if the pope dies

[Taufgesinnter]

Hopefully, the next one will fix the canon law mandating celibacy in the Latin Rite. After many years have gone by, and the RCC has adjusted to the increase in numbers of priests, etc., then this new pope should set a precedent by restoring women to the diaconate. The next pope after that could then have a basis from which to admit women to the RC priesthood. Those would be tiny steps in the right direction.

 

[neal4christ]

The next pope after that could then have a basis from which to admit women to the RC priesthood.

Yikes! I hope not!

In Christ,
Neal

 

[CatholicConvert]

Neal:

WHY NOT? Heck, you are no friend of Catholicism. Wouldn't you and all the others out there just LOVE to have proof of how messed up Catholic doctrine is? I mean, really, if there were wimmen at the altar, it would totally mess up our claims that the moral and doctrinal teachings of the Church are both infallible and never changing.

As for the comments in the beginning of this thread. To all those who made the blanket statement that the pope has a front row seat in hell just because he is Catholic --

you do realize that IF what you say is true, then 15 centuries of Christians went to directly to hell upon death since the Catholic Faith was the ONLY Faith in the world for the first 15 centuries of the Church.

There were no theologies, no eclesiologies, no soteriologies AT ALL which were even close to anything taught by Protestantism. It was all Catholic, through and through.

And once you stop acting as if Protestantism, which was begun and founded in the 16th century, was always around, perhaps you will do the intellectually honest thing and convert to the real and true Church which our Lord founded.

You know, the evidence for the existence of Christianity in the Protestant paradigm in the first 15 centuries is so weak and non existent that you couldn't get a jury to agree that it ever existed prior to 1517!! And yet y'all believe this as if it is truth and condemn out of hand anyone who doesn't agree with your man made religion which popped out of Luther's tormented mind and Calvin's demon inspired vision of God.

Give me a break!!!

You gonna be real, REAL surprized if you git to Heaven to find out just how CATHOLIC it really is (Hint: Read the Apocalypse!!) starting with the one who is the Queen of Heaven and Earth!!

Brother Ed

 

[Lorelei]

Judge not, least you be judged.

Why are Catholics so quick to call us on "judgement" when their own church has JUDGED us in the same manner in which I have judged them, according to their doctrine?

Their own church documents denounce us as anathema for believing that baptism, the mass, indulgences and other such things are not necessary for salvation.

Since they proclaim their is no salvation outside of the Catholic church, they are JUDGING my salvation. Who are they to play God and determine my salvation?

At least be consistant! If you are going to say we can not judge or know whether or not a man is going to be saved, then dispose of your church documents that JUDGE us for believing the way we do. Otherwise, realize that we have the same right to JUDGE you according to your doctrine, just as you church JUDGES us according to ours.

Be honest, you believe that WE do not have the right to judge, but that your church and those within it do. If the verse really means NEVER to judge a false teacher then your church has apparantly contradicted the scripture.

~Lorelei

 

[neal4christ]

WHY NOT? Heck, you are no friend of Catholicism.

Maybe because I am not the Catholic hating bigot that you only have room for in your system.

Try to play persecuted all you want, my friend, but I consider Catholics as my friends. I might not agree with their doctrine, but that does not mean I hate them and attack them. You may want it to be that, but I am far from it. So you ought to come up with a new category and don't try to play the victim with me. It won't work.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. The reason I oppose it is because it is contrary to Scripture.

Why would you think I would ever encourage that which is contrary to God's revelation? My feelings are hurt!

 

[Ray Berrian]

Catholic Convert,

You said, ' . . . doesn't agree with your man made religion

Ray is saying, 'You seem to fault us for believing that only the Bible is the Word of God. You should praise us.'

You said, ' . . . which popped out of Luther's tormented mind'

Ray is saying, 'Aren't you a bid extreme here? Just because he was trying to purify Romanism you give him an "F." Just because Luther stood for apostolic truth, namely, justification by faith alone [Romans 5:1] you again try to diminish his greatness.'

You said, ' . . . and Calvin's demon inspired vision of God.' Just because you turned Catholic should not make you an extremist. In what sense was Cavin a demon? Study St. Augustine and you will find that John Calvin merely re-phrased Augustine's theology and wrote it formally down in the "Institutes of the Christian Religion."

Personally, I don't believe in four of the five points of Calvinism, but that is another discussion. I only believe in something like his Perseverance of the Saints, which is the eternal security of truly saved people.

 

[Jailminister]

I am reposting this from another thread to let you know how we know that the pope and the catholics need to re-examine the faith:

I don't see that the Catholics are so much the "Mystery, Babylon", but it is the Great Whore.

Read:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Rev 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Great whore will be used by the Beast to form a system that will comingle the world with religion. When the world gets tired of her, then it will do away with her. The system is called "Babylon the Great".

Note the attires below:

 

[dumbox1]

Gee, I'll have to stop wearing my purple shirt. (It's got a spot on it, anyway).

Lucky thing I'm in green and khaki today!

Mark H.

 

[Stephen III]

Soo0..... are you saying they're dressed like whores, beasts or Babylonians?.... Have you ever seen a big coiffed blue-haired Baptist preacher in a too tight sear-sucker suit and thought gee that's how the devil himself would dress.... if he hadn't any fashion sense!

Completely ridiculous...... Go back to more sensible conspiracy theories like blue-blood aliens are running the government.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Stephen III:
Soo0..... are you saying they're dressed like whores, beasts or Babylonians?.... Have you ever seen a big coiffed blue-haired Baptist preacher in a too tight sear-sucker suit and thought gee that's how the devil himself would dress.... if he hadn't any fashion sense!

Completely ridiculous...... Go back to more sensible conspiracy theories like blue-blood aliens are running the government.

ROTFLOL!!!

I was going to get envolved in this thread, but I am enjoying myself too much watching you guys put to route, the nonsense going on here!

Stephen, keep it up, my friend! That was great!

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

[neal4christ]

Note the attires below:

I wish they had a graemlin here that just shook his head from side-to-side with a disdainful look on his face with regards to the argument.

I guess the rolling eyes will have to do.



In Christ,
Neal

 

[thessalonian]

"Luther stood for apostolic truth, namely, justification by faith alone [Romans 5:1] "

Funny I don't see the word alone in that verse. He says that through faith we have access to grace. Grace alone is what saves. Faith alone gets us to grace alone so faith is neccessary but is faith neccessary apart from grace? Or does having faith mean that love is not neccessary even though Paul says it is the greatest of the cardinal virtues. Or perhaps we don't need hope. What really is hope if what is hoped for is assured?

Romans 8:24
For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?

So is hope not neccesary for salvation Ray?

Now what is even funier is that the verse that Luther used to show that faith alone was all that was needed is Romans 3:28 and in that verse he inserted the word alone so that at least one time in 273 (oops 2 but the other doesn't help him much) in the NT the Bible said we were saved by "faith alone".

Blessings

 

[neal4christ]

Grace alone is what saves.

AMEN! Faith is the vehicle, but grace is what saves!

In Christ,
Neal

 

[Jailminister]

Well I guess God made a mistake by placing this in the Bible. Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

So I guess we need to just cut that scripture out of the bibble so that no one is offended by the truth.

 

[neal4christ]

So I guess we need to just cut that scripture out of the bibble so that no one is offended by the truth.

You have a bit of a problem. The last time I looked, the pope was a man. So were the priests in the picture you posted. Oh well, good try, though.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by AngelforChrist:
How about the assumption of mary? Wasnt that a new change? Papal infallibility? Those are a couple of changes arent they? If I am not mistaken early popes condemend the teaching that mary was assumed , yet recently its become a new teaching again , cant help but wonder which one was the infallible pope...

You're going to have to provide quotes of a pope "condemning" the assumption of Mary, especially considering it's been a feast day of the Church for, what, like 1500 years? I'm off by a century or two, I'm sure, but the Church has celebrated it LONG LONG LONG before it was declared Dogma in the 1950s. Same goes for infallibility. The doctrines were not new; the elevation to dogma was (ie, it has been completely defined).

Originally posted by AngelforChrist:
Does this statement mean you beleive that only the RCC is Jesus's church?

Are you saying that God has a bunch of Churches, or one Church? I only remember Him establishing one. Any non-Catholic Christians are still Christian because of their Trinitarian Baptism; they are separated brethren in partial communion with the One, True Church.

Originally posted by AngelforChrist:
Tell me if you can a nessesity for indulginces and how rich people sin less than poor ones?

Luther did not reform; he simply formed. His outcry against the misuse of indulgences was absolutely correct. Unfortunately for your theory, the abuse was just that: an abuse. They were not acting according to Catholic teaching on indulgences, and thus, a reformation WAS necessary, and was achieved to completion within 20 years after Luther's 95 Thesis at the Council of Trent. Luther did not reform doctrine; he tossed it out the window. That is external reform, not internal. He made a new Church.

Further, your "How do rich people sin less than poor ones?" is hopefully not an understanding of indulgences, because it would be a false one. Please do some research to help you better understand.

 

[Jailminister]

Neal said:

You have a bit of a problem. The last time I looked, the pope was a man. So were the priests in the picture you posted. Oh well, good try, though.

What does that have to do with anything? Please clarify.

 

[GraceSaves]

The Book of Revelation is apocalyptic literature, that is, many images stand for other things. And in the same sentence, it is best not to miss and match. If the "colored clothing" you read as literal, why do you not take "woman" to be literal? It's one single statment. It's either both literal, or both figurative. My bet, being apocalyptic literature, is figurative (especially since it takes WISDOM to understand the meaning, not sheer reading of the English text).

 

[neal4christ]

What does that have to do with anything? Please clarify.

Do I really need to? Why did you suggest we take the verse out that you quoted? Was it because you were asserting that it is literally being fulfilled with the clothes the priests were wearing and the cup the pope was holding, etc., and I doubted your interpretation method? If so, be literal with the whole thing. The verse is talking about a woman. Be consistent, don't just take the parts you like and use them.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[Stephen III]

Jailmin says:

Well I guess God made a mistake by placing this in the Bible. Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

So you interpret that that particular scripture refers to the pope? Whereas others might interpret it to be a office Holiday party gone amok. What makes your interpretation better than the next guys? Just out of curiosity do you promote this lunacy to prisoners?.....Talk about a captive audience.