The Church The Papacy Says You Should Join

[prism]

You must be new here . . .
I am a Catholic - not Eastern or Greek Orthodox.

By the way - Rome isn't a Church. I belong to the Catholic Church.
On what basis, you ask? On the words of Christ and the Apostles, as I presented them to you (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23, 2 Thess. 2:15).

So you belong to the Roman Catholic Church. Why is that a truer church over the Eastern Orthodox?

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

I had great respect for my father, a staunch Catholic, so I don't believe that the denomination is what defines someone but I think that those supporting the Catholic Church should have their eyes opened that this Pope is not what he pretends to be.

There is a group of American Catholics which is trying to get him ousted. I forget what they call themselves--I'll see if I can find a link for you. They are calling him a heretic outright and their website recounts all of the ways that he is perverting Catholic doctrine. Many of the rank-and-file Catholics that I have known have been orthodox in their faith and were quite devoted to the Lord. It is the Vatican that is rotten to the core.

It's comical when I look back at the one church we supported with our hard-earned money. The pastor and his good buddies used church funds to fly to some island to "evangelize it." The church was in a bad city and they could have walked out the front door of the church to evangelize. It was a lie that they pushed to use church donations to go on a trip. I saw where they lied to themselves and us.

Yes. Unfortunately, there is too much of that going around in evangelical circles--especially in the mega churches.

 

[brakelite]

In 1850, White falsely predicted that Jerusalem would never be built up. Bible scholars at the time were teaching about the Jews returning to Palestine and about Jerusalem being restored.
White said, “I also saw that Old Jerusalem would never be built up.” (Early Writings, p.75)
Israel has indeed been greatly built up since its rebirth in 1948 – not to mention the Six Day War in 1967.

How did Ellen White's readers understand this statement? That there was no light in the popular "age-to-come" teaching, that there is no Biblical significance in the Jews' returning to Palestine, that Jerusalem will never be rebuilt in a future millennial period. She was not talking about a possible political rebuilding of Jerusalem but of a prophetically significant rebuilding of Old Jerusalem. To continue to think that way, she emphasized, was to sink further into Satan's deceptions and away from present duty.

 

[brakelite]

She falsely predicted that England would declare war on the United states during our Civil War – and that we would be “humbled to the dust”:
“This nation will yet be humbled into the dust. England is studying whether . . . to make war
on her. When England does declare war, . . . there will be general war.”
(Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p.259).
As we know – this NEVER came to pass.

Note the conditional character of these statements: "She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home." "But if England thinks it will pay." Then follows the sentence: "When England does declare war. . . ." It is evident that Mrs. White is here using the word "when" as a synonym for "if," which is good English. In fact, if we do not thus understand the word "when" in this connection, we have an unusual situation--a series of problematical "ifs" is followed by a simple statement that England is going to declare war. Thus Mrs. White's last sentence would make pointless her preceding sentences.

A similar use of the word "when" is found on the preceding page in her work: "When our nation observes the fast which God has chosen, then will He accept their prayers as far as the war is concerned." No one will argue that the word "when" in this connection introduces a simple statement concerning a future fact that will undebatably happen.

An inspired parallel to this "if" and "when" construction is found in Jeremiah 42:10-19. The prophet speaks to Israel about abiding in Palestine rather than going down into Egypt:

"If ye will still abide in this land. . . ." Verse 10.
"But if ye say, We will not dwell in this land. . . ." Verse 13.
"If ye wholly set your faces to enter into Egypt. . . ." Verse 15.
"When ye shall enter into Egypt . . . ." Verse 18.

The same conditional context is applied to the so-called false prophecy you quoted above regarding her present generation seeing the second coming. Conditional on the church being ready. Always conditional.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So you belong to the Roman Catholic Church. Why is that a truer church over the Eastern Orthodox?

No - I belong to the Catholic Church.
"Roman" or "Latin" refers to the Liturgical Rite. The Catholic Church consists of some twenty Liturgical Rites, which include the Byzantine, the Coptic, the Ruthenian, the Melkite, the Maronite and others.

The Eastern Orthodox traces itself back to the same roots. They broke off into schism, however, in the 11th century.
Pope John Paul the Great referred to them as the "other lung" of the Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Note the conditional character of these statements: "She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home." "But if England thinks it will pay." Then follows the sentence: "When England does declare war. . . ."It is evident that Mrs. White is here using the word "when" as a synonym for "if," which is good English. In fact, if we do not thus understand the word "when" in this connection, we have an unusual situation--a series of problematical "ifs" is followed by a simple statement that England is going to declare war. Thus Mrs. White's last sentence would make pointless her preceding sentences.

A similar use of the word "when" is found on the preceding page in her work: "When our nation observes the fast which God has chosen, then will He accept their prayers as far as the war is concerned." No one will argue that the word "when" in this connection introduces a simple statement concerning a future fact that will undebatably happen.

An inspired parallel to this "if" and "when" construction is found in Jeremiah 42:10-19. The prophet speaks to Israel about abiding in Palestine rather than going down into Egypt:

"If ye will still abide in this land. . . ." Verse 10.
"But if ye say, We will not dwell in this land. . . ." Verse 13.
"If ye wholly set your faces to enter into Egypt. . . ." Verse 15.
"When ye shall enter into Egypt . . . ." Verse 18.

The same conditional context is applied to the so-called false prophecy you quoted above regarding her present generation seeing the second coming. Conditional on the church being ready. Always conditional.

dis you actually READ what you wrote??

Making excuses for her writings does NOT diminish her false prophecies. You can sit there and rationalize ANYTHING a person writes and twist it to mean that YOU want it to say.
The fact is that she predicted something that was DEAD WRONG.

Making excuses for her won't make it "true".

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is a group of American Catholics which is trying to get him ousted. I forget what they call themselves--I'll see if I can find a link for you. They are calling him a heretic outright and their website recounts all of the ways that he is perverting Catholic doctrine. Many of the rank-and-file Catholics that I have known have been orthodox in their faith and were quite devoted to the Lord. It is the Vatican that is rotten to the core.
Yes. Unfortunately, there is too much of that going around in evangelical circles--especially in the mega churches.

WRONG.

There are groups of American pseudo-Catholic DISSIDENT groups trying to get rid of him.
Many of these pseudo-Catholic groups CALL themselves "Catholic" but they're Protestants.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Boy - Joseph Goebbels had NOTHING on you SDAs when it comes to fabricating history.
Time for a Bible lesson . . .

First of all - NOWHERE does the Bible tell is that the Bible is our "Sole creed" or "Sole bond of union".
This is a doctrine and precept of MEN in the 16th century - and you know what Jesus said about the doctrines and precepts of men that try to usurp the Word of God (Matt. 15:9).

No - the Bible itself tells us that Christ's CHURCH is our final Authority on earth (Matt. 16:18-19. Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Now - as to the quote from the St. Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel, May 21, 1995 - this is an OPINION, not a Church teaching. YOUR problem is that you never do your homework. Instead, you post secondary sources and hearsay as your "evidence".

Finally, as to the Sabbath - we learn from Scripture that the NT Church gathered on FIRST day of the week - the "Lord's Day" - Sunday (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10).

This is what Paul wrote - under the inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT - about people like you SDAs who judge people on the basis of Sunday worship:
Col 2:16-17
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a SABBATH day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in CHRIST.

Your arguments are petty and un-scriptural . . .

There's only one choice.
Be a born again Christian or suffer the consequences.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There's only one choice.
Be a born again Christian or suffer the consequences.

A Baptized Catholic IS a born again Christian, Einstein.

 

[prism]

Also interesting is that besides a brief mention in the Book of Acts, Mary is no more mentioned in all the NT.
You would think of all the importance Rome puts on Mary, she'd be mentioned at least once in each Epistle.

 

[quietthinker]

Where to begin??

For starters – Ellen G. White predicted the world would end in 1843, 1844, 1845 and 1851:
“the believers explained their mistake & gave reasons why they expected their Lord in 1844.”
(Early Writings, p.237)


White predicted that some of the people living in 1856 would live to see our Lord’s return:
“I was shown the company present at the Conference.
Said the angel: ‘Some food for worms, some subjects of the 7 last plagues, some will be alive
and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.'’ (Vol. 1, p.131,132,
Testimonies for the Church)

This is clearly a false prophecy


She falsely predicted that England would declare war on the United states during our Civil War – and that we would be “humbled to the dust”:
“This nation will yet be humbled into the dust. England is studying whether . . . to make war
on her. When England does declare war, . . . there will be general war.”
(Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p.259).
As we know – this NEVER came to pass.


In 1850, White falsely predicted that Jerusalem would never be built up. Bible scholars at the time were teaching about the Jews returning to Palestine and about Jerusalem being restored.
White said, “I also saw that Old Jerusalem would never be built up.” (Early Writings, p.75)
Israel has indeed been greatly built up since its rebirth in 1948 – not to mention the Six Day War in 1967.

All it takes is ONE false prophecy to make a FALSE prophet.
I just showed you more than SIX . . .

Thank you for the reply. You have as usual taken these quotes out of their context. I would ask, have you read the publications you have quoted from or have you just gone to an SDA hate site, copied and pasted? Given your record of demanding facts from others yet not taking notice of them yourself....given the fact that you are not honest in your posts on this site, I would say you have done the later.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

A Baptized Catholic IS a born again Christian, Einstein.

You've never learned baptism, have you?
You poor soul.....

 

[Phoneman777]

Uhhhhh, WRONG.

As usual - you posted a few SECONDARY sources.
You NEVER post primary sources because that would mean doing some actual homework and discovering that there AREN'T any.

Dead Bread, do you realize how asinine you appear to this community when you claim to be "exposing anti-catholic lies for 15 years" but your only strategy is to deny history and reality?

If the source is not catholic - such as Foxe's Book of Martyrs - you reject it.
If the source is catholic, you claim, "Oh, that's just "poetic speaking" or "one catholic man's opinion".
If the source is your Pedophile-in-Chief pope, you claim, "Oh, he was just extending an olive branch".

No matter HOW much whining you do about Pope Leo - you simply have NO evidence that he ordered the selling of Indulgences so your case falls FLAT on its face.

Here is an excerpt from a papist website - got that? A papist website:

"It wasn’t personal scandal that characterized (Leo's) papacy; it was the scandalous use of papal funds to such a degree he stooped to immoral methods of collecting money, primarily, the selling of indulgences." - (papal priest Richard Kunst operates the site)
​

Pope Leo X | Papal Artifacts

This is what we intellectuals refer to as the "moment of truth" in a debate . . .

"Intellect"? "Truth"? Dead Bread, I've already showed you that the papacy has "no light" in it. No truth. No Holy Spirit. Just lies, superstition, and dead bread rituals performed by pedophile priests.

PS - Check the DATES on those abuse cases in Louisiana, Einstein. They range from 1917 through the early 1970's. It's ANCIENT HISTORY . . .

Dead Bread, the article clearly says that two more child molesting priests' names were added to that list, but in your haste to defend your pedophile child raping priesthood, you missed that. Tell us, Dead Bread, why do you defend them so? It is some sort of "coping mechanism" you use to deal with some past horrific experience that involved one of your priests?

 

[BreadOfLife]

You've never learned baptism, have you?
You poor soul.....

Never "learned" Baptism??
Care to expound on that?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Dead Bread, do you realize how asinine you appear to this community when you claim to be "exposing anti-catholic lies for 15 years" but your only strategy is to deny history and reality?

If the source is not catholic - such as Foxe's Book of Martyrs - you reject it.
If the source is catholic, you claim, "Oh, that's just "poetic speaking" or "one catholic man's opinion".
If the source is your Pedophile-in-Chief pope, you claim, "Oh, he was just extending an olive branch".
Here is an excerpt from a papist website - got that? A papist website:

"It wasn’t personal scandal that characterized (Leo's) papacy; it was the scandalous use of papal funds to such a degree he stooped to immoral methods of collecting money, primarily, the selling of indulgences." - (papal priest Richard Kunst operates the site)​

​

Your posts are becoming increasingly idiotic.

First of all - what is a "papist website"?? Is it a website where Catholics post?? You think that this qualifies as a PRIMARY source??
How old are you, Phoneyman??

A Primary source would be an official document, declaration, decree or other directive from the Pope. It would be a Catechism or some other official Catholic document that shows the ordering of the selling of Indulgences. NO such declaration exists.

The Catholic Church has official decrees and documents on just about everything the Church has ever done or been involved in - doctrinally or not. the fact that YOU keep digging up SECONDARY sources is pathetic because you refuse to accept that you will never find a Primary source on the subject - because it never happened, Einstein.

Pope Leo X | Papal Artifacts
"Intellect"? "Truth"? Dead Bread, I've already showed you that the papacy has "no light" in it. No truth. No Holy Spirit. Just lies, superstition, and dead bread rituals performed by pedophile priests.
Dead Bread, the article clearly says that two more child molesting priests' names were added to that list, but in your haste to defend your pedophile child raping priesthood, you missed that. Tell us, Dead Bread, why do you defend them so? It is some sort of "coping mechanism" you use to deal with some past horrific experience that involved one of your priests?

If you had bothered to follow the link you posted and done your homework - you would see that the "list" that those 2 priests were added to ranged in dates from 1917 to the 1970's. That means the LATEST charge on that list is OVER 40 YEARS OLD.

Your arguments are as pathetic as your adherence to William Miller and E.G. White's false prophecies.
Any "Great disappointments" lately, Einstein?

 

[Soverign Grace]

There is a group of American Catholics which is trying to get him ousted. I forget what they call themselves--I'll see if I can find a link for you. They are calling him a heretic outright and their website recounts all of the ways that he is perverting Catholic doctrine. Many of the rank-and-file Catholics that I have known have been orthodox in their faith and were quite devoted to the Lord. It is the Vatican that is rotten to the core.



Yes. Unfortunately, there is too much of that going around in evangelical circles--especially in the mega churches.

Really? Wow - good for them. I hope they're able to do it. I read about him every once in awhile and he is overtaken by evil - he's apparently pushing a one-world religion. I sometimes see him linked with Pastor Rick Warren of the Council on Foreign Relations - another apparent heretic. The Catholic faith is faltering in America I read - but then so are other denominations. We're in strange times.

 

[Soverign Grace]

Everyone should look up Noahide Laws - the government can legally kill Christians.

 

[quietthinker]

You can sit there and rationalize ANYTHING a person writes and twist it to mean that YOU want it to say.

I suppose this statement must be your flagship.

 

[brakelite]

I find it intriguing that protestants are cheering hard line Catholics in their quest to get rid of the current pope. Francis isn't any more keen to establish a one world Catholic NWO than any of his predecessors. To accomplish this great milestone for Catholic supremacy had been the ambition for the Vatican for centuries. And if the current pope is viewed by Catholics as being a heretic to Catholicism then doesn't that make him one of us? We are all in that boat guys, one more passenger aint going to topple it over.
But no, Francis is a Jesuit. He is about as Catholic as anyone can get. If he appears otherwise it is because he intends it that way. Appearances are deceptive... And believe me, the Jesuits know all there is to know about deception.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Never "learned" Baptism??
Care to expound on that?

As you always say to me, "go learn on your own".