Revelation's Harlot

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:
As for the New York Catechism quote, that last line is not even a sentence. "God himself on earth" is not even close to grammar, as there is no subject or verb. That makes me HIGHLY question the legitamacy of this quote, as I cannot imagine the Catechism having grammar this poor.

No, I think this is very much improperly quoted. Please point me to this online; surely there is a complete copy of it available on the Internet.

If you can prove it, we'll work from there. If not, I regard this as false, for it goes against all other Catholic teachings on the papacy. It's this kind of drivel that people who dispise the Church use to attack the Church, when it was never truth in the first place.

Sorry for any harshness, but I feel very strongly about people falsely propogating inconsistencies in the Catholic Church that frankly do not exist.

God bless you,

Grant

The New York Catechism quote is from Lorraine Boettner's book, "Roman Catholocism Today". I will get it out and find the publishing information asap. But in the mean time.... Look Here

Now would you care to address the other inconsistencies in the New Catechism by John Paul II ?</font>[/QUOTE]I've read that entire site before; it's horrible.

As for the book you got the quote from, I'm betting it's a book against Roman Catholicism?

Also, I can't address inconsistencies that you don't point out, so please do.

And please, help me to find some context for this quote you're using.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Brother Curtis,

A Yahoo/Google search on the "New York Catechism" or "New York Catholic Catechism" is returning ZERO results on it. I've never actually seen this book, and the fact that I can't find any site about it is making me wonder if it's even a real book? Online bookstores aren't carrying it either.

Again, I'm going to have to see proof that the book even exists and then have access to context (as well as proving that the quote exists at all, if the book can be found).

Thanks in advance,

Grant

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Just because you don't like the quotes, or who exposed them, does not make them untrue. I posted a link to the New Catechism, and you won't address those. I specifically asked questions about the New Catechism, and you seem stuck on where to find the source of my previous quotes.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
The New York Catechism quote is from Lorraine Boettner's book, "Roman Catholocism Today". I will get it out and find the publishing information asap. But in the mean time.... Look Here

Curtis, Grant has a valid point. You are asking for his response to a "quote" taken out of the greater context by someone with an obvious bias, while being unable yourself to demonstrate the validity of the "quote".

Now would you care to address the other inconsistencies in the New Catechism by John Paul II ?

Again, Grant has a valid point.

What "inconsistencies"?

Ron

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Just because you don't like the quotes, or who exposed them, does not make them untrue. I posted a link to the New Catechism, and you won't address those. I specifically asked questions about the New Catechism, and you seem stuck on where to find the source of my previous quotes.

Curstis,

The New Catholic Catechism I have. Your quote is from the "New York Catechism," which I can find no reference to. The link you posted with Catechism quotes I can talk about, but make specific examples to talk about. The other link quotes a book I cannot find even exists.

My points are all valid here.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The inconsistencies I posted a few days ago, copied here for your conveniance, to read again, and address why Muslims are included in God's plan of salvation, when they reject the sacraments, don't practice infant baptism, etc....

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Look at this, from that document....

First..."Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation ... thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

And..."Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."'

But..."The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

HUH ??!!!???!! So which is it ?Muslims are saved, but not Baptists ?

There's more..."The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ... The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Saviour."

Since when do Muslims do tha sacrements ? Do I see a contradiction ?"

Individual and integral confession of grave sins followed by absolution remains the only ordinary means of reconciliation with God and with the Church."

"The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth."

I believe these to be untrue, also. My salvation didn't come until I was almost 40.

There are so many more, but I'm getting a little tired of always arguing about Mary, and purgatory, and indulgences, that I really need to take a break from it. This discussion is about the End-Times Church.

But there are apparent contradictions in this document. And the claims of authority can be used to support the office of the Pope becoming the seat of The Antichrist.

 

[GraceSaves]

Curtis,

As for the inconsistencies, the answer lies not in the Catechism, but in the horribly bias sites you get your information from.

How about the opening paragraph:

"Our goal in this particular aspect of our ministry is not devotional but is TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR."

The mindset is laid out all nice, isn't it?

Here are a few of those inconsistencies:

THE MASS A RE-SACRIFICE OF CHRIST

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: ... "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner."

Their words about the Church are directly contradicted in the quote they put forth.

PRIEST HAS THE POWER TO CONVERT BREAD AND WINE INTO CHRIST

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. ... The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered. ... The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed.

Read their big statement, and then read what I bolded. Direct contradiction.

ALL SINS MUST BE CONFESSED TO A PRIEST

1493 One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.

Direct contradition.

FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND ESCAPE FROM PURGATORY THROUGH INDULGENCES

1471 An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. ... Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead.

Amazing how indulgences forgive sins (their words) when the Church will not prescribe an indulgence for sins that have not already been forgiven. Contradiction.

There is much more posted here, but they are not contradictions. They are in general beliefs that the Catholic Church openly teaches that you merely disagree with. If you want to call that apostate, that's your right. I know the Truth, and Christ's Church boldly proclaims what is true.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The Bible proclaims the truth.

 

[GraceSaves]

Brother Curtis,

The Muslim issue has been beaten to death already. Did Christ not die FOR ALL? Then ALL are included in His plan for salvation. Will all be saved? No. That doesn't mean Christ doesn't have them in His plan. Why is this statement here? In hopes of showing Muslims we have common ground in the hopes that they might come to know Christ and join in fellowship and worship of Him in His Church. I would have never read this passage to be a loophole for Muslims to be saved...ever. If a Muslim thinks this to be the case, I wouldn't doubt it would be because of the constant lies told about it from non-Catholics who wish to do her harm. This passage does NOT mean what you say it does, so you are causing the damage!

As for your questions on Baptism and the Sacraments, these are teachings of the Church, and your arguments are merely that what the Church teaches is false - there is no evidence of a contradiction.

God bless,

Grant

[ November 12, 2002, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
The Bible proclaims the truth.

Indeed it does.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I am frustrated right now, because I don't have the time to engage this, and I really want to.

I quoted the catechism verbatim, added nothing. It clearly states Muslims are included in the Salvation plan, and then says salvation can only come thru the catholic church. It says parents who don't baptize their infants doom them.

I wish I had more time, I know I appear rude with the hit and run posts, but that's the way it is right now.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
I am frustrated right now, because I don't have the time to engage this, and I really want to.

Brother Curtis,

No one wants to be confused, and I can understand your frustration. I'm simply saying that the answers are there and you're just not seeing them.

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
I quoted the catechism verbatim, added nothing. It clearly states Muslims are included in the Salvation plan, and then says salvation can only come thru the catholic church. It says parents who don't baptize their infants doom them.

Did you bother reading my post? This is the last time I'm saying this to you, because if ten times won't do the trick, neither will one hundred. BEING INCLUDED IN THE PLAN FOR SALVATION DOES NOT EQUATE TO BEING SAVED. EVERYONE IS INCLUDED IN THE PLAN OF SALVATION, INCLUDING MUSLIMS, BUT THAT IN NO WAY ENTAILS THE SALVATION OF INDIVIDUALS. We all make that choice ourselves, whether or not to accept Christ, and God alone is the final judge of our salvation. Muslims, being Muslim and dying Muslim, without having faith in Jesus Christ, are not likely to make it to Heaven (pending an extraordinary grace of Jesus Christ). However, they are included in Christ's plan, as all are, as He DIED FOR ALL on the cross!

And yes, Catholics believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation. There is a lot about this in the Catechism if you want information on being Baptised, Baptism of desire, Baptism of blood, etc. I'm sorry you disagree, but I can't convince you of something you don't want to be convinced of.

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
I wish I had more time, I know I appear rude with the hit and run posts, but that's the way it is right now.

Be patient, and God will lead you in all the right directions.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Then the Catechism should say all are included, not First are the Muslims.

And the theif on the cross was never Baptised, but he was saved. Baptism is a display of faith, nothing more.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Then the Catechism should say all are included, not First are the Muslims.

And the theif on the cross was never Baptised, but he was saved. Baptism is a display of faith, nothing more.

Brother Curtis,

If you want to have an objective conversation with me about the Catechism, I'm going to polite ask you to get a full copy (purchase, library, or bookmark the free online copy so it's easily accessable).

You're taking paragraph 841 and pretending it's its own self-explanatory document. Try reading the whole section 836-856. You'll read about the Jews, other Christians outide the Catholic Church, the Church in its missions, etc. This paragraph is a reaching out to Muslims who "claim" to worship God the Father, God the God of Abraham. It may be superficial, but we have a common ground with which to aid us in bringing them to the Triune God.

I politely ask you to stop pushing on this when I'm telling you, flat out, that you have taken this 100% out of context and outside of the mission of the Church.

As for the thief on the cross:

Paragraph 1258:
The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This &lt;i&gt;Baptism of blood&lt;/i&gt;, like the &lt;i&gt;desire for Baptism&lt;/i&gt;, brings about the fruits of Baptism without the sacrament.

Or take this from the first paragraph on the necessity of Baptism (Paragraph 1257):
"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

The thief did not have this opportunity, so he is not bound by it in the same way that you and I are.

The Catholic Church is well aware of the infinite mercy of God the Father. Just as we are commanded to obey His law, when we mess up, that's not the end for us. Through God's grace and mercy, there is always an exception.

God bless you,

Grant

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Grant, I posted the source, I posted the source, I posted the source. You hate the source, but if it was slander, the RCC would have pressed charges. The document clearly states "First are the Muslims". David Cloud may be hated by Catholics, but he does his homework.

The document is John Paul II's own words. It hasn't been changed, and that is only one point of it. You seem stuck, and I only posted this stuff to support my view of the Church of the Last days.

Baptism does not save, I disagree with the document you quoted.

[ November 13, 2002, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Grant, I posted the source, I posted the source, I posted the source. You hate the source, but if it was slander, the RCC would have pressed charges. The document clearly states "First are the Muslims". David Cloud may be hated by Catholics, but he does his homework.

The document is John Paul II's own words. It hasn't been changed, and that is only one point of it. You seem stuck, and I only posted this stuff to support my view of the Church of the Last days.

Baptism does not save, I disagree with the document you quoted.

And you are ignoring Grant's point.

"You're taking paragraph 841 and pretending it's its own self-explanatory document. Try reading the whole section 836-856."

Have you gone to the Catechism and read the whole context of it? It would not seem so.

Ron

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So now I need somebody to explain the Cathecism, and the Bible....

The Bible explains it'self just fine.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation ... thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."


How do I not understand this ? The way it is written, Baptists can't be saved. It's in plain english. Those who reject the Catholic Church can't be saved. That's what it says.

And it is wrong!!!!

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Grant, I posted the source, I posted the source, I posted the source. You hate the source, but if it was slander, the RCC would have pressed charges. The document clearly states "First are the Muslims". David Cloud may be hated by Catholics, but he does his homework.

The actual quote is, "The plan for salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims." Do you know any other religions that acknowledge the Creator? I can only think of the Jews, who are covered in Paragraphs 839-840.

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
The document is John Paul II's own words. It hasn't been changed, and that is only one point of it. You seem stuck, and I only posted this stuff to support my view of the Church of the Last days.

What is your point? First, although the text is promulgated by John Paul II, and I don't think the man wrote the whole book by himself (I could be wrong). Second, I am not stuck at all. I don't have a problem with the text like you, and that angers you.

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Baptism does not save, I disagree with the document you quoted.

Fine and dandy. That doesn't equate to a contradiction, though, so you can stop arguing it as one.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
So now I need somebody to explain the Cathecism, and the Bible....

The Bible explains it'self just fine.

You really didn't listen to me. I never said you needed someone to explain the Catechism. I said to not take one paragrah out of a section and make THAT its OWN SELF-EXPLANITORY DOCUMENT. Just as the Bible must be read in the context of the rest of each book, chapter, and surrounding verses, so must you read an entire section to fully understand the context of the words of paragraph 841. Now you really are starting to libel.

God bless,

Grant