It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Is it true or a Myth that Catholics do what the Pope tell them to do.?
the pope, with reference to his claim to stand in the place of Jesus Christ and possess His authority in the church.
Another example how man made religion has corrupted the words of Christ. One of satans specialties.
'I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven' [St. Matt 16:19].
originally posted by: stosh64
I would say it is no myth that a self proclaiming Catholic must consider the words of the Pope as if they were the words of Christ himself.
There are many instances of the Pope making a proclamation that has no biblical basis. Such as saying Mary never died but was 'taken up'. That is stated nowhere in the Bible.
Many dogmas of the Catholic faith, such as calling someone father, infant sprinkle Baptism, and using the term 'vicar of Christ' are against what the bible says.
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture
originally posted by: FlyersFan
originally posted by: stosh64
I would say it is no myth that a self proclaiming Catholic must consider the words of the Pope as if they were the words of Christ himself.
No Catholics do NOT have to take the words of the pope as from Christ Himself. The church teaches that the pope is a fallible human being and does not speak for Christ. It teaches that he is infallible when he speaks on theological matters EX-CATHEDRA. Info Here .
There are many instances of the Pope making a proclamation that has no biblical basis. Such as saying Mary never died but was 'taken up'. That is stated nowhere in the Bible.
So what? The bible itself says that not all truth is in within it and the bible itself says to hold onto sacred traditions that have been passed down.
Many dogmas of the Catholic faith, such as calling someone father, infant sprinkle Baptism, and using the term 'vicar of Christ' are against what the bible says.
Nope.
- MANY people in the bible call others father and son.
Examples
- Catholics do not sprinkle infant baptism. They have a pouring baptism and they baptize 'entire families' just like the baptisms in the bible. Info Here
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture
- There is nothing in the bible that says the head of Jesus church on earth can't be referred to as the 'vicar of Christ'. Considering that Jesus Himself put a man in charge of His church on earth, and gave that man full authority (Matthew 16:18-19), that indeed makes Him the 'vicar of Christ's church'.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
I think that most non-Catholics watch the many who are Catholic spend a lot of money buying holy water and rosaries that was blessed by the Pope and wonder why they do that.
Why kiss the Pope's ring if it is just a piece of metal and carries nothing magical about it?
why did people buy pieces of bones of what they believed were saints and all the holy water and rosaries?
Keep in mind what the Church says about relics. It doesn’t say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture.
The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: "So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet" (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!
Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).
If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are? In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds
Water from the Mother Cabrini Spring 5 Ounces Sale Price: $11.95
originally posted by: WarminIndy
I have met Catholics who have bought holy water and blessed rosaries.
I think that by now one could consider it a culture. No offense intended.
originally posted by: FlyersFan
originally posted by: WarminIndy
I have met Catholics who have bought holy water and blessed rosaries.
And when they buy them, the 'blessing' goes away. It is no longer considered to be 'blessed'. That's catholic teaching in the catechism. But some Catholics don't know that. They haven't read their catechism.
I think that by now one could consider it a culture. No offense intended.
Sure. Some do these things because of culture. Some because they understand the religion behind it.
If non-catholics want to think it's silly ... that's fine. I think that many things the protestants do are absurd and I find their churches to be like empty warehouses.
Catholics who pray the rosary see it as a meditation tool. Catholics who use holy water see it as a reminder of baptismal promises. These things are helpful with prayer and meditation. If noncatholics don't want to use them ... that's their choice. But noncatholics should be respectful of those who find the tools helpful in their prayer life towards God.