Featured 10 Misconceptions of the RCC

Now here is a Catholic Bishop that stands for something....

"Scranton Bishop says he will refuse Holy Communion to Joseph Biden..." :thumbs::thumbs::love2:

http://www.tldm.org/News12/ScrantonBishopWillRefuseHolyCommunionToBiden.htm

 

Yes sir! And I also say finally! I believe we need to clean house. And this is a step towards that!

 

Here are two, Romans 3:10, There is not one righteous, no not one. And Romans 3:23, For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. If Mary was sinless, that is, without original sin from Adam, and her own nature not to sin, she would have never died physically.

Also, unrelated, it seems very odd to me that you are claim to want a civil discussion, yet, you only post negative comments from others. I will use myself as an example. I made a couple to you and Walter, then apologized (ref post #108). Did you post that one, no. Earth, Wind and Fire and myself are trying to exchange theological ideas without the attacks on the denominations, of which I have been guilty of. From this point on, it would be helpful if we can forget the past posts.

 

Here is another question for you. Your knowledge of the Catholic and Baptist faiths is pretty complete from what I see. So, in this hypothetical, lets say we have a local Baptist church that practices open communion. Since the churches are autonomous, there is about a 50-50 split on this. Anyway, say it is open. Do you think if the RCC refused communion to one of its members, and that member came to this open communion Baptist church, and it was known that the RCC had refused said member communion, that the Baptist church would also refuse, or would they consider the theology so far removed that the term "communion refused by a Roman Catholic bishop" would be rendered meaningless?

I have no idea what basis the bishop is refusing the communion on, whether it is his support of gay rights or abortion, for example. However, in the case of an issue where the two denominations agree, like these two issues, it could be refused depending on the will of the local church.

 

On the other hand, how do you explain the differences in the books of the Catholic and Protestant Bibles? Macabees is an example. Now, if one group of men met to decide on one of them, and another group of men decided on the other, what makes one more correct than the other. There is no proof that the Holy Spirit was guiding either group. What makes you think Macabees, for example, should be in the canon, when it is not in the Protestant? Would it not be better for a book to be excluded than included if there is a question? That almost happened to the book of James in our case.

Also, even if the books are excluded, it is still availabe to read. You bring up another point. You mentioned the beheading of Paul. Why would material have to be in the canon to believe this? There are different types of belief. I believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States. However, that is not saving or life changing belief. I believe the works of Josephus to be true. Saving belief in a book requires Inspired works. Uninspired writings do not make them a lie.

So getting back to the book of Macabees, or the series I should say, what in that book distinguishes it as Inspired. That is not to say I do not believe the story is false, but I am looking for something that makes it written by the hand of God and life changing. In the Books of Esther and Ruth, the Lord is either not mentioned or mentioned very little, but His work in directing His plan and purposes is very clear.

Thanks in advance for your response.

 

Thinking,
Another question I had, if one pins down a certain high official in the Catholic church, after stumbling around, they will admit that the RCC is the only One True Church, and that those outside that church are headed for the Lake of Fire. Public information either denies this or plays it down.

So why is it that Protestants and Baptists believe there are saved Catholics, yet Catholics are so closed minded they believe every faithful Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcipalian, Church of Christ, and the numerous Pentecostal believers are headed for hell?

It seems to me that ignoring all theology, more importance is placed on the organization than the eternal destiny of the individual.

 

Walter, I cannot resist. Does the baptism of the bells make you all ding-a-lings? LOL. Just kidding. One thing I do want to focus on with you as we exchange posts is what is making us go in exactly opposite directions as we grow spiritually. You, from Baptist, to Presbyterian, to Catholic, and me from conservative Presbyterian to Baptist.

 

according to your interpretation that must include Jesus. He was also a man after all.

according to your interpretation this must also include Jesus. But of course you are certain of this exception. Thus may there be another exception after all there is one. This is how the Catholic views the Immaculate Conseption

I'm sorry if I missed one of your posts. I did not read all the post. As I come accross them I try to respond as I was away from them for a few days. Unfortunately, I did not see your apology though I thank you for it. The thing is from my perspective there are many accussation and questions leveled at the Catholic Church and to be honest I do understand why. However, because of the number of them and they are from all directions rather than one thing at a time I try in a limited fashion to answer each one. And I must also say after discussion with DHK its easy to "feel" attacked rather than discussed with. I am hoping to have discussion with anyone willing to discuss. I understand you come from a place of disagreement about selected issues but at least I may inform you why Catholics believe the way they do and its not as simple as "they never had faith to begin with". That isn't the case. Though of some I would certianly agree.

 

Interesting....so what you are suggesting is a movement to change & modify from within.... a "reformation" of sorts!

I do believe that men like this Scranton Bishop have sincerely tried but Im sure he runs into tons of roadblocks. Really it shouldn't be change as much as CHANGE!

Have you read John Paul II Encyclical "On Social Concerns".... see attached.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis_en.html

 

Except that 2 Cor 5:21 might make a difference.

 

Just to make my point previously. This is what I mean from "all directions". We were just talking about Mary now its about the one true Church. And this btw is a good question. One I've asked myself about as well. I will explain it in the way I understand it. First point is that the Catholic Church doesn't presume to judge on God's behalf. God will save those whom he wills to save. And Catholics don't presume to identify those whom God chooses. What the Church does know (believe) is that Jesus built his Church by establishing the Apostles in the Faith. He taught them and gave them the faith which they preached. Catholics call that the deposit of faith. They were sent out (the meaning of Apostles) and established churches throughout the known world. Catholics believe that all these churches are unified in faith as it was given by the Apostles as they were all taught the same faith by those apostles. The Catholic Church teaches that from that time to the present there has been an unbroken line (Apostolic Succession) of Churches maintaining that faith in its fullness as the Universal Church (the meaning of Catholic). That the saving faith which the Apostles taught is held in perpetuity by that Church. There were decenters who didn't uphold that faith and thus it came to a head in 325 AD when Arius pulled at least half of the Church away from what it had always believed and thus the Nicean Creed was established to define what was orthodox teaching and what wasn't with regard to that particular heresy. It was important to put the in the creed that there is One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church to distinguish it from the heretical churches. And it has kept that moniker ever since. Since Catholics believe this is the Church then that the salvation presented by Christ is only known fully by that church thus salvation is through the Catholic Church and other churches to the extent that they agree with Catholic Teaching have at least that extent of the truth that leads to salvation. No Catholic should then say whether or not a particular protestant will be saved or not rather hold that God certainly is the the judge of that and in as much as they adhered to the truth kept in perpetuity bythe Catholic Church are to that extent accessing the graces provided in adhering to that truth.
For protestants there is no visible church rather there is only the invisible church and thus as long as you hold a "saving faith" no matter where you find yourself on the Christian spectrum you're "saved". But this cannot be really known except by God and the person who has the "saving faith". Thus the discussion then becomes for protestants that since one is saved by faith alone what must them be the absolute minimum which one is to believed to be saved? And then the "essentials" are spoken of and there is no real general agreement which "essentials" are to minimum-ly be believed to be saved.

 

I guess. You should see the things Benedict is putting out. He's certainly working on cleaning house.

 

I don't think that means Jesus Christ fell short. It means the sins of all of us including the ones Mary may have committed save for her preemptive rescue were put on him. Not that he was deficient. It wouldn't line up with Romans with regard to "all men".

 

Think that ship left though when the RCC decided to make a decision to NOT be part of the reformation, and to stay as spiritual Babylon!

 

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Rom.3:23).
Here is the context.
In Romans chapter one, Paul demonstrates how all Gentiles are sinners, falling under the condemnation of God.
In Romans chapter two, Paul demonstrates how all Jews are sinners, falling under the condemnation of God.
In Romans chapter three, Paul demonstrates how both Jews and Gentiles (that is ALL mankind) falls under the condemnation of God.
In chapter four he explains how righteousness is obtained, and in chapter five how that a man is justified by faith.
It is quite evident, that in the first three chapters, that Paul is dealing with mankind in general, not with the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ came to save the mankind described in the first three chapters, and thus is not included. However Mary is part of mankind and does need that same redemption that everyone else needs. She is a sinner; born a sinner; and needed to be a sinner saved by the grace of God, just like everyone else. She was not a Christian from infancy. There had to be a time in her life where she conscientiously trusted the Lord as her Savior. No one is born a Christian. They must, at some time in their life, turn in faith to Christ. That is applicable to Mary as well.

 

So in other words, they are using the same senario as Landmarkers, just different churches. This has been pointed out before, but the distinction of the Holy Catholic Church falls into three catagories, not two. The Catholics believe in a visible, universal church. Protestants believe in an invisible universal church. Baptists believe in a local, visible church. There is a distinct difference between the administration of Protestant and Baptist churches.

There is no doubt in my mind that many on Baptist rolls will be in the Lake of Fire and there will be Catholics in eternity with the Lord. Here is an interesting question. Does the Catholic church even maintain a local church membership roll, or is it just one master roll with a column for location?

 

Is he using Mr. Clean or Scrubbing Bubbles? Just kidding.

 

After that he should resign & make Popes a thing of the past. That would display he is going a long way to effect change.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that she did come to salvation. However, many things about Mary puzzle me. For example, she gave birth to Jesus Christ after being visited by an angel explaining to her how she got pregnant. There is no telling what she saw Jesus do as He was growing up. It is not recorded. Yet, during his ministry, she seems surprised at some of His actions. There are several references to Mary and Jesus's siblings thinking He was "beside Himself," out of His mind, when preaching. They tried to pull Him away from the crowd. Even at the cross, I am not sure she understood why He was here. What is puzzling to me is that she had the angelic visitations, gave birth to Jesus, and still seemed to not understand.

 

Of course. She kept the law; was obedient and submissive to the Lord.
Her prayer: "I rejoice in God my Savior," indicates that the Lord was her Savior," but also that she was a sinner in need of a Savior, else she would not have addressed God as "my Savior."
Secondly, at the time of the circumcision of Jesus, Mary took two offerings and presented them to the priest. According to the law, one of them was a sin offering. That two indicates that she knew she was a sinner. All this was done according to the Law laid out in Leviticus chapter 12.

She seemed surprised that Jesus at the age of 12 stayed behind, in the Temple, answering the questions of the Rabbis that were there. She and Joseph had spent a great deal of time looking for Him. He answered: "Know ye not that I should be about my Father's business." But Mary "kept all these things in her heart." More and more she came to understand the mission of Christ. Thus at the Wedding of Cana she knew exactly what Jesus was able to do. She was the one that came to Jesus asking him to turn the water into wine, or at the very least to solve the problem of the lack of wine at the wedding. She knew he had the power to do it.

His brothers were not saved until after the cross. They were envious. Imagine what it would be like growing up with someone who is perfect, never had sinned, never lost his temper, not got angry, lied, or did anything wrong. "He was reviled but reviled not again." That went for his childhood as well. It would be very difficult. For children they probably wouldn't understand all that Mary had been told, and perhaps would even doubt their mother's story of angelic visions. They heard constantly stories of their mother being immoral--
John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

I believe she was at the cross because she did understand. A few days later she was in the upper room with the other disciples in Acts chapter one. Jesus gave her to John to take care of her. Why? Because her other children were not yet saved, and John, the beloved disciple he could trust and he had the means to take care of her. Soon after his other half-brothers would come to know the risen Christ as their Savior. They would be used in a mighty way, but the time was not yet.