Featured False Christs

Yeshua,on what do you believe? On what authority? On your own opinion and judgment. And what is that? A human opinion, human testimony, and therefore, a human faith. You cannot say positively, "I am sure, positively sure, as sure as there is a God in heaven, that this is the meaning of a certain text." Therefore, you haven't any other authority but your own opinion and judgment, and what your preacher tells you. You may say that your preacher is a smart man . There are many smart non-Catholic preachers also, but that proves nothing. It is only human authority, and nothing else, and therefore, only human faith. What is human faith? Believing a thing upon the testimony of man. Divine faith is believing a thing on the testimony of God.

The Catholic has divine faith, and why? Because the Catholic says, "I believe in such and such a thing." Why? "Because the Church teaches me so." And why do you believe the Church? "Because God has commanded me to believe the teaching of the Church. And God has threatened me with damnation, if I do not believe the Church. And we are taught by St. Peter, in his epistle, "No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation {2 Peter 1:20-} for the unlearned and unstable wrest ... Scriptures ... to their own destruction." {2 Peter 3:16 }
That is strong language, but that is the language of St. Peter, the head of the Apostles. The unlearned and unstable wrest the Bible to their own damnation! And yet, the Bible is the book of God, the language of inspiration, when we have a true Bible, as we Catholics have, but you Protestants have not.

But, please do not be offended at me for saying that. Your own most Bible educated preachers tell you that. Some have written whole volumes in order to prove that the English translation, which you have, is a very faulty and false translation.

 

The RCC, as you have demonstrated is a religion of the making of man, based on fear and on works.
The bolded part shows how it is based on threats of fear.
The keeping of its commands, the sacraments, especially baptism, demonstrates how it is based on works.

In these two ways the RCC is no different than Hinduism, Islam, or any other major religion of the world. It is does not fall within the parameters of Christianity at all. It is a cult or perhaps a major world religion--and like them--base their religion on fear and works.

Whereas the Bible bases salvation on grace and faith:
For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.
--This is absolutely contrary to the teaching of the RCC.

 

Even in this post (no doubt copy and paste) you refuse to engage in honest debate.
Here is what my challenge was to you:

Did you do that? No.
Can you do that? I doubt it.

 

God NEVER stated to us that we are to obet the etachings of the Church, but to heed and obey the word of God!
And my "authority" would be that of the Lord jesus, who stated that heaven and earth shall pass away, but that His words would last forever, and that the 'church" was and is built upon the foundation of Jesus ALONE, and the teachings of the Apostles of His ALONE, and not on any papacy, any successive apostles, additional revelations, etc!

The Bible does NOT teach baptismal regeneration, RCC does, which one is right on that?

 

DHK, you wrote: "Quote:
Here is the way it works.
Until you take scripture and show me where my interpretation is wrong, then it stands as the correct interpretation. So far you haven't done that. Thus my interpretation has been correct every time. All that you have offered on this board is RCC propaganda. You have not refuted a single post.
Show me where I am wrong in my interpretation of the Bible. You can't.

Did you do that? No.
Can you do that? I doubt it."

I am working on answering you. I will get back with the correct response, but of course you would not believe any of my answers.

 

DHK, I will give you a chance with your rebuttal of this, then we will take it to the next step, would that be acceptable my you ?

Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some "Bible" Christians insist that a "pillar" (the Church) was created to "hold up" another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church "hold up" the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn't even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a "pillar" holding up the Bible, doesn't that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have thousands different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible. Please explain this DHK, when considering that Jesus was absolutely against this, Jesus wants only unity. Yes we have a few splinters but they all agree with the same Doctrine as passed on by the Teachings of Jesus to His Apostles and they to their Successors. Every Church that is truly from Jesus has been passed on down from one of Jesus' apostles.

 

Bible??
At no time in history were God's people ever without God's revelation.
God's people have always had God's revelation--ALWAYS!
They have NEVER been without it, and the RCC has no hand in taking credit for this wonderful fact.
Adam had revelation from God. He received it directly, as did Cain, Abel, Seth and others after him. So did Noah, and Abraham. They didn't have a Bible but they had direct revelation from God.
When God called Moses into the Mount he gave him two tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were written, commonly called the Law. But God gave him much more. He gave him instructions for the building of the tabernacle, all the Levitical Law, history, etc. Moses talked with God, as it were, face to face. Even Jesus acknowledges the first five books of the Bible as the books of Moses. Do you question the words of Jesus?

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
--The writer of the Book of Hebrews refers to all the OT and tells us that God is the author of it writing through the prophets.
--At all times through the OT times and on through the NT times did the Jews have the OT. It was fully completed ca. 450 B.C. Moses brought the Nation of Israel out of Egypt ca. 1440 B.C. and would have reached Mt. Sinai shortly thereafter. Today we have a book written over a period 1500 years, authored by over 40 different authors, containing 66 different books, and yet all united by one great theme--redemption through Jesus Christ. There are over 5,000 existing MSS in with no doctrine that contradicts another. Some of those MSS date back to the second century, just a few years from the death of John.

God has never left his people without revelation.

Secondly, let us consider your interpretation of 1Tim.3:15:
1 Timothy 3:14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
--Paul is writing to Timothy as the pastor of the church at Ephesus, a local church. He is using the Great Temple of Diana in an allegorical way that Timothy could relate to. It had many pillars. Yet the word "church" always means "assembly."

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
--Your contention is that: "church" is "pillar of truth." Does that make sense?
"... house of God, which is the church of the living God, "the church (and ground) " that is, "the church is the church" How profound. Doesn't make a bit of sense does it?

Paul refers to a structure (allegorically) which has pillars. The pillars hold up the truth, as it says. The structure is referred to as the church. The church has pillars. The pillars hold up the truth. The pillars are on a foundation.
1Cor.3:11 tells us that our foundation is Christ.
1Tim.3:15 tells us that we hold up the truth. Christ is the truth (Jn.14:6), and He if found in the Word of God--His revelation to mankind. God has never left mankind without revelation.
"The church is not the church." What sense is that?
Your interpretation makes no sense.

Every local church has ordained pastors whose duty it is to study the Word of God.
Acts 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--They were not commanded to follow the Catechism, Duh!

Private interpretation is condemned. That is the practice held in common by the RCC, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russel, Ellen G. White, and others.
Personal interpretation is condoned and encouraged by the Lord.
"You do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God," Jesus said to the Pharisees and Sadducees. It was their personal duty to study God's Word, not a Catechism.

You are wrong. It is encouraged.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--That is what the Bereans were doing, and they were condoned for doing so.
They were called "noble" for doing so.
The Ethiopian Eunuch was right in studying the Book of Isaiah. It made him thirst for more.

You are deluded into thinking he was the founded of "sola scriptura."
Your anecdote is irrelevant to Biblical truths.

That Biblical truth has been asserted by believers throughout centuries from the Apostles onward. Your eyes have been blinded by RCC propaganda.

You have been fed lies and repeat the same lies over and over again. Why do you insist on doing so? Are you a RCC propaganda machine. I have explained this to you before. So has Rebel; so has Yeshua. Yet you keep posting the same lies. Why?

 

Come back when you can learn to read and discern.

And putting aside denominations for a moment and speaking of individuals, I would much rather engage our member 'lakeside' than you. It is at least possible to have a discussion with him. I also see some fruits of the Spirit in him. I see fruits in you -- all rotten.

 

Apostle John stated that ALL of the saved have the annouting from God in the person of the Holy Spirit who will enable them to know/understand and apply the truths of scriptures, and that God also gave to his church Teachers and pastors to teach and instruct us in the Bible, NOT the church itself instructing us, but t the Spirit and gifted men!

 

DHK, first of all you need a good history lesson in the early formation of the Holy Bible, The canon of the Bible was not all compiled as you believe, it took years of discernment to sort out the correct writings, One of the reasons I left the Baptist Church is because of misinformation, Below is a letter written by a former Baptist with a long family lineage of Baptists.

In a recent letter to a man who said it was just "me and the Bible", I wrote the following challenge: "You say you have no time to read other books, only the Bible. You say when you read the Bible it is just you and the Holy Spirit. Very cozy, but are you correct? No. Little do you realize--maybe because you don't read and study widely-- that even in your intimate moments with the Bible and the Holy Spirit, you are utterly dependent on the Church. Deny it though you may, it stands irrefutable, Between you and the Bible is the Church! If you were given the original inspired writings from the pen of the apostles, the original autographs of the New Testament, you wouldn't have a clue as to what they said. Your first problem would be the fact that the hundreds of writings before you are in an ancient foreign language. Can you read minuscule Greek and ancient Hebrew and Aramaic? You forget that the Bible did not just drop into bookstores prepackaged in English and leather. Even if you did know Hebrew and Greek, it wouldn't have been the Holy Spirit who taught you, but man, a Catholic scholar, no doubt. Of the hundreds of documents before you, would you have known which were inspired and which were not? Would you be adequate for the task of discernment? No, again you are dependent upon the Church and her bishops. Next, how did that nice Bible get into your hands so you can enthrone it in your heart? It got there through the agency of the Church! More precisely, from Catholic monks. Who translated it meticulously by hand in candlelight? Who copied it into the many languages of the world? The Catholic Church preserved and protected the Bible, with a scribe's loyalty and dedication, so that is would make it through the darkness brought on by the barbarian hordes from the north. How many of these Fathers and their flocks gave their lives to preserve the Bible so you can read it today? And what if you were in another century? Would you be able to read, since the vast majority of people have always been illiterate? Before the printing press, would you have been able to afford the three years' wages to buy your own personal copy? And if you couldn't have your own copy, or were illiterate, how would you have known the Scriptures? From the Church, right? Right. The Church would have read it to you during the Mass.



"Do you read the Bible with an unbiased purity of mind, or are you influenced by certain doctrinal presuppositions, and where did they come from? So, there you sit reading your Bible and thinking it is only you and the Holy Spirit, but there is much more involved, brother, and it would behoove you to remove your head from the sand and acknowledge the Catholic Church that gave you the book. You sit with translators and traditions on your right and on you left. The less you know of history, the original languages, the culture of the biblical times, the traditions of the Jews, the teaching of the Father, the formulations of the creeds and councils, etc., the more vulnerable you are to the misunderstanding, deception, oversimplification, unnecessary complication and heresy."



Stephen Ray, Author, Baptist teacher of Biblical Studies. Entered into Catholic Church on Pentecost Sunday, 1994.

 

You have accepted RCC propaganda over Biblical history.
You have accepted RCC propaganda over the Bible itself.
You have accepted RCC propaganda over a belief in God himself.
You say you believe in the inspired Word of God but you don't. You mock the Bible, question the Bible, throw doubt on the Bible.
You even question God the Son, Jesus Christ, and His words. You don't believe God. IMO, you are a Catholic, but you don't believe the Bible, neither do you believe God. You might as well be a "nominal atheist."
Here is what Jesus said:
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
--He divided the OT into three parts. Without going into detail about two of them, he put his belief and stamp of approval on "the law of Moses," referring to the first five books of Moses," which you doubt or don't even believe were written by Moses. You doubt that they were inspired. You claim they came from tradition. Jesus said that they came from Moses. To you he is a liar.

Consider this passage:
Joh 5:45-47
(45) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
(46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
--It is obvious in this passage that the writings of Moses are not just the Ten Commandments. Moses wrote of Christ. He wrote of Christ in the book of Numbers and in Deuteronomy specifically, and other prophetic references are in each of the other books as well. Jesus refers to them. The "writings of Moses" are the first five books of the Bible called the Pentateuch or the Torah. But you are willing to call Christ a liar and throw doubt on these books saying that they aren't inspired but come through oral tradition rather than the mouth of God himself.
You don't believe God. You don't believe His Word.

This is a letter from a heretic. It is not written to me, but to someone else. The things written in it are not addressed to me, nor do they apply to me.
The man was "raised in a Baptist family." That doesn't make him a Baptist. He was never saved. I looked at his testimony here:
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/authors/steveray.asp
and:
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/
He doesn't know two hoots about Biblical salvation.
You are quoting from a Catholic apologist not a former Baptist. A person raised in a Baptist FAMILY doesn't mean he was a Baptist. That is deceptive.

But I can read, at least with some comprehension, the Greek which he says I can't. I have had some studies in Hebrew which he says I haven't. He does't know what he is talking about. In this one letter he has posted more lies than truth. I am not even going to take the time to go through it.
It is propaganda. Lies. You don't want the truth. You have rejected the truth. Nothing I say will convince of the truth. You don't even answer my posts. You simply post more propaganda as an answer. You should be ashamed.

 

DHK, you wrote: " A person raised in a Baptist FAMILY doesn't mean he was a Baptist. That is deceptive."

That's interesting what you wrote. I never said Mr. Ray was a present Baptist, said he was a former Baptist. He is presently Catholic. But that brings up an interesting accusation when you say that somebody who comes from a long historical Baptist lineage saying that he was never saved, how can you say Stephen K. Ray was never a Baptist nor was he ever saved, does that also include all of his past relatives ? Interesting how you can know this as factual. Are you saying also that James White sister was also never saved before she converted and crossed over the Tiber River? It must also, in all fairness in accordance with your way of judging, must also mean any Catholic that crosses over to the Baptist faith must have never known their Catholic Faith. Let me give an example of hypocrisy, using that Pastor from Colorado a few years back who everybody within his rather large congregation judged as a very ''saved" soul. That pastor was never caught in homosexual acts with his male masseuse, nobody would have known about this highly respected pastor's sinful ways if his male sexual partner wouldn't have exposed his homosexual liaison with him. I mean this pastor was slamming homosexuality [ which he rightly should have ] but the guy was a practicing gay man himself. My point is this, if he had accidentally died, everybody in this pastor's congregation would have proclaimed something like this ; '' If anybody is saved Pastor so and so is, and he is in heaven with the Lord ". That pastor in everybody's eyes was certainly saved but of course he really wasn't not if he was preaching against that sinful act while all the while a practicing homosexual himself. So you never really know for sure, only our Lord Jesus has the power and authority to judge us.

 

There are a couple of things that some of the Catholics on this board agree with me on.
First, I live in a nation that is over 50% Catholic; most of the people I meet going door-to-door are Catholic. I have plenty of experience talking to Catholics.
Second, when a Catholic tells me that he or she rarely attends mass, doesn't know a thing about the Catechism, the teachings of the RCC or the Bible, and is not very religious, do you consider that person a Catholic? Usually we consider the person a "Catholic" in name only.
Third, There are many Baptists that are just like that (even from supposedly devout Baptist families). The children go through the motions of their parents religion but never really accept the teachings of their church. His testimony clearly said "my parents' church," not "his church."
Fourth, It is impossible to fully understand Biblical salvation, accept it, and knowing the doctrine of the RCC and also accept it at the same time. That is an impossibility. If the person accepts the RCC doctrine, then by default he is not saved.
If a "Christian" converts to Islam is he still a Christian?
If a "Christian" converts to Hinduism, is he still a Christian?
--The answer is, he was never a Christian in the first place.
If he "converted" to the RCC, he was never a Christian in the first place.
Biblical Christianity and the RCC are diametrically opposed to each other. Just like Islam and Hinduism one cannot be both at the same time.

I am a former Catholic. I knew it well. God saved me by his grace. I saw the error and heresy of the RCC. I had a decision to make. Follow God or the RCC. I am thankful I chose to follow God and not the heresies of the RCC.

Sexual immorality is different. The person in 1Cor.5:1-5 was caught in the act of immorality (incest with his father's wife).

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
--He was a member of the church at Corinth, a saved individual. Paul rebuked them for not dealing with this matter appropriately. He was put out of the church because of his immorality, not because he lost his salvation--he had not. Later he repented of his sin, and was admitted back into the church. At no time did he lose his salvation. Had he died during the time of being unrepentant he still would have gone to heaven. Salvation "is the gift of God." God doesn't steal away gifts he has already given to you.

Salvation is not dependent on our works, but rather the grace of God.
Obviously the grace of God had not been at work in this man (Stephen Ray) to bring him to salvation), or he wouldn't believe in the heresies and ungodly doctrines that he does. He would not be fighting against God.

 

DHK, I'm sorry that you think that way. You keep saying that I don't believe in the way that Scripture speaks. It's not me, it's you, you're the one who has to ignore a lot of verses from Scripture, and twist the meaning of a lot of other verses of Scripture, in order to come up with “absolute assurance” of salvation. If Christians in the Bible had absolute assurance of salvation, then why are they constantly told to “hope”? How does the concept of hope fit in with absolute assurance? If you have absolute assurance, you have no need of hope.

 

You are absolutely right. I don't "hope" to be saved. I know I am saved.
I know if I were to die I would go straight to heaven as surely as if I were already there.
I have that assurance beyond any doubt. I don't have to "hope-so," "guess-so," "assume-so," etc. I "know-so." I am definitely going to heaven.

My hope is in the Coming of Christ not in my salvation which I am assured of.

Tit 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
1Jn 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

--Our hope is in the Coming of the Lord.

Our assurance is in our salvation
1Jn 5:11-13
(11) And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

(12) He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
--It is one or the other. Either you have eternal life or you don't. There is no sitting on the fence.

(13) These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

 

No true Catholic can have assurance of salvation, as it all depends on them being co assisting God in saving them!

 

Yeshua,you either ignore or misjudge the importance of the physical realm in spiritual matters, I can see from your writings that you often strongly object to how I express the doctrine of salvation. Your reaction is often reflected in the classical Protestant emphasis on "faith alone" [ Sola Fide ] most Baptist groups emphasize salvation is a finished work. It is acquired, they claim, through a once-for-all-time "acceptance" of Jesus Christ as "personal Lord and Savior." Once again we see is a division between the spiritual and physical realms: You are saved by an act of purely mental assent (which is spiritual) and then perform good works (which are physical).

Since the "church" has always insisted that good works, animated by grace, are necessary for one’s growth into salvation (. Phil. 2:12), anti-Catholics are convinced this is evidence of Catholic "apostasy." Many point to Christ’s words on the cross: "It is finished." "See!" you exclaim, "Christ’s salvific work is finished! We cannot add to it!"

But let me ask you, would you teach that Christ could have remained in the grave and our salvation would have still been guaranteed? And if our salvation were finished so that there was nothing left for us to do, why do we still need to "believe" and "ask Jesus into our hearts," as your own strategies insist?

The deeper issue is a failure to recognize that Christ’s salvific work, while culminating in his death and Resurrection, did not start at Golgotha. Rather, the entrance of the Word into time and space was the embodiment—literally—of salvation. The Word took on flesh because God desired to save the entire person: body and soul. This will be finally and fully realized in the resurrection of the body.

Yet it appears you and many Protestants/ non-Catholics forget the person is more than just a soul and end up with the same neo-Gnostic perspective evident in their criticism of the Eucharist. And there is no doubt the two are related. If the body is secondary, even non-essential, the idea of eating Christ in what appears to be bread and wine becomes even more absurd. But if it is understood that the body expresses the interior reality of a person, then our physical existence takes on a sacred and substantial meaning.

Christ taught that good works are not only the result of being saved, but signify actual growth in charity, the virtue without which we cannot enter heaven. This is shown in the parable of the goats and the sheep {Matt. 25:32}. The words of Christ show us how closely bound are acts of charity with our salvation: "Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" {Matt. 25:45–46}. Paul described the same reality, writing that it is "faith working through love" {Gal. 5:6} that will dictate where we spend eternity.

 

When does God justify the sinner then, right when they receive Jesus by faith as their Lord, at water baptism, or after death, as God has to make sure the actually merit it by co operating with him well enough?

 

Electricity FLOWS.

Some minds are incapable of conceiving of grace or justification or sanctification as being FLOWING.

With some people the intellect part of the brain is too small and narrow { I'm guilty of this problem myself with Trigonometry } to conceive of such a thing.

BEING justified with God means BEING right with God.

Being RIGHT with God necessarily connotes a FLOWING or BEING From the past to the present to the future.

FLOWING is never a DISCRETE moment in time.

All these arguments go round and round but no one ever debates the CENTRAL issue.

Does sanctifying grace Flow?

If it FLOWS then justification FLOWS.

The devil doesn't want people to understand the concept of Grace FLOWING because if people understand that then they'll understand that if they want to go to heaven then grace must be FLOWING when they die--if it's not they'll go to Hell with him!

The reason that the devil wants people to think of JUSTIFICATION as DISCRETE--then they won't worry about whether grace is FLOWING or not--they'll ASSUME it is flowing after they commit a mortal sin when it is not flowing and then if death unexpectedly happens like Jesus taught it MIGHT-- then Satan can laughingly take their soul to Hell!

The whole real question isn't works or faith or faith alone--for the devil it is whether he can get people to be hoodwinked enough to think of justification as DISCRETE when it is not--and then to think that grace always FLOWS after justification starts WHEN IT does not--it doesn't after mortal sin!

The real question is whether mortal sin exists or not--IT DOES!!! { some sin are more deadly, as per Bible ]

Whether Grace FLOWS or merely BRANDS--it FLOWS even after having first make its mark!

And lastly can that FLOW be broken? It can! It is broken by mortal sin.

The whole anti-Catholic fiasco consists of the CON job of the devil of getting people to believe in an EASIER way--a way where justification is a BRAND which makes getting to heaven easy--or if that doesn't work the CON job of getting people to believe that AFTER justification--even if it isn't a BRAND that grace will ALWAYS and NECESSARILY ALWAYS after Justification FLOW.

It DOESN'T!!!

That fact is what Martin Luther wanted to get around because that made SALVATION hard because after justification one had to STILL--CONTINUALLY carry their cross--and it was still possible for them to MORTALLY sin only ONCE--die unrepentant in that state--and thereby go to Hell!

Is that possible? Yes! That is what horrified Luther and that is the reason the devil came up with the CON job on justification and the elimination of MORTAL sin--the EASIER way--and that is why people went for it--why worry about having to CONTINUALLY carry that weight of your cross and worry about one mortal sin which could possibly send you to Hell if you didn't have to worry about it?

Jesus didn't suffer the weight of the sins of the whole world for all times on the Cross so that later on His disciples wouldn't even have to worry about continually carrying their own crosses which are VERY LIGHT with NO WORRY about ever falling into MORTAL sin which according to the anti- Catholics doesn't exist!

We don't have to carry Christ's Cross--most of the time Jesus's yoke is easy and His burden is light but SOMETIMES we do have to carry our own crosses that he gives us--we have to suffer--we have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling--we have to examine our consciences and we have to confess MORTAL sins to priests because YES--it is possible that even though we were justified in the past--we can still go to Hell!

Those things are NOT the justification by faith alone garbage taught by Martin Luther!!!

The "Easy Road" to salvation is paved by the devil and leads to Hell! It is called the broad easy way to destruction--justification by faith alone--mortal sin does not exist--don't worry about it highway!

Get off of that highway--confess your sins to a Catholic priest { John 20: 23 }--and get on the pick up your cross and follow me Hard WAY narrow path that leads to heaven!

Yes you'll always worry about and "FEAR and TREMBLE" about whether you are on this road or not--but when you finally get to heaven you'll be glad you got on that road!

Couple more highways to 'keep off' are the "Eumenical ' everybody is on it and the 'Universalism express' train. Both of these " routes " will also take you directly to Hell.

 

Hmmm.
So the Pope, being ecumenical, is on his way to hell? Is that your meaning?

http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2013...alize-ecumenism-and-interfaith-dialogue-27051

http://www.cogwriter.com/news/proph...f-ecumenism-to-52000-pentecostals-and-others/

Francis is one of the most ecumenical popes ever. Both ecumenical and heretical--as most of the RCC doctrine is.