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

[tom55]

He gave ministers and pastors for the perfecting of the saints and for the furtherance of the gospel. One becomes a saint the moment he repents of all sin and receives the Savior into His life(justification)...he then grows and matures in Him (sanctification) through the preaching of the word, through witnessing to the love of Christ, and obedience to His commandments.

Your statement is not logical. Ministers and Pastors are not the only ones who can advance the gospel.
What happens to someone who after repenting of all their sins, receives the Savior, preaches the word and is obedient to His commandments they then commit a mortal sin? Are they still a saint?

What the Christians of the New Testement and 2nd century practiced and what you are saying are two different things. Can you not see the fallacy of your bizarre statement?

 

[brakelite]

Your statement is not logical. Ministers and Pastors are not the only ones who can advance the gospel.
What happens to someone who after repenting of all their sins, receives the Savior, preaches the word and is obedient to His commandments they then commit a mortal sin? Are they still a saint?

What the Christians of the New Testement and 2nd century practiced and what you are saying are two different things. Can you not see the fallacy of your bizarre statement?

First, instead of trusting in Roman Catholic language, perhaps you should inform me from scripture what you mean by
1. saint
2. mortal sin.
And I did not suggest that ordained ministers were the only ones obligated to share the good news. Else I wouldn't be here.

 

[ScaliaFan]

l. Come to Me Jesus said. He did not say come to my church.

Right. Jesus set up a Church (as per Mt 16:18)

then said


Don't want to come? No problem! Go watch your football games, go to your concerts... Party on, Garth! Who needs this Church i built?

right

 

[ScaliaFan]

First, instead of trusting in Roman Catholic language, perhaps you should inform me from scripture what you mean by
1. saint
2. mortal sin.
And I did not suggest that ordained ministers were the only ones obligated to share the good news. Else I wouldn't be here.

the Catholic Church teaches we are all "priests" --yet some have ability to confer sacraments (only ordained priests and in some cases.. deacons)


a saint is merely someone who loves Jesus and follows Him in every way, or tries to until death. It merely means someone who is in Heaven

mortal sin is one that involves grave matter and intent. In other words, u have to know that it is a mortal sin and not care, do it anyway. Grave matter includes: fornication, adultery, abortion, promoting abortion (voting for pro abort candidates), autoeroticism.. etc

 

[tom55]

First, instead of trusting in Roman Catholic language, perhaps you should inform me from scripture what you mean by
1. saint
2. mortal sin.
And I did not suggest that ordained ministers were the only ones obligated to share the good news. Else I wouldn't be here.

You asked a question instead of answering my question. You can't answer my question because you know if you answered my question honestly you would then reveal the fallacy of your own argument.
When you make a statement like, "He gave ministers and pastors for the perfecting of the saints and for the furtherance of the gospel" it DOES suggest that you believe that "ordained ministers were the only ones obligated to share the good news" BECAUSE you didn't mention anyone else.
When you attack our fellow Christians (Catholics) the way you do I do not get the feeling you are 'sharing the good news' as you put it. I feel like you are being anti-Catholic which makes you anti-Christian. That is how your words make me feel.

 

[ScaliaFan]

You asked a question instead of answering my question. You can't answer my question because you know if you answered my question honestly you would then reveal the fallacy of your own argument.
When you make a statement like, "He gave ministers and pastors for the perfecting of the saints and for the furtherance of the gospel" it DOES suggest that you believe that "ordained ministers were the only ones obligated to share the good news" BECAUSE you didn't mention anyone else.
When you attack our fellow Christians (Catholics) the way you do I do not get the feeling you are 'sharing the good news' as you put it. I feel like you are being anti-Catholic which makes you anti-Christian. That is how your words make me feel.

anticatholics generally speaking couldn't care less about what is proper Christian behavior

 

[brakelite]

You asked a question instead of answering my question. You can't answer my question because you know if you answered my question honestly you would then reveal the fallacy of your own argument.
When you make a statement like, "He gave ministers and pastors for the perfecting of the saints and for the furtherance of the gospel" it DOES suggest that you believe that "ordained ministers were the only ones obligated to share the good news" BECAUSE you didn't mention anyone else.
When you attack our fellow Christians (Catholics) the way you do I do not get the feeling you are 'sharing the good news' as you put it. I feel like you are being anti-Catholic which makes you anti-Christian. That is how your words make me feel.

Let me make myself perfectly clear.
1. I am not anti-catholic. And to give that slant to anything I have written is dishonest.
2. I am anti-catholicism. I make no bones about that. I believe it is an heretical religion correctly identified by the reformers as the Antichrist of scripture.
3. There are many individual Catholics who truly love Jesus and are living in accordance to the light they have, and are thus Christians.
4. But the religion of Catholicism, is not, nor ever has been, a Christian religion.

Claiming I am anti-catholic and therefore anti-Christian is a blatant deliberate dishonest twisting of who and what I am and what I believe, is based on nothing I have written or even intimated throughout the forum, and reveals clearly that all you intend is to demean my character rather than discuss in any cordial fashion.

anticatholics generally speaking couldn't care less about what is proper Christian behavior

If you wish to include me in this generalization by all means go ahead, but at least have the courage to do so directly.

 

[ScaliaFan]

humans are so prideful. They hate to admit they are wrong or even possibly wrong about anything.

anticatholics do this in spades.

to paraphrase VP Mike Pence (who paraphrases Moses): "Who am I to... (fill in the blanks... [judge the Catholic Church])"

 

[tom55]

Let me make myself perfectly clear.
1. I am not anti-catholic. And to give that slant to anything I have written is dishonest.
2. I am anti-catholicism. I make no bones about that. I believe it is an heretical religion correctly identified by the reformers as the Antichrist of scripture.
3. There are many individual Catholics who truly love Jesus and are living in accordance to the light they have, and are thus Christians.
4. But the religion of Catholicism, is not, nor ever has been, a Christian religion.

Claiming I am anti-catholic and therefore anti-Christian is a blatant deliberate dishonest twisting of who and what I am and what I believe, is based on nothing I have written or even intimated throughout the forum, and reveals clearly that all you intend is to demean my character rather than discuss in any cordial fashion.


If you wish to include me in this generalization by all means go ahead, but at least have the courage to do so directly.

So let me see if I got this correct:

A Catholic who follows the teaching of the Catholic Church is a Christian but the Catholic Church is the Antichrist of scripture and is not a Christian religion? And you accuse me of being dishonest and twisting who you are and what you believe?

In a previous post YOU are the one who said that the RCC doesn't even have or teach the bible during their service, which is a flat out lie. Your own website demeans your character. You don't need me to do that.

If you are sooooo positive that the RCC is the anitchrist spoken of in scripture how are you sure YOU or ANY church is not the antichrist spoken of in scripture? How can you be sooo sure YOU have the truth?

 

[brakelite]

So let me see if I got this correct:

A Catholic who follows the teaching of the Catholic Church is a Christian but the Catholic Church is the Antichrist of scripture and is not a Christian religion? And you accuse me of being dishonest and twisting who you are and what you believe?

In a previous post YOU are the one who said that the RCC doesn't even have or teach the bible during their service, which is a flat out lie. Your own website demeans your character. You don't need me to do that.

If you are sooooo positive that the RCC is the anitchrist spoken of in scripture how are you sure YOU or ANY church is not the antichrist spoken of in scripture? How can you be sooo sure YOU have the truth?

No, you don't have it correct. Following the teachings of the Catholic church...with all its superstitions and pagan dogma, will get no-one to heaven. But someone raised in the Catholic church who knows no better yet is loving God with all their heart and their neighbor as themselves, while searching for truth and willing to obey that truth when found, is living up to what light they have and will not be condemned. IMHO. Such a one will not remain long in the Catholic church...as attested to by the many that are leaving, "coming out of Babylon".
In a previous post I declared what I believed to be true, that the Bible, as a foundation of faith and doctrine, was not taught (apart from some odd references to a parable in some sermons) in either the Catholic churches I served in as an altar boy when young, or in the Catholic schools I was educated in, WHEN I WAS YOUNG. It is true that today the Bible is far more accepted in Catholic circles...at least the modern versions which are based on the Vaticanus and Sanaiticus MSS which favor Catholic dogma. Previously to 1900c, the KJV was on the list of forbidden books...and the that has never been altered.
As to the RCC being the Antichrist, there are many reasons why I agree with all the reformers on this. I would be happy to discuss this again as I have before, in another topic study.

 

[tom55]

No, you don't have it correct. Following the teachings of the Catholic church...with all its superstitions and pagan dogma, will get no-one to heaven. But someone raised in the Catholic church who knows no better yet is loving God with all their heart and their neighbor as themselves, while searching for truth and willing to obey that truth when found, is living up to what light they have and will not be condemned. IMHO. Such a one will not remain long in the Catholic church...as attested to by the many that are leaving, "coming out of Babylon".
In a previous post I declared what I believed to be true, that the Bible, as a foundation of faith and doctrine, was not taught (apart from some odd references to a parable in some sermons) in either the Catholic churches I served in as an altar boy when young, or in the Catholic schools I was educated in, WHEN I WAS YOUNG. It is true that today the Bible is far more accepted in Catholic circles...at least the modern versions which are based on the Vaticanus and Sanaiticus MSS which favor Catholic dogma. Previously to 1900c, the KJV was on the list of forbidden books...and the that has never been altered.
As to the RCC being the Antichrist, there are many reasons why I agree with all the reformers on this. I would be happy to discuss this again as I have before, in another topic study.

Once again you do not answer my questions. But I am getting used to that.

I know you are talking about being a alter boy in the RCC 'WHEN YOU WERE YOUNG'. I also know you are approximately 60 years old which means (if you were in fact an alter boy) you would have been an alter boy around the time of Vatican II. I know the history of the Catholic Church and the Catholic mass and what you are saying is not HISTORICALLY accurate even if you were an alter boy pre Vatican II. Do you realize how easy it is to research your statements and to figure out what you are saying does not reflect the historical record? I am trying not to call you a liar but what you are saying sounds like a lie OR you are not remembering your experience as an alter boy in the Catholic Church since it was soooo many years ago. In other words your memory may be fading. I am choosing to give you the benefit of the doubt and ASSUME your memory is fading instead of you are flat out lieing.

I do not understand why you choose to lie about the RCC when there are sooooo many bad things you could point out about the RCC that are not lies. Like the Bishops covering up and moving around priest who were harming children.

 

[brakelite]

The books that the priests read from in reciting the mass were not Bibles. They were a mix of Latin prayer and Bible quotes. Mostly prayer. Not sure what they were called, but sure, they included Biblical quotes in them, (as does the missal, a book for the laity)but I do not remember ever once seeing a Bible in its entirety in any Catholic church I attended., nor at any school. We had catechisms, which were purported to be based on scripture, but which in later life I discovered only very loosely. I remember some sermons based on Biblical topics, such a Good Samaritan etc...but never a sermon on Bible based doctrine, only Biblical precepts and principles. Perhaps the Priest DID have the Bible when he preached from the pulpit. Perhaps I am mistaken...but if he did, it wasn't prominently displayed or promoted and taught as the foundation of faith and practice. The Protestant reformation tenet sola scriptura is still anathema to the RCC. Second Vatican Council notwithstanding.
My point is is that Catholic doctrine and dogma is NOT, nor ever has been, based on scripture. If you are as informed as you claim, then you will be aware that Catholic doctrine is based on what the magisterium claim the Bible teaches. Church tradition is of equal authority as scripture, and if the magisterium says so, tradition outweighs scripture if it suits. (The perpetual virginity of Mary a case in point).
That is my experience. I do not lie...as you say, no-one needs to lie to bring the RCC into disrepute.

 

[ScaliaFan]

losing sight of original point

i was made a Christian by nothing other than the RCC

 

[brakelite]

With all due respect to your beliefs scaliafan, I must take the Biblical line and state my long held conviction that no church, of whatever denomination, can make anyone a Christian. When Jesus declared "Ye must be born again (by the Spirit and by water", He was speaking of a supernatural miracle and experience that comes only through the action of the Holy Spirit quite apart and devoid of any human or institutional agency.
In saying this, I am not claiming or accusing you of not being a Christian. Rather, I think you need to pay homage and give credit to the true source of your salvation...giving the glory to God, and not to anything or anyone else.

 

[Phoneman777]

Do you realize how easy it is to research your statements and to figure out what you are saying does not reflect the historical record?

I will preface a question with the following, which is not intended to be inflammatory, but simply to establish a precedent: the RCC has a well documented history of deliberately lying to the masses, as in the case of St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre when "heretics" were slaughtered by the tens of thousands after previously recieving a promise from the RCC that their "heretical" faith would be tolerated, as well as the pedophile priest cover-up that is now known to be a world wide phenomenon with a full estimation of 6.5% of the clergy having abused children.

How then can the world of the Papacy be trusted to "debunk" anything, seeing that their credibility as an organization is non-existent?

 

[ScaliaFan]

With all due respect to your beliefs scaliafan, I must take the Biblical line and state my long held conviction that no church, of whatever denomination, can make anyone a Christian. When Jesus declared "Ye must be born again (by the Spirit and by water", He was speaking of a supernatural miracle and experience that comes only through the action of the Holy Spirit quite apart and devoid of any human or institutional agency.
In saying this, I am not claiming or accusing you of not being a Christian. Rather, I think you need to pay homage and give credit to the true source of your salvation...giving the glory to God, and not to anything or anyone else.

Well, you know my life better than I do.

So carry on

 

[tom55]

The books that the priests read from in reciting the mass were not Bibles. They were a mix of Latin prayer and Bible quotes. Mostly prayer. Not sure what they were called, but sure, they included Biblical quotes in them, (as does the missal, a book for the laity)but I do not remember ever once seeing a Bible in its entirety in any Catholic church I attended., nor at any school. We had catechisms, which were purported to be based on scripture, but which in later life I discovered only very loosely. I remember some sermons based on Biblical topics, such a Good Samaritan etc...but never a sermon on Bible based doctrine, only Biblical precepts and principles. Perhaps the Priest DID have the Bible when he preached from the pulpit. Perhaps I am mistaken...but if he did, it wasn't prominently displayed or promoted and taught as the foundation of faith and practice. The Protestant reformation tenet sola scriptura is still anathema to the RCC. Second Vatican Council notwithstanding.
My point is is that Catholic doctrine and dogma is NOT, nor ever has been, based on scripture. If you are as informed as you claim, then you will be aware that Catholic doctrine is based on what the magisterium claim the Bible teaches. Church tradition is of equal authority as scripture, and if the magisterium says so, tradition outweighs scripture if it suits. (The perpetual virginity of Mary a case in point).
That is my experience. I do not lie...as you say, no-one needs to lie to bring the RCC into disrepute.

So your doctrine and dogma is based on scripture? But the RCC isn't? Your doctrine and interpretation of scripture is based on what YOU claim. The RCC has the magisterium to interpret the bible and you have WHO to interpret it? Protestant theologians?

No one needs to lie to bring the RCC or any Protestant Church into disrepute!!!! They all make mistakes. So who is right and who is wrong on the matter of perpetual virginity, baptism, the real presensece in the Eucharist etc. etc.? If Christ spoke and taught undeniable truth and the bible is the truth how can every denomination say they have the truth when they all teach something different?

 

[Phoneman777]

So your doctrine and dogma is based on scripture? But the RCC isn't? Your doctrine and interpretation of scripture is based on what YOU claim. The RCC has the magisterium to interpret the bible and you have WHO to interpret it? Protestant theologians?

No one needs to lie to bring the RCC or any Protestant Church into disrepute!!!! They all make mistakes. So who is right and who is wrong on the matter of perpetual virginity, baptism, the real presensece in the Eucharist etc. etc.? If Christ spoke and taught undeniable truth and the bible is the truth how can every denomination say they have the truth when they all teach something different?

RCC says, "Call them father." Jesus said, "Call no man 'father', you have but one Father, which is in heaven." I think it is clear that both the RCC and Jesus are meant to say "SPIRITUAL FATHER". In other words, the RCC says to refer to priests and the pope as our "SPIRITUAL FATHER", while Jesus plainly forbids this. Do we really need a magisterial counsel to understand Jesus' plain words?

 

[tom55]

RCC says, "Call them father." Jesus said, "Call no man 'father', you have but one Father, which is in heaven." I think it is clear that both the RCC and Jesus are meant to say "SPIRITUAL FATHER". In other words, the RCC says to refer to priests and the pope as our "SPIRITUAL FATHER", while Jesus plainly forbids this. Do we really need a magisterial counsel to understand Jesus' plain words?

There it is! The straw that broke the camels back. Call no man father. I guess I can't call my biological father FATHER anymore. Throw out all the times in the bible (OT and NT) when someone is called or referred to as father. This warning about twisting scripture was in scripture so once again it has been fulfilled by you, Phoneman777. I realize you are just parroting other peoples anti-Catholic rhetoric instead of doing some research yourself so YOU aren't twisting scripture. But when you parrot someone elses words you have to take some responsibility.

 

[Phoneman777]

There it is! The straw that broke the camels back. Call no man father. I guess I can't call my biological father FATHER anymore. Throw out all the times in the bible (OT and NT) when someone is called or referred to as father. This warning about twisting scripture was in scripture so once again it has been fulfilled by you, Phoneman777. I realize you are just parroting other peoples anti-Catholic rhetoric instead of doing some research yourself so YOU aren't twisting scripture. But when you parrot someone elses words you have to take some responsibility.

Don't be obtuse. You know full well that both Jesus and the RCC mean "father" in the "spiritual" sense, and not just the biological sense, which is perfectly acceptable. Either stop calling your priests or your pope "father" in the spiritual sense or stop calling yourself a follower of Christ.