about the Catholic Church

Actually no Angel in all of scripture is ever called a saint.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is true that Catholics like pagan worshippers of the family gods - only use images to "represent" or "remind them" of the deity/being that is being prayed to.

So when God forbids the use of images - He is speaking about praying to something that is being represented in the form of an image. (you know - "exactly" what pagans do).

..

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is an example of Mary...in the form of a statue...supposedly *not* being worshipped, but only venerated...

Link... Click here

Of particular interest is this part...

Mat Almighty God have mercy.


Very sadly,

Mike

 

People here have demonstrated that they far from know what the Catholic Church teaches, as I have pointed out with the Catholic Church's own Catechism.


Your Servant in Christ,
Sirach This is where I must strongly disagree with you Sirach. You have pointed out time and again what the Catholic church "claims" to teach, or what their catechism says they should teach. DHK, D28guy, Bro. James, Debbie in Philly, myself, and others who have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE with many different Catholic churches KNOW what the RCC actually practices. THAT'S the difference. They say one thing and practice another.

"I am the LORD, I change not..." Malachi 3:6

"We are the RCC, we change when it's convenient."

In Christ,
daktim

 

It is a shame that you all have had experiences in parishes where abuses abound. The Catholic Church admits that there is a large generation of Catholics not properly taught the faith.

My parish priest has been a priest since 1943 and he is the most caring an compassionate person I know. He truly lives what Christ taught us and he practices what the RCC claims to practice.

The Church does not change in the areas of Faith and Morals. A way of doing things may change, but God's Truths are not changed.

Catholic.com has many articles to help those who have questions about what really happened a Vatican II

 

Also see, http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/vat.htm
for Vatican Council II What Did It Say?

 

I just don't get it. You sound like you are the only authority on Catholic church teaching, and you refuse to believe any testimony from anyone who is a former Catholic and disagrees with your conclusions on what the Catholic church purports to teach. Yet at the same time you say you are not saying that what they teach is Scripturally sound. Have you ever been a member of any Catholic church? Do you know firsthand what they teach and practice? How come you know so many Catholics who have no understanding of what Rome really teaches? Are we all idiots?

From what I gather above, the correct thing for me to do when I was growing up was to argue and fight the very people I was supposed to be trusting. I guess when they told me that priests have power to absolve sins, I should have stood up and shouted, "Show me the link to the catechism!" When I was taught that Mary was born without sin, contrary to clear Biblical teaching, I should have demanded, "Where's the link?" When the priest told me my friend was deceived about Jesus Christ, and that I needed to trust the Ten Commandments and live a good life, while ignoring the Bible, I should have grabbed him by the collar and said, "You didn't show me a link!!" I know THOUSANDS of people who were taught what I was taught. Remember, I am from Chicago, where MILLIONS of people live. Different Catholics from different parrishes all ended up with the same teachings. Anti-Bible. Where were you with your links when we all needed you the most?

When the pope came to Chicago years ago, we were told to get our trading cards of the saints and pictures of the pope out so we could pray to him while his visit was televised. That way he could bless us and our little pictures. HERESY! HE HAD NO LINK!

If the Catholics are so unscriptural, as you seem to imply, why defend them to begin with? And no matter what you say, until you have attended a Catholic church for as many years as I and the others have, you CAN NOT say you know what they teach.

I'm sure there are Catholic churches out there with sincere priests trying to do the will of God and follow the Bible the best they know how. But they would be the exception, not the rule.

In Christ,
daktim

 

I find the Roman Catholic Church's reverence for the eucharist and its joy in liturgy refreshing. I think we could all spend hours talking about the strange and hokey things pastors and leaders in any Christian denomination do; my question is this: is there any way we can ignore our differences and "be one," like Jesus said in John 17?

My hope for this, despite the fact that God is never wrong, wanes...

 

No - there is no compatability with works salvation.

It all comes down to that.

Is it "do" or "done"?

 

The problem with the ecumencal approach to "everything" is that it can not tolerate the "Details".

Why DID so many protestants die for their faith? Why WERE they so willing to lay down their lives for truth if it is really "nothing to hold on to"?

In the case above - even the RCC admits that she is in GROSS ERROR if the non-Catholic view of communion is correct!!

If the RCC is wrong about its blatantly unbiblical claims regarding the eucharist then it is “idolatry” according to the RCC itself!.

The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is, I think, a little of both, and that's the thing we Evangelicals have forgotten. Christ has done all He could to purchase our salvation, yes. But if we "accept" that gift, and do nothing with it, we are lost.

And, once again, the key to do-ing is love.

 

The problem with the ecumencal approach to "everything" is that it can not tolerate the "Details".</font>[/QUOTE]Cannot tolerate? Or chooses to veiw the details as just that - details?

Where did I claim that the Protestants had nothing to hold on to?

I tend toward the Catholic side of the spectrum as to the nature of the elements, though not to such an extreme; that is, I would argue that Jesus' words were literal but that no substantial change need occur for said words to be literal. My assumption is that you lean more toward the ordinalist side. The question is, Bob, with all possible respect, what if it is nonCatholics like you and I who are wrong about the nature of the Eucharist? Would we be guilty not of idolatry, but of profaning the Body?

This is the kind of thing I would be fascinated to learn more about. Sadly, because of the moats we've dug about ourselves, I can't.

 

So true, so true.

The analogy I like to use is this:

God, by His Grace and Mercy gives me a present.
I accept the present and by faith I believe that God gave me a sweater.

However, if I accept the freely given present I can not let the wrapped box stay on a shelf and hope that the sweater will magically jump out of the box and onto by body.

I have to be willing to put His gift to good use by unwrapping the paper, opening the box, pulling out the sweater, and actually put it on.

Now because I had to do "some work" to get to what is inside, did that mean that it's no longer a free gift?

 

living, I think the discussion most appropriately applies to the matter of our conduct following our conversion. Reading most of what Jesus said, and the Epistles expound upon, it is our conduct alone which is the most telling mark of our faith in Christ to others. Moral conduct is a work, after all...

 

Well here "again" it gets down to "details that matter".

When you ask about the RCC being correct - do you mean "what if we NEED an RC priest with the majic powers to turn the bread into God?". If that is true - then our NOT having an RC priest means the bread is just as we say "a MEMORIAL" of the death of Christ rather than an 'actual sacrifice' of God "again".

If you mean that the bread "becomes" in some way "god" but without needing the majic powers of the RC priests - then even the RCC is wrong and you are saying that any jo-schmo on the street when celebrating the Lord's supper is able unwittingly to pull-God-into-an-active-sacrifice rather than a memorial. Pretty horrendous thought - but you could "speculate that". Certainly that is not what the RCC claims can happen - so you would be "on your own" out on that limb.

In the mean time - what if the Bible is right? How about that option?

In 1Cor 11 we are told that "AS often as you drink the cup and drink this bread you do SHOW THE LORDS DEATH until he comes" and "Do this in REMEMBERANCE of Me" is the valid way to think of it.

In that case Heb 10 is correct - and the ONE time offering on the cross was a "ONCE FOR ALL" single event that put a STOP to ALL sacrifice and offerings.

But that is "just if the Bible is true".

Anyway - I agree that it is fun to speculate about all those non-Bible options. As long as we know that that is really what we are doing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why do some believe that Christ is sacrificed again and again in each and every Mass, when Scripture plainly states that He was sacrificed on Calvary once and for all? Heb 10:10
Many do not realize it, but Christ Himself offered the first Mass at the Last Supper when He offered (sacrificed) Himself to His Father in an unbloody manner, that is, under the form of bread and wine, in anticipation of His bloody sacrifice on the cross to be offered on the following day.


The Mass is a re-enactment of Our Lord's one sacrifice of Calvary. It is that same sacrifice, not another, Heb 10:12.
We, are in time, and to us it would seem that this one sacrifice was consummated 2000 years ago. GOD, however is outside of time and space.
Everything is now in GOD's eyes, and so we are taken back to that one sacrifice as if it were happening now at each and every Mass.
The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice on the Cross was a complete and perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of GOD, offered once.
St. Paul bears witness that the sacrificial rite which Christ instituted at the Last Supper is to be perpetuated, and that it is not only important for man's sanctification, but is the principal factor in man's final redemption.
In 1Cor 11:23-26, St. Paul told how, at the Last Supper, Our Lord said: "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes."
During the Breaking of the Bread, we say twice, "Lamb of GOD, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us," and a third time, "Lamb of GOD, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace."
Thus at every Mass the faithful have a new opportunity to worship God with this one perfect sacrifice and to absorb more of Christ's saving and sanctifying grace of Calvary. This grace is infinite, and the faithful should continuously grow in it. The Mass is offered again and again, because of our imperfect capacity to receive.


Do you not believe Jesus in John 6:51-58 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

6:52
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

6:53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

6:56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

6:57
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

6:58
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Let's Not forget

John 6:60-61,66 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

6:61
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Jesus didn't say, "Wait you misunderstood me."

 

Also if it was merely symbolic, why would Paul warn about partaking unworthily? How can you eat and drink damnation if it is only a symbol?

 

Your question makes no sense L4H. You seem to "claim" that worshipping before God in an unworthy manner - does not really matter if you have not been able to turn bread into god.

That is a kind of reasoning that makes no sense.

When Cain brought his offering before God - he was not worshipping in a worthy manner - his offering was not accepted. This had nothing to do with his ability to turn fruit into god.

When Annanias and Saphira came to the Apostles with their gift for the church - they came in an unworthy manner, and it had nothing to do with their ability to turn money into god.

The RCC admits freely that IF she is really not able to turn bread into God - then she is guilty of idolotry for worshipping what is essentially - just bread in a memorial service.

Jesus said "do this in REMEMBERANCE of Me" - it is a memorial service - NOT a live sacrifice.

In Christ,

Bob