What is the one true Church?

[Brakelite]

No one sought to deny this tradition until the late 4th century, when one Helvidius (whom Calvin called "ignorant") unsuccessfully tangled with St. Jerome.

Mmmm. Like many so called 'heretics' and those the Catholic Church condemned, the church utterly destroyed every last vestige of Helvifiys' writings, and the only evidence we have of his crimes are the venomous vindictive diatribes of Jerome, whose reliance on corrupt manuscripts in translating the Village was misplaced, earned the rebuke from Helvidius, Jerome agreeing that the manuscripts were dodgy. This is like Hitler destroying the writings and reputations of Jewish leaders in his community, and taking his word they were bad people. Trusting in the testimony of an enemy to guage the character of a dead victim is hardly a just practise.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. He is also supposed to be your Lord, and no where did He at any time change the day from the 7th to the first. Your human reasoning and presumptions notwithstanding. You do not have a "thus sayeth the Lord" in support of Sunday. This is one debate, for all your bluster, you cannot prevail over. So if Jesus is Lord, why not obey Him? You say, correctly, that the Ten Commandments are still a requirement for the Christian, what authority does anyone have to change them?

Jesus told His Apostles

Matt 16:19, 18:18
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

At the Last Supper, He assured them:
John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

In the NT, we see them gathering in prayer and taking up prayer collection on the FIRST day of the week – the Lord’s Day (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10).
Paul reminds his readers that the Sabbath was a SHADOW of things to come but the reality is Christ the Lord (Col. 2:16-67).

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● Luke 11:1-2 . . One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he
finished, one of his disciples said to him: Lord, teach us to pray, just as John
taught his disciples. He said to them: When you pray, say: Mother of God

There are no instances of the Lord and Master of New Testament
Christianity-- nor of any of the inspired New Testament writers --either
commanding, teaching, encouraging, leading by example, or even so much
as suggesting --that prayer be made to celestial beings and/or people who've
passed on; and for good reason. Christ, a devoted, observant Jew, never
prayed to celestial beings, nor to folks in the afterlife human beings, nor to
any deities other than the one true God; which is what all Jews are commanded.

● Deut 6:13 . . The Lord, your God, shall you fear; Him shall you serve, and
by His name shall you swear. You shall not follow other gods, such as those
of the surrounding nations, lest the wrath of the Lord, your God, flare up
against you and he destroy you from the face of the land; for the Lord, your
God, who is in your midst, is a jealous God.

Webster's defines "jealous" as intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness. Christ
was fully aware of his Father's feelings about rivals competing for His
people's affections.

● Mark 12:28-30 . . One of the scribes asked him: Which is the first of all
the commandments? Jesus replied, "The first is this: Hear, O Israel! The
Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.

You see; when somebody is devoted to the Lord their God with all their
heart, all their soul, all their mind, and all their strength, then there is
nothing left of their heart, soul, mind, and strength for a rival to share.

If Christ's mother were really, and truly, a mediatrix, it would certainly be
developed in the New Testament because that would be a really big deal;
but it is nowhere even so much as hinted. Therefore, in accordance with
Luke 11:1-2, Deut 6:13, and Mark 12:28-30, conscientious Christians
must-- if for no other reason than respect for God's feelings --regard
prayers directed to a celestial female eminence as offensive to Christ's
Father.

In looking back at my years as a Catholic youth, I cannot recall catechism
instructors ever once telling me that God is sensitive; viz: that He has
feelings and/or that His feelings get hurt. Maybe they said something about
it and I wasn't paying attention; it's just that I don't recall.

Point being: God has given Christ's believing followers a protocol for
associating with Himself; and I am of the very strong opinion that His
feelings get hurt when Christ's supposed followers ignore the protocol and
attempt to circumvent it.

NOTE: The objection is often made that seeing as how it's okay to ask fellow
Christians on earth to pray for one another, it should be okay to ask those
who have passed on to pray for us.

The argument is based upon Jas 5:16 where it's said; "The fervent prayer of
a righteous person is very powerful."

The logic of the argument states: Who are more righteous than people in
heaven to pray for us?

Well, of course that's just the kind of clever sophistry that Eph 4:11-14
addresses because nowhere in the entire Bible are Christ's believing
followers instructed to attempt contacting folks in the afterlife.
_

 

[BreadOfLife]

.
● Luke 11:1-2 . . One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he
finished, one of his disciples said to him: Lord, teach us to pray, just as John
taught his disciples. He said to them: When you pray, say: Mother of God

There are no instances of the Lord and Master of New Testament
Christianity-- nor of any of the inspired New Testament writers --either
commanding, teaching, encouraging, leading by example, or even so much
as suggesting --that prayer be made to celestial beings and/or people who've
passed on; and for good reason. Christ, a devoted, observant Jew, never
prayed to celestial beings, nor to folks in the afterlife human beings, nor to
any deities other than the one true God; which is what all Jews are commanded.

● Deut 6:13 . . The Lord, your God, shall you fear; Him shall you serve, and
by His name shall you swear. You shall not follow other gods, such as those
of the surrounding nations, lest the wrath of the Lord, your God, flare up
against you and he destroy you from the face of the land; for the Lord, your
God, who is in your midst, is a jealous God.

Webster's defines "jealous" as intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness. Christ
was fully aware of his Father's feelings about rivals competing for His
people's affections.

● Mark 12:28-30 . . One of the scribes asked him: Which is the first of all
the commandments? Jesus replied, "The first is this: Hear, O Israel! The
Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.

You see; when somebody is devoted to the Lord their God with all their
heart, all their soul, all their mind, and all their strength, then there is
nothing left of their heart, soul, mind, and strength for a rival to share.

If Christ's mother were really, and truly, a mediatrix, it would certainly be
developed in the New Testament because that would be a really big deal;
but it is nowhere even so much as hinted. Therefore, in accordance with
Luke 11:1-2, Deut 6:13, and Mark 12:28-30, conscientious Christians
must-- if for no other reason than respect for God's feelings --regard
prayers directed to a celestial female eminence as offensive to Christ's
Father.

In looking back at my years as a Catholic youth, I cannot recall catechism
instructors ever once telling me that God is sensitive; viz: that He has
feelings and/or that His feelings get hurt. Maybe they said something about
it and I wasn't paying attention; it's just that I don't recall.

Point being: God has given Christ's believing followers a protocol for
associating with Himself; and I am of the very strong opinion that His
feelings get hurt when Christ's supposed followers ignore the protocol and
attempt to circumvent it.

NOTE: The objection is often made that seeing as how it's okay to ask fellow
Christians on earth to pray for one another, it should be okay to ask those
who have passed on to pray for us.

The argument is based upon Jas 5:16 where it's said; "The fervent prayer of
a righteous person is very powerful."

The logic of the argument states: Who are more righteous than people in
heaven to pray for us?

Well, of course that's just the kind of clever sophistry that Eph 4:11-14
addresses because nowhere in the entire Bible are Christ's believing
followers instructed to attempt contacting folks in the afterlife.
_

Why all of the blatant dishonesty from you guys with regard to prayer?
You all know perfectly well that Catholics don’t worship ANYBODY other than God. If you DON’T know that – then I suggest you read the Catechism on the matter: Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1

On almost a weekly basis on this forum, I have shown that the word “PRAY” simply means to ASH, to ENTREAT, to SUPPLICATED, to REQUEST. Yet, these ridiculous arguments about “worship” continue to spring up.

I have shown that Jesus Himself “Prayed” to His fellow human beings:
(Matt. 5:46, Matt. 5:47, Matt. 6:27, Matt. 6:28, Matt. 7:3, Matt. 7:16, Matt. 8:26, Matt. 9:4, Matt. 9:5, Matt. 9:15, Matt. 9:28, Matt. 11:7, Matt. 11:16, Matt. 12:11, Matt. 12:29, Matt. 12:34, Matt. 12:48, Matt. 14:31, Matt. 15:3, Matt. 15:34, Matt. 16:9, Matt. 16:13, Matt. 16:15, Matt. 16:26, Matt. 17:17, Matt. 17:25, Matt. 18:12, Matt. 19:17, Matt. 20:21, Matt. 20:22, Matt. 20:32, Matt. 21:25, Matt. 21:28, Matt. 21:42, Matt. 22:18, Matt. 22:42, Matt. 23:17-19, Matt. 23:33, Matt. 26:10, Matt. 26:40, Matt. 26:53, Matt. 26:54, Matt. 26:55, Matt. 27:46, Mark 2:8, Mark 4:21, Mark 4:30, Mark 4:40, Mark 5:9, Mark 5:30, Mark 5:39, Mark 7:18, Mark 7:18, Mark 8:12, Mark 8:17-18, Mark 8:19, Mark 8:20, Mark 8:21, Mark 8:23, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:33, Mark 9:50, Mark 10:3, Mark 10:18, Mark 10:51, Mark 12:15, Mark 13:2, Mark 14:37, Mark 14:37, Luke 2:49, Luke 2:49, Luke 5:22, Luke 5:23, Luke 6:46, Luke 8:25, Luke 8:30, Luke 8:45, Luke 10:15, Luke 10:26, Luke 10:36, Luke 11:40, Luke 12:14-15, Luke 12:25, Luke 12:57, Luke 14:31, Luke 14:34, Luke 15:4, Luke 15:8, Luke 16:11, Luke 17:17, Luke 18:7, Luke 18:8, Luke 22:27, Luke 22:46, Luke 23:31, Luke 24:17, Luke 24:19, Luke 24:26, Luke 24:38, Luke 24:41, John 1:38, John 2:4, John 3:10, John 3:12, John 4:7, John 5:6, John 5:44, John 5:47, John 6:5, John 6:61, John 6:62, John 6:67, John 6:70, John 7:19, John7:19, John 7:23, John 8:10, John 8:43, John 8:46, John 8:46, John 10:36, John 11:9, John 11:26, John 11:33, John 13:12, John 14:9, John 18:4,7, John 18:11, John 18:34, John 18:21, John 18:23, John 20:15, John 21:5, John 21:17, John 21:22)

Using the Lord’s Prayer to “prove” this point is a weak and tired tactic.
The Lord’s Prayer involves worship, as well as supplication – and goes explicitly against any Catholic teaching.

In 1 Cor. 12:18-20, 24-26, Paul explains that though we are many individual parts, we make up one Body – that is, the Body of Christ. EVERY Part, he explains, needs all of the ither parts.

As the Body of Christ – we are commanded in Scripture to pray for each other (James 5:16) and prayerful intercession is requested in SEVERAL verses. As I have stated on numerous occasions – the onus is on all of YOU to shoe me even a SINGLE verse of Scripture that indicates that those in Heaven are no longer part of the that Body.

Until then – your entire argument is dead on arrival . . .

 

[amigo de christo]

There is no error quite as serious as extracting a small part of Scripture to "prove" doctrine!

Matthew 16:16-24, "Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.” Then he instructed his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

From that time on Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him: “God forbid, Lord! This must not happen to you!” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.” Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me." ​

Jesus never called anyone else but Peter "Satan"!!! And after calling him "this rock" He also said that he had become a stumbling block. And of course you realize that "this rock" denied knowing Jesus three times and wept with shame at his betrayal!

Give glory to God and His Son Jesus Christ, not to some fallible Christ-denier!

Its not peters fault , nor marys fault that men have placed them in the stead of GOD , that is THE RCC doings .
Peter would have rebuked that harlot too . Mary would even have pointed far from it .
MEN are fallible . ON that you are RIGHT . But lets not accuse peter of what the RCC says .
Peter was no pope . And he would have rebuked not some of the popes , not half of the popes
not two thirds of all the popes , BUT EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM . PEROID . and i mean PEROID .

 

[Illuminator]

Properly born again as adults who choose Jesus and not as infants who can't make that choice.

First, the Church has always baptized adults, following instructions as to what it meant meant.
Second, you can never understand infant baptism because you rejecting the doctrine of Original Sin, which is rejected by a fringe minority of Protestants, and growing like a cancer.

To Explain Infant Baptism You Must Explain Original Sin

The Church’s teaching on infant baptism flows from the Church’s teachings on original sin and the sacrament of baptism. Click here for an explanation.

www.catholic.com

Third, Luther and Calvin baptized infants; it was never a reformist issue, a point you keep running from.
Fourth, adult only baptism is a 16th century invention, with no evidence of it in the early church. Until you produce evidence of adult only baptism in the first 1000 years of Christianity, you are just a noisy deviation from your own Protestant reformers.

We are all born with Original Sin, babies don't make a conscious choice, therefore it can be removed without a conscious choice.
8 day old baby boys were commanded by God to be circumcised, a sign of entering a covenant. The babies had no choice. THE PARENTS made vows on behalf of the child, as any JEWISH source will affirm. Christian PARENTS today do the same thing, followed by instructions. That's why Paul calls baptism the New Circumcision.

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 – these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant –
Col 2:11-12 – however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
Adult only baptism is making His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant, so you are not as "biblical" as you think, and not "reformist" as you think.

You guys demand scripture, scripture, scripture to support each and every authentic early church practice (a notion not found anywhere in the Bible) , and when I present scripture, scripture, scripture, you run and change the subject.

SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM - Scripture Catholic

Contents1 Scripture1.1 I. Born Again in Water Baptism1.2 II. Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic1.3 III. Infant Baptism1.4 IV. Pouring and Sprinkling versus Immersion1.5 V. Original Sin2 Tradition / Church Fathers2.1 I. “Born Again” Means Water Baptism2.2 II. Infant Baptism2.3 III. Original...

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[Illuminator]

.
● Luke 11:1-2 . . One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he
finished, one of his disciples said to him: Lord, teach us to pray, just as John
taught his disciples. He said to them: When you pray, say: Mother of God

There are no instances of the Lord and Master of New Testament
Christianity-- nor of any of the inspired New Testament writers --either
commanding, teaching, encouraging, leading by example, or even so much
as suggesting --that prayer be made to celestial beings and/or people who've
passed on; and for good reason. Christ, a devoted, observant Jew, never
prayed to celestial beings, nor to folks in the afterlife human beings, nor to
any deities other than the one true God; which is what all Jews are commanded.

You are DEAD WRONG.
1) Jesus couldn’t possibly teach doctrinal error by means of the story. (the conversation between Abraham and the rich man.) And there are several, according to Protestant theology.

2) Abraham’s refusal to answer the prayer does not prove that he shouldn’t have been prayed to in the first place. Prayers can be refused. He never said, “You can’t pray to me!!!!! Pray only to God!” Protestants say we can’t pray to anyone but God. We can’t ask dead people to intercede to God for us. Jesus goes against both of those things by endorsing this story. He can’t teach falsehood in it. The rich man makes a petitionary prayer to Abraham, not God, in order to get a request. He doesn’t even ask him to go to God. He thinks that Abraham can himself answer it. (a false Protestant conclusion)

If indeed it were true that no one could ever pray to a creature rather than God, then Jesus couldn’t possibly have told this story. And Abraham would have certainly rebuked the rich man and would have told him to pray to God alone; and would have chided him for going to him instead of God. It’s irrelevant to the issue that the rich man was dead, because it remains wrong to pray to someone (alive or dead) other than God, in Protestantism. It wouldn’t suddenly become right (with an essential change of principle) just because he died. Therefore, the rich man would have violated that.

3) Abraham didn’t say, “I don’t have the power to send Lazarus and it’s blasphemous for you to think so.” He said, rather, that if he did send him, it wouldn’t make any difference as to the result Abraham hoped for. Thus, Abraham is presupposing that he has the power to answer a prayer request, but simply chooses not to, and explains to the rich man why.

4) Had Abraham fulfilled the request it would also be another instance of permitted communication between those in heaven or the afterlife (in this case, Hades) and those on earth, since the dead Lazarus would have returned to earth, to talk to the five brothers. Protestants tell us this is unbiblical and against God’s will (and is the equivalent of necromancy), yet there it is, right in Scripture, from Jesus.

There are several other examples that Weber dismisses or ignores.

 

[Illuminator]

● Deut 6:13 . . The Lord, your God, shall you fear; Him shall you serve, and
by His name shall you swear. You shall not follow other gods, such as those
of the surrounding nations, lest the wrath of the Lord, your God, flare up
against you and he destroy you from the face of the land; for the Lord, your
God, who is in your midst, is a jealous God.

Webster's defines "jealous" as intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness. Christ
was fully aware of his Father's feelings about rivals competing for His
people's affections.

Here, "jealous" is termed as an Anthropomorphism, a human characteristic and a literary device ascribed to God that help us understand the un-understandable. Jealousy is a human emotion, not a divine one.

● Mark 12:28-30 . . One of the scribes asked him: Which is the first of all
the commandments? Jesus replied, "The first is this: Hear, O Israel! The
Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.

You see; when somebody is devoted to the Lord their God with all their
heart, all their soul, all their mind, and all their strength, then there is
nothing left of their heart, soul, mind, and strength for a rival to share.

This is typical dichotomous thinking: either/or, not both/and.

If Christ's mother were really, and truly, a mediatrix, it would certainly be
developed in the New Testament because that would be a really big deal;
but it is nowhere even so much as hinted. Therefore, in accordance with
Luke 11:1-2, Deut 6:13, and Mark 12:28-30, conscientious Christians
must-- if for no other reason than respect for God's feelings --regard
prayers directed to a celestial female eminence as offensive to Christ's
Father.

What's offensive is your twisting and distorting. Being a DEAD CATHOLIC for 24 years does not qualify you to be making critiques of Catholic teaching.

"Co" in co-redeemer, co-Mediatrix, etc. is Collaborator Mary "assisted" in our redemption and she assist in our mediation with Christ.
This context does not give Mary equal status with Christ, or usurp Christ in anyway. She, rather, merely cooperated and collaborated with Christ.
In a sense we, too, are co-mediators every time we pray for someone. We are offering intercession/mediation for our friend when we pray for them. This does not make us God or equal with God, it only means that we are cooperating with the economy of God when he asked us to be a family and pray for each other.

In terms of Mary as co-redeemer, she did in fact, cooperate in the redemption. When she made her fiat to accept God's will for her to bear the Christ Child she was cooperating in the redemption of mankind for it was through her that the Redeemer came into the world.

The solution to problems like this is not suppression but education. "co" just simply does NOT mean "equal to".

As for Judas, no he was NOT co-redeemer. Jesus could have been crucified without Judas' help. Jesus could have been arrested at any time whenever he was in public. In fact, Jesus mentions this in the Garden when he was arrested. Judas happened to be the instrument of Jesus' arrest, but was not necessary for Jesus' arrest. This is different than with Mary...

Mary's role was not incidental but REQUIRED. Jesus, to be incarnated, HAD to be born of a woman, otherwise he would not be human and thus could not be the redeemer.

Mary's collaboration was required; Judas' participation was not, but was incidental.

At this time the theory of co-redeemer is not Church dogma, and is not binding for belief by the faithful. But the concept should not wrinkle our shirts if we understand the nature of her role in the incarnation and the true meaning of "co".

In looking back at my years as a Catholic youth, I cannot recall catechism
instructors ever once telling me that God is sensitive; viz: that He has
feelings and/or that His feelings get hurt. Maybe they said something about
it and I wasn't paying attention; it's just that I don't recall.

Because you were a DEAD CATHOLIC, and have been blaming the Church for your deadness for half a century, posting cheap shots all over the internet..

Point being: God has given Christ's believing followers a protocol for
associating with Himself; and I am of the very strong opinion that His
feelings get hurt when Christ's supposed followers ignore the protocol and
attempt to circumvent it.

"circumvent it"??? Another straw man fallacy.

NOTE: The objection is often made that seeing as how it's okay to ask fellow
Christians on earth to pray for one another, it should be okay to ask those
who have passed on to pray for us.

The argument is based upon Jas 5:16 where it's said; "The fervent prayer of
a righteous person is very powerful."

The logic of the argument states: Who are more righteous than people in
heaven to pray for us?

Well, of course that's just the kind of clever sophistry that Eph 4:11-14
addresses because nowhere in the entire Bible are Christ's believing
followers instructed to attempt contacting folks in the afterlife.
_

Ephesians 4 has nothing to do with intercession of the saints. It refutes the illogical, unworkable, self defeating man made tradition of sola scriptura. It shows the Church and Tradition is necessary for sound teaching. It doesn't even mention scripture.

The doctrine of the Communion of Saints is not confined to one verse, and has not changed for 2000 years. You don't like it because it conflicts with your fallacious arguments.
According to you, Jesus was wrong for commanding DEAD Lazarus to rise, and Peter was wrong for commanding DEAD Tabitha to rise. And Abraham was wrong for even listening to the rich man.
Then we have to play dictionary games because you rely on one of many definitions of "pray" and try to make us Catholics run in circles.
These 4 articles exposes your falsehoods in a friendly manner that you are afraid to read:

Search

Search the world’s largest database of answers about the Catholic faith.

www.catholic.com

 

[Illuminator]

Whether or not that is true, Chiniquy did expose the errors of the Catholic Church, but you are trying to dodge that issue and make Chiniquy into a bad guy. So let me give you a small snippet from his book, and you will see that all Protestants and Non-Catholics would agree with this:

TO THE BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND PEOPLE OF ROME, this book is also dedicated. In the name of your immortal souls, I ask you, Roman Catholics, to read this book. By the mercy of God, you will find, in its pages, how you are cruelly deceived by your vain and lying traditions. You will see that it is not through your ceremonies, masses, confessions, purgatory, indulgences, fastings, etc., you are saved. You have nothing to do but to believe, repent and love. Salvation is a gift ! Eternal life is a gift ! Forgiveness of sin is a gift I Christ is a gift ! Read this book, presented by the most devoted of your friends, and, by the mercy of God, you will see the errors of your ways—you will look to the GIFT— you will accept it—and in its possession you will feel rich and happy for time and eternity.

But you want to slander a man who has spoken the truth. That is exactly what the Gospel is. Salvation is a GIFT! Eternal life is a GIFT! And Christ is a GIFT!

All the sources I used for exposing Hislopites as an evil cult are PROTESTANT, take it up with them.

 

[Illuminator]

As a protestant, I had to search for whatever seemed to be the most “biblical” doctrine. The problem was that good, learned people took different views of this on every issue under the sun. To add to the confusion, they would oftentimes appeal to the Holy Spirit as the guarantor of their doctrine—but clearly the Holy Spirit could not be schizophrenic.

As I discovered, this was in total distinction from the Catholic Church on many of the most important issues.
I will use three to illustrate how grave of a problem this is for those who seek the unadulterated truth:
-Christian baptism,
-Christian worship,
-and Church governance.
I get these three from Christ’s Great Commission to the Apostles (governance):
to baptize in the name of the Trinity (baptism),
and make disciples who obey everything Christ commanded (which surely included the proper mode of worshipping Him).

The Catholic Church has had an astonishingly consistent set of doctrinal beliefs on these three fundamental matters since the first century—we can show overwhelming, even unanimous testimony to each one in every century, east and west. After all, what is of God is not confused.
#1: Christian baptism regenerates, cleanses from sin, and justifies.
#2: Christian worship is the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist.
#3: The government of the Church consists of the bishops, the successors of the Apostles.

As a protestant, none of these issues were agreed upon. The various sects diverge widely on all of them. If you want to find the truth, you will find good and learned people on all sides. There is no consistent answer, despite 500 years to see what would happen. If anything, the answers have grown more splintered on each point, with no one having the authority to “bind and loose” and declare “Thus saith the Lord.”
Thus, there is irreconcilable confusion on:
(1) how to properly become a Christian;
(2) how to properly worship Christ; and
(3) how the Church is rightly governed over time.

That’s the whole ball game folks. Whereas protestants are nowhere close to having consistent answers on these things after just 500 years (which began immediately), the Catholic Church has had consistent answers on this in every century since literally the first century.
For those like myself, and many others, who truly desired the truth with all of their heart—how to become a Christian, how to worship Christ, and how His Church was governed—there was no possibility of finding it in protestantism. It was simply our best guess against their best guess.
But God is not the author of confusion.
Such Catholic consistency over such a vast period of time is a hallmark not of man’s power, but God’s.

To say the Church has been so consistent because our leaders are so smart and holy is a joke.

 

[Patrick1966]

Let us find common ground with our Catholic brothers and sisters rather than reasons to quarrel with them. Better yet, maybe get on social media sites and share the good news of Jesus with the rest of the world.

 

[Keiw]

Yes. But Catholic apologists will tell you that (a) you are delusional, (b) you are misinformed, (c) you hate Catholics, (d) you have no clue what you are talking about (e) quoting directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is totally irrelevant, and (f) this is the only true Christian church in existence (even the Orthodox are out to lunch).

But Father Charles Chiniquy -- a Canadian priest from Quebec -- had the inside track on the Catholic Church and he wrote a book about all the errors. The title is "Fifty Years in the Church of Rome".
View attachment 30815

​

I dont hate them. I hate the false teachings leading all who listen to miss out on entrance into Gods kingdom.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Mmmm. Like many so called 'heretics' and those the Catholic Church condemned, the church utterly destroyed every last vestige of Helvifiys' writings, and the only evidence we have of his crimes are the venomous vindictive diatribes of Jerome, whose reliance on corrupt manuscripts in translating the Village was misplaced, earned the rebuke from Helvidius, Jerome agreeing that the manuscripts were dodgy. This is like Hitler destroying the writings and reputations of Jewish leaders in his community, and taking his word they were bad people. Trusting in the testimony of an enemy to guage the character of a dead victim is hardly a just practise.

Not to mention the lies clamed about Hitler regarding the Jews, They make it hard to understand what the hell Hitler is truly saying about the Jews truly.

What Jews was Hitler truly targeting ? and why ? not to mention who did he say was the problem ? the world Banking cartel ? Did Hitler publicly blame the undermining of Germany on them Banking Mobs ? for creating the 200% inflation that was inflicted on the German people?
Not to mention did Hitler and his buddy's have another angle that was not truly publicly expressed ?

One must have a handle on the workings of Satanist ?

Hitler loves the Zionist Jews in fact and is he one ?

Jews had a reputation of undermining every society they were welcomed into History proves.
They do not have Grace in fact and are the biggest racial prejudice bigots on earth.
They believe that all non Jews are just only their cattle in fact.
They have always worked so as to bankrupt all Nations both economically and morally.

Not all Jews are the same, but Satanist wants all to think that they are the same type of Jew. so you are uneducated on the subject.
Bible points it all out in fact, so carnal and the ones who are only religious people just do not have a handle on the subject because they do not have the Holy Spirit to guide them to understand reality, because they are only of this world that is as Jesus pointed out, Full of Deceptions and Delusions !

So we have all such question marks in only this last 100 years, that is like pulling teeth to be addressed openly, so it's don't go their, because some great swine demands not to.

Then we can go back to talking about what Jerome was on about, but we can not positively point out our last 100 years now in fact openly. but for a general outlook that is not clouded with an intent of the victor ?
So with Jerome what do we use to understand his direction regarding the point of view and remember, that of the times ? so one could get on the wrong track regarding what he may of been on about. Just as the majority nowadays is not worthy of the in depth workings of history and not to mention under a deception regarding of now what is truly under handed taking place that dupes the people.

So what is the signs of a "Healthy Democracy" ? Openness ! Willing to debate questions put forward and in depth and not just cut such off because they are out of time, and if so willingness to keep on the subject the next day etc.
If they cut one off or play games, they have something to hide.
If they become dictators they have something to hide.
Hitler's Germany was a Democracy in fact, just as Joe Biden claims to be Democrat ! but the difference is he is a Socialist Democrat ! big difference ! A Political Correct democrat ?
Hang on Hitler was a Political Correct Democrat as well, you got with the program or you became an undesirable, classed as an enemy of the State. Only room for one line or point of view ! As the MSM is all one sided dribble. they are not a media at all, but owned ! a propaganda tool, just as it was in Nazi Germany and every Communist Nation was and is. They do not value freedom of speech because they may get found out that they have criminal intents, like the mongrel dogs that they truly are.
Why because they have no Grace ! for they are of this world, Lost ! lacking the blessing of Christ Jesus ! so is it any wonder !

 

[Grailhunter]

You are DEAD WRONG.
1) Jesus couldn’t possibly teach doctrinal error by means of the story. (the conversation between Abraham and the rich man.) And there are several, according to Protestant theology.

2) Abraham’s refusal to answer the prayer does not prove that he shouldn’t have been prayed to in the first place. Prayers can be refused. He never said, “You can’t pray to me!!!!! Pray only to God!” Protestants say we can’t pray to anyone but God. We can’t ask dead people to intercede to God for us. Jesus goes against both of those things by endorsing this story. He can’t teach falsehood in it. The rich man makes a petitionary prayer to Abraham, not God, in order to get a request. He doesn’t even ask him to go to God. He thinks that Abraham can himself answer it. (a false Protestant conclusion)

If indeed it were true that no one could ever pray to a creature rather than God, then Jesus couldn’t possibly have told this story. And Abraham would have certainly rebuked the rich man and would have told him to pray to God alone; and would have chided him for going to him instead of God. It’s irrelevant to the issue that the rich man was dead, because it remains wrong to pray to someone (alive or dead) other than God, in Protestantism. It wouldn’t suddenly become right (with an essential change of principle) just because he died. Therefore, the rich man would have violated that.

3) Abraham didn’t say, “I don’t have the power to send Lazarus and it’s blasphemous for you to think so.” He said, rather, that if he did send him, it wouldn’t make any difference as to the result Abraham hoped for. Thus, Abraham is presupposing that he has the power to answer a prayer request, but simply chooses not to, and explains to the rich man why.

4) Had Abraham fulfilled the request it would also be another instance of permitted communication between those in heaven or the afterlife (in this case, Hades) and those on earth, since the dead Lazarus would have returned to earth, to talk to the five brothers. Protestants tell us this is unbiblical and against God’s will (and is the equivalent of necromancy), yet there it is, right in Scripture, from Jesus.

There are several other examples that Weber dismisses or ignores.

In the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus we have some unusual sceneries....as well as some challenges for those that are sola scriptura because it goes against some common beliefs.
1. I have already explained the issues with the words Hades and Hell in the scriptures. Hell cannot be in the scriptures because it is a more modern word 725 AD from the German/Anglo-Saxon with no Greek equivalent. Hades is a borrowed word from the Greek....Hades being a Greek god that reigned over "an underworld" of the same name. Gehenna was an illustration of the place of the fiery eternal punishment. The confusion for Christians is that this place of a fiery eternal punishment was never given its own name. They used illustrations and a borrowed Greek word. The Greek Hades was not a place of horrible torment...the descriptions varied. Probably the problem was the limitation of the languages of the time period. The Hebrew language did not have a word for a place of fiery eternal punishment and neither did the Greeks. The "Hebrews" did not believe in Hell or the devil. Much of the imagery for Hell comes from the Divine Comedy and Dante’s Inferno an Italian narrative poem by Dante Alighieri, begun c. 1308 and completed around 1321.
2. Lazarus ends up in Abraham's bosom, which would go along with the phrases in the Bible "gathered with their fathers" which would mean that Lazarus and Abraham were in Sheol. This would be normal as the story does not say that Lazarus and Abraham were in Heaven.
3. But where did the rich man end up? It is suggests he went to Hades.....was that the Greek Hades? What is the status of the place of the fiery eternal punishment? Did it exist at this point? Do people go straight there from dying? No Judgment Day?

4. The parable speaks of fire and torment.....and is says that... he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. OK So is this scenario such that people in this place of torment can see the people in Sheol and talk to them....Able to talk to them while standing in fire.

So the question I have, was this scenario actually something that could happen or is this a parable, a hypothetical scenario to teach a lesson? For the sola scriptura people they are kind of stuck and have to accept it as written, juggling what is said in this story with common beliefs. For me it a lesson taught by a hypothetical scenario.

The story of Lazarus and Rich Man is kind of like a can of worms as far as all the questions and contradictions it raises. Like the Transfiguration of Yeshua where he talks to Moses and Elijah. Was He talking to the dead? Some Christians do not like the idea of talking to the dead. Presumably they were in Sheol. Are we conscience after we die? Some Christians do not think so....the Bible refers to people "asleep" after they die. If Lazarus and the rich man could talk to each other....when we go to Heaven, are we going to be able to see and talk to our relatives in Hell? If the Apostles saw Moses and Elijah....did they have bodies? Do our souls look like our bodies?

 

[Enoch111]

I dont hate them. I hate the false teachings leading all who listen to miss out on entrance into Gods kingdom.

It is a mistake to say that non-Catholics "hate" Catholics. They hate the false doctrines of the church of Rome (which Christ also hates), and true love for Catholics means exposing the false teachings and also presenting Gospel Truth at the same time. It is the true Gospel which brings salvation to souls.

 

[Grailhunter]

It is a mistake to say that non-Catholics "hate" Catholics. They hate the false doctrines of the church of Rome (which Christ also hates), and true love for Catholics means exposing the false teachings and also presenting Gospel Truth at the same time. It is the true Gospel which brings salvation to souls.

Not saying I am worried about you....but when some thinks they know what Christ is thinking or what Christ hates....that can cause some very bad things.....actually it is the very thing that caused the Catholic Church to go down a very bad path.....in a since playing God.

The big mistake is focusing on the past. Why not talk about today? What is the average Catholic like today? What are the Catholic churches in America doing, today?

The Catholics Church is at a disadvantage with disagreeing with the beliefs of Protestants, with thousands and thousands of denominations and millions of differing beliefs it is like a creature with thousands of heads, there is no clear target.

So here in this thread....What is the one true church?.....no one is going to agree on what Christ's church was.....but whatever it was, it has been fractured into thousands of churches. Right...wrong....or indifferent the Catholic Church tried to keep the faith one....unity. (Martin Luther's original intent to reform the Catholic Church was a much better idea.) So now, will the Protestants admit they are responsible for fracturing the faith into thousands of beliefs. No! Worse than that.....they don't want one faith or unity. If some one brings up the topic of one faith.....a lot of them will think it is the anti-Christ.....did Christ want more than on faith?.....did Christ think like the anti-Christ? Would that make any sense?

 

[Illuminator]

I dont hate them.

Who is "them" you don't hate with stupid flaming zingers that have no substance,
or is "them", Chucky and Alex, proven liars by Protestant standards???

I hate the false teachings leading all who listen to miss out on entrance into Gods kingdom.

Then you should hate Alexander Hislop's teaching that the cross is a pagan Babylonian symbol, and must not be displayed anywhere. . Enouh 111 is a professed Hislopite, The "Christian Taliban" of America. Maybe you are too.
And you should hate the lies of millionaire Jack Chick, may God have mercy on his soul.

You keep asserting "false teachings" over and over again. If you are going to challenge Catholic teaching on any subject, a smart person would find out what the teaching really is that is allegedly false, and disprove it with scripture. You never do that. Trolling is not discussion, it's persecution.
Try asking questions instead of insulting headless chicken comments. I'd be happy to answer your questions. Here's a suggestion before you recklessly attack something:

Catholic Faith, Beliefs, & Prayers | Catholic Answers

Explore the Largest Catholic Database: Beliefs, Practices, Articles, Books, Videos.

www.catholic.com

Key in a word or topic in the box and click FIND. It's simple and easy.

 

[Illuminator]

It is a mistake to say that non-Catholics "hate" Catholics. They hate the false doctrines of the church of Rome (which Christ also hates), and true love for Catholics means exposing the false teachings and also presenting Gospel Truth at the same time. It is the true Gospel which brings salvation to souls.

1. The Gospel of life is at the heart of Jesus' message. Lovingly received day after day by the Church, it is to be preached with dauntless fidelity as "good news" to the people of every age and culture.

At the dawn of salvation, it is the Birth of a Child which is proclaimed as joyful news: "I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10-11). The source of this "great joy" is the Birth of the Saviour; but Christmas also reveals the full meaning of every human birth, and the joy which accompanies the Birth of the Messiah is thus seen to be the foundation and fulfilment of joy at every child born into the world (cf. Jn 16:21).

When he presents the heart of his redemptive mission, Jesus says: "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (Jn 10:10). In truth, he is referring to that "new" and "eternal" life which consists in communion with the Father, to which every person is freely called in the Son by the power of the Sanctifying Spirit. It is precisely in this "life" that all the aspects and stages of human life achieve their full significance.

The incomparable worth of the human person

2. Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God. The loftiness of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness and the inestimable value of human life even in its temporal phase. Life in time, in fact, is the fundamental condition, the initial stage and an integral part of the entire unified process of human existence. It is a process which, unexpectedly and undeservedly, is enlightened by the promise and renewed by the gift of divine life, which will reach its full realization in eternity (cf. 1 Jn 3:1-2). At the same time, it is precisely this supernatural calling which highlights the relative character of each individual's earthly life. After all, life on earth is not an "ultimate" but a "penultimate" reality; even so, it remains a sacred reality entrusted to us, to be preserved with a sense of responsibility and brought to perfection in love and in the gift of ourselves to God and to our brothers and sisters.

The Church knows that this Gospel of life, which she has received from her Lord, 1 has a profound and persuasive echo in the heart of every person-believer and non-believer alike-because it marvellously fulfils all the heart's expectations while infinitely surpassing them. Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded.

In a special way, believers in Christ must defend and promote this right, aware as they are of the wonderful truth recalled by the Second Vatican Council: "By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being".2 This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God who "so loved the world that he gave his only Son" (Jn 3:16), but also the incomparable value of every human person.

The Church, faithfully contemplating the mystery of the Redemption, acknowledges this value with ever new wonder.3 She feels called to proclaim to the people of all times this "Gospel", the source of invincible hope and true joy for every period of history. The Gospel of God's love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the person and the Gospel of life are a single and indivisible Gospel.

For this reason, man-living man-represents the primary and fundamental way for the Church. 4

footnotes:
1 The expression "Gospel of life" is not found as such in Sacred Scripture. But it does correspond to an essential dimension of the biblical message.

2 Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 22.

3 Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), 10; AAS 71 (1979), 275.

4 Cf. ibid., 14: loc.cit., 285.
EVANGELIUM VITAE To the Bishops Priests and Deacons Men and Women religious lay Faithful
and all People of Good Will on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life
https://www.vatican.va/content/john...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

THAT is the Gospel in long form. Rabid anti-Catholics don't know what they hate, they just hate it anyway.

 

[Enoch111]

Not saying I am worried about you....but when some thinks they know what Christ is thinking or what Christ hates....that can cause some very bad things...

I understand what you are saying, and that divisions are unacceptable to God. The question is this "When Wycliffe and Luther and the other Reformers were calling for a Reformation within the Catholic Church, why did the hierarchy reject that valid call, and mount a Counter-Reformation?" So in fact the CC is responsible for the divisions. As to Christ hating false doctrine it is plainly stated in Revelation 2:15: So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

All doctrine must conform to Scripture, and the CC is not the only church with false doctrines.

 

[Grailhunter]

I understand what you are saying, and that divisions are unacceptable to God. The question is this "When Wycliffe and Luther and the other Reformers were calling for a Reformation within the Catholic Church, why did the hierarchy reject that valid call, and mount a Counter-Reformation?" So in fact the CC is responsible for the divisions. As to Christ hating false doctrine it is plainly stated in Revelation 2:15: So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

All doctrine must conform to Scripture, and the CC is not the only church with false doctrines.

Ok, there is a lot of history here.....most of this is do to somebody thinking they knew what God wanted.
The Catholics are not responsible for the division, but the Catholics were at fault in general.....because they thought they knew what God wanted and had the authority of God on earth. That proved to be a lethal combination. The initial Protestant division is not the worst of the problem it is the thousands that happened after that and is still happening. They fought to get custody of the Bible and now after thousands of attempts, it is clear they cannot figure it out and it does not dawn on them that at this point they should realize that, that is a problem.

So all things considered.....a little humility and love would be good.....because theologically speaking.....we are all living in glass houses.
The Bible only people are going to mostly focus on what is in the Bible....I say mostly, because it only works for people that don't know that the Protestants have pulled a few things over the fence and pretend it is in the Bible and explain away things in the Bible that they do not like.

There is no total agreement on what the Nicolaitans believed but......enough to say it was bad.
Blunt holds that the Nicolaitans either believed that the command against ritual sex was part of the Mosaic law (from which they had been freed by Jesus Christ) and it was licit for them, or that they went too far during Christian "love-feasts".