The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[slabdans]

---

kani mga in-ani mao ni mga OT. Kanang mga healthy discussions nga niresulta gikan sa usa ka RC question, OnT man di ba?

bro naa baya thread para gyud sa mga religion...e respeto lng gud nato ning diri

pwedi man sad ka mag open ug thread para didto na lng mag kombate tanan religion...kana kung kombate imong tuyo

[noy]

Since this thread encouraged questions about the RC teachings and its doctrines, naa lang ko puno2 nga questions but hope dili i-negative ug sabot to those who love to know the truth. I understand it offends those who are religious and have this "kung unsay namat-an, maoy pakamatyan ideology..." This is tough but i mind not for the comfort of everybody but to those who wanted to know what the bible says.

Some of the doctrines of the RC that opposes biblical teachings.

Roman Catholicism vs. Biblical Christianity

Also, im not preaching about my own religion/denomination but the truth in the bible and the Christ crucified for our sins! God bless.

1. What does the world think about the bible?
2. What does the "Mother of all Christian Churches (The Roman Catholic church)"think about the Bible?

This is what the Roman church lead by the POPE says:

"Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No...because the Bible does not have everything God taught." A Catechism for Adults, Q. 1, p. 52."Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice." The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 72. The Bible does not contain all the teaching of the Christian religion, nor does it formulate all the duties of its members." The Faith of Millions, pp. 153-154.

This is what the word of God, The bible says:
2 Timothy 3:15 - "For from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus."2 Tim. 3:16-17 as a standard of fact. It says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instruction in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work."

So why is it the Vatican is declaring the exact opposite? It appears rather plain that the Scriptures are quite able to do that which the Vatican says it cannot.

THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH ALONE: What the Pope and the Vatican says Vs what the Bible says

hi bro, it is very easy to depict contradictions when we are doing the search from a point of view we are comfortable with..
i suggest you broaden your search to Catholics point of view. try searching/browsing through Catholic sites and get your answers first hand.

The Bible is the word of God,NO question and doubt about that.
but it is also not free from human interpretations mao if you base everything on the Bible + own/other influencial interpretations...
it does not necessarily mean you are correct..
which technically would mean that the Bible is not LITERALLY the ONLY basis for truth.
the downfall of that kind of approach is becoming a Fundie.(if its not in the Bible, then it should be wrong)..

there are things/traditions/practices that the apostles did to honor God that are not literally/specifically mentioned in the Bible
where at the same also has been commanded by the apostles themselves..to be observed and passed down to future generation of Believers..

if we are to look at this passage in 2 Thesilonians 2:15(NIV) with a "BIBLE ONLY" POV

which states:"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

how are we going to reconcile with it? plus even the term HOLY TRINITY is not in the BIBLE..
of course we both know tungod kay daghang verses nag offer nga verses suggesting God is of 3 person..
but isn't that the case with Catholic Doctrines which you or your denomination often go up against?
what i am saying really is that the practices of the RCC are BIBLICALLY based but not found found in the BIBLE word for word
as how most "BIBLE ONLY" denominations suggest we interpret God's word.

now apart from personal study, the only way to find out if those practices are legit is through verification.(i think everyone do this)
i think we can both agree that the Catholic Church can trace is roots to the apostle Peter(apostilic succession).
that i think is the ultimate way of verification. which still boils down to Faith really but kung sa SCIENCE pa, Educated guess, not a wild one.

i know as a Christian who likes to base everything on the BIBLE you might find this contradicting..
BUT trust me as a Catholic bai, IT DOESN'T. hehehe...

[acescream]

Since this thread encouraged questions about the RC teachings and its doctrines, naa lang ko puno2 nga questions but hope dili i-negative ug sabot to those who love to know the truth. I understand it offends those who are religious and have this "kung unsay namat-an, maoy pakamatyan ideology..." This is tough but i mind not for the comfort of everybody but to those who wanted to know what the bible says.

Some of the doctrines of the RC that opposes biblical teachings.

Roman Catholicism vs. Biblical Christianity

Also, im not preaching about my own religion/denomination but the truth in the bible and the Christ crucified for our sins! God bless.

1. What does the world think about the bible?
2. What does the "Mother of all Christian Churches (The Roman Catholic church)"think about the Bible?

This is what the Roman church lead by the POPE says:

"Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No...because the Bible does not have everything God taught." A Catechism for Adults, Q. 1, p. 52."Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice." The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 72. The Bible does not contain all the teaching of the Christian religion, nor does it formulate all the duties of its members." The Faith of Millions, pp. 153-154.

This is what the word of God, The bible says:
2 Timothy 3:15 - "For from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus."2 Tim. 3:16-17 as a standard of fact. It says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instruction in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work."

So why is it the Vatican is declaring the exact opposite? It appears rather plain that the Scriptures are quite able to do that which the Vatican says it cannot.

THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH ALONE: What the Pope and the Vatican says Vs what the Bible says

bai ipuno ko ni sa imo question ha, same question ra man jpon.

Jesus even quoted Isaiah were it was written that we should not go with teachings that are just rules of men(Matthew 15:9) and Apostle Paul also clearly taught that everyone should not go beyond what is written(1 Corinthians 4:6), for everything, including salvation, are all written in the Holy Bible(2 Tim 3:16). At the end of the Bible, there is even a warning at Revelation 22:18-19

Spoiler! 

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

anyone can answer? Infallible guy much preferred.

[noy]

@noy



you are right sir, there are even priests that convert to other religions. But the priest authors here sir, are still RC priests/Jesuit priests when they wrote the book. You can Google their names for credibility.



ok bai noy, ari ta sa Catholic Answers nga site ha, familiar man tingale ka ani. Mura ra pud og kani nga forum ba. Check this link Bible Translations Guide | Catholic Answers , it's about bible translations. Very nice and informative. Karon pa ko kasugat ani and i'm liking it for this is another addition for my bible study. For credibility, check the bottom of the page.

I'll quote some paragraphs:

"Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study. Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text; these cues are only preserved by literal translations."

"The disadvantage of literal translations is that they are harder to read because more Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into the English text."

Spoiler! 

Because literal translations can be difficult to read, many have produced more readable Bibles using the dynamic equivalence philosophy. According to this view, it does not matter whether the grammar and word order of the original is preserved in English so long as the meaning of the text is preserved. This frees up the translator to use better English style and word choice, producing more readable translations. In the above example, the dynamic equivalence translators were free to use the more readable expression "have sexual relations with" instead of being forced to reproduce the Hebrew idiom "uncover the nakedness of."

Spoiler! 

Even when there is no doctrinal agenda involved, it is difficult to do word studies in dynamic translations because of inconsistency in how words are rendered. Beyond this, the intent of the sacred author can be obscured.

After reading much of the article, you will realize how hard the science of translating the original texts of the bible into English. Mao bitaw niana ko nga ayaw salig sa usa lang ka English translation, pareha ra pud sa giingon diri:

"In the end, there may not be a need to select only one translation of the Bible to use. There is no reason why a Catholic cannot collect several versions of the Bible, aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each. It is often possible to get a better sense of what is being said in a passage by comparing several different translations. "

Catholic Answers jud ni bai noy ha. Mga bishops & priests manubag diri dili mga ordinary member lang. See the bottom of the page for credibility.
Bible Translations Guide | Catholic Answers



LOL i'm no theologist and i don't have a book. I'm not an expert, that's why we go to experts, right?

lol let's say my references are not my own and are my references credentials, it doesn't change the fact that the books i referenced from exist and they are not just buhat2x lang. Google it yourself, you might even see it on sale in amazon.com..buy the book, and believe..LOL. That's why i referenced them and gave them to you so that you won't need to buy the book itself, i even gave you the author, title, & page for credibilty lol.

who said anything about the bible should be LITERAL in all aspects?
you are referring to FUNDIES bai.

and TAKING the BIBLE way not too literal can be dangerous too..i hope you agree...
as one would end up making assumptions/wild guess/Fiction etc

what i am saying really is i would rather trust the church that can claim apostolic succession(you may wanna try searching about this)
about who Jesus really is apart from my personal experience with Him being God
over other interpretations/POV such as yours...

No doubt about your references bai, i'm sure they are indeed one of the greatest minds on this planet..
BUT doesn't ISLAM,AETHEISM and other belief systems have their own "great minds" as well?

so the question really is, what makes your POV a step higher than any of those that already existed?
like i said, there is no problem with your POV and whatever your belief is and wherever your faith lies..
as long as you DO NOT make it OFFICIAL and ABSOLUTE 'cause that is just plain DISRESPECTFUL.

about your credentials, ok ra na bai. no need to post them, my apologies for even asking them in the First place.
the question was raised/triggered when you were trying to IMPOSE that yours is the only POV that is correct.

if we take the BIBLE Literally as in literally, we would be a TRINITARIAN in the First place.

let's move on with questions instead of debates please.

[noy]

bai ipuno ko ni sa imo question ha, same question ra man jpon.

Jesus even quoted Isaiah were it was written that we should not go with teachings that are just rules of men(Matthew 15:9) and Apostle Paul also clearly taught that everyone should not go beyond what is written(1 Corinthians 4:6), for everything, including salvation, are all written in the Holy Bible(2 Tim 3:16). At the end of the Bible, there is even a warning at Revelation 22:18-19

Spoiler! 

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

anyone can answer? Infallible guy much preferred.

wala may infallible in the literal sense diri sa forum guro bai

OnQestion...
Isn't saying JEsus is not God considered adding or taking to/from what the BIble say about Him?

[acescream]

Protestantism is a pathetically confused world where each and every (false) church contradicts one another in terms of doctrine.

Catholicism has preserved her teachings for over two thousand years while Protestantism has shifted their doctrines A LOT OF TIMES in their 500 year existence to accommodate whatever the world dictates to them.

Be thankful to the Catholic Church for compiling and preserving the Bible, from which you have benefited and (PROFITED) greatly.


-edited.

mao diay ni tubag sa question ni Breakeven nga "So why is it the Vatican is declaring the exact opposite? It appears rather plain that the Scriptures are quite able to do that which the Vatican says it cannot." Saway og boyboy man lage ni wahahaha. Wa pa gani natubag ang pangutana, namuyboy naman dayon. Kahinumdom man nuon tas mga prayle ani sa panahon ni Jose Rizal.

Libre pa ang question o wa pa natubag. Salad init pa! Can anyone out there answer? I'm also looking forward for this.

[acescream]

wala may infallible in the literal sense diri sa forum guro bai

OnQestion...
Isn't saying JEsus is not God considered adding or taking to/from what the BIble say about Him?

good thing no one is infallible here, so this thread then is not in martial law.

If it's not just teachings of men(Matthew 15:9) for it is clearly stated in the Bible(2 Tim 3:16) and it's not going beyond what is written(1 Corinthians 4:6), then i'm taking something out from the Bible, and i have sinned, and then i will believe. But, if it's not in the Bible, and is taught by ordinary men and not by Jesus and the Apostles, then those that teach Jesus-is-God is adding into it, obviously.

[noy]

that question has been answered numerous times in different occasions and in different forms bai..
you can either backread or do the cha cha(search)..

again, from Catholics POV para kakita mu sa other side of the coin...kay sa favorable sites ra pud mu mag search...wala jud muy makita other than ideals that you already agree with.

a math teacher may know Filipino but never like how a Filipino teacher does.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Hehe mura martial law?

Mura ra but not really. Kay if I was a dictator , hagbay ra unta mo nanga MUTE and BAN but what I did was to fairly ansquarely remind that to protect the integrity of the thread , just like any other thread that are inclined SPIRITUALLY that leads to nowhere but closed or locked , I am providing this leniency to the thread as an outlet , not because I am a CATHOLIC but because I want people to know and learn more about the RCC.

Naay infallability manubagay diri? Naay pari? Taas ranggo? Archbishop? Cardinal? If fellow members lang, isn't it healthy to correct each others faith, esp w/in RC members? Basin naay nahibaw-an ang devoted nga wala nahibaw-i sa dili devoted, vice-versa. If mao ni amo sundon nga maghilom2x nalang mi bisag kabalo mi nga sayop basta kay gitubag ka diha, sakto ba nga makatuo ang mga fellow RCs og sayop, den mangutana tas pari dili diay mao?

Wrong ang analogy nimo . Answers given and provided here are open to all as long as it is in the perimeters of the MAGISTERIUM of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH . In the case of your curiousity , you are insisting here that sayop ang answers sa RCC sa questions gi raise. You cant make that correction because I personally traced all answers that are within the teachings and answers that are opinion based.

You dont need to be a CARDINAL , A PRIEST , BISHOP , RELIGIOUS or just anything na gipangita nimo because the answers provided here as much as NOY , NEWBIE and MYSELF is concern validates the close to accuracy of what these people you are talking about also na given the oppurtunity mangutana ka ani nila , they would give the same answer .

hehe nindot ni imo message diri sir springfield, esp about knowledge. Indeed, it is fun in exchanging of knowledge. Mao man tingale gamit sa mga verses para mapun-an atong knowledge di ba sir? And sakto ka sir, basta di lang jud personal interpretation, not going beyond what is written(1 Corinthians 4:6 ).

But the problem we have here , we are attempting to discredit something because we prefer our PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS.

Example sir ha, i will share a fact nga makita sa bibliya:

Bible fact: There are currently only 3 men in heaven so far: Enoch(Gen. 5:22,24; Heb. 11:5), Elijah(II Kings 2:1), and Jesus(Acts 1:11).

So sa katong wala kahibalo ani, napun-an ila knowledge di ba? Basta dili lang jud imo own interpretation. Then if anybody knows more than what i shared, he's free to share what he knows, right? Isn't that fun? So everyone is free to share verses, as long as they are not in their own interpretation.

Actually , you forgot about St. Dismas , the good thief who was crucified next to Jesus on His left side. Napun-an ang ilahang knowledge because its what the bible says but it does not at all justify any means that kung walay gi hisgut ang bible pod , it is not true or non existent. That is the very reason why RCC's " rule of faith " is SCRIPTURE and APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS .

lisod kaayo ma-OT sir, kay dako kaayo'g scope ni nga topic "The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions", meaning mangutana anything about sa RC, right? So if naay healthy discussion gani, and it started from a single question to RCC, it's still OnT kay ang sinugdanan kay a question to RCC, right? Depende ra man pud na ang discussion sa nitubag sir di ba if nistick siya sa question. But if you don't agree, ok ra kaayu, it's my own POV.

RCC questions anything under the sun is not at all a BIG SCOPE to tackle . You ask , we answer . It is as simple as that . What makes it complicated is , when you ask , we answer , you dont agree. WALA NA LANG UNTA KA NANGUTANA .... because it does not make any sense at all . nangutana gani kay wala kabalo sa tubag but why object? So kabalo diay ka sa tubag ?

The discussion should be somewhere else otherwise I will close this THREAD for being soemthing of similar in nature just like the hundreds of RELIGION THREADS in existence here sa forums.

Pwera nalang if naay mokalit lang diri og sangyaw nga siya2x ra lol OT kaayu, kay wa siya nangutana og question bahin sa RCC.

That has been addressed also that is why I keep on reminding those who subscribes here to avoid OT and stick to the topics which is QUESTIONS TOWARDS RCC.

P.S. Ang akong mga discussions diri with fellow istoryans nagsugod sa pangutana with regards to Holy Spirit. So OnT gihapon kow with the discussions, di ba?
Thank you!

I do hope you understand that already from my previous replies that if an ANSWER is already given to a QUESTION , one should move on and live with it otherwise kung di siya mo agree and cant accept it , one has to refute that ANSWER in a perspective within the perimeters of the MAGISTERIUM of the RCC gihapon.

But because if one can not at all agree tungod kay sukwahi kini sa respective teachings pod because you or anyone else belongs to a different CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION , sayop man na because you are now insisintg and shoving it own to the throats. If you think SAYOP and CONFUSING ang TEACHINGS of the CHURCH , it is only rightful and correct to examine oneself also if ang imohang gi tuohan is SAKTO ba sad ug dili sayop because as much as you can be so certain about it , we are also certain of our 2000 year old TEACHINGS that remained intact and sacred.

Thank you for your effort of providing your insight and side of your story. I do hope ,this will be the last of the LONG POSTINGS because a DEBATE is need instead of a LEARNING.

Anything other than QUESTIONS TO THE RCC ... direct it to PM and I will be glad to answer it .

[wenlove24]

Which came first, the Church or the bible?