Featured Roman Catholic...Christian or Cult?

DHK, check out post #52

 

No doubt a cult. They teach a false gospel based on works, fail to recognize the priesthood of the believer, worship created beings, turn the Lord's Supper into a magic act, sprinkle infants and declare them members of the family of God, create places in eternity that do not exist like Purgatory, believe being a member of the RCC is required for salvation, believe in regenerational baptism, require member to go through a sinful priest to confess their sins to God, have an elaborate hierarchy above the local church that serves no purpose or does one thing to carry out God's work, indoctrinate children in false teachings like the catechism and RCC dogma, etc, etc, etc. There is no similarity between a New Testament Church and the RCC.

 

Remember man that thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return.

 

Ya think???

 

Do you have any Catholics at all in Mississippi?

 

Yes but if NJ needs some, I will be glad to ship them to you.

 

If you are going to bring that into the mix then we should just concentrate about the divisions in the Catholic Church, that which you wanted to talk about concerning evangelicalism. But again, that is a deflection.
Any person wanting to go into the RCC priesthood today would have to be single. You and I both know that. I believe it is called officially a "discipline," but as far as we are concerned it is still doctrine, doctrine or practice that is mentioned

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
--For the RCC to teach that its priests should not marry and remain celibate is a doctrine of demons.

Both of the above are true. The RCC has forbidden it, and it is definitely unscriptural.

Unless you know the context of this passage you simply can't quote it in direct opposition to all other Scripture.
It would contradict Jesus teaching on marriage in Matthew 19.
It would contradict Paul's teaching on marriage in Ephesians 6
It would contradict Peter's teaching on marriage in 1Peter 3:1-7
It would contradict Solomon's teaching on marriage in Prov. 31.
It would contradict the Lord's teaching in Genesis two.
--In fact it would contradict every passage other passage in the Bible that speaks on marriage, so we know that the interpretation you give is wrong.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
--The church had wrote Paul about a specific problem or situation, not general principles about marriage, though some of them applied.
There is a clue given down in verse 26:

1 Corinthians 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
Paul was referring to the present political situation at the time. Christians were facing great persecution, not only from the Jews (their own families when they converted), but also from the Roman government (remember Nero who burned the city of Rome and blamed it on the Christians). Much of this was advice given to those under intense persecution.
For a modern day illustration: If a couple wants to get married, and the man is about to go and fight in Afghanistan, is it better for him to marry with the possibility of him being killed in battle and she remaining a widow, or they not marrying, each one keeping their virginity, she especially keeping herself as one available to be married in the future. (Those who were not virgins were not likely to be married again). This was simply practical advice for that time in that situation. Otherwise it would go against the rest of the teaching of the Bible on marriage.

This was Peter's responsibility. There is nothing to imply infallibility.
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
--Paul was speaking to all the elders of the church of Ephesus here.
Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

Peter himself said:
1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
--Obviously this was a responsibility of every pastor.

The context is not infallibility.
The preceding verse says:
Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
--Satan was about to attack Peter in a way that Peter had not experienced before. Christ said that he had prayed that his faith (during this time) would not fail. Put things in historical context. There is nothing about infallibility.

And he was Peter. So?

That was the Great Commission given to all 12 of the disciples, and insasmuch as it was given to them it is given to every disciple who names the name of Christ.

The verses have nothing to do with Catholics for they possess the wrong doctrine.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
--This is speaking of the apostles who would write the scriptures--God would bring to their memory the things He had taught them. Obviously the Catholic Church does not follow the teachings of the Bible, they follow the traditions of men, and their man-made Catechism which itself is not in line with the Bible.

There is no pope in scripture and no Biblical mandate for one. The doctrine of the church doesn't allow for one.

Most of the early heresies that entered into Christianity came from the early church fathers. So I don't put a lot of faith in their writings.

 

Walter,
I am not here to debate a member of an apostate cult and will not debate your ridiculous RCC dogma. My purpose here is to expose the RCC for what it is, an apostate cult that teaches false doctrine by false teachers. For example, the RCC makes a mockery of the Lord's Supper. Christ established the Lord's Supper as a remembrance of Him, symbolizing what He did on the cross in the form of His body and blood. Notice the word symbolizes. It is a very solemn event. It is a time for a person to examine himself. So, what does the RCC do? It takes the symbols of the bread and wine to symbolize His body and blood and turns it into a magic act. In the RCC version of the Lord's Supper, the bread and wine become the physical substance of Christ. The magic word is transubstantiation. Now let me get this straight, every time the RCC cult administers the Lord's Supper, Christ makes a return trip to earth to become part of the elements. Maybe He takes Mary with Him from time to time so she can make a sacred appearance. So one of the most sacred acts of a church, and the RCC trashes it every time the elements are served. Transubstantiation is nothing but heresy.

So lets examine your treatment of baptism, the other ordinance established by the Lord. Notice there are two ordinances. They are not sacraments, and there are not seven of them. The Biblical standard is baptism after salvation as a symbol of the newness of life and the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is by immersion. Baptism does not save. So what does the RCC do? They sprinkle infants, like an infant understands the Gospel. That is the first way they violate Scripture. Secondly they do not immerse, the Biblical model. There is no concept in the Bible to sprinkle. The third thing they do is declare an infant a member "of the family of God" after being sprinkled, in other words, not only regenerational baptism, but establishes a works salvation at this point. The RCC has no concept of saved by grace through faith.

The RCC cult believes the one must be an RCC member to be saved. Again, they build on a works salvation and teach another Gospel. We hold out the possibility that there are saved Catholics despite their church. If they are saved, they will not be there long. As far as eternal destinies, the RCC cannot settle for two as Scripture says, it invents a third one called Purgatory. I would like to see their version of Lazarus and the rich man. The concept of Purgatory adds to the Bible something that is not there, and is pure heresy.

A Christian church believes we have One Mediator, and that is Jesus Christ. He is our Mediator to God as we confess our sins or pray. Not the RCC. They feel the need to compel the members of their cult to go through a sinful priest to confess their sins. That is contrary to Hebrews and Scripture, and borders on blasphemy.

A Christian and NT Christian church only worships and praises the Creator, (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) The first two commandments say we shall only worship God. Not the RCC cult. They place statues all over their houses of worship in a manner that they can be prayed to and worshipped. They pray to created beings. This does not border blasphemy, it is blasphemy.

Peter the Apostle was not the first Pope. The main reason is that the RCC cult did not start until about 500 AD. Peter had been long dead. If he had of been alive, he would never have become the head of a cult that teachers another Gospel. He spent the latter part of his life staying true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and would have no part of this.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but enough to establish the fact that the RCC is a cult.

 

:thumbsup::thumbs::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Good, then you and I have nothing to say to each other. Well, other than maybe you should spend some time reading. Ignorance is a terrible thing.

 

Walter I read your responses to other posts, and you never get to the substance of why the RCC is a cult. You use RCC history, dogma, and extra Biblical terms and sources. All you can do is call some ignorant, which should get you banned. The point is, I do not need your approval on my posts. Several has already approved of them.

One thing stands out clear to me. You claim you went from Baptist to the RCC. I assume you were saved as a Baptist. If that is the case, to me, it is spiritually impossible for a saved Baptist or Presbyterian to jump ship and join the RCC.

 

This is exactly why I do not engage Catholics. You dance around the issue of Purgatory. There is no basis for it in the Bible. One is either with the Lord or in hell. Count them two. I have been to several Catholic baptisms for family or friends when an infant is going through this, and it was sprinkling. You see your issues are hallow, if it was pouring, the point is, it is not immersion. Getting back to the issue of Purgatory, you did not offer chapter and verse from Scripture to support it because you cant. You would have to go back to the extra Biblical documents of the RCC to justify your position. Those documents are fairy tales. The bottom line is, if you are going to defend the Catholic faith, do it with a Bible. Justify praying to the dead from the Bible. Justify transubstantiation from the Bible. Justify going through a local priest, a fallen creature just like the rest of us, to confess sins when Hebrews clearly states Christ is our Mediator. There are many other issues such as your false sacrament outside baptism and the Lords Supper. Anyway the point is, you cannot defend the RCC with a Bible. You defend the RCC with RCC extra Biblical documents. In the light of the Scripture, the RCC crumbles to the ground.

 

We got 70 % of them here now....what's a little more:laugh:

But since they are from ole Miss, we will have to buy them shoes.:tongue3:

 

while it is true that name calling "proves nothing",

I think it is interesting that if we had no RCC today and then "10 guys in a garage" started by selecting one of them as Pope, another one as "black Pope - general of Jesuits" and made up a bunch of doctrine about praying to the dead, purgatory, indulgences, Mary sinless like Christ, ascension of Mary, confecting the body, soul and divinity of Christ, bowing down to images, exterminating heretics in true LATERAN IV fashion, infallible inquisition....

There would be some "skeptics"

 

Actually, you sure sound a lot like someone who was banned from this board a while back. Maybe you should be banned for questioning my salvation. That is definitely breaking BB rules. But, it is too bad you aren't interested in discussing something because you have already determined that you are right and nothing will change your mind. It seems you here only to declare the Catholic Church a cult and have others applaud you. There are certainly those on the board who love to bash the Catholic Church any time the subject comes up and it comes up often here. I'm not interested in spending my day taking to task each objection/declaration you have made and give the Catholic response. It really serves no purpose. Each of the objections/declarations have been discussed to death on the BB.

 

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/08/05/im-a-catholic-priest-and-im-married/
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-catholic-orthodox-marriedpriests-20140609-story.html
Here is an example of how no matter how much evidence a Catholic might give to show how wrong members of this board are about the Catholic faith, it is never enough to change minds. I have stated for several years that Catholic priests may be married in other rites of the Catholic Church other than the Latin Rite. In fact, it is the norm. DHK will NEVER accept that and, in fact, has stated: ' Any person wanting to go into the RCC priesthood today would have to be single. You and I both know that'. The links I have provided prove otherwise. No matter what evidence I give to the contrary, DHK will insist that a person wanting to be priest in the Catholic Church has to remain celibate. DHK, would call the existence of the Eastern Catholic Rites a 'division' giving evidence that the Catholic Church is divided. Apparently, he also considers them to be outside of the Catholic Church and, of course, he is wrong but will NEVER admit that. They adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church 100%. Would you call Reformed Baptist churches that have different worship styles from each other 'divided' because one uses contemporary music and the other traditional. Each adhere to the same doctrines. Eastern Catholics simply have their own hierarchies and liturgies, as well as their own distinct apostolic lineages. They may look and act like Eastern Orthodox churches, but they recognize the pope of Rome as the head of the visible Church on earth and have suffered for the cause of that unity. Now, I have presented overwhelming evidence to DHK in the past years to the FACT that there are many married priests in the Catholic Church and he has never once admitted he is wrong. That really makes it difficult to see the point of participating in these kinds of threads. Maybe I should concentrate on less continuous forums. Anyway, I wish you all peace and hope someday there is less animosity and more discussion on this board.

Oh, and I want to add, there ARE also married priests within the Latin Rite (that is what the first link is about, and they are small in number in the Latin Rite). They are former Anglican clergy that have converted to the Catholic faith and were already married. The majority of MARRIED CATHOLIC priests are serving in Eastern Rite parishes around the world, but there THOUSANDS of them.

 

I think you would agree that no matter how fractured/splintered the Catholic Church might be - the RCC does exist and is a huge part of it, and does have certain statements about priests not being married and that addressing this specific detail is something we might expect non-catholics to do.

In that statement the RCC -- is specific to Roman Catholic -- not EO or some other group.

As long as he qualifies it with RCC - he is right.

As long as the EO does not take orders from the Vatican - he is right.

point

really?

What about the EO -- and

Purgatory?

Indulgences?

Pope as supreme over their own patriarch's?

Pope infallible?

DHK claims he would not share communion or company with Southern Baptists or Free Will Baptists or .. you name it.

If they have their own apostoliic lineage - how is it that the Pope of Rome is over them and infallible?

It is hard to argue that the flack in the RCC over immoral priests and celebate priests does not exist.

"A former married priest" is a special case unless the argument is that all RCC priests are "formerly married" - which of course is not the case.

I think you are sidestepping a big issue for the RCC.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Just a quick response, Bob. That's all I have time for. This has been the confusion on the board for a LONG time. I'm not talking about the EO. Most of you don't know the difference between the EO and the Eastern Catholics. The Catholic Church is not splintered or divided. There are many different rites in the Catholic Church but they are all in union with Rome. Most (if not all) of you on this board believe that all Catholic Churches are of the Latin Rite variety. ONLY the Latin Rite requires a celibate priesthood. The rest of the Catholic Rites do not. Most on this board, including you it seems, do not know that Eastern Rite Catholics are 100% Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Catholics have a liturgy that looks very much like the Eastern Orthodox liturgies BUT they are 100% in agreement with Catholic dogma and are in unity with all the other rites of the Catholic Church, including the Latin Rite. Did you check out the second link I posted? Only the first link was regarding the Latin Rite exceptions to celibacy.

 

And, Bob, although I don't care to use Wikipedia much, here is a link that explains some of the difference between the EO and Eastern Catholics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

 

DHK, see the part I put in bold directly above. Could you list some of those heresies? I'm not asking this to instigate anything. Although I value the writings of the early Greek fathers, I also recognize that some of the fathers were wrong on some things. And I never use them to establish doctrine. If it can't be substantiated from scripture, I don't hold to it.