Anathema and the RCC

[utilyan]

All of them.

Actually the Pope must and repent of the shedding of innocent blood.

And yes there is Original Sin:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


HankD

I do apologize, for your mama and father too. You can lay everyone's blame on me.

 

[Adonia]

Actually the Pope must and repent of the shedding of innocent blood.

That has already been done. Pope John Paul II apologized for a number of incidents including but not limited to: 1. The legal process against Galileo. 2. Involvement in the African slave trade. 3. The killing of other Christians after the Protestant Reformation. 4. The pedophile sex scandals. 5. And for some other 90 other incidents.

Now, when we hear some apologies from your side for the shedding of innocent Catholic blood? For participating in the slave trade? And other instances where non-Catholic Christians raped, tortured and murdered others?

 

[Adonia]

And then you turn around and say well we only think we are selves go to heaven and everyone else gets hell.

No one can predict what, if any mercy God will bestow upon all humans, believers or non-believers at the appointed time.

 

[Adonia]

By their fruits you shall know them:

Catholic Church massacres and mass murders:

The Crusades
The Roman and Spanish Inquisitions
The Peasants' War, 1524-25,
Protestant-Catholic Wars of Religion
French Wars of Religion 1562 to 1598.
Massacre of Vassy 1562.
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre 1572.
The Thirty Years War 1618 to 1648.
Ulster massacres 1641
The massacre of the Waldensians in the Luberon. In the 14th and 15th centuries

Killings for Christianity

You forgot "Bloody Sunday" in the Bogside area of Derry in Northern Ireland which occurred in just the last century on January 30th, 1972. That was when 28 Catholics were shot down in cold blood by Protestant British soldiers. Nice, huh? Hey, how about all the Catholic priest's that were murdered in England in the 1500's. Do those count? As you said, "By their fruits you shall know them".

 

[church mouse guy]

This is not something that was claimed in 2002, 1952, 1932, 1432, 1032, 852, or even 432. This claim goes back to the very beginning right after the Apostles and the beginnings of the newly emerging Christian Church and comes directly from the singling out of the Apostle Peter by Christ and given ecclesiastical authority by Him.

It is thus written in Matthew: "Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”…

Such a concept was accepted by the whole of Christendom. One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church - there was no other, with a leadership of Bishops with authority from God Incarnate which had been passed onto them.

Tertullian, considered on of the Early Church Fathers wrote in the 3rd century in his work "The Prescription Against the Heretics" the following: "For this is the way the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Symrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles."

And in 251 St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote : "And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"

There were no Baptists, no Episcopalians, no Mormons, no SDA, no Methodists, etc. Just one Universal (Catholic) Christian Church that over 95% (or more) of all Christians on the planet belonged to and which today's Roman Catholic Church is the direct descendant of.

Is 251 your earliest date? What about Dominus Iesus saying that Baptists, for example, are not really proper churches in 2000? And didn't Benedict say that there is so salvation outside the walls of the Catholic Church? I take Catholicism with a grain of salt, so don't take it personally.

 

[steaver]

You folks are our separated brethren and God will have mercy on you for your rejection of the orthodox Christian doctrines because you still are believers in Jesus Christ.

"This use of the term anathema has a very precise meaning: Let him be cut off from the Church, not let him be damned to hell. And this is done by the Church in her wisdom as a way of trying to bring the one in error to his senses - before it's too late and he is damned to hell by virtue of his obstinacy."
Resource: Does the Church condemn those who disagree with its teachings? | Catholic Answers

For someone who disdains the Catholic Church so much and what we believe, you certainly seem concerned about us a whole lot. Why so?

Because I love Jesus Christ and eternal life verses eternal damnation is a VERY SERIOUS MATTER!
Really, peddling the RCC lies about faith has serious consequences. One of your own here declares faith is not even needed and he is claims to follow Rome!!! How confused is that?

 

[steaver]

All you have to do is say I don't believe this here and slap down a number.

Haven't seen you address the OP slap down yet.....is the website's answer a lie?

 

[HankD]

That has already been done. Pope John Paul II apologized for a number of incidents including but not limited to: 1. The legal process against Galileo. 2. Involvement in the African slave trade. 3. The killing of other Christians after the Protestant Reformation. 4. The pedophile sex scandals. 5. And for some other 90 other incidents.

Now, when we hear some apologies from your side for the shedding of innocent Catholic blood? For participating in the slave trade? And other instances where non-Catholic Christians raped, tortured and murdered others?

I do indeed have heartfelt sorrow for those atrocities as well my apologies.
Actually I share both sides of the issue as i am a first generation Baptist, a former Catholic with of 3/4 Italian and 1/4 Jewish heritage.

HankD

 

[HankD]

You forgot "Bloody Sunday" in the Bogside area of Derry in Northern Ireland which occurred in just the last century on January 30th, 1972. That was when 28 Catholics were shot down in cold blood by Protestant British soldiers. Nice, huh? Hey, how about all the Catholic priest's that were murdered in England in the 1500's. Do those count? As you said, "By their fruits you shall know them".

Yes they do count.

One of the reasons i gravitated to the Baptist churches after my departure from the Church of Rome is because of the very little bloodshed in their histories.

HankD

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In my day it was a mortal sin and apparently still is- maybe?.

Here is another example of a verbal salad with the meaning of - not always - unless there is serious reason then it is "a grave sin".




The answer goes on to further explain the "gravity of matter" in terms of intent in the reason for missing mass.



More apologetic follows ...

Is missing Mass a mortal sin?


HankD

just say a good Act of Contrition

 

[utilyan]

Haven't seen you address the OP slap down yet.....is the website's answer a lie?

I clicked the link. You totally misrepresent what they say.

They said:

The Catholic Church has no power to damn anyone to hell (that, of course, is each individual's unique prerogative - if you go to hell, you choose to go there), and the term anathema sit does not mean "let him be damned to hell," but "let him be cut off." There is a great difference.

And you quote them out of context as to say the exact opposite. Why not just paste the entire link and let the Catholics speak for themselves instead of always embellishing to mean something they don't mean?


You add words to what they say, just like you do with the bible, adding mistake after mistake.

Which by the way I'm still waiting.....where does it say scripture is the Final an Only Authority? (such a simple request for honest person to provide)

I'm Catholic and you are going to argue by insisting falsehoods about what we believe.

A person puts themselves in hell. We teach that FAITH ALONE is an error for the obvious reason of being devoid of Love.

Now although we know its wrong, you may believe its right,

And if your good conscience tells you that it is right and we are wrong within Catholic teaching you would be OBLIGATED to confront us.
A belief based on peer pressure is unacceptable.

And if You died against the catholic church, Our God isn't a idiot chimp to not know why you made your choices. to whom much is given, much is expected. God is understanding, reasonable even.



You said:

"Thus, if you are a Protestant, Baptist or any other Christian who says your are saved by your faith alone in Jesus Christ, according to the RCC, you are choosing to damn yourself to hell. "



That is not Catholic teaching, and the website didn't say this either. And this is a TYPICAL grammatical ignorance which infects the bible too, adding absolute nonsense that does not exist.

We probably would not be debating if you just learn to read and quit adding make believe verses whenever you feel like.

 

[steaver]

They said:

The Catholic Church has no power to damn anyone to hell (that, of course, is each individual's unique prerogative - if you go to hell, you choose to go there), and the term anathema sit does not mean "let him be damned to hell," but "let him be cut off." There is a great difference.

And you quote them out of context as to say the exact opposite.

So they did not say "The Catholic Church has no power to damn anyone to hell (that, of course, is each individual's unique prerogative - if you go to hell, you choose to go there)," ?? I did bold it for you so you would not miss it.

A person puts themselves in hell.

YES! There you go! Just what the article said and just what I showed everyone!

Now keep reading the article and they will tell you WHAT CONSTITUTES a person choosing to go to hell...

"This use of the term anathema has a very precise meaning: Let him be cut off from the Church, not let him be damned to hell. And this is done by the Church in her wisdom as a way of trying to bring the one in error to his senses - before it's too late and he is damned to hell by virtue of his obstinacy."

Not sure why you find difficult to understand your RCC position. The article could not spell it out any clearer, it is very well written and precise. The Church does not condemn a person to hell. A person condemns themsleves to hell by their obstinacy to the declarations of the Church.

You add words to what they say

I gave you their quotes, which words did I add?

I'm Catholic and you are going to argue by insisting falsehoods about what we believe.

Simple question, is the article a lie? ( Just some advice, when someone presents information which is so clearly NOT out of context and one avoids dealing with it by shouting that it is out of context it really makes one look so off balance. You are a Catholic? Stand up and defend the Catholic declarations. You very well know the context is dead on, deal with it )

We teach that FAITH ALONE is an error for the obvious reason of being devoid of Love.

Doesn't matter the RCC cannot understand Love of Jesus Christ and Faith of Jesus Christ are one in the same. They should dust off their bibles and have a read.

And if your good conscience tells you that it is right and we are wrong within Catholic teaching you would be OBLIGATED to confront us.
A belief based on peer pressure is unacceptable.

What do you think this board is doing? You have been confronted and your only plea is "Out of Context" which all can see it is clearly in context and you just can't deal with it. Deal with the article, tell us, is it a lie or is it truth?

You said:

"Thus, if you are a Protestant, Baptist or any other Christian who says your are saved by your faith alone in Jesus Christ, according to the RCC, you are choosing to damn yourself to hell. "

That is not Catholic teaching, and the website didn't say this either. And this is a TYPICAL grammatical ignorance which infects the bible too, adding absolute nonsense that does not exist.

"This use of the term anathema has a very precise meaning: Let him be cut off from the Church, not let him be damned to hell. And this is done by the Church in her wisdom as a way of trying to bring the one in error to his senses - before it's too late and he is damned to hell by virtue of his obstinacy."

"The Catholic Church has no power to damn anyone to hell (that, of course, is each individual's unique prerogative - if you go to hell, you choose to go there),"

 

[HankD]

just say a good Act of Contrition

Wait! what is my penance?

If I remember correctly it was 10 Hail Mary's and 10 Our Father's for missing mass.
Of course it varied from priest to priest.

My worst penance:
One time at Saturday confession I told the priest I had skipped mass the week before with two of my cousins (my aunts sent us but wouldn't go themselves) and we spent the money for the poor box on doughnuts.

I had to say a Rosary.

HankD

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Wait! what is my penance?

If I remember correctly it was 10 Hail Mary's and 10 Our Father's for missing mass.
Of course it varied from priest to priest.

My worst penance:
One time at Saturday confession I told the priest I had skipped mass the week before with two of my cousins (my aunts sent us but wouldn't go themselves) and we spent the money for the poor box on doughnuts.

I had to say a Rosary.

HankD

I heard they changed the way you say the rosary! Alas, I am not up to speed on current RC dogma.

 

[HankD]

I heard they changed the way you say the rosary! Alas, I am not up to speed on current RC dogma.

Hmm!

HankD

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hmm!

HankD

Yea, we may have to go so far as Lourdes to wash away our sins...

 

[church mouse guy]

Would it take another council to rescind Trent? I myself do not think that Trent will ever be rescinded. It has been almost 500 years so nothing has changed. The Orthodox split in 1054 and there is still a lot of friction there.

 

[steaver]

Would it take another council to rescind Trent? I myself do not think that Trent will ever be rescinded. It has been almost 500 years so nothing has changed. The Orthodox split in 1054 and there is still a lot of friction there.

How could they ever do that? They believe their declarations are from God and cannot be wrong. The Scripture speaks of these kind, they are just like the Pharisees of Judaism, placing themselves as the Final Authority stripping it from God.

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ." (2Cor!!)

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Gal 1:8-9)

Think about this. What would constitute "another Gospel" than what Paul preached, if not a gospel void of Faith in the Son of God and Loving the Lord Jesus Christ? Catholics and the RCC believe and preach that a person can be saved even if rejecting Jesus Christ as lord just by being a Good Samaritan alone.

 

[utilyan]

So they did not say "The Catholic Church has no power to damn anyone to hell (that, of course, is each individual's unique prerogative - if you go to hell, you choose to go there)," ?? I did bold it for you so you would not miss it.



YES! There you go! Just what the article said and just what I showed everyone!

Now keep reading the article and they will tell you WHAT CONSTITUTES a person choosing to go to hell...

"This use of the term anathema has a very precise meaning: Let him be cut off from the Church, not let him be damned to hell. And this is done by the Church in her wisdom as a way of trying to bring the one in error to his senses - before it's too late and he is damned to hell by virtue of his obstinacy."

Not sure why you find difficult to understand your RCC position. The article could not spell it out any clearer, it is very well written and precise. The Church does not condemn a person to hell. A person condemns themsleves to hell by their obstinacy to the declarations of the Church.



I gave you their quotes, which words did I add?



Simple question, is the article a lie? ( Just some advice, when someone presents information which is so clearly NOT out of context and one avoids dealing with it by shouting that it is out of context it really makes one look so off balance. You are a Catholic? Stand up and defend the Catholic declarations. You very well know the context is dead on, deal with it )



Doesn't matter the RCC cannot understand Love of Jesus Christ and Faith of Jesus Christ are one in the same. They should dust off their bibles and have a read.



What do you think this board is doing? You have been confronted and your only plea is "Out of Context" which all can see it is clearly in context and you just can't deal with it. Deal with the article, tell us, is it a lie or is it truth?



"This use of the term anathema has a very precise meaning: Let him be cut off from the Church, not let him be damned to hell. And this is done by the Church in her wisdom as a way of trying to bring the one in error to his senses - before it's too late and he is damned to hell by virtue of his obstinacy."

"The Catholic Church has no power to damn anyone to hell (that, of course, is each individual's unique prerogative - if you go to hell, you choose to go there),"

The article is fine, YOUR claim the article says protestants go to hell is a LIE.

If the case was we believe protestants go to hell for being protestants we would sing it from the rooftops and constantly bombard you with it.

That is not the case at all. YOU LIE, Sir.

You add FAKE things to other peoples writings, just like you do with the bible.

You still haven't answered my question, the devil would avoid it too, because you would have to cough up the truth. rather then lie all the time.

 

[steaver]

The article is fine, YOUR claim the article says protestants go to hell is a LIE.

"This use of the term anathema has a very precise meaning: Let him be cut off from the Church, not let him be damned to hell. And this is done by the Church in her wisdom as a way of trying to bring the one in error to his senses - before it's too late and he is damned to hell by virtue of his obstinacy."

Are Protestants in error?