Pope Francis gives church hundreds of new saints...

[Zenas]

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.

I'm guessing your preference for style of worship is lively with plenty of contemporary gospel music, praise songs, and loud electronic instruments. I don't fault you for that but maybe you should think about this. Jesus is not a rock star and should not be worshipped in an atmosphere that resembles a rock concert. Jesus is the King of Kings and should be regarded with at least as much dignity as the President or a head of state. In the presence of such a person you would act with ultimate dignity and respect and you would observe correct protocol for the occasion.

And that is the difference between a Catholic mass and a contemporary Protestant service. That is why you regard the mass as "dead and robotic." Protestants regard Jesus as a rock star. Catholics regard Jesus as the King of Kings.

 

[WestminsterMan]

WM (and all the other "catholics" here)...I'm not "scratching" anything out of scripture...just reading and believing it in context and rightly dividing it in respect to the rest of the testimonies contained therein.

snip...Bro.Greg:saint:

Well Bro, I believe that I am "rightly-dividing" scripture in respect to the rest of scripture. So then... I believe that the Holy Spirit is helping and revealing the true meaning of scripture to me and I assume that you do as well. Thus, what now?

Well it comes down to this: Either we are both wrong, you are right and I am wrong, or I am right and you are wrong. Yet, if we are both being led by the spirit in interpreting scripture then how can this be? The Holy Spirit is never wrong and leads to all knowledge. Hmmm...

So what's the deal here Bro?

WM

 

[DHK]

Note to you: The term "Romanist" has always been used as an epithet by hate groups throughout the history of this country – not excluding the KKK. This is why I doubt your educational "credentials" (well, it's only one of the reasons to be accurate) because if you really were a student of history, you would know this.

Look – I know you can use it however you want, but it's still hateful and insulting to Catholics and this is why you are using it. You aren't fooling anyone. As I told you before; name calling is indicative of intellectual cowardice. Just keep it up – it makes you look foolish and only serves to reveal your true nature.

WM

On Matthew 16:18 John Gill writes

. As he spoke in the name of them all, to Christ; so Christ spake to him, including them all. Peter had no preeminence over the rest of the apostles, which he neither assumed, nor was it granted; nor would it ever have been connived at by Christ, who often showed his resentment at such a spirit and conduct, whenever there was any appearance of it in any of them; see Mt 18:1 and though Peter, with James, and John, had some particular favours bestowed on him by Christ; as to be at the raising of Jairus's daughter, and at the transfiguration of Christ on the mount, and with him in the garden; and he appeared to him alone after his resurrection, and before he was seen by the rest of the disciples; yet in some things he was inferior to them, being left to deny his Lord and master, they did not; and upon another account is called Satan by Christ, which they never were; not to mention other infirmities of his, which show he is not the rock: and, after all, what is this to the pope of Rome, who is no successor of Peter's? Peter, as an apostle, had no successor in his office; nor was he bishop of Rome; nor has the pope of Rome either his office, or his doctrine: but here, by the rock, is meant, either the confession of faith made by Peter; not the act, nor form, but the matter of it, it containing the prime articles of Christianity, and which are as immoveable as a rock; or rather Christ himself, who points, as it were, with his finger to himself, and whom Peter had made such a glorious confession of; and who was prefigured by the rock the Israelites drank water out of in the wilderness; and is comparable to any rock for height, shelter, strength, firmness, and duration; and is the one and only foundation of his church and people, and on whom their security, salvation, and happiness entirely depend. Christ is a rock that is higher than they, where they find safety in times of distress, and the shadow of which is refreshing to them; and therefore betake themselves to him for shelter, and where they are secure from the wrath of God, and rage of men: he is the rock of ages, in whom is everlasting strength; and is the sure, firm, and everlasting foundation on which the church, and all true believers, are laid: he is the foundation of their faith, and hope, and everlasting happiness, and will ever continue; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Barnes says:

Christ is called a rock, Isa 28:16; 1Pe 2:8... Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm in and fit for the work of laying the foundation of the church.... But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one on whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, was followed. See also Ga 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed--a thing which could not have happened if Christ, as the Roman Catholics say, meant that Peter should be absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church.

Albert Barnes 1798-1870
Jamiesson Faucett and Brown Commentary--1871
--Much earlier than this were Protestant commentaries (these ones Presbyterians) standing firm against the RCC. Though not in this passage, often they referred to the RCC as "Romanists"

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Hitting The Nail On The Head!

Well Bro, I believe that I am "rightly-dividing" scripture in respect to the rest of scripture. So then... I believe that the Holy Spirit is helping and revealing the true meaning of scripture to me and I assume that you do as well. Thus, what now?

Well it comes down to this: Either we are both wrong, you are right and I am wrong, or I am right and you are wrong. Yet, if we are both being led by the spirit in interpreting scripture then how can this be? The Holy Spirit is never wrong and leads to all knowledge. Hmmm...

So what's the deal here Bro?

WM

WM....PLEASE know that I mean you NO disrespect or malice. My disagreement with Catholicism and Catholics is based on my sincere disagreement with your church's doctrines and practices and not because I don't love and care about you or anybody else. That being said, you have "hit the nail on the head" as to the impasse that is always reached at some point in these types of discussions/debates. One of us IS right and one of us IS wrong and there is not any "middle ground" upon which we can stand in agreement on the things that matter the most. I will acknowledge that the RCC does teach some of the basic doctrines of the Orthodox Christian faith but it also adds much to it. True Biblical faith is far more than adhering "intelllectually" to a dogma or a statement of faith. As I see it, Catholicism defines the very basic doctrine of God's GRACE differently than Bible-Believing Baptists do(we are NOT "Protestants") and that is the big "game-changer" for us. With the sacramental elements of your worship, the matter of Mariology, Papal Infallibility, the Mass, the confessional, infant baptism, and other practices within your religious world being "means" of grace, they become,in essence, actual WORKS that must be performed in order to maintain or achieve a "relationship" with God in your religious practice. We Baptists cannot justify any of that out of the scriptures.
The scary thing is...in the end...whichever of us is WRONG will have HELL to PAY...for all eternity.....literally. This IS a life or death matter in every respect and can't be viewed lightly. I think it would be safe to say that NEITHER of us wants the other (or anyone else) to wind up in hell. The belief that I embrace assures me of a home in heaven ONLY on the merits of the Son of God and His finished work at Calvary...not on any works that I have done or can ever do to deserve His love, mercy, or grace. It does NOT mean I am free to live or act any way I please. What Christ has done for me is that He has freed me from the obligation I used to be under in my (previously) unregenerate state to live according to the dictates of my old fleshly nature. I now walk in the glorious liberty of the Son of God and CAN live for Him. That is my desire for you and anybody else...Catholic or otherwise...who is dependent on any system of sacraments or works to achieve some higher "plane " of spirituality or "state of grace". True freedom is only found in Christ...and Him alone...NOT some church or system of works. I hope what I have said makes sense to you.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[WestminsterMan]

On Matthew 16:18 John Gill writes

Barnes says:

Albert Barnes 1798-1870
Jamiesson Faucett and Brown Commentary--1871
--Much earlier than this were Protestant commentaries (these ones Presbyterians) standing firm against the RCC. Though not in this passage, often they referred to the RCC as "Romanists"

Romanist is an epithet. It's been used that way for 150 years. It is derogatory and shouldn't be used - that is if you care about others. If you don't, well that behavior speaks for itself. You people know that and trying to justify it only makes you look like bigots.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

WM....PLEASE know that I mean you NO disrespect or malice. My disagreement with Catholicism and Catholics is based on my sincere disagreement with your church's doctrines and practices and not because I don't love and care about you or anybody else. That being said, you have "hit the nail on the head" as to the impasse that is always reached at some point in these types of discussions/debates. One of us IS right and one of us IS wrong and there is not any "middle ground" upon which we can stand in agreement on the things that matter the most. I will acknowledge that the RCC does teach some of the basic doctrines of the Orthodox Christian faith but it also adds much to it. True Biblical faith is far more than adhering "intelllectually" to a dogma or a statement of faith. As I see it, Catholicism defines the very basic doctrine of God's GRACE differently than Bible-Believing Baptists do(we are NOT "Protestants") and that is the big "game-changer" for us. With the sacramental elements of your worship, the matter of Mariology, Papal Infallibility, the Mass, the confessional, infant baptism, and other practices within your religious world being "means" of grace, they become,in essence, actual WORKS that must be performed in order to maintain or achieve a "relationship" with God in your religious practice. We Baptists cannot justify any of that out of the scriptures.
The scary thing is...in the end...whichever of us is WRONG will have HELL to PAY...for all eternity.....literally. This IS a life or death matter in every respect and can't be viewed lightly. I think it would be safe to say that NEITHER of us wants the other (or anyone else) to wind up in hell. The belief that I embrace assures me of a home in heaven ONLY on the merits of the Son of God and His finished work at Calvary...not on any works that I have done or can ever do to deserve His love, mercy, or grace. It does NOT mean I am free to live or act any way I please. What Christ has done for me is that He has freed me from the obligation I used to be under in my (previously) unregenerate state to live according to the dictates of my old fleshly nature. I now walk in the glorious liberty of the Son of God and CAN live for Him. That is my desire for you and anybody else...Catholic or otherwise...who is dependent on any system of sacraments or works to achieve some higher "plane " of spirituality or "state of grace". True freedom is only found in Christ...and Him alone...NOT some church or system of works. I hope what I have said makes sense to you.

Bro.Greg:saint:

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Yet, you didn't answer my question...

WM

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Let Me Try To Answer Clearly...

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Yet, you didn't answer my question...

WM

Sorry WM....I thought I did but on going back and looking again I see that maybe I wasn't clear enough. The direct answer to your question is YES...one of us is right and one of us is wrong. The Holy Spirit would never lead BOTH of us in two different directions on the same passages of Scripture on something so critical as the topic under discussion (the foundation and head of the New Testament church). It is a doctrine with critical impact for all believers in Christ as it is the second most important institution founded by our Lord...the 1st being the traditional family in Genesis. Sadly...many in the "professing" church are "backing up" on THAT issue as well....but I digress.
On the topic in question, lest there be any doubt...I believe I am in the right. This is no kind of subject for riding the fence on. One thing you said in your post that I will agree with.....You said....

"The Holy Spirit is never wrong and leads to all knowledge."

On THAT..I absolutely agree 100% with you. We can know one thing that is true....(this is a statement that is usually applied to the bible version debate but it fits here too)..."Things that are different are NOT the SAME."

Friend...one of us is being deceived and led astray. The results of the controversy may well have eternal consequences. I believe it is absolutely possible to be a "professing" "Christian" within EITHER a catholic OR a baptist "church". IT is also possible to have that "profession" and die lost and go straight to hell without remedy. As a man who is "baptistic" in my doctrine and faith which I believe is based upon true Biblical knowledge, I believe I am saved by grace (the unmerited favor of God of which I am completely undeserving) through faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross. That is, I believe, "the faith" that was once delivered unto the saints of old. Everything I have ever heard or learned about the Catholic church through either the Catholics on this Board, other Catholics I have known over the years, or yes, even non-Catholic sources consistently tells me that the doctrines, dogmas, traditions and practices of your church teach either contrary to what I stated above or add much in the way of sacramental "practice" to that truth. As a Bible-believing Baptist I can recognize ONLY the Word of God as my final authority. Any Baptist pastor,evangelist or preacher who tries to add anything to that would rightly be called a legalist and avoided. The Catholic church, as a religious body, adds much in the way of works and sacraments and church tradition to the plain teaching of the Bible regarding the basic matter of salvation and the requirements of day to day "Christian" living. I just can't fathom going there, nor do I sense in any way, God's Spirit leading me or anyone else in that direction. God's Spirit will never lead anyone in a way that runs contrary to the Word of God,The Bible (KJV). I hope this answer clearly establishes my position without malice to you or anyone else.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[saturneptune]

Well, it's certainly not this flavor of Protestantism either as is evedent here. All of the hatred and vitriol displayed by you and others is CLEARLY not Christ-like.

Yet, I will continue to pray for you and love you all in spite of yourself.

Pac my brother!

WM

What makes it unChrist-like? Christ showed visible anger at the money changers in the temple and the hypocracy of the Pharisees, calling them whitewashed tombs. Both are an apt description of the RCC.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Which church most closely represents and resembles the teachings and life of a simple carpenter, Jesus? It certainly is not Romanism. Compare the teachings of Romanism to the New Testament. Compare the wealth, pomp-and-circumstance to the lifestyle of Jesus. Compare the murderous, persecutorial history of Romanism to the ethical teachings of Jesus. Anyone see any similarity? I do not.

Obviously you've never been to a monastery. Just saying the simple lifestyle is certainly in play.

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...

As a man who is "baptistic" in my doctrine and faith which I believe is based upon true Biblical knowledge, I believe I am saved by grace (the unmerited favor of God of which I am completely undeserving) through faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross.

We have no salvation except through the grace of God. I can agree with your statement of salvataion because you left out the part that I usually see on here and that is the interjection of the extra biblical word "alone". What I see in the above is a fully Catholic belief.

That is, I believe, "the faith" that was once delivered unto the saints of old. Everything I have ever heard or learned about the Catholic church through either the Catholics on this Board, other Catholics I have known over the years, or yes, even non-Catholic sources consistently tells me that the doctrines, dogmas, traditions and practices of your church teach either contrary to what I stated above or add much in the way of sacramental "practice" to that truth. As a Bible-believing Baptist I can recognize ONLY the Word of God as my final authority.

Well, a knowledgable Catholic would simply say that you have the truth... albeit somewhat limited.

Any Baptist pastor,evangelist or preacher who tries to add anything to that would rightly be called a legalist and avoided. The Catholic church, as a religious body, adds much in the way of works and sacraments and church tradition to the plain teaching of the Bible regarding the basic matter of salvation and the requirements of day to day "Christian" living.

Clearly, you must hold to that if you hold to Sola Scriptura. However, I would posit that to be a man-made and non-scriptural doctrine. However, having come out of the Baptist theology, I fully understand.

I just can't fathom going there, nor do I sense in any way, God's Spirit leading me or anyone else in that direction. God's Spirit will never lead anyone in a way that runs contrary to the Word of God,The Bible (KJV).

Whoa there sally! God led me there. If you cannot believe that then you are placing limits on the power of God. Previously, you admited that there are saved people in the Catholic Church yet here you are stating that you cannot fathom it because "...God's Spirit will never lead anyone in a away that runs contrary to the Word of God."

Could it be perhaps that you have a limited concept of both His Spirit and His Word. As to the The Bible (KJV) bread crumb, I won't get into that discussion with you as I rather enjoy watching the Baptists eat each other up over it.

I hope this answer clearly establishes my position without malice to you or anyone else.

Bro.Greg:saint:

It does - and thank you very much for a very thoughtful response.

Peace be with you my brother!

WM

 

[DHK]

Romanist is an epithet. It's been used that way for 150 years. It is derogatory and shouldn't be used - that is if you care about others. If you don't, well that behavior speaks for itself. You people know that and trying to justify it only makes you look like bigots.

WM

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

It may be a derogatory term, but very tame to what the Bible comes right out and condemns about the doctrine of the RCC.
--seducing spirits or deceiving spirits.
--doctrines of devils or teachings of demons.

"Forbidding to marry," a practice widely held and taught by the RCC, the celibacy of the priesthood. It is a doctrine of demons taught by those who have apostatized from the faith and given heed to deceiving evil spirits.

 

[saturneptune]

Brother, maybe some Anglicans .........Why is that?

Why do you call Baptist posters "brother" when Catholic doctrine believes everyone outside the "true church" is headed for hell?

 

[WestminsterMan]

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

It may be a derogatory term, but very tame to what the Bible comes right out and condemns about the doctrine of the RCC.
--seducing spirits or deceiving spirits.
--doctrines of devils or teachings of demons.

"Forbidding to marry," a practice widely held and taught by the RCC, the celibacy of the priesthood. It is a doctrine of demons taught by those who have apostatized from the faith and given heed to deceiving evil spirits.

I'm glad you admit that it is. Thus, as a moderator you should not allow its use here and as a Christian you should be appalled by it period, yet you revel in its use. What does that tell you...?

It is disgusting behavior by anyone who tries to justify it. Some of you here - and that includes you DHK - are so full of hatred that you have lost the ability to do as Jesus commands. Do some self-reflection. Look in the mirror. There is your doctrine of demons!

As to the rest of it, I could care less what you think of me or of what I believe.

WM

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is no "Catholic word." Where on earth do you get such a ludicrous idea.
Just as the OT came to us through the prophets, so the NT came through the apostles and their close associates. The heretical RCC had nothing to do with it. The apostles and early churches preserved it. There was no "church", only "churches." The only "church" that existed was apostate, and eventually called the RCC.

You are being facetious. In our modern vernacular we say things like "you took his word for it" Or "you took their word for it". Of course there is a Catholic word. Just like you have your word. So in this context I am saying that you believe the Catholic Church about the Martyrdom of Peter being in Rome and that the bones under St. Peters is actually Peters because that is what Catholics are saying but you wont take their word for Peter having taught in Rome? Come on!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is quite untrue.

See the link I posted in response to DHK.

I looked at your link and it is no different that Cameron saying he found Jesus' sarcophagus because he found the name Yeshua bar Yoseph on a sarcophagus in Jerusalem. Do you believe that? If not why believe the link you posted? The only reason is not because of evidence but because you want to believe Jesus rose from the dead but you don't want to believe there is any connection between Peter and Rome. So you are clearly showing bias.

 

[saturneptune]

As to the rest of it, I could care less what you think of me or of what I believe.

WM

Not quite as much as I could care less about your worthless theology. If you do not like it here, hit the road jack.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

To WestminterMan

Just to clarify something...

In our last "exchange" you said...

"We have no salvation except through the grace of God. I can agree with your statement of salvation because you left out the part that I usually see on here and that is the interjection of the extra biblical word "alone". What I see in the above is a fully Catholic belief."

Allow me to ADD the word "alone"....right here! (as taught in Epesians 2:8-10)

Also you said.....

"Whoa there sally! God led me there. If you cannot believe that then you are placing limits on the power of God. Previously, you admited that there are saved people in the Catholic Church yet here you are stating that you cannot fathom it because "...God's Spirit will never lead anyone in a away that runs contrary to the Word of God."

My name ain't sally...it's Greg and yes....I have no problem saying that there MAY WELL BE some genuinely saved people within the RCC (and I sincerely HOPE you are one of them)...BUT...I do NOT believe that God by His Holy Spirit led ANY of them INTO that church because I believe it to be a false church. I believe you have been misled and deceived by the father of lies regardless of how "warm and fuzzy" or cozy you may feel about your decision to cast your lot there. I pray God will give you light and lead you OUT of there.
As for your opinions about Baptists and their/our theology....there most definitely ARE some within our realm who have some very twisted and unscriptural ideas about a variety of things and some who have such horrendeously bad testimonies that if you or I or anybody else were to get our eyes OFF the Lord and start evaluating or judging the churches or our fellow-believers based on the behavior of the people around us we may very well either turn back on God altogether or be prone to making terrible spiritual decisions which might result in outright apostasy. I believe something like that may well have happened to you and your fellow departed "Baptists" here on the BB. That is my opinion and I do not mean it in an unkind or ugly way. I myself got far out of fellowship with my Lord for a long span of years and NOBODY within the fellowship of believers that I was a part of lifted even one finger to come to my help or rescue. I don't blame the Lord for that nor did I reject the truth I knew or run off looking for another church or denomination thinking that would fix anything. That was then and this is now and I praise the Lord that He never left me when I left Him. I worship and serve a longsuffering, merciful, loving God who is full of grace and truth and light. He could have...and maybe should have taken me out of this world long ago....but then if he had I wouldn't be here to tell you the things that I just have....now would I? WM...I know you think you have done the right thing but you haven't. You can't "earn" any favor with God. Salvation (and the Christian life and walk) are by grace ALONE. The RCC "priests" have mislead you. I'm not going to say they have lied to you because I don't believe it is right to say someone has deliberately "lied" when they are walking in darkness having been blindly misled themselves. Satan is an "angel of light" capable of signs and lying wonders and all manner of deception. Be careful that you don't allow your own pride to blind you to the truth.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[DHK]

I'm glad you admit that it is. Thus, as a moderator you should not allow its use here and as a Christian you should be appalled by it period, yet you revel in its use. What does that tell you...?

It is disgusting behavior by anyone who tries to justify it. Some of you here - and that includes you DHK - are so full of hatred that you have lost the ability to do as Jesus commands. Do some self-reflection. Look in the mirror. There is your doctrine of demons!

As to the rest of it, I could care less what you think of me or of what I believe.

WM

Those are harsh accusations, and unfounded.
My mother and father are both devout Catholics. Do I hate them? No, I love them very much, as I do the rest of my family. Your accusations are totally baseless and without any foundation. They are false accusations.

It is the doctrine of the RCC that I detest, not the people. I don't hate any person. But I do hate false doctrine, heretical teaching, damnable heresy that sends people on their way to hell. That I do hate. Not the people ensnared by it.

 

[DHK]

You are being facetious. In our modern vernacular we say things like "you took his word for it" Or "you took their word for it". Of course there is a Catholic word. Just like you have your word. So in this context I am saying that you believe the Catholic Church about the Martyrdom of Peter being in Rome and that the bones under St. Peters is actually Peters because that is what Catholics are saying but you wont take their word for Peter having taught in Rome? Come on!

In your former post you were referring to "the Word" as Catholic or from the RCC, which is entirely wrong. The RCC had nothing to do with canonization of the Word of God. Throughout most of history it had more to do with its destruction than with its preservation. I stick to my story that it was the apostles and early churches that both had the Word and preserved the Word, not a universal apostate church.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Not quite as much as I could care less about your worthless theology. If you do not like it here, hit the road jack.

I only tolerate you because you are such a hoot!

WM