, you were suspended not banned. Being banned means you can never come back. A suspension is a “time out” to cool off. About the sites that you are visiting, you are being deceived by anti-Catholic sites that are out and out lying about the Catholic faith. This is not a “fair and balanced” site but a site with an agenda to trash Catholicism.

About question 11, read this link:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104sbs.asp

**Didn’t Paul say that a bishop had to be “the husband of one wife?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). **

The point of Paul’s teaching is not that a man must be married in order to be a bishop, but that a bishop may not be married more than once. If this passage meant that a bishop had to be married, Paul would have been in violation of his own rule (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 9:5). A rule forbidding a man to have more than one wife does not order him to have at least one. A man who never marries does not violate the rule. Also, Paul, being a bishop who ordained other men to be bishops (cf. 1 Tim. 1:6), would have been a hypocrite if he enjoined such a rule (“to be a bishop you must be married”) and then, by his own admission (1 Cor. 7:8-9) ignored his own rule.

[font=Arial][/font]


The website that you found forgot about this part of Scripture:

[font=Arial]In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus states, “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some because they have *renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. *Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (19:12 NAB). This is an invitation from Christ to live as he did, and there can be nothing unacceptable in that.
[/font]
Why not ask a Protestant why they do not ask their clergy to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”?



#19

[quote=Franz]Church Militant…you are a Godsend. Great post.
[/quote]

:amen:

:blessyou:


#20

[quote=Eden]Kyle, you were suspended not banned. Being banned means you can never come back. A suspension is a “time out” to cool off. About the sites that you are visiting, you are being deceived by anti-Catholic sites that are out and out lying about the Catholic faith. This is not a “fair and balanced” site but a site with an agenda to trash Catholicism.

About question 11, read this link:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104sbs.asp

**Didn’t Paul say that a bishop had to be “the husband of one wife?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). **

The point of Paul’s teaching is not that a man must be married in order to be a bishop, but that a bishop may not be married more than once. If this passage meant that a bishop had to be married, Paul would have been in violation of his own rule (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 9:5). A rule forbidding a man to have more than one wife does not order him to have at least one. A man who never marries does not violate the rule. Also, Paul, being a bishop who ordained other men to be bishops (cf. 1 Tim. 1:6), would have been a hypocrite if he enjoined such a rule (“to be a bishop you must be married”) and then, by his own admission (1 Cor. 7:8-9) ignored his own rule.

[font=Arial][/font]


The website that you found forgot about this part of Scripture:

[font=Arial]In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus states, “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (19:12 NAB). This is an invitation from Christ to live as he did, and there can be nothing unacceptable in that.
[/font]
Why not ask a Protestant why they do not ask their clergy to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”?

Celibacy was not mandatory to be a pastor. Peter was married.


[/quote]


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.