Catholics are the "new Black" (and related concerns)

So you would believe the things the Bishop of Rome (Clement) said then?

He wrote an excellent letter to the Church in Corinth (over 600 miles away from Rome) where he ordered them to restore their clergy to their positions.

Clement has the added legitimacy of being mentioned by Paul in the New Testament as someone whose “name is in the book of life”.

Any link I provide would address scripture by the way in addition to history.

Written not copied and added too. Find when John wrote Revelation. That is the cut off.

catholi doctrine I consider false and it does not apply.

So you don’t believe a disciple of Paul that is listed by Paul in the New Testament as a Christian?

I dont believe anything not scriptual. Most catholic doctrine was written way beyond the lifespan of the apostles. The Mary doctrine came into being after the year 1000. There is no basis for it in scripture, none. I could be wrong but i believe nothing about Mary was written after Acts during pentecost. Most catholic doctrine was made up centuries after the crucifixion. I have a few commentaries I use but none are God breathed. They are opinion, just like what catholics call tradition.

If you only believe what is in scripture, then how do you know what the canon of Scripture is? You get the canon outside of Scripture. None of Scripture says what the canon is. No Apostle wrote an inspired table of contents.

Your exact canon you go by was not proclaimed by any church until over 1600 years after Christ’s death.

There was much discussion among scholars over what books are cannon and which arnt. Do you not think God can get his word to people? If Mary was ever virgin, assumed and co-redeemer wouldnt that be in the bible? I mean thats pretty important stuff to be made no mention of.

My point is that you say you only rely on the infallible scriptures but you can’t accomplish that without those same scriptures telling you what the scriptures are. This is one reason why Sola Scriptura makes no sense, you have to go outside scripture to know.

Unless, God provided for his people another way to know what God’s word is. That way was his Church and Sacred Tradition (that Paul talked about), the one he established 2000 years ago. That is exactly what happened. His Church revealed that truth for us.

For you perhaps. Enjoy your day.

Someone on theforums (can't find theperson) wanted to know about artificial b control, why the RCC says its wrong...

This is from a thread I just posted


From The Wanderer (a Traditional Catholic magazine)

This may have been written by a priest (?) maybe Fr Altman (not sure) whose words are in quotes. (My comments are in brackets).



“No one is entitled to an ‘opinion’ that endangers eternal souls. No one.

… Jesus warned ‘Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul’; rather be afraid of the one who can destroy both.. in Gehenna.’ In other words, be very much afraid of someone’s opinions that differ from Jesus who is the Way the Truth and the Life.”

The author talks of synodalism by which the unity of truth is handed off to bishops in various geographical areas, creating relativism based on personal opinion. He gives the Winnipeg Statement as an example: 90 of 96 Canadian bishops published this, saying a Catholic, based on his/her opinion could choose to act outside of the unchanged/unchangeable directive against artificial birth control. This Statement said that if people have sincerely tried but failed to adhere to this directive from the Church “they may be safely assured that" the person “does so in good conscience.” The Wanderer author says rightly that this Statement bears false witness, that the authors of it are false shepherds. He says that the very word Artificial (as opposed to created-by-God) tells us what we need to know.

“It is not from God” but from sinful man. Nobody… has the right to personal interpretation of a thing as [being] sin or not sin. The definition of sin is given to us by God… alone."

Another example: John Kerry when he was running for president 2004. The question came up whether priests could give Communion to a “notorious proponent of the slaughter of innocents in the womb [Kerry]…" As then-head of The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith Cardinal Ratzinger (future pope Benedict XVI) wrote… ‘[N]o one shall give Holy Communion to politicians holding views like Kerry’s.'”

Fake-priest McCarrick misrepresented the truth of the letter from Ratzinger saying that the decision is up to each individual bishop [there are 195 dioceses in the US]. The author calls them false witnesses/liars. “What is true in any of the 195 dioceses is true in all…” [Gee, do ha think?]

The author mentions the situation in South Carolina where a priest denied Biden Communion and his bishop stood behind him, while [fake Catholic] Wilton Gregory in DC chose to give Biden Communion.

“Both sides cannot be right,” the author reminds us. “No bishop… may change the unchanged/unchangeable Truth…”

I don't recall Clement being mentioned in the NT... Do you know exactly where? or even just which Book?

in other words, nowhere in the Scriptures does itSAY

that Scripture is all we need

so this is ... sola scriptura is.. a self-refuting belief

Philippians Ch 4
3 And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Thank you...

sounds like u are on the ball

Did u read my post #130?

just wondering your thoughts on it..

I did.
Here’s how I understand this issue:
The only way you can use artificial birth control and it not be a sin is if you are ignorant of the fact it is a sin. You can’t commit a sin if you truly didn’t know what you were doing is sinful. The Gospel of John makes that clear, we are held accountable once we know the truth.

Anyone that knows what our Church’s official teaching is on artificial birth control, scoffs at it, and uses it anyway is living in grave sin. Priests should hold that line in my opinion, that’s their job.

Regarding Clement, it was a chilling effect for me when I realized he existed and who Clement was. Ignatius even more so. I was still Protestant at that time. The history of Christianity became too much for me to ignore.

Except what you say does not appear in scripture.

James presided over the council, not Peter. And the office James had was not of a mediator. Nor does the text say that. Peter is ἀπόστολος, or apostle meaning one who is sent. The words ἀπόστολος and μεσίτης are not synonyms.
Acts 15:1-19

The text does not say that. Ananias is a servant of God to be sure, but is in no way functioning as a mediator. Where is the legal dispute? This is a non sensical statement that lacks any logical reasoning. This is spitballing and seeing what sticks.

Show me in scripture where one baptizing another is referred to as a mediator. Scripture gets to define terms not you.

The word mediator has a specific meaning that doesn't fit your theology. It has a legal connotation in every sense that the Greek word appears in the NT,

Your logical leap from the Greek term to where you can shoehorn in your tradition is so wide Evel Knievel couldn't make that jump. Everything you wrote is example of eisegesis (reading into the text things that are not there based on your subjective presuppositions) as you are desperate to defend a tradition that has zero scriptural warrant. So I ask one more time, show us a place besides the six places I already showed you where the word μεσίτης appears in the NT.

Well, lets do take a look at 1 Clement. First to call Clement pope is anachronistic because there is not a monarchial episcopate in Rome at this time. There does seem to be a plurality of Elders (co-presbyters).

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions,2 that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate4 those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.


Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 17). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

Not exactly. Corinth had asked for assistance in resolving the dispute.

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.3


Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 5). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.