Featured Are There Any Catholics On This Forum?

If you are a catholic, you hold false doctrines.

 

There certainly was a John, The Baptizer, paving the way for The Lamb of God. John was immersing, dipping and/or plunging in the Jordan. Contrary to some artist's conceptions, he was not pouring water from a sea shell. Baptizo means immerse.

This issue is not about tracing a name back to the shores of Galilee, but rather finding the groups which practiced according to the New Testament Churches in the Book of Acts. The history is written in blood. A lot of the history can be found in The New Advent Encyclopedia.

To be sure universal church is an ancient false doctrine, promulgated by those apostate. It continues under the guise of reformed--which amounts to reformed apostasy.

This is not about a name but rather a faith and practice. To be sure, true Baptists were never part of Rome, nor were they with the would be reformers of Rome. True Baptists and others have be assailed by Rome and her daughters for centuries. (aka: the gates of Hell)

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Your premise is not logical. You conflict yourself.

 

Of course Catholic is in the bible, thats crazy. In fact based on what it means its unfairly mentioned in the bible multiple times.

You might say your name is JOHN, elsewhere its JUAN, they mean the same.

Catholic is through out all, everywheres, "THE WHOLE CHURCH" or you might hear universal.

First known recorded instance is from Ignatius of Antioch BEFORE the bible existed,

Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (ekklesia katholicos) [letter to the Smyrneans (35-107 A.D.)]


A example of Biblical recorded instance is ACTS 3 :31


men oun ekklēsia kath olēs tēs ioudaias kai galilaias kai samareias eichen eirēnēn oikodomoumenē kai poreuomenē tō phobō tou kuriou kai tē paraklēsei tou agiou pneumatos eplēthuneto.


ἐκκλησίαι καθ’ ὅλης = Catholic church.

ekklēsia kath olēs = Catholic Church

καθ' (kath')
ὅλης (holēs)

holē
tē
ekklēsia

"ALL the Church" = Catholic Church.



This might have been better understood by early Protestants and Reformist which is why they would adopt the attitude that they are the TRUE CATHOLIC church or claiming to be the part of it that the original has not fallen to apostasy.



Example John Calvin writes:

" For unless we are united with all the other members under Christ our head, no hope of the future inheritance awaits us. Hence the Church is called Catholic or Universal (August. Ep. 48), for two or three cannot be invented without dividing Christ; and this is impossible. All the elect of God are so joined together in Christ, that as they depend on one head, so they are as it were compacted into one body, being knit together like its different members; made truly one by living together under the same Spirit of God in one faith, hope, and charity, called not only to the same inheritance of eternal life, but to participation in one God and Christ. For although the sad devastation which everywhere meets our view may proclaim that no Church remains, let us know that the death of Christ produces fruit, and that God wondrously preserves his Church, while placing it as it were in concealment. Thus it was said to Elijah, “Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel” (1 Kings 19:18)." -- John Calvin's Institutes Book IV Of The Holy Catholic Church.



Let me throw one back at you. Show us what chapter and verse says the Gospel of Mark is the gospel of Mark or that it was written by a guy named Mark. I will only accept holy God inspired scripture.

If we look at the oldest scripture manuals they don't have the title mark, they don't even have chapter and verse numbers.

 

The problem is that you adamantly believe the church at Rome had a special calling over all the other churches established under the Apostles.
You cling to a traditional teaching that has zero biblical support and frankly zero archeological support. We do not know if Peter even set foot in Rome. His letters are addressed to the churches in Babylon. There is no indication Peter went West of Jerusalem...other than traditional stories.
Why would the folks at Rome create a story about Peter being in Rome? Why would they twist on Bible verse out of context as their prooftext?

The answer is plain when you look at the politics of Rome and the Empire.

What cannot ever be proven is that Rome was established as the universal church by Jesus himself.

You can make the claim. You can adamantly repeat the claim. You cannot prove the claim. The claim you make has zero legitimacy. None. Zip. Nada.

 

You seem to run your life by your feelings with no regard for theology. Is this an accurate description?

 

Kinda sounds like you're just attempting to cover your stay out of hell bases so you can make it home to heaven.

These leaders are shepherds. You are merely acting like a rogue sheep, hoping to stay on the wild prairie rather than be placed in a fold.

 

You sit under false doctrine. You are a member of a group that teaches false doctrine. You are in covenant with a group that teaches false doctrine. If you can't figure it out, I can't help you.

 

I said conflict.

 

Yes. Simply being there is a conflict within you.

 

[

As you should know, the word "Catholic" means Universal. It comes from the Greek word katholikos. Just because something is not written in the Bible does not discount the truth of what the word is meant to convey.

 

No we don't. You are wrong again!

 

Bump @Adonia

 

Yes you are. The Catholic Mass adheres to Catholic doctrines, you cannot separate yourself from them while there. You are kidding yourself, you are living a lie - and there is no honor in that.

 

According to the Scriptures.

There is much biblical support, you just reject our conclusions. The historical record is clear, there was but one Universal (Catholic) Church that evolved in the early centuries. Led by the Bishop's of that Church who were the successors of the Apostles, the men who called the early councils and synods that decided the basic Christian doctrines that all of Christendom believes and at that also fought the heresies that arose from time to time.

Babylon was another name for Rome, the city that ruled the world.

Read the Scriptures, it's there. Jesus established one Church, first led by the Apostles and then their successors. St. Paul wrote his letters to the other church's (parishes) to tell them the correct doctrines of the day and this proves that central control existed.

This same Universal Church remained intact until the first great schism in the 11th century and those that split off at that time remained faithful to the orthodox teachings, especially of the sacraments.

And then it was another 400 years or so until another split, and then another, and another - all by men who created their own doctrines and went their own ways.

That's it in a nutshell. That is the truth, so why do you deny it? You are free to go your own way, to believe whatever you want, but what you are not free to do is to change the actual historical record of the whole Christian story from then until now. The facts are the facts, the truth is the truth - now deal with it.

 

I knew you would respond with nothing but traditional teachings from your church backed up by nothing.
No physical evidence that Peter ever was in Rome. No biblical support, despite your claims.

Zero, Zip, Nada.