The Independent Catholic Movement

No, you're wrong.

What if I decide to build a church that is full of Catholic elements, and call it "Bapist." Would it be Baptist? No; it would only be by its name.

We can't stop someone from creating a church with the word "Catholic" in the name. However, that in no way means that they are the "Catholic Church," nor hold the same beliefs, practices, and values. In your defition, the Lutheran Church could be called the "Lutheran Catholic Church," because of the many Catholic elements in Lutheran belief and liturgy. They reject some, and keep some. However, they are not Catholic.

This is not a good argument, because there are no divisions of the Catholic Church; if there are, the Catholic Church does not recognize them as Catholic, unlike within the Baptist church, despite differences, each Baptist denomination is still "Baptist."

Big difference.

 

Are you afraid to admit there is division in the Catholic Church, like there is in other denominations and religions.

 

Greetings DHK,

You replyed to Grace:

1. First I don't believe that GraceSaves is afraid of much.

2. It seems to me that Grace is simply stating that a church is a Catholic Church or it is not. Catholics do not deny that people have left the Church. We have heard of that guy Martin Luther .

3. Simply showing a list of little churches that claim to be Catholic, does not mean that they are a part of the Catholic Church. Divisions are a significant part of the Protestant Movement. In effect everyone has a right to start their own Protestant church. With once significant exception that is not a part of the Catholic Church history.

Here is actually a great difference between the Catholic sense of church and Protestant sense of church.

Shortly after Henry the VIII started the Church of England, there were a hundred different Protestant sects. Within the Baptist community there must be at least 30 different divisions in the Southeast USA.

Protestants have no problem accepting these multiple divisions. In fact there is a lot of humor about it. It is just the natural way for churches to develop given their beginning in division.

Catholics view these divisions with sorrow and lack of understanding. They seem to be so many lost sheep trying to find a shepherd. Who will they gather to next?

There is no doubt that many if not most of these people are totally sincere and seeking a clearer understanding of the road to salvation. In fact surely many will receive a heavenly reward.

The churches you linked to may call themselves a duck, but they don't walk the walk or quack the quack.

Grace and peace,
Uncle Ray

 

Are you afraid to admit there is division in the Catholic Church, like there is in other denominations and religions.</font>[/QUOTE]Moving in for the attack, right DHK?

If I was afraid of being challenged, I wouldn't post here and challenge myself.

My statement that "No, you're wrong," is absolutely correct, because there is only one body of Churches under the Roman Pontiff. All others have split away, so they are no longer part of the Roman Catholic Church. They are not Catholic, despite what words they have in the name of your church.

Please READ the rest of my post next time so that I don't have to repeat myself.

 

After reading his writings he would say that the church (not Church) left the evangelicals. Because the Roman Pontiff decided to maintain the status quo and emphasize earthly institutions over Scripture.

While the website may not be entirely accurate, the rcc is not as unified(particularly in theology) as the rcc people on this board like to think. You have everything from charismatics to Bishops who say Luther is right.

[ March 30, 2002, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Godmetal ]

 

Martin Luther is a good example. He was both a protestant and a reformer at the same time. He was a protestant because he protested against the evils of the Catholic Church. He was a reformer because he tried to reform the Catholic Church from within. In fact he never left the Catholic Church. He tried to reform it from within. He remained a Catholic priest.
DHK

[ March 30, 2002, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

Not after he was excommunicated.

Of course one could argue that by the simple act of changing the Scriptures to read "faith ALONE" and refusing to recant his heretical accusations against the Church, he did indeed leave the Church.

Carole

 

Of course he would have to be guilty of heresy first, but since the roman church wasn't able to offer anything Scripturally based there wasn't anything to recant. If I recall, the translation of the Bible by Luther occurred after the excommunication bull was issued.

 

Yes, I do. And if you ask them, they will also deny being Catholic.

You're free to contend anything you like. By the way, you're definition of errors doesn't hold in this case, because what the Orthodox church calls errors in the Catholic Church, I call errors in the Orthodox church.

And it's great that out of the two things you name, one of them is not a Catholic belief. I don't speak for individuals other than myself, but I do not worship Mary, nor does the Catholic Church teach us to. As for infallibility, it's only an error when you don't believe in it. When it comes to matters of faith, can there be "error," or merely dispute?

That depends on what you mean by "valid." It's valid in the sense that although anyone has the right to call their church whatever they want to. However, it's not valid, when there is only ONE Catholic Church. When someone leaves to create a new Church, they are fully spliting from the Church; they are not a subdivision.

What you believe are heresies, I believe are the truth. What you believe is the truth, I believe is a heresy. Where exactly is this getting us?

[ March 30, 2002, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

"They have been decreed by various popes who have declared themselves to be infallible. The doctrines in question are heretical, but instead of an objective study of the Bible you will blindly believe them anyway because you are bound by the magesterium to do so."

Hi, I'm sticking my nose in this "conversation" here only to respond to this quote. First off, I would like to say that being bound to believe something doesn't necessarily mean you need to be blind to be bound.

Secondly, popes are infallible because of their office. Whether or not "he declares himself infallible" is irrelevant because the office is what holds the power... and that has biblical basis. Now, if in theory, you believed that the office of the pope was founded by Christ and that Christ made the pope infallible (when speaking Ex Cathedra, on matters of faith and morals) then, it is fair to say that you would be bound (in obedience to Christ) to believe what the pope declared (again speaking Ex Cathedra). So in actuality, a pope could declare all kinds of things you may not personally agree with... but you would have to submit to anyway because you recognize the authority that Christ gave him. Truth is absolute... it doesn't need our approval or acceptance to exist. So the only question that should remain for all Protestants is not so-called Mary worship, praying to dead people, infant baptism, purgatory or anything else. The only topic you should be concerned about is the authority of the pope. Because once that is established... you would have to submit to that authority.

When I talk to Mormons, I don't talk about baptism for the dead, God living with His wife on a planet, or any other of their beliefs I find kooky... all I can talk about is the "Great Apostasy" because if that happened, there was a need of a restitution, Joseph Smith is the true prophet, everything he says is true. But if that primary foundation is not set (which it's not)... everything else crumbles.

Kind of like when I talk to Protestants I try to stick to Sola Scriptura, because that is the entire foundation upon which protestantism lies.

 

And you will find that all bible believing people believe the pope has no such infallible power.

I understand it is central to your faith. I understand that to believe half of the stuff in the catechism you have to believe the office of the pope is completely right in all matters of faith. I understand it, and I also cringe everytime someone mentions it for it is a complete and utter farse.

jason

 

You are quite correct one matter. The issue boils down to authority. Jesus said: "All power (authority)is given unto me in heaven and in earth." He alone has that authority. The closest we can come to that authority is the Word of God:

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--In the Old Testament God spoke in different ways through the prophets to the people. In the New Testament age God speaks through His Son, whom He has revealed to us through His Word.

Where in history did the word pope come from? It certainly did not come from the Bible, and it is not a Biblical concept. In the New Testament you find that God has ordained local churches as his means of conveying the truth of God.

1Tim.3:15 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.
--The church, each and every local church, is the pillar of the truth. It ought to be holding the truth of the Word of God up in the community that it is in, as a beacon of light. It is the ground of truth; its very foundation is truth--the Word of God. The purpose of the church is to uphold the Word of God and to be grounded on the truth of the Word of God. Why? It is our only authority. It is the Truth. There is no truth apart from God's truth. Every man is a sinner (Rom.3:23) including the pope. God's inspired Word alone will never fail, and God can never lie. 1Tim.3:15 does not speak of the Catholic Church or denominations, it speaks of an ekklesia, an assembly, a congregation that is founded on the Word of God for the purpose of carrying out the commands of Christ. DHK

 

Quote: And you will find that all bible believing people believe the pope has no such infallible power.
I understand it is central to your faith. I understand that to believe half of the stuff in the catechism you have to believe the office of the pope is completely right in all matters of faith.
__________________________________________________
Actually, Jason, it is quite easy to believe ALL the stuff in the catechism even apart from the office of the pope... I searched long and hard to find the "biblicalness" of Catholicism and I found it. It's there... every doctrine, every dogma is beautiflly in line with what the Bible teaches. It's interesting that all us millions of Catholics are suddenly not "bible believing people" simply because our interpretation of the Bible is different. Do you say that about all the protestants who disagree with your views?

Quote: Where in history did the word pope come from? It certainly did not come from the Bible, and it is not a Biblical concept. In the New Testament you find that God has ordained local churches as his means of conveying the truth of God
_________________________________________________

DHK: Where did the word trinity come from? It certainly did not come from the Bible... but it is a biblical concept. Where did the word popcorn come from? Just because a word isn't in the bible doesn't mean it's unbiblical. Pope means "father." Paul talks often about being a spiritual father in his ministry so it is from that idea we get the word pope.

Also, Jesus delegated all power to His apostles (Matt 28: 18-20). The power to forgive sin, offer the Eucaharistic sacrafice, the power to speak with Christ's voice, the power to legislate and the power to discipline (Matt 18, Luke 10:16, John 20:23, 1 Cor 11:23-24). he appointed Peter and the office of the pope to head His church... to lead His apostles and their are too many biblical references to list here but the main ones are of course Matt 16:18-19, Luke 22:32 and John 21:17.

Quote: The church, each and every local church, is the pillar of the truth. It ought to be holding the truth of the Word of God up in the community that it is in, as a beacon of light. It is the ground of truth; its very foundation is truth--the Word of God. The purpose of the church is to uphold the Word of God and to be grounded on the truth of the Word of God. Why? It is our only authority. It is the Truth. There is no truth apart from God's truth.
________________________________________________

How can each church be the pillar and foundation of truth if their doctrines are mutually contradicting??? Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? Don't say the Holy Spirit caused all the 20 some odd thousand denominations because the spirit doesn't cause division. And please dont' undermine that division by saying we are all one in the Body of Christ because God doesn't advocate heresy and the Body of Christ is not supposed to be this invisible unity of thought among believers, it's supposed to be a living, vibrant, lighthouse on a hill of ONE truth... one creed.

Quote: Every man is a sinner (Rom.3:23) including the pope.
______________________________________________

Also, no one denies (or should deny anyway)that the pope is a sinner... he is just a man. Everyone knows that we've had horribly sinful men as popes before but that doesn't negate the truth that it is his office that is holy. In the NT we see another example of an office holding power in the case of Annas (I believe, I'll get the exact reference later if you're curious).

Quote: 1Tim.3:15 does not speak of the Catholic Church or denominations, it speaks of an ekklesia, an assembly, a congregation that is founded on the Word of God for the purpose of carrying out the commands of Christ. DHK
__________________________________________________

1 Tim 3:15 speaks precisely of the Catholic Church because no other church that is "founded on the word of God for the purpose of carrying out the commands of Christ" can do so without authority and without power to accurately interpret Scripture. Every other church, by it's very protestant nature, must admit that it has an fallible interpretation on their "fallible list of infallible books"... the Bible... therefore, it has not the authority to bind believers to what it teaches, because everyone can just decide for themselves what this particular Bible passage should be interpretted as and if it doesn't agree with their particular denomination... well by all means, they can start their own church.

 

"I searched long and hard to find the "biblicalness" of Catholicism and I found it."
---Where? Not in the Bible. Many of the Catholic doctrines are totally unfounded Scripturally. The assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception of Mary, purgatory, kissing the pope's feet, indulgences, praying for the dead, etc.

"It's interesting that all us millions of Catholics are suddenly not "bible believing people""
---It is interesting because you Catholics never were a "bible believing people, but rather a pope- believing people and/or a tradition-believing people. Your doctrines are not supported by the Bible; they are decreed by the pope, made a part of your catechism which you dutifully follow. When challenged about any particular doctrine your answer is often along the lines, that it is true because it is in the Catechism, not in the Bible.

"Where did the word trinity come from? It certainly did not come from the Bible... but it is a biblical concept."
1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
---That is the trinity; plain and simple.

"Where did the word popcorn come from? Just because a word isn't in the bible doesn't mean it's unbiblical."
---And what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? The word popcorn comes from a dictionary; you can find it there with most other words. It is not unbiblical because it is extra- biblical.

"Pope means "father.""
---Good for the Pope. Now follow Scripture:
Mat.23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

"Also, Jesus delegated all power to His apostles (Matt 28: 18-20). The power to forgive sin, offer the Eucaharistic sacrafice, the power to speak with Christ's voice, the power to legislate and the power to discipline (Matt 18, Luke 10:16, John 20:23, 1 Cor 11:23-24). he appointed Peter and the office of the pope to head His church... to lead His apostles and their are too many biblical references to list here but the main ones are of course Matt 16:18-19, Luke 22:32 and John 21:17."

---That's quite a mouthful. Almost none of it is true.
Mark 2:7 "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?"
--The Pharisees had it right. Only God can forgive sins. This power was never given to any man.

"Offer a eucharistic sacrifice" You can't even find a Biblical reference for that one. The "eucharist is not mentioned in the Bible. "Christ was ONCE offered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being but to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit."

"The power to speak with Christ's voice, the power to legislate, and the power to discipline (Mat.18)
---All of these were not given to Peter, the Pope (of which Peter never was), they were given to the local church. Read your Bible.
Mat.18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the CHURCH, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.
---The context here is the local church, "ekklesia," an assembly.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
---The next two verses, taken now in its context, are speaking of church discipline. They have nothing to do with the Pope, Peter, or even the apostles. They have to do with the church discipline.
The action that a church corporately takes against a member of its congregation for some deed which he is unwilling to repent of, (after appropriate steps of Matthew 18 are taken), is approved of in Heaven, as it was done on earth.

"Don't say the Holy Spirit caused all the 20 some odd thousand denominations because the spirit doesn't cause division"
---I didn't say denominational, I said Bible-believing. Not all denominations believe the Bible. Not even all Baptists believe the Bible. Most denominations are liberal or modernists. They give lip service to the Bible and that is about all.

"And please dont' undermine that division by saying we are all one in the Body of Christ because God doesn't advocate heresy and the Body of Christ is not supposed to be this invisible unity of thought among believers, it's supposed to be a living, vibrant, lighthouse on a hill of ONE truth... one creed."
---Alright, I won't say that we are all one body of Christ. I will give you something different to think about.
1Cor.12:27 "Now ye are the (a) body of Christ, and members in particular."
---Paul was writing to the members of the church at Corinth. They were a body of Christ, just as every local Bible-believing church is with Christ as its head, and we as its members. This is the picture that he was giving in this chapter.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
---There is no universal body here, neither is there any great organization such as a Catholic church. There is a local church that has members, and when one of those members suffers all the other members feel the pain, and suffer with that particular member. A funeral of a loved one is a good example. If someone in a local church dies, all the members feel the pain. That's not applicable to either the Catholic or the universal church.
Most local Bible-believing churches, like ours are therefore quite unified on their doctrine.

"Every other church, by it's very protestant nature, must admit that it has an fallible interpretation on their "fallible list of infallible books"... the Bible."
---Would you like to prove this assertion. It is the Catholic church that perverts the meaning of the Bible by reading into it things that are not there, trying to justify their man-made doctrines like purgatory and indulgences with Scripture. We take the Bible as it is--the inspired Word of God. We treat it with reverence, and hold it up to be our only authority. The Bible speaks for itself. You cannot. You must allow the magesterium and catechism to speak for you.
DHK

 

You're searching in an effort to disprove them, not find them. Praying for the dead is in the Bible, you simply reject that book. If you reject the book, you reject the doctrine. It's circular.

Kissing the pope's feet? A doctrine? What in the world?

The others are found implicitly, and you read the verses we use the other way so that you can easily reject them.

This is just slander. Open a Catechism, read a paragraph, and look at the footnotes. There's Biblical support for nearly everything in there.

What does it mean to "bear record?" What is "the Word?" What exactly is the "Holy Ghost?" Is the Holy Ghost "God?" What does it mean to be three in one? This verse alone doesn't prove anything with study of the rest of Scripture.

Catholics have doctrines that are partly extrabiblical, not unbiblical.

Would you like a list of how many times, in the Bible, people are referred to as Father or tell others to call them Father? What about my own, human father? Am I forbidden to call him "father?"

This is classic. Name me one other time when you agree with the Pharisees. Never. Jesus, the Messiah, was unknown to these men; they did not believe that Jesus was God. Furthermore, no man can forgive sins except THROUGH Jesus, so it took Jesus commissioning his apostles to do just that before it was possible. He did commission them, and them only, to forgive sins in His name.

Eucharist means "thanksgiving." It is the Lord's Supper, which you no doubt celebrate in some fashion, if you are Christian. The Eucharist is just one of many names for the Lord's Supper. This is a pitiful argument.

So you reject the Office of the Keys, which all of the earliest churches accepted, including the Orthodox Churches (which you defend if it attacks Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and more). You're inserting a definition of your own.

You sure love to condemn people, DHK.

You keep adding the word "local" in there. Why?

How unified is that?

You just spouted things off that didn't even have to do with what was quoted. Nor did you prove anything with your own assertion. You're simply being rude.

 

DHK,

I thought this article might be useful to you. You say it is the Catholic Church, with authority mandated by God, that distorts Scripture. Seems the Bible thinks otherwise:

-------------------------
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap040300.htm
-------------------------

Following the example of the Apostolic Church in the persons of the Apostles in the book of Acts, especially chapter 15, the Roman Catholic Church is motivated by a number of scriptures.

The Roman Catholic Church takes seriously the need to know the truth and to refute error.

Jn 15:26
When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
Jn 16:12-13
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.
Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.
2 Pet 2:1
There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
Tit 1:7,9-11
For a bishop (episcopon) as God's steward ... holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents. For there are also many rebels, idle talkers and deceivers ... It is imperative to silence them.
Gal 1:6-9
I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!
The Catholic Church also understands the need to interpret correctly the truth of all of the Bible. The Bible warns us that there will be incorrect interpretation without authority. All interpretations of a scripture cannot be equally true (it is contrary to the nature of truth); some interpretations of the same scripture are mutually incompatible (e.g., Mt 16:16; Jn 6). Hence there must be an authority to whom truth and error can be appealed.

2 Pet 3:16
In them (Paul's letters) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
The Catholic Church accepts the authority both of Divine Revelation and of the Holy Spirit. Deviation from the truth must be cursed and condemned.

Rom 13:1-2
Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
2 Thess 2:8-12
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord (Jesus) will kill with the breath of his mouth and render powerless by the manifestation of his coming, the one whose coming springs from the power of Satan in every mighty deed and in signs and wonders that lie, and in every wicked deceit for those who are perishing because they have not accepted the love of truth so that they may be saved. Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned.
The Catholic Church has, in all ages, understood both (1) the need for renewal and reformation of Christian faith and living, and general revival in the Church as a whole, and (2) the need to teach the truth when confronted with error.

The Church exercised her teaching authority (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) and called the faithful people entrusted with teaching others together in universal (ecumenical) council for renewal and reformation, and when truths were abandoned and error (heresy) was being taught (Titus 1:9). The truth was expressed and defined; error and false teachers condemned (anathema sit, "let them [him, it] be anathema, condemned, damned").

The history of the ecumenical councils attests to the fidelity of the Roman Catholic Church to the teaching and direction of both the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Holy Spirit.

The following section presents in summary form the history of the ecumenical councils of the Church throughout history from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican II.

[ April 03, 2002, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

1 Cor 4:14-16
I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.

Paul told people to immitate him and call him father. Explain, please, DHK.