whats Does The RCC mass/Eucherist Add To lacking of the Cross?

[WestminsterMan]

Thats just an accusation its not real.


You don't pay attention do you? As can be clearly seen from this quote of yours.


You're using your adaption to that word. The actual greek means to be born from above. And what you really mean is you can't have faith until your regenerated but to you "born again" and "regeneration" are one and the same. That is not how the early church looked at it. Jesus certainly inlcuded baptism when speaking of being born again. So in actuality one certainly can have faith before being baptized. So your argument falls flat.


As I've just shown you; you absolutely can.


You don't even know what Catholic believe about baptising infants! Why don't you understand the easy thing first like baptism of adults before you get to children. Or You'll just start making ridiculous accusations when you do.

It is clear you didn't even read my comment. You arn't making a sensible come back.
Of course what kind of silly statement is that?

there you going and mixing up terms. Do you mean what was the object of your faith before you are regenerated? Let me ask you this can you give an object of faith to someone else?


It is very clear from this statement you didn't even read what I wrote. That question was answered already.

Really now?



LOL!!!! Talk about hogwash. So it is your view that everyone who hears the scriptures has faith? But something is very clear and sad from your statement faith to you is no more than understanding. Faith to you isn't about how you live your life but what you understand. It is no more than intellectual assent. And that is not biblical.


Really now? So God doesn't regenerate you either? God doesn't make you able to believe his word? You can believe of your own volition and have faith even though you are a sinner and have not been regenerated. I'm sorry DHK I can't imagine many baptist agreeing with you on this.

.
The bible says its true. You just want to disagree with the bible.


Baptism is no more a work that reading scripture.


NO you are wrong Galatians 4:4-5, Ephesians 1:5 Hebrews 12:6, Proverbs 3:11, 13:24 Matthew 6:4-6, 16, 18, 2 John 8, Revelation 22:12


I know how the word eis is used. Do you?


Typical tripe. Consistent in accusations with no reall support save how you "feel" about it.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Walter]

This is all very humorous. Proof can be given of all the gradual changes to the RCC.
The Assumption of Mary was not an official doctrine of the RCC until as recently as 1950, and you say it never changes. This absurd doctrine was not believed until that late date.

Purgatory, when did that become official? With Augustine?
The Apocrypha did not become official until 1532.
The RCC changed and changed and changed.
All the popes had to speak "ex cathedra," and each added their little doctrines into that body of faith you speak of. It keeps on changing.

Since when does the word 'official' mean 'change'? You mention the 'change' in catechisms. A catechism is a paraphrase of doctrine. Doctrine (such as the findings of Ecumenical Councils) is eternal, but the language and vocabulary of doctrine may be adapted to suit the needs of time, people, and places. This is WHY the Church issues new Catechisms in the first place.

Encyclicals" are letters by the Pope addressed to various groups (sometimes to small groups of people, sometimes fellow priests throughout the world, sometimes to all the Faithful). They carry Magesterial authority but absolutely are NOT regarded as infallable unless they are specifically said to be so, AND THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

 

[DHK]

Since when does the word 'official' mean 'change'? You mention the 'change' in catechisms. A catechism is a paraphrase of doctrine. Doctrine (such as the findings of Ecumenical Councils) is eternal, but the language and vocabulary of doctrine may be adapted to suit the needs of time, people, and places. This is WHY the Church issues new Catechisms in the first place.

Encyclicals" are letters by the Pope addressed to various groups (sometimes to small groups of people, sometimes fellow priests throughout the world, sometimes to all the Faithful). They carry Magesterial authority but absolutely are NOT regarded as infallable unless they are specifically said to be so, AND THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

The superstitious myth of the Assumption of Mary had been around for a long time. Its history can be read in the Catholic Encyclopedia. But that same encyclopedia will admit:

Note: By promulgating the Bull Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith. Likewise, the Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium that "the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things (n. 59)."

It only became an infallible dogma of the RCC in 1950. People believed it before then. But it was not officially part of the Catholic faith until 1950. Thus the Catholic "deposit of faith" that TS refers to does change.

Note that to deny this doctrine is blasphemous:

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It was defined in the late 1800's. But it has always been believed as can be seen by multitude of Documents long before the reformation. It was never a new belief. It was an old belief defined and became dogmatic. Like the trinity. It was always believed but wasn't defined or dogmatic until 325. And it clear you have no understanding of what ex-cathedra actaully means.

The Arians are proof that the trinity was not always believed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The superstitious myth of the Assumption of Mary had been around for a long time. Its history can be read in the Catholic Encyclopedia. But that same encyclopedia will admit:

It only became an infallible dogma of the RCC in 1950. People believed it before then. But it was not officially part of the Catholic faith until 1950. Thus the Catholic "deposit of faith" that TS refers to does change.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

The deposit of faith never changes.

The Deposit of Faith is the body of saving truth entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and handed on by them to be preserved and proclaimed. Jesus ordered them to teach the nations "everything I have commanded you" and assured them "know that I am with you always, until the end of the world." (Mt 28:18-20)...it can never be augmented in substance.

However, we can have a deper understanding of it.

Marian Roman Catholic dogmas have two functions: they present infallible Church teachings about Mary and her relation to Jesus Christ, and they praise Mary and, through Mary, God's deed on Mary. All Marian dogmas teach about her divine son and highlight the divine nature of Jesus Christ...

So all Doctrines about Mary actually derive from what is believed about Jesus Christ and certify the deposit on who Jesus Christ is. Thus it has always been believed.

these doctrines were held by the Church prior to the date of official definition

And the definition was in 1850's. However, what you believe about Mary whether she is immaculate or not does not affect your salvation thus doesn't meet the requirement

The Deposit of Faith is the body of saving truth entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and handed on by them to be preserved and proclaimed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Arians are proof that the trinity was not always believed.

It certainly was but not as that word. Jesus commanded that we be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It just hadn't been defined as Trinity. The word Trinity was coined by Tertullian to express the Godhead. who was long before Arius. However, Trinity, in its definition was defined in 325 AD but had been always believed though not connected to the word Trinity. Trinity isn't a new revelation but one that was clarified at Church Council. It had however always been believed that Jesus Christ was God. That God the Father was God and that the Holy Spirit was God and that there was only one God. The details weren't formulated until Nicea.

However, are you suggesting that you don't believe in the trinity because it was "never taught"?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It certainly was but not as that word. Jesus commanded that we be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It just hadn't been defined as Trinity. The word Trinity was coined by Tertullian to express the Godhead. who was long before Arius. However, Trinity, in its definition was defined in 325 AD but had been always believed though not connected to the word Trinity. Trinity isn't a new revelation but one that was clarified at Church Council. It had however always been believed that Jesus Christ was God. That God the Father was God and that the Holy Spirit was God and that there was only one God. The details weren't formulated until Nicea.

However, are you suggesting that you don't believe in the trinity because it was "never taught"?

No, I am suggesting that there was never complete unity in doctrine and that sometimes the only way unity was achieved was by force, thus a false and superficial unity.

 

[DHK]

The deposit of faith never changes.

In spite of your undying faithfulness to the heretical doctrines of the RCC, the fact remains that the deposit of faith was changed in 1950 as just proven. You just won't accept it.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

In spite of your undying faithfulness to the heretical doctrines of the RCC, the fact remains that the deposit of faith was changed in 1950 as just proven. You just won't accept it.

Also, the EOC wouldn't believe that RCC doctrine has not changed.

 

[DHK]

Also, the EOC wouldn't believe that RCC doctrine has not changed.

There is also a "Flat Earth Society" still in existence too. I wonder if they know that.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, I am suggesting that there was never complete unity in doctrine and that sometimes the only way unity was achieved was by force, thus a false and superficial unity.

So, there was never a unified body of believers. All believers would force other believers into their beliefs by killing them. So the Montanist, the Gnostics, etc... were just competing brands of Christianity just as valid as any other Christian Church?

That doesn't play out in the historical Christian documents. What usually happpened is that people believed the same things but then someone would venture out with a hypothesis that would lead to a competing belief that had to be reviewed argued for and against and a defining decision on defintion or doctrine would be made at a church council which defined the issue and become a "doctrine".

 

[DHK]

So, there was never a unified body of believers. All believers would force other believers into their beliefs by killing them. So the Montanist, the Gnostics, etc... were just competing brands of Christianity just as valid as any other Christian Church?

That doesn't play out in the historical Christian documents. What usually happpened is that people believed the same things but then someone would venture out with a hypothesis that would lead to a competing belief that had to be reviewed argued for and against and a defining decision on defintion or doctrine would be made at a church council which defined the issue and become a "doctrine".

Everyone knows that gnosticism is heretical.
However the Montanists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Petrobrussians, Henricians, and so many of the other similar groups were protest groups against the heresies of the RCC. That is what they all had in common. They varied a little between each other. They preached the gospel, and stood against the Catholic heresies throughout the centuries.

 

[Yeshua1]

So, there was never a unified body of believers. All believers would force other believers into their beliefs by killing them. So the Montanist, the Gnostics, etc... were just competing brands of Christianity just as valid as any other Christian Church?

That doesn't play out in the historical Christian documents. What usually happpened is that people believed the same things but then someone would venture out with a hypothesis that would lead to a competing belief that had to be reviewed argued for and against and a defining decision on defintion or doctrine would be made at a church council which defined the issue and become a "doctrine".

again, the RCC was NOT full blown as today with papacy/cardinals/etc until well into later church history!

many of the ealy fathers would have denied "official" RCC doctrines of today, and the early church would have taught somethingdifferent than current RCC also!

There were always remant within the RCC that taught and knew the truth of the Gospel of grace, but when Rome did the Council of trent, that sealed off God working in there, as the reformation was originally sent by god to 'wake up" the RCC, give it last shot, but when trent came out...

that was the official end of the RCC as being a true christian church!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

again, the RCC was NOT full blown as today with papacy/cardinals/etc until well into later church history!

All bishops in the early church were called Papa where we get the term Pope which pasically meant Father.

many of the ealy fathers would have denied "official" RCC doctrines of today, and the early church would have taught somethingdifferent than current RCC also!

Ok, which ones?

There were always remant within the RCC that taught and knew the truth of the Gospel of grace, but when Rome did the Council of trent, that sealed off God working in there, as the reformation was originally sent by god to 'wake up" the RCC, give it last shot, but when trent came out...

So according to you Rome had real believers hidding away somewhere but when Trent came along they Jump ship? That doesn't match with history. And it means the Chrisitan Church was defeated for 1600 years. I don't think that stands up against the Lord's promise.

that was the official end of the RCC as being a true christian church!

Funny Trent didn't say anything new.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Everyone knows that gnosticism is heretical.
However the Montanists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Petrobrussians, Henricians, and so many of the other similar groups were protest groups against the heresies of the RCC. That is what they all had in common. They varied a little between each other. They preached the gospel, and stood against the Catholic heresies throughout the centuries.

Montinist where heretical and had false prophets and were closer to Pentecostals than baptist. They also had liturgical services.

 

[Yeshua1]

All bishops in the early church were called Papa where we get the term Pope which pasically meant Father.

when did the papacy 'officialy" get into the RCC? Was NOT peter, as early Church did not recognize a pope, so when did it come in?

Ok, which ones?

basically, any of them before the papacy was formally adopted in the RCC!

So according to you Rome had real believers hidding away somewhere but when Trent came along they Jump ship? That doesn't match with history. And it means the Chrisitan Church was defeated for 1600 years. I don't think that stands up against the Lord's promise.

the Lord did NOT mean that the RCC would be preserved, but that those holding to the TRUE Gospel would! And he kept that, even having some catholic theologians/Bishops who saw the light of the Grace of god, but the Council of trent is the time when the RCC officially became Apostate officially, as formally repudiated the real Gospel of christ!

Funny Trent didn't say anything new.

perhaps, but did make it quite clear on a formal basis that the RCC repudiated the Gospel, and was now Apostate officially!

Just curious as to what you saw as lacking in Christ that forced you to become someone who sticks up for a church that denies the very fundementals of the faith"once and for all delivered to the saints?"
just curious

 

[Thinkingstuff]

when did the papacy 'officialy" get into the RCC? Was NOT peter, as early Church did not recognize a pope, so when did it come in?

Go back to the scripture.

you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell[c] shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[d] in heaven

Note everytime the Apostles are listed among the disciples Peter is always mentioned first. His name isn't alphabetically first so another reason he is always mentioned first. He was pre-eminent among the disciples. From here we see Bishop Clement of Rome Authoritatively telling the people there to stop harrasing their bishop in Clement 1. So there has always been an understand of this pre-eminent position

basically, any of them before the papacy was formally adopted in the RCC!

You can't even show one.

the Lord did NOT mean that the RCC would be preserved, but that those holding to the TRUE Gospel would! And he kept that, even having some catholic theologians/Bishops who saw the light of the Grace of god, but the Council of trent is the time when the RCC officially became Apostate officially, as formally repudiated the real Gospel of christ!

Jesus Christ meant the church and if you are right and the Roman Church is anti-Christ then Christianity lost for 1600 years and was overcome by the gates of hell.

Just curious as to what you saw as lacking in Christ that forced you to become someone who sticks up for a church that denies the very fundementals of the faith"once and for all delivered to the saints?"
just curious

I could go into a long discourse on how I discovered the Catholic Church was correct through bible study and study of history. But I don't think that will help you understand. If you are really interested pm me.

 

[DHK]

Montinist where heretical and had false prophets and were closer to Pentecostals than baptist. They also had liturgical services.

Is that why Tertullian joined them. He repudiated his RCC baptism when he did so. Montanists broke away from Christianity in general because he saw the corruption and worldliness going on. He wanted purity in the churches. The history that you paint them with comes from the rose-colored eyes of the revised history of the RCC. Much of their history was recorded by their enemies. I can quote you from more reliable sources that they are not heretical like you say.
There are some very good conservative Pentecostal churches. They are evangelical, and unlike the RCC, they preach the gospel. They baptize by immersion after a person is born again. They don't equate born again to baptism. They know and understand that salvation is by faith and faith alone. They believe in sola scriptura, sola fide. They don't believe that tongues are necessary for salvation, and only practice them privately. (This is where I would disagree with them). But I would be in much more agreement with them then the RCC.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Everyone knows that gnosticism is heretical.
However the Montanists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Petrobrussians, Henricians, and so many of the other similar groups were protest groups against the heresies of the RCC. That is what they all had in common. They varied a little between each other. They preached the gospel, and stood against the Catholic heresies throughout the centuries.

Quite so. And many were nearly exterminated for doing so, after church and state became conjoined in an alliance of hell.

Killing others for Jesus became quite the sporting event -- hanging, the guillotine, burning at the stake, and drowning Anabaptists as a parody of their baptism.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Is that why Tertullian joined them. He repudiated his RCC baptism when he did so. Montanists broke away from Christianity in general because he saw the corruption and worldliness going on. He wanted purity in the churches. The history that you paint them with comes from the rose-colored eyes of the revised history of the RCC. Much of their history was recorded by their enemies. I can quote you from more reliable sources that they are not heretical like you say.
There are some very good conservative Pentecostal churches. They are evangelical, and unlike the RCC, they preach the gospel. They baptize by immersion after a person is born again. They don't equate born again to baptism. They know and understand that salvation is by faith and faith alone. They believe in sola scriptura, sola fide. They don't believe that tongues are necessary for salvation, and only practice them privately. (This is where I would disagree with them). But I would be in much more agreement with them then the RCC.

You and I have had serious differences, but you are right on in this instance.