about the Catholic Church

"...certain tendancies approaching pagan thought."

--a nice way to say: it is paganistic idolatry

One more time--let us get this discussion off the "fence". This is about divine authority to function, not about what an ever changing catechism may have said or may say today or tomorrow.

The RCC claims their authority from Matthew, Ch. 16: 18-20. Jesus supposedly confers to Peter, the Apostle, the papacy and the authority to be the vicar of Christ, with the keys to heaven.

This claim has to be either true or false. If true, the RCC is the only entity on the planet with divine authority--all others are apostate and separated from the True Church. If the claim is false, then Rome is without authority--never had any to start with--and the same could be said for anything which has come out of Rome.

It is black and white--a church either has proper authority or it has usurped authority which is no authority at all--like having a million dollars-- in counterfeit bills.

The daughters of Rome are going back to their mother--ecumenism is alive and well. What of the Bride of Christ? She never had anything to do with Rome anyway. She is still without blemish, the pillar and ground of the Truth.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Constantine had nothing to do with the start of the Catholic Church. Constantine's Edict of Milan made Christianity a religion that would be tolerated. He ended the Roman Emperor's persecussion of Christians.

Every Bishop can trace their ordination in a line back to one of the Apostles.

Can any other denomination?

 

What I don't understand why do so many people (baptist/protestants) believe that they are the only Christian religion and that everyone else is on a one way ticket to hell?

Also, another question I have...if you read about the ancient worlds being pagan and then they were Christianized, why are these Christian nations Catholic and not something else? Am I to believe that "baptist" or whatnot did not care about Christ's Great Commision until after the Reformation?

It seems to me that people should be more concerned with bringing Christ to those who do not believe in Christ or know about His redeeming sacrifice.

Christian Religions are:
Catholic
Baptist
Methodist
Lutheran
Assembly of God
Pentacostal
Church of Christ
Seventh Day Adventist
Presbyterian
Anglican
Episcopalian

I apologize if I left any out

Non-Christian Religions are:
Baha'i Faith
Buddhism
Confucianism
Hinduism
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
Vodun (Voodoo)
Etc. These are the ones that we should be concerned about and not trying to get some Christian to attend our church because they are "lost"

 

Sirach has a good point - if you are going to complain about RC teaching we should quote from official RC sources - not build up a straw man and then attack it.

There are TWO things in that post.

#1. What does the RC actually say - (is it JUST what Sirach says or is there "something more" in "OFFICIAL" RC documents?

#2. Is it true (as Sirach points out above) that if you take the Catechism verbatim - it has no contradiction with the Word of God.

-- These are valid things to verify.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And here is something that could use "some investigation"

In Acts 20 Paul tells us of the apostacy that would arise "From among your own selves".

In 2Thess 2 Paul predicts apostacy in the church and "the falling away".

Error comes "from within the church" according to NT authors.

When error comes in and part of the church rejects it -- "who is the church"??

The Catholics would argue that the greater portion "is the church" even if it swallows error and the lesser part clings to truth.

They then claim that those who trace their "line of faith" back through those small groups clinging to truth - are not really tracing back a line of truth since only the errors of the RCC should be consider 'real lines to be traced' back to the first century.

How say you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

So you conclude that it was these works which saved them?

And as you can see, I did not "dismiss this out of hand". I did provide an "interpretive synthesis".

Can you dispute the Scriptures I have provided for the interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46? If I provided anything out of context please give correction.

God Bless!

 

Living4Him,

This site does not have a "post #" for each post on a thread like some other sites like this have, but a post can be identified by thread, date, and time.

I'm not a Baptist btw, but could you post the thread, date, and time for the posts where any baptists, or non-baptist evangelicals like myself, have said that "they are the only Christian religion and that everyone else is on a one way ticket to hell".

Thanks,

Mike

 

And here it is:

We are justified by embracing Christ through faith alone, and placing our complete trust in His work of redemption on our behalf.

Upon doing that, we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who begins the process of changing us...experientially...from the "old man" into the "new man" that we have already become....positionally.

This will result in fruit...or works...that reflect the fact that we "meant it" when we trusted Christ, rather than just paying "lip service", so to speak, for any number of illegitimate reasons.

The "works" are an overflow of a very real change internally...through faith alone...and have no part in gaining, or maintaining, our justification.

I'm not the most eloquent of speakers or writers, but I believe that reconciles the scriptures from Romans, Galciens, Ephesians, and anywhere else concerning the truth of justification by faith alone, with the "works" passages from James that many attempt to twist and butcher to support a false gospel of works justification.

God bless,

Mike

 

In Acts 17 we find that the words of Paul himself are to be "tested" against scripture.

Everytime the subject of "sola scriptura" is brought up with RC posters - they object to having the words of the church "tested" to see "if those things are true".

And yet in Acts 17 that is exactly what we see happening - the words of Paul are tested against the scriptures (the OT in this case) to "see IF those things said by Paul are true".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan,

Thats the reason why myself, DHK, Stearns, and others have quoted extensively from Catholic sources.

The Council of Trent, The Catholic Catechism, The Catholic Encyclopedia, etc etc.

We have done precisely as Stirach requested, yet he continues to say over and over again that we arent.

He is not telling the truth when he says we are not quoting from Catholic sources.

Go back and read the previous...now locked...thread ("The Holy Roman Catholic Church") on this very board and you will see us quoting from Catholic sources over and over and over again.

God bless,

Mike

 

I agree that reaching the "unchurched" is a big part of the church mission today. (Of course the Baptist Messag board is probably not the place "to find the unchurched" or the hindus).

But on this forum - we have a good place to discuss a huge section of NT, Christian history with all of its good - and its evil. The same history that Muslims, Hindus etc will be bringing up to Christians as "proof" that Christianity is bogus.

And on this forum - we have a good opportunity to "notice" that this HUGE chunk of history and the actions (good or bad) taken by the church in those dark ages - did not go unnoticed by God.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I meantioned a poster named "Stearns" in a recent post. I was actually referring to "Steaver".

Mike

 

Sirach,

If I remember correctly, my posts came from 2 sources....

1) The Council of Trent.

I didnt think you would need a link. They were all identified by the numbers given them by the Catholics when they issued them. I didnt think you would have any trouble finding the Council of Trent cursings. They are readilly available on-line. "Google" the phrase "Council of Trent" and multitudes of Catholic sources will come up.

2) The Catechism.

Again Sirach, by you own admission you already have a Catechism, since you say you have been studying it. I thought my quotes had the numerical adresses that the Catholics put in there. I know that Steavers did.

3) The Catholic Encyclopedea

I thought that I did post a link with those ones. If I didnt then it was an oversight, because I certainly meant to.

And I dont believe I have ever posted to you from any web-site that Catholics would consider an "anti-catholic" web-site. (We would call them "pro-truth" websites. They are usually run by born again people who love catholics enough to tell them the truth)

I have posted from those websites at times, with links, but not in any of my postings with you.

God bless,

Mike

 

Sirach -

A few questions.

#1. Does the RCC allow Non-CAtholics into the Gospel's "New Covenant"?

#2. Does the RCC claim that outside of the RCC there is no salavation?

#3. WOULD people like Billy Graham be considered among the "heretics" of the dark ages by the RCC such that the "extermination" policy of Lateran IV would apply "to him"? Because "if so" then all non-Catholic Christian fall into that category.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob- see LUMEN GENTIUM - arts 14 & 15 are particularly helpful.


#1. Definitely. Far more charitable to Baptists and other Christians about thier salvation than some Baptists are to Catholics, it would appear

#2. Yes and no. No, if you do not know that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, yes if you do. Let's face it, nearly all non-Catholic Christians do NOT know that the CC is necessary for salvation...er...otherwise they'd be Catholic

#3. Probably yes, unfortunately. However, there are many on this Board who think he's a heretic as well...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

OK not in so many words, it is more of an attitude. But there are post here that say "the RCC is a false religion", "there may be some Christians in the RCC", "Witnessing to 7th day adventist", ect.

Oh yes, let's not forget the post that ask why there aren't any Chick Tracts against the Pentecostals.

In the Sunday homilies, I have yet to hear Fr. Al say, "you need to witness to your protestant/baptist/non-catholic christian neighbors." However, I have heard him say,"you need to be the light of Christ to your neighbors and especially look for ways to bring Christ to the unchurched and those who do not know about Christ's redeeming love. Encourage your unchurched neighbors to attend Mass with you" etc.

 

Sirach has a valid point: the Catholic Catechism is consistent with THEIR interpretation of THEIR scripture.

One could make a similar statement regarding Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Science, etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum.

Is it possible to be sincerely wrong? Follow Saul of Tarsus on his journey to Damascus. He thought he was doing God a service--killing Christians. He was shown the error of his way.

All of this religious confusion cannot be right. God is not the author of confusion. Satan is quite adept at confusion and deception.

Selah,

Bro. James