The Catholic Church gets put down a lot, but it was all that could help

[StanJ]

obviously you have not read the Bible

Mt 7:13

Lk 13:24

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. Mt 7:13

Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Lk 13:24

Obviously you open your mouth before engaging your brain, but why don't you show us exactly where in these two verses Jesus uses the word heaven?

 

[tom55]

Is this a common practice of yours? Twisting what someone says in order to make a point or sound clever? Please quote me where I said early Christian churches did not have Bibles.

I never said that you said that. So now who is twisting words?? I simply asked the question: "I wonder how the early Christians got to heaven since they didn't have a the bible in their Churches?"

That question is based on YOUR statements of the Bible was never taught in the Catholic Church you attended and in all your 24 years as Catholic the only Bible you ever saw was the one sitting on the bookshelf of your Anglican (Episcopalian) grandmother's home. So my question is how did the early Christians get to heaven if they didn't have a bible? If, as you allege, there was no bible in the Church you attended does this mean that the Catholics that attended that church were not saved? They are not Christian because they didn't have the bible in their hand while in church? And which bible would be the right one to have to make them true Christians? The one with 73 or 66 books? The last book of the bible (Revelation) wasn't written until after all the other Apostles died. They didn't have the bible in their hands or in their church gatherings. Did they go to heaven?

Furthermore, it seems you are alluding to the possibility that your parents (or whoever raised you) were very devout Catholics since they were strict about weekly attendance at mass every Sunday, strict regular attendance at confession, you serving several years as an altar boy and regular attendance at the "stations of the cross". Do you think whoever took you to that Catholic Church went to heaven in spite of the fact they were such devout Catholics?

And if I say that there are true Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, why turn that into an 'authoritarian' statement, as if I am pronouncing judgment and condemnation upon any individual?

How can their be "true Christians in the Roman Catholic Church" if they are following the teachings, dogma or doctrine of the anti-Christ? How can one be a "true Christian" but follow anti-Christian (Catholic) beliefs? That's like saying KKK members are good people it's just the leaders of the KKK and their teachings are wrong. That doesn't make any sense.

Did not Jesus say that in the church there would be tares and wheat growing together?

He did say that. Maybe the tares are the Protestants and the wheat is our Catholic brothers. Is that a possibility?

You are clearly placing far too much credence on so called 'church authority'. I find that very interesting coming from someone who doesn't claim to actually be a Catholic, but is willing to defend them and their self appointed 'authority'. Who are you precisely? Are you a Jesuit pretending to be Protestant? A priest in disguise?

Who am I precisely? I am a person who looks at things logically. How can a Protestant, who share SOME of the same beliefs that Catholics share, say that their Protestant church has authority and is right but the Catholic Church is wrong even though they share some of the same beliefs? Or how is it that a Protestant church that does not share ANY of the beliefs of the RCC has authority and is right in it's interpretation of scripture? Why are they right and the RCC wrong? Who has THAT authority? Brakelite?

When you are able to defend Biblically that Rome has spiritual authority over believers, then, and only then, will I answer those 5 questions.

Since you are unable to defend biblically ANY Protestant church that has spiritual authority over believers then you should answer my questions! By your authority you have made the assertion that the RCC does not have authority. Where do you get that authority? If you at least TRIED to answer my questions you would see that your theory is not logical. I feel like you already know this, however, you can't admit it.

The problem we have is that we are discussing two different religions here. Catholicism , and Christianity.

The problem we have is that you are saying two different things. I thought you believed that there are true Christians in the Roman Catholic Church? Are you now saying they are not Christians? If Catholicism is not Christianity then individual Catholics are not Christian.

Catholicism has as its foundation for faith and practice the magisterium. A council of mortal men who decide for millions what they should believe for salvation.

Who decided what brakelit should believe? Brakelite? What is brakelites foundation for faith and practice? Brakelite? Does that not make YOU your own magisterium? Are you your own council and what YOU decide it takes for salvation is infallible? Are you infallible? Or are you a member of a Protestant church? If so, why did you let those mortal men decide what you should believe? How do you know the mortal men of Protestantism are right and the men of the RCC are wrong? As Protestants we don't let a council of mortal men decide what we believe for salvation. WE decide what we believe and then find the church that's fits our interpretation of scripture. That makes scripture more about ME than HIM!

They get their information from scripture, and tradition, but their decisions trump both!

I thought the Catholic Church and all the Catholics you knew didn't have a bible and it was never taught when you went to church? How can they get their information from Scripture if they don't have a bible?

Now you can trust your eternal destiny to them if you want, me, I'm going with the following alternative. Christianity. Christianity, the real version, trusts in the word of God. Period.

And who has "the real version" of Christianity? You? Baptist? Catholics? Methodist? Mormons? A group of 5-20 people meeting in the basement of a house interpreting scripture? All having their own interpretation of what it takes to be a real Christian. Your statement isn't logical. Who do you say has the real version of Christianity? Choose carefully because according to you "your eternal destiny" depends on it?

Though pastors, prelates, priests, bishops, or popes, ecclesiastical councils, or theological seminaries and professors with letters after their names to prove their educational prowess would meet with me and tell me what to believe and think, I will demand from each of them without favortism or partiality a "thus saith the Lord" in support of their teaching. Yeah, I know. You have said it several times, that protestantism is made up of 1000s of different sects all claiming "truth". And of course you are absolutely correct. So what? The Bible, the Word of God, God Himself, still has promised, despite the obvious failure of many to adhere to the conditions of those promises, to send His Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, to anyone, anyone, and quote: when He, the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak, and He will show you things to come. John 16:13.

"So what?" Seriously? Thousands of different sects all claiming to have the truth simply means that none of them have the truth. And if no one has the truth then that means the bible isn't true. Only brakelite has the truth? Furthermore it seems you don't like the idea of a hierarchical church. In scripture the NT sets up a hierarchy for the Christian Church. Are you saying you are against a hierarchical church?

How is their an "....obvious failure of many to adhere to the conditions of those promises..."? Obvious to who? You? Are you claiming authority as to what is an "obvious failure"?

So that so called authority that Rome claims to be the sole interpreter of scripture is a usurpation of the authority of Christ in His promise to individuals. It is the very Spirit of Antichrist.

I think we can agree that the authority and truth of Jesus teachings was passed to his Apostles.The Apostles passed it to the next generation and told them to entrust to it reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. Jesus said to them, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" and that what He taught will be taught for all generations. I suspect, based on scripture, that God did not allow that truth and authority to end. Theologians call that Apostolic Succession. So my question to you is; According to brakelite in what generation did Jesus authority and the truth written in scripture end? Jesus and scripture are very clear that His authority and truth will live thru all generations and you allege that the RCC does not have that authority. So I ask you; Who does?

 

[ScaliaFan]

Dear ScaliaFan,

You have no enemy here. Unlike some on this forum I do not believe the Catholics are not Christians. If you are a well read Catholic you also know that the RCC teaches that even Protestants will go to heaven even though some Protestant churches teach that no Catholic is going to heaven.

Please take my advise and tone down your rhetoric because you are only making ALL Catholics look bad when you respond to us the way you do. Just state the facts of what your Church believes and let people decide if it is logical, backed up by scripture and Church history.

Respectfully....Tom55

i appreciate your more mellow tone here, but I am not going to change anything about myself that is not in need of changing, not what Jesus wants changed.
I see nothing wrong w/ my tone. The problem is that there is a 500 yr gap between Catholics and Protestants, caused by Luther, arch-heretic, who is very likely burning in Hell as we speak (and no, i do not say that lightly. i have read his very words.. and commentary by those who are not heretics.. etc)

he divided the Christian church for personal issues.. that he was ill-equipped to deal with. At that time there weren't psycholigists as we know them, and etc.. not that that solves all problems.. i stay away from psych doctors myself.. I go to Jesus for such help.

In any case, i have said nothing to apologize for. If you see some comment you think shows i need to do so, let me know.. Otherwise, i have this to say: If someone finds fault with truth, that person obviously is in the wrong, not that truth

 

[brakelite]

Tom55...again, you revert to type. You have a thing about authority. You claim incessantly that the church has authority to dictate to its members how, when, and what to believe, based on your assumption that such a concept was passed down to successive generations from the Lord Himself. I disagree. I come under no man's authority when it comes to spiritual matters; that is what I should believe in doctrinal truth. I do not stand or fall before man, but before my Maker. True religious liberty, a concept you clearly are in contention with, allows people of all persuasions to worship and believe according to conscience...like I said, the many prolific pronouncements from ecclesiastical councils and theologians all claiming 'authority' and 'inspiration' are as nothing unless they can produce a "thus saith the Lord" in its defense.
I do not believe any Protestant church has spiritual authority over its members either. Sure, if a member of any church, whether Catholic or protestant, should openly practice sin which brings controversy or trouble into the church, then yes, there is a means of censure that scripture outlines which ought to be followed. This does not include burning at the stake. In that respect, the church has a certain authority, under which each member voluntarily submits. But in regards to doctrine and faith...no church, individual, be they at the top of the ecclesiastical tree or not, has any authority to demand that anyone else ought to believe a certain way under penalty of punishment or reward. Certainly, we have teachers which recommend certain faith practices using scriptural support, but that is not in any sense akin to the traditional ways that Rome has used and implemented its 'authority' over the past 1500 years.
An individual who comes directly under the authority of Christ obeys Christ. The commandments of God take all precedence over the commandments and statutes, dogmas, pontifical bulls and directives of men. So in answer to your last question, who does have authority? Jesus Christ.
I still am not convinced you are not a priest, perhaps Jesuit. Seriously. You debate like one.

 

[Phoneman777]

10991147_10200249770884481_1056841991560870411_n.jpg

12019910_10201036479271699_5831142474930389152_n.jpg

12540781_10201390489761740_6879675380725871543_n.jpg

12802762_10201543019654892_5411115101666833900_n.jpg

13118858_10201790123192326_3219488168833498101_n.jpg

Vatican = "divining serpent". Nothing to see here, though, move along, move along.

 

[ScaliaFan]

Vatican = "divining serpent". Nothing to see here, though, move along, move along.

nothing to see?

The RC Church is the oldest christian Church.. and some say the ONLY Church. I say that

and i have done the studying required to be able to say that.. not to mention my life-long experience w/ the Church. What experience do you have?

in any case, you can do many things RE the Catholic Church, but i hardly think you can absolutely ignore it

 

[ScaliaFan]

Tom55...again, you revert to type. You have a thing about authority. You claim incessantly that the church has authority to dictate to its members how, when, and what to believe,

if it is the Church Christ founded, that would not sound so nefarious as you try to portray

some of us know what the Original Church was/is

it is sad others do not. I tell others about the RC Church for THEIR good, not mine

 

[tom55]

i appreciate your more mellow tone here, but I am not going to change anything about myself that is not in need of changing, not what Jesus wants changed.
I see nothing wrong w/ my tone. The problem is that there is a 500 yr gap between Catholics and Protestants, caused by Luther, arch-heretic, who is very likely burning in Hell as we speak (and no, i do not say that lightly. i have read his very words.. and commentary by those who are not heretics.. etc)

he divided the Christian church for personal issues.. that he was ill-equipped to deal with. At that time there weren't psycholigists as we know them, and etc.. not that that solves all problems.. i stay away from psych doctors myself.. I go to Jesus for such help.

In any case, i have said nothing to apologize for. If you see some comment you think shows i need to do so, let me know.. Otherwise, i have this to say: If someone finds fault with truth, that person obviously is in the wrong, not that truth

Your welcome! I am a mellow person. B)

I have been studying Christian history for the last year or so and I am well aware of the Catholic Churches history compared to Protestantism. I am well aware of the Church Fathers writings from the 2nd century that first mention the "Catholic Church". I am well aware of Luther and the horrible things he wrote about the Jews and other people that disagreed with him and how he wanted to remove 5 NT books from the bible. He was, to put it lightly, an interesting person. He did make some good points about the immoral practices of some men in the Church. But now the Protestant Churches are suffering from their own immoral practices because our churches are run by men; not gods.

I did not ask you to apologize. I suggested you tone down your rhetoric like saying "Luther...who is very likely burning in hell". You nor I nor your priest nor the Pope can or should say that about anyone. We do not know the final outcome of his soul. There are a lot of people on this forum that likes Luther. Do you think they are going to take you serious when you make judgments like that?

Or when you wrote to me ".. guess we have 2 different Jesus's here We'll find out in the End who was right.." We don't have two different Jesus's!!! Just because I might believe something that you or your Church doesn't preach doesn't mean we have two different Jesus's. It just means that we interpret his words different. And as you know and I have stated before just because Protestants don't fall lock step in with the teachings of the RCC doesn't mean they are not going to heaven. That is a teaching of your Church. When you say 'we will find out in the end' that makes it sound like you are going to heaven and Protestants are going to hell. That is not said in love nor the right thing to say to someone. That is what I mean by toning down your rhetoric.

Respectfully......Tom55

 

[tom55]

Tom55...again, you revert to type. You have a thing about authority. You claim incessantly that the church has authority to dictate to its members how, when, and what to believe, based on your assumption that such a concept was passed down to successive generations from the Lord Himself. I disagree. I come under no man's authority when it comes to spiritual matters; that is what I should believe in doctrinal truth. I do not stand or fall before man, but before my Maker. True religious liberty, a concept you clearly are in contention with, allows people of all persuasions to worship and believe according to conscience...like I said, the many prolific pronouncements from ecclesiastical councils and theologians all claiming 'authority' and 'inspiration' are as nothing unless they can produce a "thus saith the Lord" in its defense.
I do not believe any Protestant church has spiritual authority over its members either. Sure, if a member of any church, whether Catholic or protestant, should openly practice sin which brings controversy or trouble into the church, then yes, there is a means of censure that scripture outlines which ought to be followed. This does not include burning at the stake. In that respect, the church has a certain authority, under which each member voluntarily submits. But in regards to doctrine and faith...no church, individual, be they at the top of the ecclesiastical tree or not, has any authority to demand that anyone else ought to believe a certain way under penalty of punishment or reward. Certainly, we have teachers which recommend certain faith practices using scriptural support, but that is not in any sense akin to the traditional ways that Rome has used and implemented its 'authority' over the past 1500 years.
An individual who comes directly under the authority of Christ obeys Christ. The commandments of God take all precedence over the commandments and statutes, dogmas, pontifical bulls and directives of men. So in answer to your last question, who does have authority? Jesus Christ.
I still am not convinced you are not a priest, perhaps Jesuit. Seriously. You debate like one.

I see at least 15 questions in my post that you did not answer. I suspect if you did attempt to answer them based on logic, scripture and facts you would destroy your own (false) beliefs. I suspect that is very difficult for you to do since you have an entire website that bloviates about the bible and the RCC. If you answer my questions you would destroy your own beliefs and then you would have to change the tone of your website/blog. I assume you don't want to do that.

I do have "a thing about authority"! And so did Jesus and the Apostles and the early church fathers and the early Christians! Jesus and the NT clearly set up a Church with authority. The Apostles and the early Christians practiced what Jesus taught. If you want to disregard what Jesus taught and Christianity has been practicing for 2000 years then I will pray for you.

You say you come under no mans authority. You say that Jesus Christ is your authority. The only words we have from Jesus are in the bible. So that means you have decided that you can infallibly interpret what Jesus said and not twist his words? You believe that what is written in the bible is easy to understand and interpret? That thought process means that you do come under a mans authority.....your own. You are your own Pope. A church of one. So however brakelite interprets the words of Jesus that is the truth?

I can not prove who I am. Just because someone makes logical arguments based on scripture that destroys your theory of Christianity that doesn't make them a priest or Jesuit. It makes them a defender of the truth. Furthermore, why do I have to be a priest (I assume you mean RC priest) or Jesuit? There are some Protestant churches that believe some of the same things that the RCC teaches.

My prayers are with you.

 

[ScaliaFan]

Your welcome! I am a mellow person. B)

I have been studying Christian history for the last year or so and I am well aware of the Catholic Churches history compared to Protestantism. I am well aware of the Church Fathers writings from the 2nd century that first mention the "Catholic Church". I am well aware of Luther and the horrible things he wrote about the Jews and other people that disagreed with him and how he wanted to remove 5 NT books from the bible. He was, to put it lightly, an interesting person. He did make some good points about the immoral practices of some men in the Church. But now the Protestant Churches are suffering from their own immoral practices because our churches are run by men; not gods.

I did not ask you to apologize. I suggested you tone down your rhetoric like saying "Luther...who is very likely burning in hell". You nor I nor your priest nor the Pope can or should say that about anyone. We do not know the final outcome of his soul. There are a lot of people on this forum that likes Luther. Do you think they are going to take you serious when you make judgments like that?

Or when you wrote to me ".. guess we have 2 different Jesus's here We'll find out in the End who was right.." We don't have two different Jesus's!!! Just because I might believe something that you or your Church doesn't preach doesn't mean we have two different Jesus's. It just means that we interpret his words different. And as you know and I have stated before just because Protestants don't fall lock step in with the teachings of the RCC doesn't mean they are not going to heaven. That is a teaching of your Church. When you say 'we will find out in the end' that makes it sound like you are going to heaven and Protestants are going to hell. That is not said in love nor the right thing to say to someone. That is what I mean by toning down your rhetoric.

Respectfully......Tom55

i could respond to any or all of your points but i am pressed for time.. not to mention nothing i say will lkely make much of a difference

if i sound like i believe Catholics are more likely to go to Heaven than Ps.. that is true. i do believe that (virtually know it). not all of either one go to Heaven.. but without the Church Christ hismelf founded, it is difficult. You know.. even WITH the Church it is very difficult. And if you think this is just me saying this, look @ the Bible.. Mt 7 and Lk 13:24 and other psgs.. Jesus himself said that FEW make it.. Look where ST Paul said we must undergo many hardships in order to enter Heaven

you think you know about Jesus but you do not know many things about him. Again, if you never spend time with Him in the Church HE established--the only place where His tangible (physical) Presence is. . you are FAR from knowing Him... and that is not .. fill in the blanks.. (just me or whatever).. that is just logic

 

[tom55]

i could respond to any or all of your points but i am pressed for time.. not to mention nothing i say will lkely make much of a difference

if i sound like i believe Catholics are more likely to go to Heaven than Ps.. that is true. i do believe that (virtually know it). not all of either one go to Heaven.. but without the Church Christ hismelf founded, it is difficult. You know.. even WITH the Church it is very difficult. And if you think this is just me saying this, look @ the Bible.. Mt 7 and Lk 13:24 and other psgs.. Jesus himself said that FEW make it.. Look where ST Paul said we must undergo many hardships in order to enter Heaven

you think you know about Jesus but you do not know many things about him. Again, if you never spend time with Him in the Church HE established--the only place where His tangible (physical) Presence is. . you are FAR from knowing Him... and that is not .. fill in the blanks.. (just me or whatever).. that is just logic

Catechism:
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spesteaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:
All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.

I could provide many proofs that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that 'Catholics are more likely to got to heaven than Protestants'. If you love your church you shouldn't twist what they teach.

TOM55

 

[ScaliaFan]

Catechism:
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spesteaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:
All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.

I could provide many proofs that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that 'Catholics are more likely to got to heaven than Protestants'. If you love your church you shouldn't twist what they teach.

TOM55

I already have read that in th Catechism.

I never ONCE said that noncatholics cannot make it to Heaven.. so you are beating a straw man. I said it was difficult.. AGAIN, It is difficult to be saved even 4 those who are in Christ's (ie the Original) Church

 

[tom55]

I already have read that in th Catechism.

I never ONCE said that noncatholics cannot make it to Heaven.. so you are beating a straw man. I said it was difficult.. AGAIN, It is difficult to be saved even 4 those who are in Christ's (ie the Original) Church

Fair enough. I agree you never said that. As a history buff I also believe the Catholic Church is the original church based on historical writings/documentation etc.

 

[Phoneman777]

nothing to see?

The RC Church is the oldest christian Church.. and some say the ONLY Church. I say that

and i have done the studying required to be able to say that.. not to mention my life-long experience w/ the Church. What experience do you have?

in any case, you can do many things RE the Catholic Church, but i hardly think you can absolutely ignore it

Religion is simply a "method of practiced faith". Practices are what define a religion, and since the practices of Catholicism cannot traced to Jesus, but can clearly be seen rooted in paganism, it is simply a capitol mistake to claim Catholicism is rooted in the Bible and first century Christians. It is only those who trace their religious practices back to Jesus than can claim to be God's church. What were those practices? Well, the Bible says that the "remnant" church will "keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ".

A "remnant" of a bolt of carpet or cloth will look EXACTLY like the first part that came off the bolt. Likewise, the "remnant" church will keep God's commandments, not the false commandments and traditions of Catholicism.

 

[tom55]

Religion is simply a "method of practiced faith". Practices are what define a religion, and since the practices of Catholicism cannot traced to Jesus, but can clearly be seen rooted in paganism, it is simply a capitol mistake to claim Catholicism is rooted in the Bible and first century Christians. It is only those who trace their religious practices back to Jesus than can claim to be God's church. What were those practices? Well, the Bible says that the "remnant" church will "keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ".

A "remnant" of a bolt of carpet or cloth will look EXACTLY like the first part that came off the bolt. Likewise, the "remnant" church will keep God's commandments, not the false commandments and traditions of Catholicism.

Practices of Catholicism can't be traced to Jesus?

Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins and that has allegedly been passed down for 2000 years to priest.

Book of James gave anointing of the sick powers to the elders of the church and the RCC still practices that.

At the last supper Jesus said do this (communion) in rememberence of me and scripture says the apostles did it, the early Christians did it and the RCC still does it today.

They baptize with water and believe it is necessary and saves you just like the bible says and the early Christians practiced.

They have set up a hierarchy just like Jesus did, the scriptures say to do and the early Christians did do.

Those are just a few examples of what scripture says and the RCC does. IF I researched it deeper I could add to the list.

What denomination practices everything that Jesus and the Apostles taught and the early Christians practiced?

 

[Phoneman777]

Practices of Catholicism can't be traced to Jesus?

Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins and that has allegedly been passed down for 2000 years to priest.

Book of James gave anointing of the sick powers to the elders of the church and the RCC still practices that.

At the last supper Jesus said do this (communion) in rememberence of me and scripture says the apostles did it, the early Christians did it and the RCC still does it today.

They baptize with water and believe it is necessary and saves you just like the bible says and the early Christians practiced.

They have set up a hierarchy just like Jesus did, the scriptures say to do and the early Christians did do.

Those are just a few examples of what scripture says and the RCC does. IF I researched it deeper I could add to the list.

What denomination practices everything that Jesus and the Apostles taught and the early Christians practiced?

I'll let your own Catholic officials answer your assertion that Catholicism traces itself all the way back to Jesus and His Word:

This is an ultimatum from the cardinals of the Roman court to Pope Julius III immediately after his ascension to the papal throne in 1550. It is contained in a historical document of Reformation times that is preserved in the National Library of Paris, in Folio B#1088, vol. II, pages 641-650.
It reads:

"Of all the advice that we can offer Your Holiness, we have kept the most necessary to the last. We must open our eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely, to permit the reading of the Gospel as little possible, especially in the vernacular, in all those countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the Gospel suffice that is usually read in the Mass and let no one be permitted to read more. So long as the people will be content with that small amount, your interests will prosper, but as soon as the people want to read more your interests will begin to fail. The Bible is the book that, more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if anyone examines closely and compares the teachings of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teaching is often different from the Bible and oftener still, contrary to it. And if the people wake up to this, they will never stop challenging you till everything is laid bare and then we shall become the objects of universal scorn and hatred. Therefore, it is necessary to withdraw the Bible from the sight of the people, but with extreme caution, in order not to cause rebellion."

In the words of the great Apostle Paul, "Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?"

 

[tom55]

I'll let your own Catholic officials answer your assertion that Catholicism traces itself all the way back to Jesus and His Word:

This is an ultimatum from the cardinals of the Roman court to Pope Julius III immediately after his ascension to the papal throne in 1550. It is contained in a historical document of Reformation times that is preserved in the National Library of Paris, in Folio B#1088, vol. II, pages 641-650.
It reads:

"Of all the advice that we can offer Your Holiness, we have kept the most necessary to the last. We must open our eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely, to permit the reading of the Gospel as little possible, especially in the vernacular, in all those countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the Gospel suffice that is usually read in the Mass and let no one be permitted to read more. So long as the people will be content with that small amount, your interests will prosper, but as soon as the people want to read more your interests will begin to fail. The Bible is the book that, more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if anyone examines closely and compares the teachings of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teaching is often different from the Bible and oftener still, contrary to it. And if the people wake up to this, they will never stop challenging you till everything is laid bare and then we shall become the objects of universal scorn and hatred. Therefore, it is necessary to withdraw the Bible from the sight of the people, but with extreme caution, in order not to cause rebellion."

In the words of the great Apostle Paul, "Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?"

I know it is a waste of my time for me to tell you that what you have quoted above is not accurate. You can do your own research, like I have, and find the truth: http://www.bnf.fr/en/tools/a.welcome_to_the_bnf.html

Instead of relying on anti-Catholic websites to attack our fellow Catholic brothers take some time and search for the truth yourself. I suspect you do want to know the truth?

 

[ScaliaFan]

Religion is simply a "method of practiced faith". Practices are what define a religion, and since the practices of Catholicism cannot traced to Jesus,

didnt read all this b/c couldnt get beyond this falsehood

it can be traced back to Jesus, but you dont want to do your homework.

since you and I are not balanced in our u/standing of the RCC, i fail to see how we can communicate effectively

in other words, it would be nice if you had the same info i do

 

[ScaliaFan]

Instead of relying on anti-Catholic websites to attack our fellow Catholic brothers take some time and search for the truth yourself. I suspect you do want to know the truth?

yeh, for sure.

doesn't it often seem we cathlics are banging our heads agaisnt the wall talking to the anticatholics? it is downright weird how un-curious they are about the Original Church, the one Christ founded. Even if they dont belive that to be the case, it is odd they have no curiosity about history.

i think they just want to go by feeling

oh, that's reliable, as we all know.... :blink:

 

[ScaliaFan]

I'll let your own Catholic officials answer your assertion that Catholicism traces itself all the way back to Jesus and His Word:

This is an ultimatum from the cardinals of the Roman

Jesus said "Whoever hears you, hears Me"

He had his 12

then he left those 12 in charge. They were the first bishops of the Church with Peter as 1st pope

He who hears them hears Him