Rose42

Good information on a corrupt system and its backed up by scripture. I didn't know that the pope's infallibility wasn't declared until 1870 - they voted on it and it wasn't unanimous.

-snip

Spurgeon said, “Christ did not redeem his church with his blood so the Pope would come in and steal away the glory. He never came from heaven to earth. He never poured out his very heart that he might purchase his people. That a poor sinner, a mere man, should be set upon high to be admired by all the nations and to call himself God’s representative on earth, Christ has always been the head of his church.” Spurgeon knew what the reformers knew, what any true student of scripture knows. The Pope stood at the top of an illegitimate system, particularly and specifically at the top of an illegitimate priesthood. And Spurgeon wrote this, “When a fellow comes forward in all sorts of curious garments and says he’s a priest, the poorest child of God may say, “Stand away and don’t interfere with my office. I am a priest. I know not what you may be. You surely must be a priest of Baal.” For the only mention of the word vestments in scripture is in connection with the Temple of Baal.

-snip


https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-291/the-pope-and-the-papacy

pafret Loc: Northeast

Similarly if a Protestant Minister wears a suit and tie or the clerical collar you can make the same statement. Obviously a "Baal Worshiper since ties and suits are nowhere mentioned in the Bible. Not in the Catholic Bible nor in the many modifications produced by heresy.

Rose42

I think what he's referring to is specific attire reserved for priests not merely a suit and tie.

bahmer

Amen and Amen

pafret Loc: Northeast

I am pointing out the ridiculousness of the argument. It does not matter what clothing a priest or minister wears. Spurgeon assumes the Catholic Church is illegitimate while conveniently forgetting that all Protestant churches are founded upon that same illegitimate church, separated only by their various heresies. He is engaging in the most trivial of arguments by deriding the priestly vestments. His ignorance is plain, a man is a priest by divine ordination and nothing he wears alters his priesthood.

Rose42

It's part of a larger argument against the papacy which is in the article.

Christianity isn't founded on the Catholic church. It's founded on Christ. Just because one is Catholic doesn't mean they can't be a Christian and there are many protestants who aren't Christians.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Then what are they protesting? To, be a Catholic is to be a Christian, the two are indissoluble. The Catholic church was established by Christ, who directed his followers (Christians) to carry the his words to the world.

Rose42

The catholic church was established by Christ not the "Catholic" church.

catholic (lower case c) meaning "pertaining to the whole Christian body or church"

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

You either woke up stupid this morning or are still just a little bit groggy? Have you never read about or seen a picture of the attire Jewish priests wore in the temple in Jerusalem where Jesus worshipped? Their breastplate was even studded with precious jewels. This attack is a dud. Pick up your little book on "How I Learned To Hate Catholics In A Christian Way" pick a new subject and let's get ready for another day of your lame crucifixions.

bahmer

So you are saying that you and the Roman Catholic Church are mimicking the Jewish Priests and therefore it is OK on how they dress. That was brought up before how the Roman Catholic Church and Priests copied the Jewish Priests as well as the scribes and pharisees of that day because they had people control well worked out. But it was Jesus that shot hole after hole through their schemes with the statements it is written time and again. He then pointed to scripture not some tradition that wasn't written down anywhere.

Rose42

This article, and this is just a paragraph, is a valid critique and its backed up by scripture. As usual you have no scripture to back up that this is a "dud". The critique of vestments is just a tiny bit of the article. The purpose is to show why the pope is not Christ's representative.

You are using a tactic of the left. When you have no valid argument call them names and "haters".

Radiance3

==============
You rely solely on Scriptures. The scriptures are incomplete Gospel of Christ. When passed to His Church the One Holy Catholic (Universal Church), thru Saint Peter, there are those Scriptures, the Sacred Traditions, and then the Magisterium practiced and taught by the Apostles thru Saint Peter, the 1st Pope.

You Sola alone is not complete for it lacks the 1500 years of history, plus selectively copied from the Bible of Christ.

You could not compare your Sola with the complete Gospel of Christ given thru the Catholic Church.

Beside, Sola is outlawed by Christ.

Rose42

Are you saying God lied to us when He tells us His word is perfect?

Tim. 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate--equipped for every good work."

Psalm 19

7 The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;

8 the precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes;

9 the fear of the Lord is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the Lord are true,
and righteous altogether.

Radiance3

=============
The Scriptures of the Lord that your Sola copied are perfect. But that is not the problem.
The problem is your Sola Scriptura is outlawed by God to preach, and teach His Gospel.
There is only ONE authority given, and that is the One Holy Catholic Church, Christ's Church He passed on to Saint Peter.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Sometimes your logic seems a bit twisted so that it's difficult for me to get the kinks unraveled to address an issue. I'm sure it's clear in your own mind; not so much in my own. It could very well be me.

Let's first focus that Jesus was not condemning all Jewish clergy or Judaism. The trouble with some temple priest was not with their faith and practice as much as it is their pride and they had added so many hundred "thou shalt not's" that it was impossible for the common man to
keep the faith. Their pride caused Jesus to call them vipers and whitewashed sepulchre. They, like me, were part of fallen humanity in desperate need of a savior. But no savior was available to them until "after" Jesus was crucified and risen just as the Thief on the Cross was not saved until after Jesus died and was Risen. The Jewish hierarchy were not evil men; misguided perhaps, but not intentionally evil men. Remember, Jesus directed the lepers to go and show themselves to the priests so, according to custom, tradition and OT scripture, the priests could declare them healed.

Every time Jesus said "it is written" He was referring to the traditions and writings in the Old Testament. Do you hold the Old Testament in the exact same regard as you do the New Testament? Is the New Testament sufficient unto itself without the Old?

Meanwhile, back to vestments:

It is written Exodus 28:2: God said...

"For your brother Aaron you will make sacred vestments to give dignity and magnificence. You will instruct all the skilled men, whom I have endowed with skill, to make Aaron's vestments for his consecration to my priesthood. These are the vestments which they must make: a pectoral, an ephod, a robe, an embroidered tunic, a turban, and a belt. They must make sacred vestments for your brother Aaron and his sons, for them to be priests in my service. They will use gold and violet material, red-purple and crimson, and finely woven linen."
The rest of the chapter gives details on each garment.
If you wish to argue with God about garments worn by priests in solemn worship that's a free will choice. Go for it.

I want to address the protestant phobia against Tradition based on their misunderstanding of Scripture. I asked yesterday how often "it is written" to keep to the Traditions and to remember who your teachers (the Apostles) were. The reply said, "none." But that's not true. I believe protestant eyes may sometimes glaze over anything that contradicts their beliefs.

Some time ago I addressed the Tradition of kissing the bride at a wedding and received crickets in return. Yesterday I addressed the Tradition of priestly blessing; crickets again! Today I'm going to address a Tradition that, tragically, no Christians, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and the wild ones too, remembers or follows.

A priestly blessing is reserved for a priest except in one situation. From Judaism we once took the Tradition of a father blessing the eldest son and expanded it to a father, not a mother, blessing his entire family. The father of a family was recognized as possessing the authority to administer a priestly blessing to his family. Imagine a dad today raising from breakfast and making the sign if the Cross over his family before they go off to school, work, etc., saying, "The Blessing of God, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit be upon you and keep you safe. Amen" Some of you who read this will be miffed that you didn't know this Tradition because this Tradition makes perfect sense. Your wives and children would never forget and it would have made an significant influence in all your lives. This Tradition places a responsibility on fathers that our world need desperately today. Why the Tradition faded into obscurity I really have no idea whatsoever. I do know that in this hedonistic age, an age and society that literally hates your children, it's a responsible Tradition that all Christian fathers should adopt to help protect their families My wife receives a blessing from her husband every single day without fail, and every time we see our children they too receive a blessing from their Fr. father before leaving. It's Traditional with us. I'd like it to become a Tradition with you too. My own son, a great dad and husband, does not bless his own family. I don't know why not. But he won't budge when we part without my blessing.