A Blood-Soaked Path Through History

[BreadOfLife]

You are as stubborn as Dr. Sweitzer's detractors after she'd successfully extracted heme protein from supposed "80 million" year old dino bones - impossible if the bones were that old, but very much possible if the 6,000 year old Bible chronology is correct. When asked how much evidence would be enough to convince them that macro evolution was false, they said "there will never be enough evidence". Incidentally, the RCC has always maintained that Darwin's theory is correct, that first 11 chapters of Genesis are "allegorical", and that Protestantism is a "19th century heresy" - interesting bc it was in the 19th century that a major Protestantism movement the RCC has identified as the proverbial last days "problem child" arose and began turning the minds of Christians away from Darwinism and toward Creation week.

Not only are your comments in RED a complete and total LIE - you completely dodged the questions by introducing Albert Schwewitzer into the conversations. That's NOT what I asked.
I asked you the following:
Where does the Catholic Church teache that salvation is ONLY found in the Roman Rite. You might also wan to show evidence for a "Roman Catholic Church."
While you're at it - show me where God says that we are to enter into a "saving relationship" with Jesus.

Now -please stick to the conversation at hand and answer the questions.

 

[Phoneman777]

That kind of error is an anti-Catholic invention and not what the Church teaches. I've posted actual teaching at least twice (post #100, 111) but your irrational anger and hostility has you blinded, which makes any discussion with you pointless. You can't stop with your stupid flaming zingers. You have been flooding this thread with hostile post after hostile post and I didn't have time to expose "Fox's Book of Martyrs" deemed unreliable by real historians. It's as phony as...

OK, so you want to talk about the Eucharist? Stop with your stupid flaming zingers, it's a tactic you use whenever you are confronted with the truth. And what is the point when you ignore all my posts?

Would you like to start at the 1st century beliefs or are they too Catholic for you? Or how about the 15th century when the first time the teaching was opposed? A bit late in history don't you think? (which is why you are forced to tear down so it matches what you don't have) How about we start with John 6?

You don't believe what has been taught by Jesus and the Apostles about the Eucharist because you haven't enough faith. I will give you some links that you won't read because you just want to fight, argue and hurl flaming zingers so their is little point in discussing the Eucharist with you.

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-eucharist/

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

Christ in the Eucharist | Catholic Answers

Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.

John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.

Again and Again

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).

No Corrections

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?

Merely Figurative?

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical ood and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

Their Main Argument

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

Jesus' command to "eat my flesh" is a symbolic reference to the Word of God. The Word of God is the "bread of life" and Jesus is the "bread of life", therefore, Jesus met the confusion of the disciples over His statement with clarification: "flesh profiteth nothing...the WORDS I speak, they are spirit and they are life". The Eucharist is a pagan practice dragged into Christianity.

 

[Phoneman777]

Not only are your comments in RED a complete and total LIE - you completely dodged the questions by introducing Albert Schwewitzer into the conversations. That's NOT what I asked.
I asked you the following:
Where does the Catholic Church teache that salvation is ONLY found in the Roman Rite. You might also wan to show evidence for a "Roman Catholic Church."
While you're at it - show me where God says that we are to enter into a "saving relationship" with Jesus.

Now -please stick to the conversation at hand and answer the questions.

Not Albert, I was referring to Mary. Jesus said we are to "abide in the Vine", He Himself the vine and we the branches. He doesn't mention any other agents of mediation, just us and Him. It is the RCC which insists that the church is necessary for a believer to obtain that which Jesus offers freely. Millions of Christians killed for refusing to go along with the RCC are evidence enough to their past and yet current position on the issue.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Not Albert, I was referring to Mary.

Doesn't make a difference.
You still dodged the questions - so I'll ask them again:
Where does the Catholic Church teache that salvation is ONLY found in the Roman Rite?? You might also wan to show evidence for a "Roman Catholic Church."
While you're at it - show me where God says that we are to enter into a "saving relationship" with Jesus.

 

[brakelite]

Where does the Catholic Church teache that salvation is ONLY found in the Roman Rite. You might also wan to show evidence for a "Roman Catholic Church."
While you're at it - show me where God says that we are to enter into a "saving relationship" with Jesus.

Now -please stick to the conversation at hand and answer the questions.

"St. Thomas (Aquinas) . . says that the Roman Empire has not ceased, but is changed from the temporal into the spiritual. . . It was, then, the Apostolic Church, which, spreading throughout the nations, already combined together by the power of the heathen empire of Rome, quickened them with a new life. . . the temporal power in the old heathen empire of Rome, and the spiritual power in the supernatural kingdom of God met together. . . these two powers were blended and fused together; they became one authority, the emperor ruling from his throne within the sphere of his earthly jurisdiction, and the Supreme Pontiff ruling likewise from a throne of a higher sovereignty over the nations. . . the material power which once reigned in Rome [was] consecrated and sanctified by the investiture of the Vicar of Jesus Christ with temporal sovereignty over the city where he dwelt. And now for these twelve hundred years the peace, the perpetuity and faithfulness of the Christian civilization of Europe, has been owing solely in its principle to this consecration of the power and authority of the great empire of Rome, taken up of old, perpetuated, preserved, as I have said, by the salt which had been sprinkled from heaven, and continued in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, and in that order of Christian civilization of which he has been the creator. (Cardinal Manning, The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, pp. 123-128)

 

[brakelite]

Rev. Dr. William Francis Barry was a British Catholic priest, theologian, educator and writer. He served as vice president and professor of philosophy at Birmingham Theological College from 1873 to 1877. He wrote...
If we extend our view over the ruins of the Western Empire, such is the spectacle that meets us on every side. . . . the Pax Romana has ceased; it is universal confusion. But wherever a bishop holds his court, religion protects all that is left of
the ancient order. A new Rome ascends slowly above the horizon. It is the heir of the religion which it has overthrown; it assumes the outward splendours of the Caesars. . . . The emperor is no more. . . . But the Pontifex Maximus abides; he is
now the Vicar of Christ, offering the old civilization to the tribes of the north. He converts them to his creed, and they serve him as their Father and Judge supreme. This is the Papal Monarchy, which in its power and its decline overshadows the
history of Europe for a thousand years. (W. F. Barry, The Papal Monarchy, pp.45, 46)

The Catholic church not Roman? The Catholic church not derive it's power and authority from Rome? The Roman Catholic church is just that. Roman. In every sense of the word. Arguing on that point is simply a diversionary tactic because you have no other answers. Except the block feature of course, but you wouldn't resort to that BoL would you? After all, everyone else here can't do their homework so we should be easy to debate being so incapable of producing evidence. However I can fully understand your confidence when you and others demand evidence for the charges of murder and persecution against Christians by the RC church. The RCC did come out Victor over all those barbarian nations in the 6th century, and over the Waldensian Christians in the centuries following, as well the Celtic Christian press churches in Britain founded by Patrick and Dinooth and Columba etc., And we all know that the Victor's in these wars controls the press right? Wasn't just the people that were burnt or butchered was it. What they actually taught was destroyed as well. God forbid that we would discover that Arians actually believed in the divinity of Christ and that He was not a created being as is charged against Arius. God forbid that the followers of Arius, and those who converted to Christianity among the Gothic nations were in fact more orthodox than the Trinitarians of Alexandria and Rome. That just would not do. That would not do at all.

 

[epostle1]

As we all know and as many of our well established textbooks have argued for decades, the Inquisition was one of the most frightening and bloody chapters in Western history, Pope Pius XII was anti-Semitic and rightfully called “Hitler’s Pope,” the Dark Ages were a stunting of the progress of knowledge to be redeemed only by the secular spirit of the Enlightenment, and the religious Crusades were an early example of the rapacious Western thirst for riches and power. But what if these long held beliefs were all wrong?

In this stunning, powerful, and ultimately persuasive book, Rodney Stark, one of the most highly regarded sociologists of religion and bestselling author of The Rise of Christianity(HarperSanFrancisco 1997) argues that some of our most firmly held ideas about history, ideas that paint the Catholic Church in the least positive light are, in fact, fiction. Why have we held these wrongheaded ideas so strongly and for so long? And if our beliefs are wrong, what, in fact, is the truth?

In each chapter, Stark takes on a well-established anti-Catholic myth, gives a fascinating history of how each myth became the conventional wisdom, and presents a startling picture of the real truth. For example,

• Instead of the Spanish Inquisition being an anomaly of torture and murder of innocent people persecuted for “imaginary” crimes such as witchcraft and blasphemy, Stark argues that not only did the Spanish Inquisition spill very little blood, but it was a major force in support of moderation and justice.

• Instead of Pope Pius XII being apathetic or even helpful to the Nazi movement, such as to merit the title, “Hitler’s Pope,” Stark shows that the campaign to link Pope Pius XII to Hitler was initiated by the Soviet Union, presumably in hopes of neutralizing the Vatican in post-World War II affairs. Pope Pius XII was widely praised for his vigorous and devoted efforts to saving Jewish lives during the war.

• Instead of the Dark Ages being understood as a millennium of ignorance and backwardness inspired by the Catholic Church’s power, Stark argues that the whole notion of the “Dark Ages” was an act of pride perpetuated by anti-religious intellectuals who were determined to claim that theirs was the era of “Enlightenment.”

In the end, readers will not only have a more accurate history of the Catholic Church, they will come to understand why it became unfairly maligned for so long. Bearing False Witness is a compelling and sobering account of how egotism and ideology often work together to give us a false truth.

note: Rodney Stark has a Ph.D. in sociology and is NOT a Catholic.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Rev. Dr. William Francis Barry was a British Catholic priest, theologian, educator and writer. He served as vice president and professor of philosophy at Birmingham Theological College from 1873 to 1877. He wrote...
If we extend our view over the ruins of the Western Empire, such is the spectacle that meets us on every side. . . . the Pax Romana has ceased; it is universal confusion. But wherever a bishop holds his court, religion protects all that is left of
the ancient order. A new Rome ascends slowly above the horizon. It is the heir of the religion which it has overthrown; it assumes the outward splendours of the Caesars. . . . The emperor is no more. . . . But the Pontifex Maximus abides; he is
now the Vicar of Christ, offering the old civilization to the tribes of the north. He converts them to his creed, and they serve him as their Father and Judge supreme. This is the Papal Monarchy, which in its power and its decline overshadows the
history of Europe for a thousand years. (W. F. Barry, The Papal Monarchy, pp.45, 46)

The Catholic church not Roman? The Catholic church not derive it's power and authority from Rome? The Roman Catholic church is just that. Roman. In every sense of the word. Arguing on that point is simply a diversionary tactic because you have no other answers. Except the block feature of course, but you wouldn't resort to that BoL would you? After all, everyone else here can't do their homework so we should be easy to debate being so incapable of producing evidence. However I can fully understand your confidence when you and others demand evidence for the charges of murder and persecution against Christians by the RC church. The RCC did come out Victor over all those barbarian nations in the 6th century, and over the Waldensian Christians in the centuries following, as well the Celtic Christian press churches in Britain founded by Patrick and Dinooth and Columba etc., And we all know that the Victor's in these wars controls the press right? Wasn't just the people that were burnt or butchered was it. What they actually taught was destroyed as well. God forbid that we would discover that Arians actually believed in the divinity of Christ and that He was not a created being as is charged against Arius. God forbid that the followers of Arius, and those who converted to Christianity among the Gothic nations were in fact more orthodox than the Trinitarians of Alexandria and Rome. That just would not do. That would not do at all.

And even if Dr. Barry was infallible - which he certainly was not - YOU emphasized the wrong part of his quote. the true emphasis is in RED above.

YOUR problem is similar to the problems with MANY anti-Catholics and other historically-bankrupt people.
Over the centuries - the Church did usurp and even hijack some pagan symbology only to "Christianize" it. The wedding ring is a GREAT example that is used by Catholics and Protestants alike - yet, it has its roots in paganism. The Catholic Church, however, laid Christian symbolism to it - FOREVER CHANGING its meaning. To this day - you NEVER hear about the pagan symbolism of the wedding ring anymore - and that is due to the Catholic Church.

The same is true for the obelisk in St. Peter's Square, which has a CROSS on top of it - symbolizing Christianity's victory over paganism.

I suggest you do some homework . . .

 

[Philip James]

Capture every thought for Christ...

 

[brakelite]

And even if Dr. Barry was infallible - which he certainly was not - YOU emphasized the wrong part of his quote. the true emphasis is in RED above.

YOUR problem is similar to the problems with MANY anti-Catholics and other historically-bankrupt people.
Over the centuries - the Church did usurp and even hijack some pagan symbology only to "Christianize" it. The wedding ring is a GREAT example that is used by Catholics and Protestants alike - yet, it has its roots in paganism. The Catholic Church, however, laid Christian symbolism to it - FOREVER CHANGING its meaning. To this day - you NEVER hear about the pagan symbolism of the wedding ring anymore - and that is due to the Catholic Church.

The same is true for the obelisk in St. Peter's Square, which has a CROSS on top of it - symbolizing Christianity's victory over paganism.

I suggest you do some homework . . .

"We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water; asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments; the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleisen, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the church." (Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 373)

No where did Jesus instruct His church to adopt pagan concepts, ideas, and symbols and 'baptise' them into the church. No where. Even the title itself, 'pontiff maximus', is Roman belonging to the emperor. And you still object that your church isn't a Roman church????? Stop farting into the wind BoL.
God does not ask His church to adopt pagan concepts and 'Christianise ' them. The result of that is a mixing of the sacred with the profane. A weak combination as revealed in the miry clay/iron of the statue in Daniel 2...a mix that can never cleave to each other. Marriages between Christians and pagans are forbidden for the same reason. The call is to come out of her my people"...not adopt her ways and rename them. The result of Catholic practice of permitting the continuation of pagan practices in the church can be readily seen in places like Haiti with santaria mixed with Catholicism...in NZ with the old pagan beliefs of Maori mixed with Catholicism...in S America with the pagan parades and idolatry mixed...

"But the elevation of Christianity as the religion of the state presents also an opposite aspect to our contemplation. It involved great risk of degeneracy to the church. The Roman state, with its laws, institutions, and usages, was still deeply rooted in heathenism, and could not be transformed by a magical stroke. The christianizing of the state amounted therefore in great measure to a paganizing and secularizing of the church. The world overcame the church, as much as the church overcame the world, and the temporal gain of Christianity was in many respects cancelled by spiritual loss. The mass of the Roman Empire was baptized only with water, not with the Spirit of the gospel, and it smuggled heathen manners and practices into the sanctuary under a new name. The very combination of the cross with the military ensign by Constantine was the most doubtful omen, portending an unhappy mixture of the temporal and the spiritual powers." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, p. 93, bold is mine).

Sun worship is seen throughout Catholicism. Here you see below a view of the piazza or plaza at the Vatican, also known as St. Peter's square. The papal palace is on the right edge of the photo. The large eight-rayed sun wheel design, symbolic of Ishtar, is immediately noticeable. Look closely in the center of the wheel. What you see there is an obelisk, a genuine Egyptian obelisk shipped from Heliopolis to Rome by the Roman emperor Caligula. The obelisk is, of course, a phallic symbol, but it also was used in sun worship. It is claimed that the word 'obelisk' literally means 'Baal's shaft' or 'Baal's organ of reproduction'.
Another Egyptian obelisk that stands in the square of St. John Lateran is the largest in existence. Originally carved during the reign of Pharaoh Thutmoses III, it stood in the Temple of Amon in Thebes (Karnak), but was removed to Rome by emperor Constantius (A.D. 317-361), and placed in the Circus Maximus. In 1587 Pope Sixtus V unearthed the fallen, broken and long forgotten obelisk and had it repaired and placed in the Piazza S. Giovanni in Laterano. Interestingly enough, it is possible that Moses saw this very obelisk when he was in Egypt. Now this obelisk, meant to honor the sun god, stands beside what Catholics call the supreme "Mother of all Churches", the official cathedra of the bishop of Rome, the Pope, which brings to mind Revelation 17: 5 and the apostate Mother Church, Mystery Babylon, the mother of harlots, who stands accused of fornication, a mixing of the sacred with the profane, truth with error.

Above is the huge processional monstrance of the Cathedral of Toledo, Spain, made of gilded solid silver and solid gold, being paraded through the streets for public display on the festival of Corpus Christi. It is said to contain 18 kg (40 pounds) of gold, and 183 kg (400 pounds) of silver, for a total weight nearing 1/4 ton of precious metals.

The great monstrance of the cathedral of Toledo, which is more than twelve feet high, and the construction of which occupied in all more than 100 years, is adorned with 260 statuettes, one of the largest of which is said to be made of the gold brought by Columbus from the New World.

The Roman Catholic Church even admits the Monstrance to be a sunburst:

"During the baroque period, it took on a rayed form of a sun-monstrance with a circular window surrounded by a silver or gold frame with rays."

Source: The Dictionary of the Liturgy by Rev. Jovian P. Lang, OFM., published and copyrighted © 1989 by Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, ISBN 0-89942-273-X, page 436.

And of course the greatest mix of the profane with the sacred is the establishment of Sunday as Rome's pet day of honour to the sun god. Christmas day, December 25th, of course is another, Constantine's own
The Winter Solstice - Day of the Sun's birth

[p. 89] A very general observance required that on the 25th of December the birth of the “new Sun” should be celebrated, when after the winter solstice the days began to lengthen and the “invincible” star triumphed again over darkness. It is certain that the date of this Natalis Invicti was selected by the Church as the commemoration of the Nativity of Jesus, which was previously confused with the Epiphany. In appointing this day, universally marked by pious rejoicing, which were as far as possible retained,—for instance the old chariot-races were preserved,—the ecclesiastical authorities purified in some degree the customs which they could not abolish. This substitution, which took place at Rome probably between 354 and 360, was adopted throughout the Empire, and that is why we still celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December.

The pre-eminence assigned to the dies Solis also certainly [p. 90] contributed to the general recognition of Sunday as a holiday. This is connected with a more important fact, namely, the adoption of the week by all European nations.

Source: Franz Cumont, Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans (reprint; New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1960), pp. 89, 90.

 

[brakelite]

Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:



Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

 

[Phoneman777]

Doesn't make a difference.
You still dodged the questions - so I'll ask them again:
Where does the Catholic Church teache that salvation is ONLY found in the Roman Rite?? You might also wan to show evidence for a "Roman Catholic Church."
While you're at it - show me where God says that we are to enter into a "saving relationship" with Jesus.

The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means: "outside the Church there is no salvation". The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."

Dead Bread, this is not Biblical. Salvation of a person comes through his surrender to Jesus' authority over him as both his Savior and Lord. It the fruit of a PERSONAL encounter with Jesus through the Holy Spirit's impress that we should turn from rebellion and surrender to God - an act of faith that is wholly fully apart from the church. Priest Jorge says a personal relationship with Jesus outside the church is dangerous, which is a foolish statement, seeing that as soon as a third party butts in, the operative word "personal" which obviously denotes "just me" or "just me and you" ceases to be and becomes "just me and you and the priest or pope".

Where are we told that all that is necessary is a saving relationship? Paul tells Timothy that the WORD OF GOD is able to make him "wise unto salvation". Is not JESUS CHRIST and THE WORD OF GOD one and the same? Just what sort of mental gymnastics does one have to perform to conclude that "the church" is part of Paul's counsel to him when Paul makes no mention of the church?

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means: "outside the Church there is no salvation". The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."

Dead Bread, this is not Biblical. Salvation of a person comes through his surrender to Jesus' authority over him as both his Savior and Lord. It the fruit of a PERSONAL encounter with Jesus through the Holy Spirit's impress that we should turn from rebellion and surrender to God - an act of faith that is wholly fully apart from the church. Priest Jorge says a personal relationship with Jesus outside the church is dangerous, which is a foolish statement, seeing that as soon as a third party butts in, the operative word "personal" which obviously denotes "just me" or "just me and you" ceases to be and becomes "just me and you and the priest or pope".

Where are we told that all that is necessary is a saving relationship? Paul tells Timothy that the WORD OF GOD is able to make him "wise unto salvation". Is not JESUS CHRIST and THE WORD OF GOD one and the same? Just what sort of mental gymnastics does one have to perform to conclude that "the church" is part of Paul's counsel to him when Paul makes no mention of the church?

First of all - you failed to answer the question.
NOWHERE does the Catholic Church teach that salvation is ONLY found in the Roman Rite. This is a LIE of your own concoction.

Secondly - Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a BIBLICAL statement.
YOUR problem is that you don't have a clue as to what Christ's Church is. Allow me to educate you . . .

- Jesus established ONE Church (Matt. 16:16-19). He prayed fervently that this Church remain ONE - as He and the Father are ONE (John 17:20-23). There is NO other.
- Jesus is Truth itself (John 14:6).
- Jesus promised His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide her to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).
- The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
- The Church is the Body of Christ and He is the Head (1 Cor. 12:12-31, Eph. 4:3-6, Col. 1:8).
- The Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).
- Jesus identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).
- Jesus gave the Church supreme Authority on earth and whatever it ordains on earth is also ordained in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23).

In other words, my Scripturally-illiterate friend- Christ's Church, which is His BODY - is CHRIST on earth.

We are saved BY the blood of Christ.
We are saved THROUGH His Body, His Church.

As to your final lie (in RED) - the Pope never stated that having a personal relationship with Jesus was "dangerous". He stated that CLAIMING to have a "personal" relationship with Him, while rejecting His Church is dangerous.

Looks like YOU need to sit down and read 1 Cor. 12 all the way through . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

"We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water; asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments; the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleisen, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the church." (Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 373)

No where did Jesus instruct His church to adopt pagan concepts, ideas, and symbols and 'baptise' them into the church. No where. Even the title itself, 'pontiff maximus', is Roman belonging to the emperor. And you still object that your church isn't a Roman church????? Stop farting into the wind BoL.
God does not ask His church to adopt pagan concepts and 'Christianise ' them. The result of that is a mixing of the sacred with the profane. A weak combination as revealed in the miry clay/iron of the statue in Daniel 2...a mix that can never cleave to each other. Marriages between Christians and pagans are forbidden for the same reason. The call is to come out of her my people"...not adopt her ways and rename them. The result of Catholic practice of permitting the continuation of pagan practices in the church can be readily seen in places like Haiti with santaria mixed with Catholicism...in NZ with the old pagan beliefs of Maori mixed with Catholicism...in S America with the pagan parades and idolatry mixed...

"But the elevation of Christianity as the religion of the state presents also an opposite aspect to our contemplation. It involved great risk of degeneracy to the church. The Roman state, with its laws, institutions, and usages, was still deeply rooted in heathenism, and could not be transformed by a magical stroke. The christianizing of the state amounted therefore in great measure to a paganizing and secularizing of the church. The world overcame the church, as much as the church overcame the world, and the temporal gain of Christianity was in many respects cancelled by spiritual loss. The mass of the Roman Empire was baptized only with water, not with the Spirit of the gospel, and it smuggled heathen manners and practices into the sanctuary under a new name. The very combination of the cross with the military ensign by Constantine was the most doubtful omen, portending an unhappy mixture of the temporal and the spiritual powers." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, p. 93, bold is mine).

Sun worship is seen throughout Catholicism. Here you see below a view of the piazza or plaza at the Vatican, also known as St. Peter's square. The papal palace is on the right edge of the photo. The large eight-rayed sun wheel design, symbolic of Ishtar, is immediately noticeable. Look closely in the center of the wheel. What you see there is an obelisk, a genuine Egyptian obelisk shipped from Heliopolis to Rome by the Roman emperor Caligula. The obelisk is, of course, a phallic symbol, but it also was used in sun worship. It is claimed that the word 'obelisk' literally means 'Baal's shaft' or 'Baal's organ of reproduction'.View attachment 2473
Another Egyptian obelisk that stands in the square of St. John Lateran is the largest in existence. Originally carved during the reign of Pharaoh Thutmoses III, it stood in the Temple of Amon in Thebes (Karnak), but was removed to Rome by emperor Constantius (A.D. 317-361), and placed in the Circus Maximus. In 1587 Pope Sixtus V unearthed the fallen, broken and long forgotten obelisk and had it repaired and placed in the Piazza S. Giovanni in Laterano. Interestingly enough, it is possible that Moses saw this very obelisk when he was in Egypt. Now this obelisk, meant to honor the sun god, stands beside what Catholics call the supreme "Mother of all Churches", the official cathedra of the bishop of Rome, the Pope, which brings to mind Revelation 17: 5 and the apostate Mother Church, Mystery Babylon, the mother of harlots, who stands accused of fornication, a mixing of the sacred with the profane, truth with error.
View attachment 2475
Above is the huge processional monstrance of the Cathedral of Toledo, Spain, made of gilded solid silver and solid gold, being paraded through the streets for public display on the festival of Corpus Christi. It is said to contain 18 kg (40 pounds) of gold, and 183 kg (400 pounds) of silver, for a total weight nearing 1/4 ton of precious metals.

The great monstrance of the cathedral of Toledo, which is more than twelve feet high, and the construction of which occupied in all more than 100 years, is adorned with 260 statuettes, one of the largest of which is said to be made of the gold brought by Columbus from the New World.
View attachment 2477
The Roman Catholic Church even admits the Monstrance to be a sunburst:

"During the baroque period, it took on a rayed form of a sun-monstrance with a circular window surrounded by a silver or gold frame with rays."

Source: The Dictionary of the Liturgy by Rev. Jovian P. Lang, OFM., published and copyrighted © 1989 by Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, ISBN 0-89942-273-X, page 436.

And of course the greatest mix of the profane with the sacred is the establishment of Sunday as Rome's pet day of honour to the sun god. Christmas day, December 25th, of course is another, Constantine's own
The Winter Solstice - Day of the Sun's birth

[p. 89] A very general observance required that on the 25th of December the birth of the “new Sun” should be celebrated, when after the winter solstice the days began to lengthen and the “invincible” star triumphed again over darkness. It is certain that the date of this Natalis Invicti was selected by the Church as the commemoration of the Nativity of Jesus, which was previously confused with the Epiphany. In appointing this day, universally marked by pious rejoicing, which were as far as possible retained,—for instance the old chariot-races were preserved,—the ecclesiastical authorities purified in some degree the customs which they could not abolish. This substitution, which took place at Rome probably between 354 and 360, was adopted throughout the Empire, and that is why we still celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December.

The pre-eminence assigned to the dies Solis also certainly [p. 90] contributed to the general recognition of Sunday as a holiday. This is connected with a more important fact, namely, the adoption of the week by all European nations.

Source: Franz Cumont, Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans (reprint; New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1960), pp. 89, 90.

And WHY is there a pagan obelisk in St, Peter's Square?? Take a look at the TOP of the obelisk and tell me what you see.
It is a CROSS, which symbolizes the victory of Christianity over Roman paganism, Einstein.

As for the monstrance - the "rays" are symbolic of the glory of GOD - not Solis.
YOUR objection to the fact that it is made of precious metals is the SAME objection that Judas had when the woman broke an expensive jar of perfumed oil and poured it on Jesus's head. He, too complained because he perceived as a "waste" - until Jesus chastised him for it.

In the Catholic Church, we offer the very best of what we have to God. - just as the penitent woman did.

As for Sunday and Christmas on December 25th - you really need to do your homework. December 25th is NOT Winter Solstice and Sunday celebration is straight out of the New Testament.

Finally - when you use words like "Probably" as some kind of historical "proof" - it just shows how desperate you are.
Angry, hateful and ignorant is NO way to go through life, son . . .

 

[brakelite]

And WHY is there a pagan obelisk in St, Peter's Square?? Take a look at the TOP of the obelisk and tell me what you see.
It is a CROSS, which symbolizes the victory of Christianity over Roman paganism, Einstein.

As for the monstrance - the "rays" are symbolic of the glory of GOD - not Solis.
YOUR objection to the fact that it is made of precious metals is the SAME objection that Judas had when the woman broke an expensive jar of perfumed oil and poured it on Jesus's head. He, too complained because he perceived as a "waste" - until Jesus chastised him for it.

In the Catholic Church, we offer the very best of what we have to God. - just as the penitent woman did.

As for Sunday and Christmas on December 25th - you really need to do your homework. December 25th is NOT Winter Solstice and Sunday celebration is straight out of the New Testament.

Finally - when you use words like "Probably" as some kind of historical "proof" - it just shows how desperate you are.
Angry, hateful and ignorant is NO way to go through life, son . . .

So wearing a scapula or a cross round my neck while committing adultery make everything okay right?

 

[epostle1]

So wearing a scapula or a cross round my neck while committing adultery make everything okay right?

Must you be so insulting?, or are you really that ignorant?

"...This is all the more true of sacramentals (things like holy water, scapulars, blessings, miraculous medal, genuflection, etc.), which depend entirely on the inner state of the one using or receiving them. Intent, sincerity, motivation, piety, and suchlike are all supremely important in the Catholic life.

The scapular will not “work” for a person who neglects the pursuit of righteousness and obedience and views it as a “magic charm” (which is occultic superstition) rather than a Catholic sacramental. A piece of cloth cannot rescind the normal duties of the Catholic life.

Nor is God some sort of celestial “vending machine.” He wants our hearts; he wants us: not meaningless outward obedience without the proper interior motivation, in love, and by His grace. Sacraments help us, but we must do our part, too.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/biblical-evidence-for-sacramentalism

 

[brakelite]

So the cross on top of the pagan phallus in St Peters square is a sign that in the heart of he who placed it there paganism has been overcome by Church? Or that paganism is the foundation stone of Church?

 

[brakelite]

And what of the phallus in front of St. John Lateran... Does that have a cross on top of it?
They are a holy sanctified penis dedicated to the service of mankind?

 

[epostle1]

The following is from a book written by a non-Catholic Egyptologist. Notice there is no explanation as to why this particular obelisk is the only one in the world that has no (previous) inscriptions on it, and has never been broken.

The Obelisk in the Piazza di San Pietro

The obelisks of the Piazza San Pietro, Piazza dell’ Esuilino, and the Piazza del Quirinale are all uninscribed. Their dates, provenances, and the reasons they were left uninscribed are not known…Neither Flinders Petrie, nor any other excavator working in the ruins of Heliopolis, has ever found an obelisk, or even a small fragment of an obelisk, that was uninscribed. The sovereigns of ancient Egypt were ever eager to decorate monuments with their own names and with phrases proclaiming their own glory, no matter what the size of the monument. The only undecorated obelisks in Egypt were unfinished ones abandoned in their quarries, and in fact one of these decoration was already in progress. More probably, the uninscribed obelisks were quarried in Egypt by the Roman emperors expressly to be taken to Rome, although it is possible that they were left incomplete because of the untimely death of the pharaoh.

The Obelisk in the Piazza di San Pietro is important chiefly by its surroundings.. It is made of red granite and stands 25.37 meters high. It was erected in the Julian Forum in Alexandria by order of Augustus and remained their until 37 A.D. when the Emperor Caligula ordered the forum demolished and the obelisk transferred to Rome. It was then erected in the Vatican Circus, and there it remained until its removal to the square before the Basilica of St. Peter (1586). Legend has it that in the Vatican Circus innumerable Christians, including St. Peter and that the reason this obelisk was not later overturned as were all the others in Rome was that was looked upon as the witness to the martyrdom of St. Peter.

Pope Sixtus V appointed engineer Domenico Fontana to move the obelisk from the Vatican Circus

April 28, 1586, Fontana and his men attended Mass at 2:AM, and later offered public prayers for the success of this feat.

Dedication ceremonies, Mass, and a procession with the entire papal court went to the obelisk. More prayers were offered and the obelisk was purified, and surmounted with a cross.
Obelisks of the World, by Labib Habachi, Scribner’s Sons, 1974, page 74-75

(Former Chief Inspector of Antiquities Labib Habachi is an Egyptian archeologist who has published several books on Egyptology, as well as articles in many journals.)

I would like to add here, that on the top of this Christianized pagan symbol, is a cross. Inside this cross, is a relic of the true cross. Here we have a stone monument that stood in the presence of hundreds of the earliest Christian martyrs containing a relic of the true cross. To accuse us of paganism is an insult to the deaths of the martyrs who refused to pay homage to Roman gods.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So wearing a scapula or a cross round my neck while committing adultery make everything okay right?

Nope - and NOBODY ever said it would.
That's yet another one of your anti-Catholic whoppers . . .