Good afternoon,
I'm smiling night now, much to the chagrin and deep sadness to your Protestant viewpoint against the Catholic Church and to my Catholic faith.
I really do wish you you would keep your religious baseless un-factual opinions to yourself.
Personally I find it Religiously insulting and religiously prejudicia and disingenuous.
You really should do some historical Church reading and historical research.
On the practices of the Sacramental historical Church, and its historical evolution and evolving faithful retrospective Church Doctors of the Church and clergy.
We have the Churches ecumenical councils from 312 a.d. to the present day.
That's 1,986 years or 19 centuries of christian writing, by theologians and Church clergy that have written of the completeness of the Catholic Church.
Let me ask you something ?
What is your Protestant affiliation ? How Log ? Your spiritual journey how many churches have you belonged to ?
Do you believe in self-interpreting biblical scripture, and reading the preceding verse and the below passages ? To understand the context of what the author was trying to say ?
Lets discuss what you said in your comment to me.
Other than repeating and giving your misconception on what the actual facts are, and providing detailed facts to support your opinions.
a. First Protestants would rather and usually Quote from Saint Paul,
b. Then the Old Testament
c. Lastly do they quote from the four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. Sparingly use the exact words that Jesus uses.
1. I'm going to give you that one. But to answer this question, the Catholic Church has always renewed it's self. All the Ecumenical councils Ill just give you the top three in 500 years.
a. The Council of Trent
b. Vatican I
c. Vatican II
2. You see peewee thats your liberal protestant mindset, "To Protest" Just like Calvin, Luther and other reformist, hated the Catholic Church
The reformists created total religious anarchy, which became political, the same thing continues today, except now we have 30,000 protestant denominations.
3. See answer in Question 1.
4. Here is where you are wrong once again.
Read the Article, your taking the term "Father" out of context and look at the biblical passages, you have a minimalist protestant objection.
The Bible, Says Call No Man Father . . . But is that a literal religious seriatim opinion ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-136290-1.htmlEven though Christ says “call no man father,” the context is a discussion of religious titles. This is part of a longer biblical passage in which Christ condemns the Pharisees.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scottericalt/call-no-man-father/?So here—and specifically in a religious context—Abraham is called “the father of us all.” Moreover, Paul frequently reminds us of his own role as a spiritual father. He is a father to
And he writes to the Corinthians: “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel”
1 Cor. 4:14–15.
http://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/14.htm So then, what did Jesus mean by “call no man father”? Matthew 23:9; 1 Peter 1:17
http://biblehub.com/matthew/23-9.htm http://biblehub.com/1_peter/1-17.htm So why are priests celibate?
https://www.uscatholic.org/glad-you-asked/2009/08/...
10 Reasons for Priestly Celibacy - Catholic Exchange
https://catholicexchange.com/10-reasons-for-priest...
5. We Catholics follow The NT of Jesus, and follow Our Popes, traditions, Magisterium the Catechism. Our Church and Faith is more well formed.
6. As to the Scribes Pharisees, Sadducees, orthodox Essenes and Jewish Zealots.
This may take some time, thats because the Church, or is called the Catholic-Universal Church, does not adhere to the books of Moses statutes except the Ten Commandments.
There is a distinction between the Old Hebrew-Israelite covenants.
Jesus has made a New Covenant with his death and resurrection and ascension. The prophesy's of the Old Testament have been fulfilled.
Jesus is fulfilling the New Covenant and this is where he has corrected the Jewish scribes Pharisees, Sadducees, orthodox Essenes and Jewish Zealots.
God's way is not your way, and His thinking is not your way either, peewee.
For you to say the Catholic Church is similar to the Sadducees is a poorly form criticism historical and biblically is in error.
You provide no facts to support you wildest claims. Here is proof below
Under the direct governance of the Romans, the Jews of the First Century were economically exploited, experienced many religious impositions, and were subjected to Pagan views and practices. The political reality of the day was of an unfriendly dominant power overseeing life on a day-to-day basis.
The Hebrew people of this era generally fell into one of three camps in their views of how to cope with this sometimes oppressive oversight: one group wanted to appease the Romans, one group wanted to fight them, and one group just wanted to keep their heads down and go unnoticed.
The Pharisees:
Generally fell into the group of appeasers. They believed that if they could keep the law perfectly that YHWH would return to His people and get rid of the hated Romans for them. Perfect law keeping would bring this about. The Pharisees were the spiritual guides who thought of themselves as superior to those who did not keep the law as perfectly as they did. The Pharisees did not help the poor, or those in need, they simply advised them to do better at keeping the law and YHWH would come
The scribes (Hebrew “sopherim”)
Were experts in the Law of Moses (Torah); they copied it and they explained it. At Jesus’ time, they were very influential and powerful in Jerusalem. They had three distinctive functions: 1) Preserve the Law of Moses (Torah) and its right interpretation; 2) Gather students and teach them; and 3) administer the law as judges in the Sanhedrin (Mt 22:35; Mk 14:43; Lk 22:66; Acts 4:5). The scribes were called “lawyers or teachers of the law.” They also wanted to appease the Romans.
The Sadducees:
had most of the real political and economic power. This party was formed from members of rich families. They were not terribly interested in the kingdom of God or in the coming of the Messiah. They were pragmatists. Their main concern was keeping their social status and the respect of the Romans. Therefore, societal change was dangerous in their eyes, and they did not shrink from using violent means against their countrymen if these countrymen provoked rebellions, or revolts, or disturbed the peace. In their view, there was no other option but appeasing the Romans.
The members of the Great Sanhedrin were rich and powerful men from the aristocratic families in Israel. This council had 71 members, including the High Priest, president of the assembly of Pharisees and Sadducees, and some influential scribes. They often did not agree on much, but they all did pretty much agree on appeasing the Romans.
They were the domestic government of Judea and had authority to deal with matters regarding religion, justice, and the economy. However, the final decision in all the matters depended on the Roman prefect, Pilate.
The High Priests were the highest religious authority in Israel. They belonged to the tribe of Levi and inherited their position. Their responsibility was to take care of the Temple of Jerusalem and organize the system of the sacrifices.
HOW DID THEY SEE THINGS? Maintaining the status quo was primary for all these groups.
The religious authorities believed they were chosen by God, so they also believed their teachings about the Law and the traditions were true and must be obeyed. After the Babylonian captivity, the people’s ability to read Hebrew was mostly gone and they were dependent on their leadership to tell them what God’s will was. The leaders taught the people that acting against them is acting against God—and implicitly it was also acting against Rome. Challenging their teachings and authority, then in their view, was basically urging Israel to abandon God’s authority. Plus it could cause problems with Rome and upset their apple cart.
For these reasons, Jesus is a great threat to them all.
He calls into question their authority; he questions their moral fitness; he questions their motives. From this perspective, the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders is inevitable.
But Jesus’ teachings have a divine authority all their own, while the scribes’ teachings are human traditions. Jesus is always right because he “thinks the way God does” while the leaders are always wrong because they “think the way humans do”.
Mark 2:1-12
“Now some scribes were sitting there, and they thought to themselves, how can this man talk like that? He is being blasphemous. Who but God can forgive sins?”
By forgiving the man’s sins, Jesus is trying to heal the whole person (his body and his soul) and not just his body. But the scribes think Jesus is guilty of blasphemy because only God can forgive sins. They think Jesus is pretending to be God and have God’s authority. What your enemies think is sometimes very revealing.
This is one of my favorite scenes in scripture: Jesus demonstrates the error in their thinking by healing the man’s paralysis! Jesus knew forgiving his sins was forever, and therefore it was a much greater gift. This also foreshadows Jesus knowing what forgiveness was going to cost him.
Mark 2:15-17
“When the scribes and the Pharisees saw him eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?
When Jesus heard this he said to them: It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick. I came to call not the upright, but sinners”.
According to Jewish tradition, whoever eats with sinners becomes an unclean or impure person.
Jesus is saying it doesn’t help the needy to avoid associating with them. The two completely different focuses are readily apparent here.
Mark 2:18-20 John’s the Baptist disciples and the Pharisees were keeping a fast, when some people came and said:
Why is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not?”
The Jews were originally required to fast once a year during the Day of Atonement; then it became four times a year, and by the time of Jesus, the spiritual leaders were fasting twice a week. They considered this evidence of their superior holiness, and Jesus and his disciples did not fast at all.
Jesus explains it with the parable of the wedding, the new cloth on the old cloak, and the new wine in the old wineskins.
The old covenant cannot be repaired, therefore it must give way to the New Covenant, which is Jesus himself and the kingdom of God.
In Mark 2:23-28, “It happened that one Sabbath day he was taking a walk through the grain fields, and his disciples began to make a path by plucking ears of grain. And the Pharisees said to him: Look, why are they doing something on the Sabbath day that is forbidden?”
First he points out that in some circumstances human needs (hunger) are more important than law; people are more important than rules! This was completely opposite of the foundation and focus of their entire lives!
Then he says, the Sabbath was made for men, not men for the Sabbath; they have everything upside down and backwards! Furthermore, Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath: he has the authority to change the rules! He is claiming an authority the Pharisees and the scribes don’t have and could never have.
Mark 3:1-6:
“They were watching him to see if he would cure him on the Sabbath day, hoping for something to charge him with… The Pharisees went out and began at once to plot with the Herodians against him, discussing how to destroy him.”
Jesus challenges the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law because it lacked love and compassion. It made rules more important than people. It not only is not founded upon love, it does not even incorporate the law of love. Jesus instead does what is good and kind and loving: he meets that man’s need and heals him.
We still have this problem today. We also struggle with letting rules be more important than loving people. We want to be good and do what is right but we forget the bottom line.
Mark 3:22-30 “The scribes who had come down from Jerusalem were saying: Beelzebul is in him, and, it is through the prince of devils that he drives devils out…” The fact the scribes were making the effort to come up with some other explanation shows they were really happening.
Jesus responds with logic.
A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand—but this comment is not simply about Satan’s kingdom—this is about Israel and the kingdom of God.
Insulting the Holy Spirit produced a firm reprimand!
In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus gets really confrontational when he confronts the difference between God’s actual intents and purposes and human traditions.
“The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered round him and they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with unclean hands, that is, without washing them… Why do your disciples not respect the tradition of the elders but eat their food with unclean hands?”
Jesus is not against washing hands. Using the prophecy of Isaiah 29:13, Jesus response here is really tough!
He accuses the Pharisees and the scribes of being hypocrites: “You put aside the commandment of God to observe human traditions.” He goes on and proves his point. His “proofs” are unanswerable. He is right. He has completely exposed them for what they really are.
THE PRIMARY CONFLICT
When Jesus throws out the moneychangers, he explains later—in a cryptic manner—that he is asserting his authority over the Temple itself. HE is the new Temple.
They ask him, “What authority have you for acting like this? Or who gave you authority to act like this?” And his answer can be summed up in asserting He is the new eschatological Temple and He will be replacing the existing Temple with Himself. He is David’s Lord. He is the priest forever like Melchizadeck. His authority is his
Doc sometimes you make me sooooooo mad,
I could bite nails in half, today you got it 100% right!
1. I hope you start the clean up on aisle one, the Vatican, then we can move to the other three.
We must blow up the factory with locations around the world producing this sickness.
2. While you're at it why don't you guys do a full reformation?
3. Get rid of all the pagan stuff, move the Sabbath back to Saturday.
4. Stop calling clergy Father, and let priest marry.
5. You know, follow the gospel of Jesus, not the Popes, Jesuits, or traditions.
6. I see great similarities between the Sanhedrin and the Catholic church, a thirst for money and power above the flock.