-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
S
Sirach
Guest
The Sacrifice of the Mass has multiple meanings.
Please go to the link to the Catechism above because the only way to get the full understanding would be to do a document dump, and I don't want to do that here. I only posted a snippet of it, with a link to where it came from so that you and others could click it, read it, and understand it better.
There is no contradiction between the Catholic Church's interpretation of the Scriptures and their teachings. It's that simple.
Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
I believe the Catholic Church says this is fulfilled with them. From my understanding there are over 360,000 Masses each day. The sun never sets on the Mass. They believe that Christ's sacrifice happened in 33 AD, once and for all... meaning it's perpetuated. Perpetuated means: To prolong the existence of; cause to be remembered.
Below is a link to a Catholic's perspective on the Scriptures and the Catholic Church teachings:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
The most anyone can justly say is that the Catholic Church has a different interpretation of Scripture. Anything else, we risk casting judgement on ourselves.
Also, to open a Christian Brotherly dialog with someone from other faiths, we must approach their faiths from an academic point of view so that we can fully understand them, and understand how to help them come closer to Christ. With other Christian religions, the first and foremost important fact that we agree on is that Christ is our Savior, and we love Him.
For the Love of Christ, we must show others love that we show ourselves.
Using a little psychology will get us a long way when we talk to them, instead of telling them that they are wrong, we should explain to them why we think we are right. This is not as in your face and opens people up to brotherly dialog. It is hard to remember to do this, especially when people are not open to truth and they are too lazy to look things up or too filled with hate to carry on a brotherly dialog.
God Bless,
Sirach
Please go to the link to the Catechism above because the only way to get the full understanding would be to do a document dump, and I don't want to do that here. I only posted a snippet of it, with a link to where it came from so that you and others could click it, read it, and understand it better.
There is no contradiction between the Catholic Church's interpretation of the Scriptures and their teachings. It's that simple.
Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
I believe the Catholic Church says this is fulfilled with them. From my understanding there are over 360,000 Masses each day. The sun never sets on the Mass. They believe that Christ's sacrifice happened in 33 AD, once and for all... meaning it's perpetuated. Perpetuated means: To prolong the existence of; cause to be remembered.
Below is a link to a Catholic's perspective on the Scriptures and the Catholic Church teachings:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
The most anyone can justly say is that the Catholic Church has a different interpretation of Scripture. Anything else, we risk casting judgement on ourselves.
Also, to open a Christian Brotherly dialog with someone from other faiths, we must approach their faiths from an academic point of view so that we can fully understand them, and understand how to help them come closer to Christ. With other Christian religions, the first and foremost important fact that we agree on is that Christ is our Savior, and we love Him.
For the Love of Christ, we must show others love that we show ourselves.
Using a little psychology will get us a long way when we talk to them, instead of telling them that they are wrong, we should explain to them why we think we are right. This is not as in your face and opens people up to brotherly dialog. It is hard to remember to do this, especially when people are not open to truth and they are too lazy to look things up or too filled with hate to carry on a brotherly dialog.
God Bless,
Sirach
Different interpretations of scripture--
Exactly--starting with Matthew 16:18.
If this Word of God is giving divine authority to the Apostle Peter, then all those outside the "holy see" are separated, heretic, and anathema.
On the other hand, if this scripture is giving divine authority to the New Testament Assembly--the one that Jesus is still building, then that which resides at the Vatican has not the authority from God. Usurped authority is no authority at all.
usurp: to seize and hold an office by force or without proper authority.
Satan is a usurper from the beginning.
A counterfeit is exactly that--regardless of how "authentic" it may appear.
"It is no wonder, Satan himself is become an angel of light".
Beware: the wolves in sheep's clothing often wear royal purple.
Selah,
Bro. James
Exactly--starting with Matthew 16:18.
If this Word of God is giving divine authority to the Apostle Peter, then all those outside the "holy see" are separated, heretic, and anathema.
On the other hand, if this scripture is giving divine authority to the New Testament Assembly--the one that Jesus is still building, then that which resides at the Vatican has not the authority from God. Usurped authority is no authority at all.
usurp: to seize and hold an office by force or without proper authority.
Satan is a usurper from the beginning.
A counterfeit is exactly that--regardless of how "authentic" it may appear.
"It is no wonder, Satan himself is become an angel of light".
Beware: the wolves in sheep's clothing often wear royal purple.
Selah,
Bro. James
Sirach,
I have taken your advice and clicked your link from the following post. posted 18 March, 2005 16:30March 18, 2005 05:30 PM
The following contains direct quotes from www.catholic.com. The statements that are in bold type are made that way by me to emphasize a point. All comments by me are in parentheses followed by - daktim. I did not cut and paste portions of sentences together.
daktim
p.s. I am not hateful.
The Bible Only?
Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.
(“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. ” Proverbs 30:5,6 “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18,19 – daktim)
The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ (assumption - daktim) to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).
(What a bold statement!. - daktim)
Mary and the Saints
True Devotion To Mary St. Louis De Montfort
Email to a friend. True Devotion To Mary by St. Louis Marie Grignion De Montfort (1673-1716) is considered by many to be the greatest single book ever written on the Blessed Virgin Mary. Seemingly divinely inspired, it is the classic statement on the spiritual way to Jesus Christ through the Blessed Virgin Mary . Beloved by countless souls, this book sums up the entire Christian life, showing a way of holiness that is short, easy, secure and perfect- a way of life chosen by our Lord Himself , as explained here by the "Apostle of Mary".In this beautiful and sublimely inspiring book, St. Louis De Montfort explains the wonderful spiritual effects which True Devotion to Mary brings about in a person's life, leaving the reader with no doubt that this devotion provides the key both to sanctity and to salvation . There is no better way to advance quickly in holiness, no better way to please God, and no better way to guarantee one's eternal salvation than True Devotion to Mary .
(Not very Biblically sound. – daktim)
Christians have always (assumption - daktim) interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).
Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).
(So if I’m understanding this correctly, all Catholics who know that baptism is required for salvation, according to the Catholic church, must be baptized or they will be damned. But if I’m a martyr, or a novice, or just sincerely trying to find and follow the will of God, I’ll be okay. Do I have it right? When was the above-mentioned Catechism written? It looks like the RCC has softened its stance on the necessity of baptism. Please read below for the conflicting statements by former Catholic church leaders. – daktim)
Tertullian
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).
"Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (ibid., 12).
(None. - daktim)
Origen
"It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism" (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).
(Not possible. - daktim)
Cyril of Jerusalem
"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
. . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]" (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).
(Only exception? What about novices, unbaptized infants and sincere people? – daktim)
Augustine
" There are three ways in which sins are forgiven (What an interesting statement! - daktim) : in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized " (Sermons to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15 [A.D. 395]).
(Except to the baptized. - daktim)
Fulgentius of Ruspe
"From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church , without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).
(So at this point, only Catholic martyrs were excluded from needing baptism. See how things change? And if baptism is necessary for salvation, according to the RCC, this would be a change in a major doctrine, not just a way of doing things, like Living4Him implied in an earlier post. “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.” Originally posted by Living4Him posted 17 March, 2005 06:25March 17, 2005 07:25 AM – daktim)
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
Can you see the contradictions now?
In Christ,
daktim
I have taken your advice and clicked your link from the following post. posted 18 March, 2005 16:30March 18, 2005 05:30 PM
The following contains direct quotes from www.catholic.com. The statements that are in bold type are made that way by me to emphasize a point. All comments by me are in parentheses followed by - daktim. I did not cut and paste portions of sentences together.
daktim
p.s. I am not hateful.
The Bible Only?
Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.
(“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. ” Proverbs 30:5,6 “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18,19 – daktim)
The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ (assumption - daktim) to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).
(What a bold statement!. - daktim)
Mary and the Saints
True Devotion To Mary St. Louis De Montfort
Email to a friend. True Devotion To Mary by St. Louis Marie Grignion De Montfort (1673-1716) is considered by many to be the greatest single book ever written on the Blessed Virgin Mary. Seemingly divinely inspired, it is the classic statement on the spiritual way to Jesus Christ through the Blessed Virgin Mary . Beloved by countless souls, this book sums up the entire Christian life, showing a way of holiness that is short, easy, secure and perfect- a way of life chosen by our Lord Himself , as explained here by the "Apostle of Mary".In this beautiful and sublimely inspiring book, St. Louis De Montfort explains the wonderful spiritual effects which True Devotion to Mary brings about in a person's life, leaving the reader with no doubt that this devotion provides the key both to sanctity and to salvation . There is no better way to advance quickly in holiness, no better way to please God, and no better way to guarantee one's eternal salvation than True Devotion to Mary .
(Not very Biblically sound. – daktim)
Christians have always (assumption - daktim) interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).
Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).
(So if I’m understanding this correctly, all Catholics who know that baptism is required for salvation, according to the Catholic church, must be baptized or they will be damned. But if I’m a martyr, or a novice, or just sincerely trying to find and follow the will of God, I’ll be okay. Do I have it right? When was the above-mentioned Catechism written? It looks like the RCC has softened its stance on the necessity of baptism. Please read below for the conflicting statements by former Catholic church leaders. – daktim)
Tertullian
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).
"Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (ibid., 12).
(None. - daktim)
Origen
"It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism" (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).
(Not possible. - daktim)
Cyril of Jerusalem
"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
. . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]" (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).
(Only exception? What about novices, unbaptized infants and sincere people? – daktim)
Augustine
" There are three ways in which sins are forgiven (What an interesting statement! - daktim) : in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized " (Sermons to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15 [A.D. 395]).
(Except to the baptized. - daktim)
Fulgentius of Ruspe
"From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church , without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).
(So at this point, only Catholic martyrs were excluded from needing baptism. See how things change? And if baptism is necessary for salvation, according to the RCC, this would be a change in a major doctrine, not just a way of doing things, like Living4Him implied in an earlier post. “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.” Originally posted by Living4Him posted 17 March, 2005 06:25March 17, 2005 07:25 AM – daktim)
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
Can you see the contradictions now?
In Christ,
daktim
S
Sirach
Guest
I first want to thank you for going and looking. That is the first step to helping us understand Catholic Church teachings better so that we can have more brotherly dialogs.
According to your interpretation of Scripture - they do appear to be unbiblical.
But...
All of those quotes are backed up by the Catholic Church's interpretation of Scripture.
Please see http://www.ScriptureCatholic.com and the parts of the Catechism - http://www.USCCB.org - that refer to those topics. Please be sure to note the footnotes. I think what will help is to start with why the Catholic Church believes it to be the authority to teach the Gospel. What we seem to be doing here is kind of like starting to read a book, from the middle instead of the beginning. So we're not going to have a complete picture of why unless we start at the beginning of the book.
The Catholic Church teachings are not something that we can understand from just a few hours of study. It takes time because most of us apply our own interpretation to meanings of Scripture.
I have to get going (lots of school work to do - 31, still in college). If you visit the above sites more, they explain the Catholic Church view much better than I can.
God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,
Sirach
According to your interpretation of Scripture - they do appear to be unbiblical.
But...
All of those quotes are backed up by the Catholic Church's interpretation of Scripture.
Please see http://www.ScriptureCatholic.com and the parts of the Catechism - http://www.USCCB.org - that refer to those topics. Please be sure to note the footnotes. I think what will help is to start with why the Catholic Church believes it to be the authority to teach the Gospel. What we seem to be doing here is kind of like starting to read a book, from the middle instead of the beginning. So we're not going to have a complete picture of why unless we start at the beginning of the book.
The Catholic Church teachings are not something that we can understand from just a few hours of study. It takes time because most of us apply our own interpretation to meanings of Scripture.
I have to get going (lots of school work to do - 31, still in college). If you visit the above sites more, they explain the Catholic Church view much better than I can.
God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,
Sirach
To "back up" doctrine by posting Scripture is one thing. When Scripture is pulled randomly out of context, and made to mean something other than its intended meaning it is not backed up, the doctrine is just made to look to foolish in the eyes of all who know what the Bible says. A while ago you gave the Scriptures concerning the defence of Purgatory. I had to laugh. Everyone were taken out of context. Their intended meaning had nothing to do with unbiblical teaching of Purgatory which cannot be found in the Bible. This doctrine is heresy. It is not found in the Bible anywhere. If it is I challenge you to post the Scriptures where it is found, and then I will show you how foolish the Sciptures look in regards to defending this doctrine.
The Catholic Church uses Scripture in this way:
The Bible says: "There is no God." And it does say that. You can look it up for yourself. It is found in Psalm 14:1
DHK
The Catholic Church uses Scripture in this way:
The Bible says: "There is no God." And it does say that. You can look it up for yourself. It is found in Psalm 14:1
DHK
Good to hear from you again DHK! In my brief visit to the Catholic website, I was pretty much bombarded by glaring contradictions to Scripture. I'm sure if you've been there you noticed the same. It also brought back a lot of memories from my childhood. Not cheery ones, just memories of empty, gloomy church services and an oppressive spirit in the church and school. I'm so thankful to be saved and on my way to heaven! It's nice not having to live in fear any longer.
The RCC sure is a master of having their cake and eating it too. They can say whatever they want and everyone is supposed to believe it is so just because they said it. And if they want to alter their practices, they just have to have the new pope speak ex-cathedra and "Presto!", a new "twist" on Scripture. (II Peter 3:16) And if all else fails, there's the ever popular "This is our interpretation of Scripture" that they like to throw out, always insisting that their interpretation is the right one. Thank God for you and all the other dear souls who were brought to the light of God's word and came to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Unto Him be glory!
daktim
The RCC sure is a master of having their cake and eating it too. They can say whatever they want and everyone is supposed to believe it is so just because they said it. And if they want to alter their practices, they just have to have the new pope speak ex-cathedra and "Presto!", a new "twist" on Scripture. (II Peter 3:16) And if all else fails, there's the ever popular "This is our interpretation of Scripture" that they like to throw out, always insisting that their interpretation is the right one. Thank God for you and all the other dear souls who were brought to the light of God's word and came to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Unto Him be glory!
daktim
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Paul said in Acts 28:17 that he had "done nothing against our people or the customs of the fathers".
In Mark 7 Christ condemns the "commandments of men" that are offerred as though they are valid "doctrine".
However in the case of the two errors mentioned above the problem is that the Immaculate conception IS against the plain teaching of scripture in Romans 3.
And the problem with the assumption of Mary is that it is a clear violation of history and is not supported at all by scripture.
In this regard it is easy to notice that the NT authors DO record a number of resurrections. Surely Mary was "important enough" to at least "mention" the fact that she was resurrected.
And the fact that there are not a large crowd of "assumptions into heaven" that the NT authors would have had to list - mentioning Mary does not seem like "too much to ask" were the story true.
The fact that no one in history proposed this idea for Mary in the first or second century and that they DID immediately observe and document the resurrection and ascension of Christ - makes it highly "dubious" to a people not confined to the dark ages. (the days when this myth was fabricated)
In Christ,
Bob
DHK said...
But they do. And the reason why they can get away with it is even more heartbreaking. They decieve all of their victims that:
"You have no buisiness thinking that you can interpret the scriptures yourself. God has entrusted us...The Hiearchy...with that.
We interpret...you follow what we tell you."
Once any group succesfully pulls that lie off...its all over.
It has worked for the Jehovahs Witnesses, the Mormons, the Christian Science cult, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and multitudes of other cults.
Incredibly sad,
Mike
daktim said...
Its mind boggling the butchering of the scriptures the Catholic Church is capable of. One is constantly saying to themselves "They cant possibly expect anyone in possesion of a mind to believe that!"
But they do. And the reason why they can get away with it is even more heartbreaking. They decieve all of their victims that:
"You have no buisiness thinking that you can interpret the scriptures yourself. God has entrusted us...The Hiearchy...with that.
We interpret...you follow what we tell you."
Once any group succesfully pulls that lie off...its all over.
It has worked for the Jehovahs Witnesses, the Mormons, the Christian Science cult, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and multitudes of other cults.
Incredibly sad,
Mike
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
It is human nature to simply accept whatever your leaders tell you. Isn't that how the one true Bible-believing church of Christ's day crucified the Messiah??
Those listening to Christ when He gave the sermon on the mount had no urge to shout "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!". But given the right motivation from their leaders - they did!
The reformation principle of going to your Bible, observing the details and throwing off the shackles of man-made tradition - is almost totally lost today. The saints have come to trust their current leaders just the way they trusted their Catholic leaders in the dark ages.
That is why I like this board. It is a place to have your assumptions challenged. We still see people clinging desperately to their traditions - but it is a strong wind that blows on this board urging us to look at the possible flaws in the traditions that we hold today.
In Christ,
Bob
Those listening to Christ when He gave the sermon on the mount had no urge to shout "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!". But given the right motivation from their leaders - they did!
The reformation principle of going to your Bible, observing the details and throwing off the shackles of man-made tradition - is almost totally lost today. The saints have come to trust their current leaders just the way they trusted their Catholic leaders in the dark ages.
That is why I like this board. It is a place to have your assumptions challenged. We still see people clinging desperately to their traditions - but it is a strong wind that blows on this board urging us to look at the possible flaws in the traditions that we hold today.
In Christ,
Bob
S
Sirach
Guest
It's sad how all you have is hate and selective distortion in your readings.
If you think just a couple visits to a Catholic site that you can understand what they mean and teach, you'll be mistaken.
I know many Catholics that say that you have distorted Scripture, and they are able to back it up with Scripture.
So again I say, and all those who care to actually understand can see for themselves by reading up on what the Catholic Church teaches and why... The most you can say is that you have a different interpretation of Scripture.
I'll start a new thread with some questions that I found from a Catholic Site...
God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,
Sirach
If you think just a couple visits to a Catholic site that you can understand what they mean and teach, you'll be mistaken.
I know many Catholics that say that you have distorted Scripture, and they are able to back it up with Scripture.
So again I say, and all those who care to actually understand can see for themselves by reading up on what the Catholic Church teaches and why... The most you can say is that you have a different interpretation of Scripture.
I'll start a new thread with some questions that I found from a Catholic Site...
God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,
Sirach
S
Sirach
Guest
It appears to be hateful tones, and rumors.
If you loved Catholics, wouldn't you try to understand them better instead of jump to conclusions on what they believe or the Catholic Church teaches?
Love is patient, kind, not self rightous, not rude, not quick tempered, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
Truth is the keyword here. Some here have not truthfully witnessed to what the Catholic Church teaches, and why. Maybe they think that they have, but it's clear to anyone who takes time to understand Catholic Church teachings from a Catholic source... who the ones that know, and who are the ones saddly mistaken.
God Bless,
Sirach
If you loved Catholics, wouldn't you try to understand them better instead of jump to conclusions on what they believe or the Catholic Church teaches?
Love is patient, kind, not self rightous, not rude, not quick tempered, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
Truth is the keyword here. Some here have not truthfully witnessed to what the Catholic Church teaches, and why. Maybe they think that they have, but it's clear to anyone who takes time to understand Catholic Church teachings from a Catholic source... who the ones that know, and who are the ones saddly mistaken.
God Bless,
Sirach
Sirach,
We are not jumping to erronious conclusions.
I cant make it any plainer. You are the one being decieved.
Sirach, I lived my 1st 23 years as a Catholic. I lived it for 23 years. 8 years of parochial school, religion class, the cathechism, CCD class, Mass every Sunday, etc. I was an altar boy, for crying out loud.
DHK lived it for 30 years, if I remember correctly. I think he said he was in a position of leadership in some way.
Other ex-Catholics have posted who were active Catholics for decades.
In adition to that, I have made it a point for the past 23 years as an actual born again person to go to the source. Make sure I have it from the horses mouth. And as a result of how easilly information can be accessed by way of the internet, the official stuff is even more readilly available. I have spent hours and hours and hours in the Catholic doctrinal material.
I have spent much time in...
The Catechism
The Council edicts and decisions.(such as the still binding Council of Trent.)
The Catholic Encyclopedia
The Vatican website.
Other pro-Catholic sites that Catholics have referred me to.
Others have been doing the same thing. You know thats true because you are seeing and reading what is posted. You've seen it with your own eyes. We are sharing from Catholic sources.
Thats why we are getting so frustrated. We quote and quote and quote and quote and quote and quote...from Catholic sources...and you respond and tell us it doesnt count because we didnt show you a link.
WE ARE GIVING YOU LINKS! I have seen them. And if we dont its because all of the numerical identifying adresses are included in the material we "copy and paste" for you.
Just open up your Catechism and look it up!
This is just very frustrating.
God bless,
Mike
Sirach, we....do...understand...what...they...believe.
We are not jumping to erronious conclusions.
I cant make it any plainer. You are the one being decieved.
Sirach, I lived my 1st 23 years as a Catholic. I lived it for 23 years. 8 years of parochial school, religion class, the cathechism, CCD class, Mass every Sunday, etc. I was an altar boy, for crying out loud.
DHK lived it for 30 years, if I remember correctly. I think he said he was in a position of leadership in some way.
Other ex-Catholics have posted who were active Catholics for decades.
In adition to that, I have made it a point for the past 23 years as an actual born again person to go to the source. Make sure I have it from the horses mouth. And as a result of how easilly information can be accessed by way of the internet, the official stuff is even more readilly available. I have spent hours and hours and hours in the Catholic doctrinal material.
I have spent much time in...
The Catechism
The Council edicts and decisions.(such as the still binding Council of Trent.)
The Catholic Encyclopedia
The Vatican website.
Other pro-Catholic sites that Catholics have referred me to.
Others have been doing the same thing. You know thats true because you are seeing and reading what is posted. You've seen it with your own eyes. We are sharing from Catholic sources.
Thats why we are getting so frustrated. We quote and quote and quote and quote and quote and quote...from Catholic sources...and you respond and tell us it doesnt count because we didnt show you a link.
WE ARE GIVING YOU LINKS! I have seen them. And if we dont its because all of the numerical identifying adresses are included in the material we "copy and paste" for you.
Just open up your Catechism and look it up!
This is just very frustrating.
God bless,
Mike
S
Sirach
Guest
Mike,
You don't understand; if you did, you could prove it with links to the Catechism.
Links have been given, but when going to the page and reading the full article it paints a very different picture to what you think it means.
God Bless,
Sirach
You don't understand; if you did, you could prove it with links to the Catechism.
Links have been given, but when going to the page and reading the full article it paints a very different picture to what you think it means.
God Bless,
Sirach
Sirach,
I just had a thought, so please indulge me for a moment.
If there are so many of us former Catholics who were supposedly taught improperly and/or just plain misunderstood what the RCC really meant to teach, than most of the people who are still in the RCC that grew up with us were probably improperly taught and misunderstand everything as well. That means we should be able to reach them with nothing more than the plain truth of Scripture instead of having to disprove things they don't understand to begin with, right?
Just wondering.
daktim
I just had a thought, so please indulge me for a moment.
If there are so many of us former Catholics who were supposedly taught improperly and/or just plain misunderstood what the RCC really meant to teach, than most of the people who are still in the RCC that grew up with us were probably improperly taught and misunderstand everything as well. That means we should be able to reach them with nothing more than the plain truth of Scripture instead of having to disprove things they don't understand to begin with, right?
Just wondering.
daktim
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
That is true. However some of the errors of the RCC have played an important role in history.
Once you discover that the RCC has been identified in scripture as playing a major role in the dark ages persecuting the saints and corrupting the doctrines of the church - I think that the "significance" of the error begins to become apparent.
In Christ,
Bob
Once you discover that the RCC has been identified in scripture as playing a major role in the dark ages persecuting the saints and corrupting the doctrines of the church - I think that the "significance" of the error begins to become apparent.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
All of my quotes have come FROM the RCC itself. The RCC often unwittingly exposes its own flaws.
An excellent example is its claim that the mass is an UNBLOODY sacrifice where the BLOOD OF Christ is CONFECTED by the magical powers of the priests!
(Magical in that only a priest HAS that power and EVEN if a priest is excommunicated they RETAIN the power to turn wine to the BLOOD of Christ -- confecting an UNBLOODY sacrifice of BLOOD).
That double-speak and non-sensical nature of the RCC position is exceeded ONLY by its stand on transubstantiation. IN thet case it claims that IT IS WORSHIPPING a piece of BREAD as GOD - IF the non-RC view is correct! What a confession!!
They also claim that IF you take an electron microscope and LOOK at the bread - it REMAINS BREAD but the atoms (carbon atoms for example) become the CARBON atoms of FLESH and NOT the CARBON atoms of bread.
They NEED the confused minds of the dark ages to come back again so that we can believe such a tale.
Then there is the wild tale of indulgences. Here we find that SINNERS experienced EXCESS suffering on earth after being born again. That EXCESS SUFFERING goes into the Churche's "spiritual bank" from which she "writes checks" to get your loved ones out of purgatory.
But since God is not nearly so kind as the RCC - we are all encouraged to earn MULTIPLE plenary (unlimitted) indulgences FOR THE SAME departed loved one "just to be sure" Christ will let them out of Purgatory.
Then there is praying to the dead....
The list is almost "endless".
Those Catholics freed from the chains of darknessa and error forged by the RCC in the dark ages are pretty much unnanimous in their joy and appreciation for the liberty and light they have found - FAR from being angry that someone bothered to share a little light with them.
Have you not found that to be the case Sirach??
Have you met Baptists that are angry former-Catholics demanding that they be sent back to the Catholic Church where they can be truly happy. Angry that now because they know the truth - they can't go back but they wish they had just been left alone in the first place??
Do you actually know of such cases?
In Christ,
Bob
V
violet
Guest
I don't. But I do know a lot of former Baptist who are happy Catholics-- and vice versa.