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

[ScaliaFan]

Yes subject to teh truth, You should read your bible and look and see how the CC contradicts

that is LOL worthy

I have read the whole Bible. And i keep on reading it daily.. on top of hearing it read to me @ Holy Mass. I have read much of the CC and find no contradictions whatsoever.

if u go to Mass every day for 3 yrs you will hear virtually the entire Bible..M ost noncatholic churches do not even have a "meeting" or what have u every day... not even 2 days a wk. The Catholics are the only ones who meet every day

i used to go to Mass every single day and did that for years and years. I no longer go every single day but only b/c i "cannot" (long story). I watch Mass on ewtn a lot... and of course go on Sunday.

In any case, where was I? Oh, i didn't read all your post b/c i had to address that issue first. You anticatholics always just automatically assume we catholics dont read th Bible... Where did u get that idea? yeh, sure, some catholics dont... but many do

 

[mjrhealth]

In any case, where was I? Oh, i didn't read all your post b/c i had to address that issue first. You anticatholics always just automatically assume we catholics dont read th Bible... Where did u get that idea? yeh, sure, some catholics dont... but many do

Because if you did you would see all the lies. You kow what is says about "eyes to see ears to hear".

But as i have said many times before , so many know the bible so few know Jesus

 

[epostle1]

My roots are in Christ, may I ask where yours are?? Debuked, so far never read any such thing. Spent a whole year reading a book about the history of Jeruslem and teh role teh CC had to play, it would seeme amazing thet the romans would be sickened by what the crusaders did.... And that was not the only one. You glorify the Pope, call Him father which God asked us not to do, you have more people between you and Jesus than there are in a gfootball team. Most of your churches doctrines and doings are at odds with the bible, you can surely read that for yourself, even that you would try find a way to justify it. But this I do not do for you, as it says, the blind follow the blind and the yall fall into the ditch. See you are without excuse. you have bing shown the light but rejected it, I do hope you know what that means.

Joh_8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

like I said previously:
The tactic that anti-Catholics use when lies are exposed is to change the topic, or abandon the thread, or list 5 or more objections. They are too full of pride to be corrected.

You have listed 5 topics. That is not discussion, it's a rant. You have made several references to the Catechism on how it contradicts the Bible, but never make a qualification. How about you pick a chapter (to avoid taking snippets out of context, a common practice of anti-Catholics) and we can discuss your alleged contradictions.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Contrary to the psychotic ramblings of anti-Catholics, Scripture is listed as its #1 source.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4.HTM

The Crusade Myths
Thomas F. Madden is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is author of A Concise History of the Crusades and co-author of The Fourth Crusade.

"...It was in the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century that the current view of the Crusades was born. Most of the philosophers, like Voltaire, believed that medieval Christianity was a vile superstition. For them the Crusades were a migration of barbarians led by fanaticism, greed, and lust. Since then, the Enlightenment take on the Crusades has gone in and out of fashion. The Crusades received good press as wars of nobility (although not religion) during the Romantic period and the early twentieth century. After the Second World War, however, opinion again turned decisively against the Crusades. In the wake of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, historians found war of ideology–any ideology –distasteful. This sentiment was summed up by Sir Steven Runciman in his three-volume work, A History of the Crusades (1951-54). For Runciman, the Crusades were morally repugnant acts of intolerance in the name of God. The medieval men who took the cross and marched to the Middle East were either cynically evil, rapaciously greedy, or naively gullible. This beautifully written history soon became the standard. Almost single-handedly Runciman managed to define the modern popular view of the Crusades....

Here, then, are some of the most common myths and why they are wrong.

Myth 1: The Crusades were wars of unprovoked aggression against a peaceful Muslim world.
This is as wrong as wrong can be. From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor, and most of Spain. In other words, by the end of the eleventh century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world...

Myth 2: The Crusaders wore crosses, but they were really only interested in capturing booty and land. Their pious platitudes were just a cover for rapacious greed.
...After the spectacular successes of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem and much of Palestine in Crusader hands, virtually all of the Crusaders went home. Only a tiny handful remained behind to consolidate and govern the newly won territories. Booty was also scarce. In fact, although Crusaders no doubt dreamed of vast wealth in opulent Eastern cities, virtually none of them ever even recouped their expenses. But money and land were not the reasons that they went on Crusade in the first place. They went to atone for their sins and to win salvation by doing good works in a faraway land.

Myth 3: When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman, and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood.
... It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. But this must be understood in historical context. The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender. In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force in Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free. By modern standards this may seem brutal. Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women, and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days. It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property, and allowed to worship freely. As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city.
5 more myths debunked here.

 

[Phoneman777]

Your quote is phony.

I found the entire quote rather strange-sounding and suspicious. Being fluent in French, I decided to e-mail the National Library's reference desk to find out the truth. The reference librarian e-mailed me back. This is what he had to say:
"The text that you have inquired about is a satirical-style criticism of the papacy, published in 1553, under the title Consilium quorundam episcoporum Bononiae congregatorum quod de ratione stabiliendae Romanae ecclesiae Iulio P.M. datum est. [The counsel of certain bishops of Bologna having been convened for the reason of stabilizing the Roman church (that) was given to Julius, P(ontifex) M(aximus) .]
Its author, Paolo Pietro Vegerio (1498-1565), was bishop of Modrusch, then of Capo d'Istria, from which he left to join the Reformation around 1549. In it he paints a picture of three bishops advising Pope Julius II on the best way to reestablish the authority of the papacy. Among the advice they give him is the introduction of new ceremonies (which are described in intricate detail) as well as the destruction of Bibles translated into any living languages.
"This text is one of many works published by Vegerio as part of the violent polemics by which he opposed the papacy after his break with the Church of Rome [the librarian quotes a German study written in 1893]. It has since been used in numerous debates between Catholics and Protestants. It is thus that extracts from the original booklet-all more or less altered from the French translation-were published by Paul Besson in his Consultation de trois évêques sur les moyens de soutenir l'Eglise romaine présentés au pape Jules II en 1553, [Consultation of three bishops on the means of supporting the Roman Church presented to Pope Julius II in 1553] Rouillac, 1884 (extract from Witness to the Truth), as well as by the journal Truth, published in Jerusalem, in its edition of November 3, 1911. We do not have a copy of this journal in the National Library of France.
"Since requests similar to yours have been rather common over the years, we have prepared microfiche versions of three different editions of this work, and you may order copies of them from our Photographic Service." He goes on to list the bibliographic citations for the three Latin and French editions in their library collection, which are available for public inspection.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/another-anti-catholic-myth-exposed

I found this to be extremely helpful, since it clarifies that this is not (as is claimed) a "historical document" but is merely a creative piece of fiction written by a rebel bishop to mock the papacy and the Catholic Church after his own defection.
Run along to the next anti-Catholic LIE you guys love so much.

So, a likely French Catholic sympathizer claims that the quote is Reformation propaganda? Given that the Catholic church has been shepherded by the most disgusting revisionist historians and liars (as recently evidenced by the exposure of a filthy, systematic cover up of predator priests at the expense of the ruined lives of countless child victims), I expect Catholicism to deny everything that emanates from outside her protective walls.

So, let's turn Pope Boniface VIII, Papal Bull "Unam Sanctam", 1302 A.D. :

“We declare, assert, define and pronounce to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every creature altogether necessary for salvation… I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all in all, and above all, so that God Himself and I, the Vicar of Christ, have but one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do. What therefore, can you make of me but God?”

What does the Bible definitively call blasphemy? For a man to claim that he is God (John 10:33 KJV) and the power to forgive sin (Luke 5:21 KJV), both of which the leaders of your false church claim. That is why Revelation 17 depicts the Whore Catholic church as having "names of blasphemy written on her forehead".

 

[mjrhealth]

You have listed 5 topics. That is not discussion, it's a rant. You have made several references to the Catechism on how it contradicts the Bible, but never make a qualification. How about you pick a chapter (to avoid taking snippets out of context, a common practice of anti-Catholics) and we can discuss your alleged contradictions.
http://www.vatican.v...0015/_INDEX.HTM

Contrary to the psychotic ramblings of anti-Catholics, Scripture is listed as its #1 source.
http://www.vatican.v...NG0015/__P4.HTM

Thats liek asking a guilty man " is he guilty", he will deny it to his death.

And here you use catholich doctinre to contradict the bible. When did Jesus ever give anyone more authorty than Himself.

 

[tom55]

So, a likely French Catholic sympathizer claims that the quote is Reformation propaganda? Given that the Catholic church has been shepherded by the most disgusting revisionist historians and liars (as recently evidenced by the exposure of a filthy, systematic cover up of predator priests at the expense of the ruined lives of countless child victims), I expect Catholicism to deny everything that emanates from outside her protective walls.

So, let's turn Pope Boniface VIII, Papal Bull "Unam Sanctam", 1302 A.D. :

“We declare, assert, define and pronounce to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every creature altogether necessary for salvation… I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all in all, and above all, so that God Himself and I, the Vicar of Christ, have but one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do. What therefore, can you make of me but God?”

What does the Bible definitively call blasphemy? For a man to claim that he is God (John 10:33 KJV) and the power to forgive sin (Luke 5:21 KJV), both of which the leaders of your false church claim. That is why Revelation 17 depicts the Whore Catholic church as having "names of blasphemy written on her forehead".

Unless I missed it I can't find that quote in the ACTUAL letter. Maybe you can find it for me:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/B7UNAM.HTM

http://media.bloomsbury.com/rep/files/primary-source-39-boniface-unam-sanctam.pdf

http://www.verhoevenmarc.be/PDF/unam-sanctam.pdf

John 20:23

 

[ScaliaFan]

the only thing wrong with the RCC is that there are masonic priests and parishioners who actually UNDERMINE the Church... have infiltrated it

 

[mjrhealth]

See Sf, there is nothing your chruch or any other church on the face of this planet can give us that Christ can not, But the one thing that Christ can give us that no church can, is salvation, it is through Him alone, even teh forgiveness of sin.

 

[ScaliaFan]

Thats liek asking a guilty man " is he guilty", he will deny it to his death.

And here you use catholich doctinre to contradict the bible. When did Jesus ever give anyone more authorty than Himself.

I didn't know the Catholic Church taught that JEsus gave someone more power than himself. I suppose u will say this is in the Catechism somewhere? well, find it

Do u see how ridiculous you can be?

it's amazing how hatred of the RCC drives people to... near insanity, apparently

Well, Jesus did tell us we would be hated/persecuted

 

[ScaliaFan]

See Sf, there is nothing your chruch or any other church on the face of this planet can give us that Christ can not, But the one thing that Christ can give us that no church can, is salvation, it is through Him alone, even teh forgiveness of sin.

wow... I can see how totally clueless you are by these words.. (not that i didn't already know u were clueless RE the Church)

there is NO separation between Christ and His Church... contrary to what you believe..

Why would Jesus "build" a Church.. mt 16:18 and then not "keep in touch" with it after His Ascension? Well,

answer: He wouldn't

 

[Phoneman777]

Unless I missed it I can't find that quote in the ACTUAL letter. Maybe you can find it for me:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/B7UNAM.HTM

http://media.bloomsbury.com/rep/files/primary-source-39-boniface-unam-sanctam.pdf

http://www.verhoevenmarc.be/PDF/unam-sanctam.pdf

John 20:23

The church has a history of scandal, corruption, and cover up. Do yo really think it's a good idea to appeal to "the word of the church" when the church has been exposed by so many for so long as anything but virtuous?

 

[tom55]

Again with the "I've got the real letter" argument. Ask yourself one question: If our public claims about the Papacy which date back to the distant past are false, then why has the church failed to bring any defamation cases against those making these "false" claims? Got it? WHERE ARE THE LAWSUITS? What is your answer, friend?

Please don't hand me any "the church takes the high road" stuff, either. The same church that slaughtered millions for refusing to acknowledge a plain, round piece of bread was Divinity is the same church that prefers to take the high road when people openly accuse her of what you claim is "false"? The only lawsuits the Papacy can win are the ones where the evidence is deliberately removed from view, just like in the Boston archdiocese in 2000 where a deposition of a priest who claims to have witnessed Priest Geoghan's predatory behavior was "mysteriously" removed from the public judicial record along with COUNTLESS other letters from family members of child victims who plead with CARDINAL BERNARD FRANCIS LAW to do something about these pedophiles that former "treatment center" shrink and researcher Dr. Richard Sipe says represents a full 6.5% of the entire priesthood! What did the Vatican do with Law? They PROMOTED that liar! But, we are to believe these "debunk" sites, yes? Give me a break!

Face it, the Whore of Babylon knows that they cannot defend the claims against her in a court of law, or she would have done just that years ago as a stop-gap measure to stem the tide of Catholics abandoning her for a "thus saith the Lord". These "debunk" sites aren't fooling anyone except those who want to be fooled.

Got it.

You couldn't find your "quote" in the letter either.

So instead of Phoneman777 apologizing for spreading ANOTHER lie about our Catholic brothers and sisters you attack them even more AND change the subject. Interesting!! <_<

BTW....Non-Catholic clergy members molest children at the same rate or higher (in at least one study) than Catholic Priest do. And since the facts don't matter to you don't ask me to provide a link to the study. You can find it just as easy as I did. Just because there a bad people in ANY church doesn't make the whole church or their doctrine wrong.

I will pray for you my friend!

 

[mjrhealth]

wow... I can see how totally clueless you are by these words.. (not that i didn't already know u were clueless RE the Church)

Well if you had any clue you would not remain in it. As I said there is a reason why people are leaving mens churches.

Rev_18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

there is NO separation between Christ and His Church... contrary to what you believe..

Actulayy i and every christian certainly agree that Jesus is not sepertetd form His church, its just that there are not many people in His "church", as you might put it. So it is not contrary to my belief abd obviously not yours, its just that you have no idea of where his church is.

Eph_5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

As for yours

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_17:6 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

Why would Jesus "build" a Church.. mt 16:18 and then not "keep in touch" with it after His Ascension? Well,

Oh he is,

Joh_10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Joh_10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

And they run from the lies.

Joh 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
Joh 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
Joh 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

But you have chosen your churches doctrines.

Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Choose whom you serve your church or Him (Jesus)

Luk_16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Who will t be ??

Oh and im not doing this for your sake, Jesus could not convince the religious of teh truth when he was alive on this earth, He semms to have even less hope in that now.

As for His church it is built upon revelation teh bit that you and you church lack

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Yes that is what he is building His church on..

Gal_1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

And that is something no one can give you but God. But so few believe Him.

 

[ScaliaFan]

The church has a history of scandal, corruption, and cover up. Do yo really think it's a good idea to appeal to "the word of the church" when the church has been exposed by so many for so long as anything but virtuous?

we are called to clean up our own backyards, not those of others. People being sinners does not make Christ's Church one iota less His Church

again, we are called to be Christians, not spend all our time pointing fingers @ who is not one... or MIGHT not be one.. If you are doing a lot of that, you dont have time to look in the mirror and do the work required

 

[ScaliaFan]

Well if you had any clue you would not remain in it. As I said there is a reason why people are leaving mens churches.

Rev_18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Actulayy i and every christian certainly agree that Jesus is not sepertetd form His church, its just that there are not many people in His "church", as you might put it. So it is not contrary to my belief abd obviously not yours, its just that you have no idea of where his church is.

Eph_5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

As for yours

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_17:6 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

Oh he is,

there's no point quoting scirpture if you don't know what it means. You have been lied to and told the Catholic Church is .. what, the antichrist?

what a pathetic joke.. The antichrist does not defend human life, does not want marriages to last and etc...

you need to fight the real antichrist

 

[ScaliaFan]

The church has a history of scandal, corruption, and cover up. Do yo really think it's a good idea to appeal to "the word of the church" when the church has been exposed by so many for so long as anything but virtuous?

if you pay attn to waht humans in the Church say and do, you will never be Christian. I dare say most Catholics leave the Church due to what some Human did! They can't look beyond that!

paying attn to what humans do and judging the church thereby is a lesson in futility... Jesus's Church still stands and always will

protestant churches dont have perfect people either, case u haven't noticed.. Jim Jones.. not Catholic.. Jim Baker.. not Catholic

 

[Phoneman777]

Got it.

You couldn't find your "quote" in the letter either.

So instead of Phoneman777 apologizing for spreading ANOTHER lie about our Catholic brothers and sisters you attack them even more AND change the subject. Interesting!! <_<

BTW....Non-Catholic clergy members molest children at the same rate or higher (in at least one study) than Catholic Priest do. And since the facts don't matter to you don't ask me to provide a link to the study. You can find it just as easy as I did. Just because there a bad people in ANY church doesn't make the whole church or their doctrine wrong.

I will pray for you my friend!

Friend, the word of the Papacy has proven itself to be the least trustworthy in all the Earth, as evidenced by scandal after scandal after never ending scandal. Trust the Bible alone, not the lies and cover ups in Rome. I pray for you as well.

 

[Phoneman777]

we are called to clean up our own backyards, not those of others. People being sinners does not make Christ's Church one iota less His Church

again, we are called to be Christians, not spend all our time pointing fingers @ who is not one... or MIGHT not be one.. If you are doing a lot of that, you dont have time to look in the mirror and do the work required

No, we are called to "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of DARKNESS, but rather EXPOSE them." What I do is what the Bible has admonished me to do: expose the Man of Sin in Rome and the evil that this Papal Antichrist has done in the name of Christ for century after century after bloody century. By exposing them, others may be spared from falling into the same snare so many are caught in. The Papacy reigned during a time known politically incorrect today as "The DARK Ages".

 

[Phoneman777]

if you pay attn to waht humans in the Church say and do, you will never be Christian. I dare say most Catholics leave the Church due to what some Human did! They can't look beyond that!

paying attn to what humans do and judging the church thereby is a lesson in futility... Jesus's Church still stands and always will

protestant churches dont have perfect people either, case u haven't noticed.. Jim Jones.. not Catholic.. Jim Baker.. not Catholic

With all the faults of Protestantism, do any teach that a man is God such as Catholicism says of the Pope?
Or that sinful men have the power to forgive men such as claimed that Catholic clergy possess?
Or that during communion, those who officiate become "the creator of his Creator"?

No, Protestants don't claim such blasphemous things - Rome does. That is why she is condemned as the Antichrist Whore of Revelation with "names of blasphemy" on her forehead, friend.

 

[tom55]

Friend, the word of the Papacy has proven itself to be the least trustworthy in all the Earth, as evidenced by scandal after scandal after never ending scandal. Trust the Bible alone, not the lies and cover ups in Rome. I pray for you as well.

Friend, the SDA have some of the same beliefs/doctrines as the RCC so how can the RCC be the least trustworthy in all the earth?

What of all the scandals in the SDA?

What of the documented lies and cover ups in the SDA?

Once again: You couldn't find your "quote" in the letter either? yes or no?

And still no apology for spreading ANOTHER lie about our Catholic brothers and sisters? Instead you attack them even more AND change the subject? Don't you feel guilty about your lies?


Thank you for your prayers...I need them!