Does The RCC Teach true Gospel/Jesus?

[lakeside]

DNK,
you mentioned that you was previous Catholic, was you actually a practicing Catholic or a Catholic in name only?

 

[WestminsterMan]

It would be much easier to take the Roman Catholic church seriously if they would stop their sodomite priests from molesting the children that attend their services, and not just move them to a new location.

Before you step off into this morass, you might
wish to examine the numbers for Protestants compared to the RCC. Hmmm....

WM

 

[DHK]

Jesus used many metaphors but if the metaphor had the potential to be misunderstood John would usually insert an explanation. In fact he did just that in the “I am the door” and “I am the shepherd” discourse. See John 10:6. John did not insert such a parenthetical in the “Bread of life” discourse of John 6. As result of Jesus’ claim that they must eat His body and drink His blood, many of His disciples left Him.

Because of the metaphor? Because they thought he was a cannibal and expected people to eat his actual flesh (literal interpretation), or because it was symbolic of something else? You decide. But, like a metaphor, it obviously wasn't meant to be taken literally, or Christ would have died right there and then, wouldn't he have?

Jesus could have corrected them and explained that He was speaking in metaphors but He did not. Neither did John, who wrote about it many years later. Why not? Because Jesus literally meant what He said. He repeated it at the Last Supper without adding a qualifier that the bread and wine only represented His body and blood. Four N.T. writers related this event and none of them said anything about it being a representation or a symbol. In fact Paul mentions it three times in 1 Corinthians (10:16; 11:24-25 and 11:27).

I guess he thought people were smart enough that they would know he wasn't offering them his flesh to eat right there and then. The Jews were not permitted to eat human flesh. So that wasn't the obstacle was it? That didn't even enter their mind. It was something else that made them depart, not cannibalism (the only literal interpretation). What was it then?

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. (Matthew 26:26)
--What did he mean here? This is the Last Supper. There were no crowds. It was just Jesus and the twelve in a closed room.

And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. (Mark 14:22)
--Jesus alone with his disciples.

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (Luke 22:19)
--This do in remembrance of me. What were you saying? It is done in remembrance, a representation of something done in remembrance.
We just had Remembrance Day in Canada. Many came and laid wreathes at different places. Most everyone was wearing a poppy. It was done "in remembrance" of our fallen soldiers. We do it every year. This do in remembrance of me. We drink the wine and eat the bread "in remembrance" of His sacrifice for us. The original poppies were in Flanders Fields. We don't wear those. We wear those that are symbolic of the field in which those soldiers are buried, and also symbolic of others that have died in battle since.

In John 6, after a discourse on the bread of life, whom Jesus claimed to be, why did so many leave Jesus? Not for the reason you claim!

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. (John 6:63-66)
--He told them plainly that some of them would not believe. He also taught them that it was the Spirit that makes them alive, and that it was His words were spirit or living. They were the source of eternal life. If they were going to live eternally they had to receive his words.
From that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. This really has not that much bearing on the "Eat my flesh" discourse. They didn't want to follow him, because they didn't want to be his disciples. His teaching, his words, were too hard to follow. The sacrifice was too great.

Finally there is Ignatius of Antioch, a contemporary of the apostle who wrote the Bread of Life discourse. Since Antioch and Ephesus are not far apart, he was probably taught by John. Ignatius leaves no doubt in these early second century writings of his belief that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ.

That means nothing to me, as do most of the ECF. From them do most of our present day heresies come from.

Does Christ tell lies? No? Well maybe John quoted Him wrong in John 20:22-23. Or maybe it means just what it says. You know, DHK, as a sidebar here, I was probably in my fifties before I paid any attention to this passage. I recall being somewhat amused as a college student when the Catholics in my dormitory would talk about going to confession. In fact I would taunt them with sarcastic questions like “Do you have to pay for this service?” Or, “Does it take more than one priest to forgive a really big sin?” None of them knew much about the Bible so I never got John 20 thrown back in my face. Of course I had read it many times, and would read it many times more without making the connection. Usually the focus would be on v. 21 because it is John’s version of the Great Commission, and so I would read these verses without really thinking about them. Then one day, probably about 15 years ago, I was reading in John 20 and verses 21-23 brought me up short. I thought to myself, “Oh my God, they do have the gift of absolution after all.” Since that time I have been very open to Catholic teachings because they really are borne out by the Bible.

Then why not find out what the passage means?
Here is what Barnes says:

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:22-23)

Verse 23. Whose soever sins, &c. Cmt. on Mt 16:19 Cmt. on Mt 18:18. It is worthy of remark here that Jesus confers the same power on all the apostles. He gives to no one of them any peculiar authority. If Peter, as the Papists pretend, had been appointed to any peculiar authority, it is wonderful that the Saviour did not here hint at any such pre-eminence. This passage conclusively proves that they were invested with equal power in organizing and governing the church. The authority which he had given Peter to preach the gospel first to the Jews and the Gentiles, does not militate against this. Cmt. on Mt 16:18, Cmt. on Mt 16:19. This authority given them was full proof that they were inspired. The meaning of the passage is not that man can forgive sins--that belongs only to God (Isa 43:23), but that they should be inspired; that in founding the church, and in declaring the will of God, they should be taught by the Holy Ghost to declare on what terms, to what characters, and to what temper of mind God would extend forgiveness of sins. It was not authority to forgive individuals, but to establish in all the churches the terms and conditions on which men might be pardoned, with a promise that God would confirm all that they taught; that all might have assurance of forgiveness who would comply with those terms; and that those who did not comply should not be forgiven, but that their sins should be retained. This commission is as far as possible from the authority which the Roman Catholic claims of remitting sin and of pronouncing pardon.

 

[DHK]

Yes, and to baptize as well, “for the forgiveness of sins.”

The Great Commission does not say to baptize for the forgiveness of sins.

DHK, none of the sacraments are an invention of the RCC. They are gifts from God for our own edification and ultimate salvation.

The word sacrament isn't in the Bible. There are no sacraments. There are two ordinances, but an ordinance is a command to be obeyed, whereas a sacrament confers grace. The Bible does not teach a thing about sacraments.

DHK, when you give answers like this I have to wonder if English is your first language. I said absolutely nothing about celibacy being a spiritual gift, which it is not. I was talking about orders which have nothing to do with celibacy. You made the connection in your own mind, not from anything I said. However, I would note that Paul was himself celibate.

It has everything to do with it and you know it does. If a man here were to apply to the RCC for such, then the requirement of celibacy would be placed upon him and you know that it would. Please don't play a game of semantics with me, and I can do without your condescending remarks.

I repeat, the sexual abuse problem has nothing to do with their orders. But it has a whole lot to do with celibacy.

Semantics.

They are two different things. Paul makes a case for celibacy, and it would appear that he was celibate himself.

It appears that he was a widower. He was formerly a member of the Sanhedrin, of which one had to be married to be a member. What became of his wife we do not know. Paul did not make a case for celibacy, per se. The context of that particular passage needs to be understood. The Bible does not contradict itself.

He also makes a case for marriage and each state may be appropriate for different individuals. However, I think the requirement for celibacy does attract a large number of homos*xuals to the priesthood. It also adds a temptation for “straight” priests to have affairs with women. On the whole, it’s a bad thing and I truly believe is would be abolished if it were not for the economic angle.

I don't think you are thinking straight. The Bible teaches marriage. It is God's will for most to be married. You apparently did not like my exposition of 1Tim.3 where the qualifications of a pastor are for men and not women. Not only that it indicates that they are for married men. To require men to be celibate in the face of such obvious Scriptural evidence is ludicrous. And then you can't refute the Scripture, so you use degrading sarcasm instead. It may be in your best interest to start studying the Scriptures and see what they really say.

The Catholic Church didn't say it. I didn't say it. The Bible said it. Like I said, no one wants to talk about the last clause, “if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.” Baptists don’t really know what to do with that.

It refers to confessing your faults which it says earlier. If the person confesses his faults (to Christ as per 1John 1:9) there is no reason why Christ will not keep his promise and forgive them, is there?

The passage is found in James 5. "Let them call for the elders of the church." Put in proper perspective. If you have a serious form of cancer and have been given only two months to live, perhaps you think that going to your pastor and asking him to take the steps according to James five might give you healing. You discuss it. He agrees. Now, realize that there may be about half a dozen pastors present. "Elders" is used in the plural. Also realize that often this is very public, usually done right before or after the service. Many people will be there. If you are going to go through with this, will you prepare your heart first? Or will you really care? Will you come in a spirit of prayer and faith yourself, or will your heart be full of sin and worldliness with an "I don't care attitude." "His sins will be forgiven him," presupposes the fact that the person has already been praying about this before the event has actually occurred.

 

[DHK]

DNK,
you mentioned that you was previous Catholic, was you actually a practicing Catholic or a Catholic in name only?

I was a devout Catholic who at one time was seriously thinking about going into the priesthood.

 

[lakeside]

DNK, You say you were a devout Catholic and yet you never heard the Holy Bible ever being read to you at Mass. WHAT! WoW. No devout Catholic will ever trust whatever you write about the Church now, or anything about Christianity, you've just lost all creditability.

 

[WestminsterMan]

DNK, You say you were a devout Catholic and yet you never heard the Holy Bible ever being read to you at Mass. WHAT! WoW. No devout Catholic will ever trust whatever you write about the Church now, or anything about Christianity, you've just lost all creditability.

Welcome to BaptistBoard.com!

WM

 

[Robert Snow]

Before you step off into this morass, you might
wish to examine the numbers for Protestants compared to the RCC. Hmmm....

WM

I was a member of a church where the youth pastor was found guilty of child molestation. He was fired, tired and went to prison. We didn't pawn him off to another church somewhere else in the country.

If you want to remain a member of the whore mentioned in Revelation, so be it. But remember, God calls His people to come out of her!

 

[WestminsterMan]

If you want to remain a member of the whore mentioned in Revelation, so be it. But remember, God calls His people to come out of her!

A classic example of puritanical idiocy.

WM

 

[lakeside]

I was a member of a church where the youth pastor was found guilty of child molestation. He was fired, tired and went to prison. We didn't pawn him off to another church somewhere else in the country.

If you want to remain a member of the whore mentioned in Revelation, so be it. But remember, God calls His people to come out of her!

You don't know Jack about how to interpret the Book of Revelation , it is written in apocalyptic language , all you can do is try your best at attempting to give people a snow job with your lack of understanding about proper interpretations.

 

[Matt Black]

[Ignatius] means nothing to me, as do most of the ECF. From them do most of our present day heresies come from.
Then why not find out what the passage means?
Here is what Barnes says:

I note that Ignatius 'means nothing to' you, yet someone called Barnes (who he?) apparently does. Given that Ignatius was discipled by the guys who recorded the words of Jesus in the Discourse on the Bread of Life, I would hazard a more than educated guess that he is far more qualified to give us the true meaning of this passage than this Barnes fellow of whom I have never heard, don't you?

 

[Matt Black]

If you want to remain a member of the whore mentioned in Revelation, so be it. But remember, God calls His people to come out of her!

Thanks for the advice which, should I ever find myself to be in the misfortune to be in the Whore, I will gladly heed, as I am sure also will my uncle who is a Catholic priest. But as neither of us are in the clutches of said Whore...

 

[Matt Black]

DNK, You say you were a devout Catholic and yet you never heard the Holy Bible ever being read to you at Mass. WHAT! WoW. No devout Catholic will ever trust whatever you write about the Church now, or anything about Christianity, you've just lost all creditability.

I find it hard to believe that he's ever been to Mass, given this comment. He tilting at the windmill of a straw man in that case and I am likewise disinclined to take anything else he says on the subject seriously.

 

[Robert Snow]

A classic example of puritanical idiocy.

WM

Did you ever read "Foxe's Book of Martyrs?"

 

[lakeside]

Did you ever read "Foxe's Book of Martyrs?"

Yes I have,[typical anti-Catholic rubbish ] and it never once mentions any of the millions of martyr's that died for Jesus prior to the Protestant Reformation. Never does it tell the story of all those first martyr's that walked and talked with Jesus and His disciples for the first 15oo years of Christianity. A very biased read. Just another Dan Brown but Fox was like a Fox in the hen house, and got away with it back then, Today he would have easily been refuted as was the infamous novel 'The Di Vinci Code'.

 

[Robert Snow]

Yes I have,[typical anti-Catholic rubbish ] and it never once mentions any of the millions of martyr's that died for Jesus prior to the Protestant Reformation. Never does it tell the story of all those first martyr's that walked and talked with Jesus and His disciples for the first 15oo years of Christianity. A very biased read. Just another Dan Brown but Fox was like a Fox in the hen house, and got away with it back then, Today he would have easily been refuted as was the infamous novel 'The Di Vinci Code'.

The Roman Catholic Church is the most anti-Christ organization on the planet. It is even worse than the Synagogue of Satan. At least the satanists don't attempt to hide behind the cross.

It is truly baffeling how any Christian can be so blind as to not see it. They worship Mary, foster child-molesters and pervert the Gospel of Christ. Thank God that, according to Revelation, this harlot of hell will get their just reward for the evil deeds they bring upon God's creation.

 

[lakeside]

The Roman Catholic Church is the most anti-Christ organization on the planet. It is even worse than the Synagogue of Satan. At least the satanists don't attempt to hide behind the cross.

It is truly baffeling how any Christian can be so blind as to not see it. They worship Mary, foster child-molesters and pervert the Gospel of Christ. Thank God that, according to Revelation, this harlot of hell will get their just reward for the evil deeds they bring upon God's creation.

Yep, and your church is just so perfect, another snow job full of lies from Robert.Jesus never promised that His Church of Matt.16:15-19 would be perfect.Jesus said 'my church" and never said His Church would be perfect because it's members aren't perfect [ Matt.13:24-30 ]. But Robert Snow just because you and satan hate Christ's Catholic Church makes me all the more happy that i am a member of Christ's Catholic Church.At least Jesus loves His Church Eph. 5:25-26, and Christ protects His Church Matt. 16:18 ; 18 v 18. Too bad Jesus doesn't love and doesn't protect your man-made church.

 

[DHK]

I find it hard to believe that he's ever been to Mass, given this comment. He tilting at the windmill of a straw man in that case and I am likewise disinclined to take anything else he says on the subject seriously.

I don't appreciate false accusations and calling into question someone's testimony. That is against the rules here and merits an infraction.

 

[DHK]

I note that Ignatius 'means nothing to' you, yet someone called Barnes (who he?) apparently does. Given that Ignatius was discipled by the guys who recorded the words of Jesus in the Discourse on the Bread of Life, I would hazard a more than educated guess that he is far more qualified to give us the true meaning of this passage than this Barnes fellow of whom I have never heard, don't you?

We can go back and read the ECF and find all kinds of error, whether or not they were "closer to the source." Time, in that sense does not matter. Origen, for example, was considered a heretic even by the RCC, and by many the father of Arianism. Eusbius his disciple, followed in many of his heresies. Give me one good reason to put confidence in those who spewed out heresies.

Those commentators who came much later on, had more to work with. They had the wisdom of many men of God who had preceded them. They had more tools, such as Concordances. Printing presses were available at that time, which made a difference in the publication of works. The study of Scripture had been made easier as time and technology has progressed. It also has been made easier to pervert. It is easy to spot the perversions of Scripture in many of the denominations and cults that abound today for it is easier to access the Bible and commit its content either to memory or at least a thorough knowledge. They did not have that advantage in the early days for the Scripture was written on scrolls, and travel was slow.

 

[lakeside]

I don't appreciate false accusations and calling into question someone's testimony. That is against the rules here and merits an infraction.

As the old saying goes," the truth hurts".