Pope Francis gives church hundreds of new saints...

[Iconoclast]

I am glad that God saves many out of the Catholic church.At least they learn about the trinity.The fact that they are biblically ignorant leaves them vulnerable to the cults.
That anyone would appeal to Jn3 for baptismal regeneration shows they are devoid of truth absolutely.
Think about the false "popes" waking up everyday knowing they are living a lie and are devoid of the Spirit.
For my catholic friends who post here.....be honest with yourself.When you attend your meetings.....watch the people looking at their watches waiting to...get it over with!
After the idolatrous mass...they run to their cars...no biblical conversation to be had...

Do they still follow the St.joseph missal? On your jobs...the guy cursing the most is the catholic guy. The guy telling the dirty jokes is the catholic guy...then when he lays in his casket...the ungodly priest says...he was born again by his baptism......sure he was....and in hell being in torment he would like to send someone back to warn his brothers like in lk 16.
I am not anti catholic.....I am anti rc church because of its idolatry.
The priest told me I was a separated brethren.....but salvation came to me in my twenties.....not my christening,first communion, or bogus confirmation.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Do you actually believe that the planet Pluto is made of green cheese.
Go ahead. Look it up. You will find it in Hezekiah 3:4.

I hate to break it to you DHK, but Hezekiah 3:4 says nothing about Pluto being composed of green cheese. I know that some here often have crazy interpretations of scripture but...

But if you believe there is a case made for infant baptism in the Bible you are gullible enough to believe anything. And like many others you will read anything you want to into the Bible no matter how ridiculous it may be.

Well, I don't think there is a case to be made for Sunday night prayer meetings or a host of other things that you do. Thus, by your own logic you must be "... gullible enough to believe anything" too.

Look - I didn't say I was making a case FOR infant baptism and if you had taken the time to read what I wrote you would know that - though I hold it to be true. I was simply pointing out that it is a real stretch to try and make the case that the families in question had no children only to try and refute infant baptism. It's a weak tactic and you all should be able to do better than that.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

I am glad that God saves many out of the Catholic church.At least they learn about the trinity.The fact that they are biblically ignorant leaves them vulnerable to the cults.
That anyone would appeal to Jn3 for baptismal regeneration shows they are devoid of truth absolutely.
Think about the false "popes" waking up everyday knowing they are living a lie and are devoid of the Spirit.
For my catholic friends who post here.....be honest with yourself.When you attend your meetings.....watch the people looking at their watches waiting to...get it over with!
After the idolatrous mass...they run to their cars...no biblical conversation to be had...

Do they still follow the St.joseph missal? On your jobs...the guy cursing the most is the catholic guy. The guy telling the dirty jokes is the catholic guy...then when he lays in his casket...the ungodly priest says...he was born again by his baptism......sure he was....and in hell being in torment he would like to send someone back to warn his brothers like in lk 16.
I am not anti catholic.....I am anti rc church because of its idolatry.
The priest told me I was a separated brethren.....but salvation came to me in my twenties.....not my christening,first communion, or bogus confirmation.

Well I was saved into the Catholic Church FROM the Baptist Church so that completed invalidates your post doesn't it.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Right. Like infant baptism, Mariolatry, papal infallibility, etc.

Oh my good Lord! The reason you're having these issues is that you hold to the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I'm not bound to argue something based upon a non-biblical doctrine to which I do not hold. If you examine yourself closely, you will see that you don't actually hold to it exclusively either. Think about it...

WM

 

[Iconoclast]

Well I was saved into the Catholic Church FROM the Baptist Church so that completed invalidates your post doesn't it.

WM

Hello WM,
No not at all....It would say to me that just because you were brought into a baptist church does not mean that you have a saving relationship with Jesus as Lord. I would like for you to trust in His perfect work as I would all cradle catholics to do.
My post you will find unfortunately to be right on point.
Next time you go to a "mass"....see if what I say is not true...be honest.

The fact that some of you come to post is good, however the fact that many more are not here shows they have no interest in the truth of God.

Most that speak on catholic answers are protestant apostates....they learned a little religion in a baptist, or protestant church....drifted into a roman church were they an feel like they know something more than the congregation of the dead they sit with.....I know all about it my friend.

 

[Iconoclast]

Oh my good Lord!
WM

Try not to take the Lords name in vain when you post.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Try not to take the Lords name in vain when you post.

Well, try not be so easily offended by what others write. Now... please do a little reading on what it means to take the Lord's name in vain. That's not what I'm doing.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Hello WM,
No not at all....It would say to me that just because you were brought into a baptist church does not mean that you have a saving relationship with Jesus as Lord. I would like for you to trust in His perfect work as I would all cradle catholics to do.
My post you will find unfortunately to be right on point.
Next time you go to a "mass"....see if what I say is not true...be honest.

The fact that some of you come to post is good, however the fact that many more are not here shows they have no interest in the truth of God.

Most that speak on catholic answers are protestant apostates....they learned a little religion in a baptist, or protestant church....drifted into a roman church were they an feel like they know something more than the congregation of the dead they sit with.....I know all about it my friend.

No - you don't know very much about it at all. Whether you think I am saved or not is really of no import to me. Only God knows the heart. Neither you nor I have the right to judge the salvation of others; to do so is a sin and probably violates the rules here. If you think I am saved or not - please keep it to yourself OK?

WM

 

[Iconoclast]

Well, try not be so easily offended by what others write. Now... please do a little reading on what it means to take the Lord's name in vain. That's not what I'm doing.

WM

For you my friend:
Quest. 49: What is the significance of the Third Commandment?
Ans: The Third Commandment requires the holy and reverent use of
God’s names, titles, attributes, word, works, and institutions,
and prohibits their profanation in any way.
See also: Lev. 19:12; 24:10–14; Deut. 6:13; 23:21; 28:58; Psa. 8:1; 20:1;
29:2; 68:4; 109:17–18; 138:2; Prov. 30:8–9; Eccl. 5:1–6; Isa. 48:1–2;
65:16; Jer. 23:10–11; Ezk. 36:23; Matt. 5:37; 6:9; 7:21–23; 12:36–37; Lk.
6:46; Jn. 17:6; Acts 1:8; 4:12; 9:15–16; Rom. 2:24; 3:13–14; 2 Cor. 5:20;
Phil. 2:9–11; Col. 3:17; 2 Tim. 2:19; Titus 2:5; Rev. 13:5–6; 15:4.
COMMENTARY
This Commandment is two–fold in its analysis: first, a perpetual
prohibition declared. God’s name is not to be taken in any way less than that
which properly and reverently reflects his true nature, worth, honor, glory and
majesty. Second, a warning issued: Divine judgment or chastening is a
certainty for the profaner.
The First Commandment reveals the Object of our worship—the one true
God; the Second, the mode of our worship—true spirituality; the Third, our
inward attitude toward God in worship—true reverence, or a proper frame of
spirit.
98
There are many ways in which God’s name can be taken in vain: in
thought, word, or deed. Blasphemy, profanity, swearing and cursing are the
four major explicit means of violating this Commandment. Lightness or
frivolity concerning God’s name is also forbidden, as is hypocrisy in religious
profession. Demeaning God’s Word is also necessarily included in this
prohibition, as is invoking his name in prayer when praying in either self–will
or in a manner inconsistent with his nature and character (Matt. 6:9). See
Question 101.
There are several common ways in which God’s name is taken in vain:
first, blasphemy, railing or reviling is willful, injurious speech against the
majesty of God (Matt. 12:24–32; Rom. 2:21–24).
Second, profanity, which presupposes God’s name. Profanity specifically
refers to the irreverent use of God’s name or religious objects. The term
derives from pro, “before,” and fanum, “temple, shrine, sanctuary,” and thus
before [or outside] the temple [abode of the “god”] and hence “common,
secular, outside the realm of God.” God, however, is the God of all created
reality, omnipresent, immense and immanent. There is nothing apart from
him, nothing secular, common or profane. Thus, to profane anything
associated with God is to take his name in vain (Matt. 5:33–37).
Third, swearing an oath. Swearing may refer to coarse language in
general, but it refers specifically to an oath which invokes or refers to the
name of God or some religious object as a means of enforcing one’s veracity
or determination. Swearing an oath may be either righteous and legitimate or
sinful, i.e., taking God’s name in vain (1 Sam. 14:44; 1 Kgs. 17:1; Matt. 5:33–
37). A Christian is to be taken at his word, and therefore is not to swear by
anything or anyone (Matt. 5:33–37).
Fourth, cursing, which may refer to coarse language in general, but it
technically refers to calling down the wrath or judgment of God upon an
enemy or evil–doer. Cursing may be either legitimate or sinful (Lev. 24:11;
Numb. 23:8; Dt. 27:15–25; Josh. 6:26; 1 Sam. 17:43; 2 Kgs. 2:23–24; 2 Tim.
4:14).
Cursing is the most useless and senseless of sins. Unlike idolatry, it is
transparently irreligious and immediately reveals the hypocrite. Unlike
murder, there is not even the possible momentary satisfaction of revenge.
Unlike lying or stealing, it brings not even temporary advantage. Unlike
immorality, it brings no momentary pleasure whatsoever, nor does it satisfy
any lust. Unlike covetousness, which is necessarily thoughtful, it is irrational
and unthinking. Why, then, is cursing so prevalent? Mankind, created in the
image of God, has the gift of speech to praise God and communicate with one
another. Blasphemy, cursing or swearing is the awful expression of depraved
sinners who are spiritually impotent to create, and can only articulate the
frustration of their perverted “god–complex” by vocalizing their hatred and
disdain for both God and man in wicked and destructive terms. Words
become weapons, oaths become frustrated incantations and cursing becomes a
99
perverted theology of self–destruction. The very gift of speech, meant to
declare God’s truth and make society coherent, rather profanes God’s name,
perverts the truth and fragments society (Rom. 3:13–14).

 

[Iconoclast]

No - you don't know very much about it at all. Whether you think I am saved or not is really of no import to me. Only God knows the heart. Neither you nor I have the right to judge the salvation of others; to do so is a sin and probably violates the rules here. If you think I am saved or not - please keep it to yourself OK?

WM

I was born a RC.....have a second cousin who is a nun..who speaks on telecare,so I think I know about it.I cannot judge your heart WM, but I can judge your posts. What you are posting cries out for help.No one who understands grace would go to a works gospel ,which is no gospel at all.
If the time comes that you want help. I would be glad to help.
It grieves me to hear people turn away from truth.

 

[Walter]

I am glad that God saves many out of the Catholic church.At least they learn about the trinity.The fact that they are biblically ignorant leaves them vulnerable to the cults.
That anyone would appeal to Jn3 for baptismal regeneration shows they are devoid of truth absolutely.
Think about the false "popes" waking up everyday knowing they are living a lie and are devoid of the Spirit.
For my catholic friends who post here.....be honest with yourself.When you attend your meetings.....watch the people looking at their watches waiting to...get it over with!
After the idolatrous mass...they run to their cars...no biblical conversation to be had...

Do they still follow the St.joseph missal? On your jobs...the guy cursing the most is the catholic guy. The guy telling the dirty jokes is the catholic guy...then when he lays in his casket...the ungodly priest says...he was born again by his baptism......sure he was....and in hell being in torment he would like to send someone back to warn his brothers like in lk 16.
I am not anti catholic.....I am anti rc church because of its idolatry.
The priest told me I was a separated brethren.....but salvation came to me in my twenties.....not my christening,first communion, or bogus confirmation.

Yeah, your not anti-Catholic :laugh:

I, too, was saved out of the Baptist church into the Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. My conversion has brought me into a closer relationship with the Lord Jesus than I ever had as Baptist. BTW, the guy telling the dirtiest jokes in my neighborhood says he is 'a bible believing Baptist'.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Yeah, your not anti-Catholic :laugh:

I, too, was saved out of the Baptist church into the Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. My conversion has brought me into a closer relationship with the Lord Jesus than I ever had as Baptist. BTW, the guy telling the dirtiest jokes in my neighborhood says he is 'a bible believing Baptist'.

To qualify as "apostolic", a church must hold to apostolic doctrine. That disqualifies the RCC. Unless you can find Mariolatry, popes, papal infallibility, and other such inventions and innovations in the apostolic writings, the scriptures.

Walter, I believe you are genuine, but if you wanted ancient Catholicism (with a capital 'C'), you should have gone to Eastern Orthodoxy or Old Catholicism which have not adopted Roman innovations and development of doctrine.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The reason that the EOC and Old Catholics exist apart from the Roman Church is because of the latter's doctrines that "developed" centuries after the early church. Maybe you can explain how that is different from what groups like the Mormons believe, teach, and do. Now I am not putting Mormons and RC's into the same group because I don't believe the Mormons are orthodox at all, whereas I do believe the RCC does contain orthodox teachings, albeit I still consider the RCC on the fringe of orthodoxy, based on some of the things I have pointed out here.

I want to point out that I don't think you are knowledgeable about the Old Catholic Church. If you actually knew it I don't think you would have lumped it into the same category with the Orthodox Church. This Church is actually a relatively new development. Members from the see of Utrecht. There separation came in 1870 over Vatican I declaration of Papal infallibility. They uphold The Eucharist. But more to the point as a denomination they have become just as liberal (if not more so) as the Anglican Church and in fact are in full communion with the Anglican Church.

However, I find it interesting that you would suggest Walter to go Orthodox or Old Catholic if he wanted to get to the original Church. Here is my point about that. Both Orthodox and Old Catholics hold that the Eucharist is the very presence of Jesus Christ. They uphold a liturgy for worship. Orthodox have Marian Veneration (though admittedly not the same dogmas). How then do you reconcile these practices and beliefs which are more in line with Catholic Teaching than Baptist teaching? Especially if your referring to the ancient church?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I want to point out that I don't think you are knowledgeable about the Old Catholic Church. If you actually knew it I don't think you would have lumped it into the same category with the Orthodox Church. This Church is actually a relatively new development. Members from the see of Utrecht. There separation came in 1870 over Vatican I declaration of Papal infallibility. They uphold The Eucharist. But more to the point as a denomination they have become just as liberal (if not more so) as the Anglican Church and in fact are in full communion with the Anglican Church.

However, I find it interesting that you would suggest Walter to go Orthodox or Old Catholic if he wanted to get to the original Church. Here is my point about that. Both Orthodox and Old Catholics hold that the Eucharist is the very presence of Jesus Christ. They uphold a liturgy for worship. Orthodox have Marian Veneration (though admittedly not the same dogmas). How then do you reconcile these practices and beliefs which are more in line with Catholic Teaching than Baptist teaching? Especially if your referring to the ancient church?

I am very knowledgeable about Old Catholicism. I wasn't referring to Utrecht. They are apostate. There are many orthodox Old Catholics. The reason they call themselves "Old Catholic" is because they seek to practice Catholicism apart from Roman innovations.

Believe it or not, I am able to be objective, especially as it comes to my area(s) of study: Church history and theology. If one does not wish to be Baptist but is attracted to Catholicism, there are several options that are much closer to the ancient church than the RCC, and I was pointing those out to Walter. I could also add Continuing Anglicanism of the High Church variety - conservative in theology and morals, liturgical, traditional. If I wanted to be Catholic, I would go with one of these groups I have mentioned.

That is my objective analysis. Now, personally, I am too attached to Baptist principles to give them up for Catholicism, attached to the "General" variety of Baptists, that is.

 

[BobRyan]

WM - thank you for sharing this.

Sure. I just realized one day that the people in the Baptist churches that I've been associated with or a member of tend to take Brother/Pastor's ________ words as gospel without any validation from scripture. Sure, they would read the scripture during the sermon, but agree completely with the pastor's interpretation of it in a lemming like fashion. Yet, they would eagerly turn and accuse others of blasphemy, following a cult, being brain washed, etc. Hmmm... Does this sound familiar to those here?

Ok so we can all agree that name-calling does not prove one's doctrine to be correct. It did not work in the dark ages to stop the reformation and it does not solve anything today.

And we can all agree that the sola-scriptura testing model is much preferred over a lemming followership of "we agree we all say we a right so we must be right" model.

I am just not sure how that would lead to the Catholic solution as the solution for the problem.

Ultimately, the hypocrisy just got to me. Then the Holy Spirit started working on me and guiding me into studying the history of the Church. It's really the standard story... I was trying to find out how the early church worshiped and practiced, which led me straight into the arms of Catholicism.

When you say "early church" do you mean first century church?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[webdog]

I went to my nephew's first communion last Sunday. Not only does he have no idea what the meaning is behind it, that was the most dead and robotic service I have ever been to! It was like the zombie apocalypse inside of 4 stained glass windowed walls! The idols adjoining the halls made me want to puke. The lack of love from the hundreds there is telling. I feel bad for you new 'converts'. My wife, an ex catholic, felt uneasy and mentioned how cold and dead everything felt.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yeah, your not anti-Catholic :laugh:

I, too, was saved out of the Baptist church into the Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. My conversion has brought me into a closer relationship with the Lord Jesus than I ever had as Baptist. BTW, the guy telling the dirtiest jokes in my neighborhood says he is 'a bible believing Baptist'.

Walter,

I am for catholics and would like for them to trust in Jesus perfect work on the cross.

Were you born again in the baptist church? Are you saying that you were saved as a baptist, and then converted?

The only time there will be One Holy Church is In heaven on the last day, when it assembles.:thumbs:

I have spoken to many catholic priests.....it was shocking what they had to say.My second cousin the nun.....has many unscriptural ideas that she has promoted on telicare.....

http://ncronline.org/authors/sr-camille-darienzo

 

[WestminsterMan]

To qualify as "apostolic", a church must hold to apostolic doctrine. That disqualifies the RCC.
snip...

A church must hold to apostolic doctrine? I agree but who are you to determine what that apostolic doctrine is - are you in the line of succession back to the apostles who imparted apostolic doctrine to the Church? No, and to make such sweeping statements borders of laughable and is patently absurd. :laugh:

If one wants to read biased opinion, then your posts are well worth the time. Facts, on the other hand...

Look... you claim that history shows all christian churches were deliniated by the little "c" and that the RCC isn't apostolic but in the end, it makes no difference and here's why - you're wrong.

First, like it or not (and I'm sure that you don't) everyone was either Catholic, Muslim, or Buddhist before the Reformation - and that's a fact.

Second, Church history does show with perfect clarity that line of apostolic succession from whence aposoltic doctrine comes, that you so "bloviatingly" deny - in other words, that big 'ol "C":

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) - St. Irenaeus circa 175 AD

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere..

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

At. Augustine Letter 53 (A.D. 400)
Chapter 1

1. Since you were pleased to acquaint us with the letter sent to you by a Donatist presbyter, although, with the spirit of a true Catholic, you regarded it with contempt, nevertheless, to aid you in seeking his welfare if his folly be not incurable, we beg you to forward to him the following reply. He wrote that an angel had enjoined him to declare to you the episcopal succession of the Christianity of your town; to you, forsooth, who hold the Christianity not of your own town only, nor of Africa only, but of the whole world, the Christianity which has been published, and is now published to all nations. This proves that they think it a small matter that they themselves are not ashamed of being cut off, and are taking no measures, while they may, to be engrafted anew; they are not content unless they do their utmost to cut others off, and bring them to share their own fate, as withered branches fit for the flames. Wherefore, even if you had yourself been visited by that angel whom he affirms to have appeared to him—a statement which we regard as a cunning fiction; and if the angel had said to you the very words which he, on the warrant of the alleged command, repeated to you—even in that case it would have been your duty to remember the words of the apostle: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8 For to you it was proclaimed by the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, that His “gospel shall be preached unto all nations, and then shall the end come.” Matthew 24:14 To you it has moreover been proclaimed by the writings of the prophets and of the apostles, that the promises were given to Abraham and to his seed, which is Christ, Galatians 3:16 when God said unto him: “In your seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed.” Having then such promises, if an angel from heaven were to say to you, “Let go the Christianity of the whole earth, and cling to the faction of Donatus, the episcopal succession of which is set forth in a letter of their bishop in your town,” he ought to be accursed in your estimation; because he would be endeavouring to cut you off from the whole Church, and thrust you into a small party, and make you forfeit your interest in the promises of God.

2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!” Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of “mountain men,” or Cutzupits, by which they were known.

So from two Early Church Fathers seperated by three centuries showing the link for apostolic succession (thus the handing down of apostolic "doctrine") that no other little "c" "church" can claim. Not only that, it shows the primacy of the Church of Rome.

Heck man - you don't even know what you're talkin' about - but... you do now.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Walter,

I am for catholics and would like for them to trust in Jesus perfect work on the cross.

Were you born again in the baptist church? Are you saying that you were saved as a baptist, and then converted?

The only time there will be One Holy Church is In heaven on the last day, when it assembles.:thumbs:

I have spoken to many catholic priests.....it was shocking what they had to say.My second cousin the nun.....has many unscriptural ideas that she has promoted on telicare.....

http://ncronline.org/authors/sr-camille-darienzo

Let's get this straight right now - Catholics do trust in "Jesus perfect work on the cross" because if they are true Catholics, they are taught to do that. From where do you think all of Christianity comes?

WM

 

[Iconoclast]

Let's get this straight right now - Catholics do trust in "Jesus perfect work on the cross" because if they are true Catholics, they are taught to do that. From where do you think all of Christianity comes?

WM

No...when works are looked at as meritorious they trust in Jesus ...Plus....

Hebrews 10:10-14 is clear......It was a once for all time never to be repeated sacrifice.....

no unbloody re-offering of any.mass...


Were you saved in the baptist church??? I did not see your response:thumbs: