Savage Remarks on RCC

[The Galatian]

Yes, I maintain that one cannot seriously believe in Catholic doctrine and be a Christian at the same time.

So you admit you do exactly what you falsely accused the Catholic Church of doing.

The two frameworks of theology are diametrically opposed to each other. One preaches a false gospel of works.

Catholics just accept all of the Bible, instead of parts. So when Jesus says that He will decide if we go with Him, or with Satan, depending on our works, we believe Him. When scripture says that faith saves, we believe that, too. If you accept all of it, that is what you will believe.

Furthermore, I will not include all Protestants (for I know much better), but I will maintain that Baptists throughout history have not persecuted anyone.

I think most Baptists have been more sinned against, than sinning in that regard, with the sole exception of slavery and segregation. And I suspect a good number of them were actually opposed to both.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by The Galatian:

Yes, I maintain that one cannot seriously believe in Catholic doctrine and be a Christian at the same time.

[qb]

So you admit you do exactly what you falsely accused the Catholic Church of doing.

Absolutely not!
A Baptist believes that you can believe in whatever heresy you want. That is soul liberty. It is freedom of religion. It is a basic human right that the Catholic Church has denied throughout the centuries to millions, and in some countries to this very day still denies.
We may preach against heresy, but we don't deny your right to believe in whatever heresy you want to hold. You are posting here are you not?

The two frameworks of theology are diametrically opposed to each other. One preaches a false gospel of works.

Catholics just accept all of the Bible, instead of parts. So when Jesus says that He will decide if we go with Him, or with Satan, depending on our works, we believe Him. When scripture says that faith saves, we believe that, too. If you accept all of it, that is what you will believe.

You really have to be joking here, aren't you. In reality you believe very little of the Bible, but have taken away from it, and have added to it.
For example: you don't believe the straightforward statements of Scripture:

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[Melanie]

You really have to be joking here, aren't you. In reality you believe very little of the Bible, but have taken away from it, and have added to it.
For example: you don't believe the straightforward statements of Scripture....


well that is a matter of interpretation eh....as a Catholic I actually believe in the Bible, but this can be quite tedious to explain to those who will not see ( granted that this is a point which is used against Catholics by non catholics).

I also believe in Holy Mother Church and this is a point of profound deviation by Christians.

Rejoice in the Risen Christ Alleluia.

 

[BobRyan]

The question of Anathemas does not begin to comprehend the problem as stated by RCC sources THEMSELVES!!

The power that controlled all of Europe declared the proper course to be "extermination" --

Catholic Digest 11/1997 pg 100
The question:
A Baptist family who lives across the street gave me a book called the “Trail of Blood”, by J.M. Carroll. It attacks Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism, indulgences, purgatory, and so on. But I am writing to learn if there is anything in history that would justify the following quotation:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
“The world has Never seen anything to compare with the persecution heaped upon the Baptists by the Catholic hierarchy of the Dark Ages. The Pope was the world’s dictator. This is why the Anabaptists before the Reformation called the Pope the Anti-Christ”. Then: “Fifty million died by persecution over a period of 1200 years because of the Catholic Church”

The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan:

“There weren’t any Baptists until 1609, generally thought of as a year occurring after the Dark Ages. (that is why the article above includes Anabaptists) Anabaptists (means anti-baptism of infants – so they re-baptized them as adults) means “re-baptizers” and was a name given to groups existing in the 3rd, 4th, 11th and 12th centuries but they had no connection with the violent civil-religious (Catholic) reformers who appeared in 1521 at Zwickau in Saxony. These 16th century Anabaptists rejected Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism and Lutheran justification by faith, among other things, and intended to substitute a new “Kingdom of God” for the social and civil order of their time. John Leyden was proclaimed King of New Sion at Munster where museums and libraries were destroyed and polygamy was introduced. This group AND Many others were Exterminated during the Peasants Wars by a Combination of civil and religious authority. Whether they were persecuted or punished depends on your point of view”

</font>[/QUOTE]In the article above – Fr. Ken Ryan makes the meaning of “extermination” of that group and “many other groups” clear for modern readers.
Catholic apologists like Catholic Digest’s Fr. Ken Ryan quoted above often argue that the RCC isn't accountable for the Inquisition, since the state carried out the torturing and the executions. It was the RCC who defined these people as "heretics", however, and the RCC handed them over to the state (John 19:11).
[/quote]

 

[BobRyan]

Why does Fr. Ken Ryan feel so free to use the term "exterminate"??


We know from the decrees of Popes and councils that the RCC viewed itself as having authority over the state.

The Fourth Lateran Council, for example, the ecumenical council that dogmatized transubstantiation, declared (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/lat4-c3.html):

”Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that
whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the
supreme pontiff [the Pope], that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those
who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

Other councils, such as Vienna, issued anti-Semitic decrees that ordered the persecution of Jews. The persecution of other groups, such as the Waldensians, was also ordered by the RCC.
For example, Pope Innocent VIII issued a bull in 1487 ordering that people "rise up in arms against" and "tread under foot" the Waldensians.
Roman Catholic and former Jesuit Peter de Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ (Crown Publishers, 1988),

"Of eighty popes
in a line from the thirteenth century on not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the Inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine."

================================================================

The Catholic historian von Dollinger writes in The Pope and the Council,

"From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards
heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation; every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor....It was only the absolute dictation of the Popes, and the notion of their infallibility in all questions of Evangelical morality, that made the Christian world...[accept] the Inquisition, which contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been
rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church."

Consider the following news stories from the Vatican City.

Vatican Hosts Inquisition Symposium

By CANDICE HUGHES

.c The Associated Press

VATICAN CITY (AP) – The Vatican assembled a blue-ribbon panel of scholars Thursday to examine the Inquisition and declared its readiness to submit the church's darkest institution to the judgment of history.

The three-day symposium is part of the Roman Catholic Church's countdown to 2000. Pope John Paul II wants the church to begin the new millennium with a clear conscience, which means facing up to past sins.

For many people, the Inquisition is one of the church's worst transgressions. For centuries, ecclesiastical ``thought police'' tried, tortured and burned people at the stake for heresy and other crimes.

``The church cannot cross the threshold of the new millennium without pressing its children to purify themselves in repentance for their errors, infidelity, incoherence,'' Cardinal Roger Etchegaray said, opening the conference.

The inquisitors went after Protestants, Jews, Muslims and presumed heretics. They persecuted scientists like Galileo. They banned the Bible in anything but Latin, which few ordinary people could read.

The Inquisition began in the 13th century and lasted into the 19th. An index of banned books endured even longer, until 1966. And it was 1992 before the church rehabilitated Galileo, condemned for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

The symposium, which gathers experts from inside and outside the church, is the Vatican's first critical look at the church's record of repression.

Among other things, it will give scholars a chance to compare notes on what they've found in the secret Vatican archives on the Inquisition, which the Holy See only recently opened.

``The church is not afraid to submit its past to the judgment of history,'' said Etchegaray, a Frenchman who leads the Vatican's Commission on the Grand Jubilee.

Closed to the public and press, the symposium is not expected to produce any definitive statement from the Vatican on the Inquisition. That is expected in 2000 as part of the grand ``mea culpa'' at the start of Christianity's third millennium.

The great question is whether the pontiff will ask forgiveness for the sins of the church's members, as it did with the Holocaust, or for the sins of the church itself. Unlike the Holocaust, the Inquisition was a church initiative authorized by the popes themselves.

Etchegaray on Thursday swept aside the idea that it can be seen a series of local campaigns whose excesses might be blamed on secular authorities. There was only one Inquisition, he said, and it was undeniably an ecclesiastical institution.

The pontiff may give a hint as to his thinking on Saturday, when he meets with participants in the conference.

About 50 scholars from Europe, the United States and Latin America are taking part.

AP-NY-10-29-98 1403EST

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:

I also believe in Holy Mother Church and this is a point of profound deviation by Christians.

Rejoice in the Risen Christ Alleluia. [/QB]

Where did you get the belief that Church is your Mother?


Paul says in Gal 4:
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all .

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


Paul is talking about Sarah as our Mother in faith. Please read carefully that chapter.

This is confirmed by Peter too.

1 Peter 3:6

Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are , as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement


Do you notice your First Pope Peter declares you are the daughter of Sarah ?


-We, the True Believers, are the temple of God where Holy Spirit dwells in ( 1 Cor 3:16, 6:19)
- Church (ekklesia) means the Assembly of such True Believers whose Head is Jesus Christ ( Eph 1:22-23)
- Church is the Bride of Jesus Christ as well ( Eph 5:23-25, Rev 21:2)
- We are the members of the Church, the Body of Christ ( Eph 5:30- We are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones)
- Jesus Christ is the Head of the Body, the Church ( Colossians 1:18)

Therefore, we are the members of the Church. Church is formed of ourselves, not the Mother.

You may call Mary as your Mother, but you can find such words or such logic nowhere in the Bible, but the Bible says Sarah is your Mother.

B-G,

What if you find the Tradition of Roman Catholic Church contradict Bible Scripture?
Will you follw the Tradition ignoring the Bible?

Here are the teachings for that:

Mark 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition , which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men , after the rudiments F8 of the world, and not after Christ.


Which would you choose to follow if Tradition and Bible Scripture contradict each other?

Would you say Tradition of Roman Catholic Church is always correct?

Sometimes even Pope or Council change the doctrines, they try to rescind Limbo, or they are quiet about No Salvation outside Holy Roman Catholic Church. They now retreat from Papal Infallibility to limit to Ex-Cathera.

What do you think about?

 

[The Galatian]

Papal inafallibility, BTW, was always limited by ex cathedra.

And while there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, there certainly is salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, as Pope Paul observed.

"Catholic" by itself, has always meant the body of believers in the world.

 

[Matt Black]

Re: the anathemata of Trent: as Galatian observes, these only technically apply to people who wish to regard themselves as Roman Catholics, and have indeed been matched by similar condemnations on the Protestant side eg: the Lutheran Book of Concord. They were also based on a not-quite accurate belief that the Catholic Church had at that time of what Lutherans in particular believed: the Catholics thought that the Lutheran sola fide doctrine meant that Lutherans believed that Christians could engage in all kinds of licentious and antinomian behaviour with impunity. No serious Lutheran theologian asserts that anymore than any serious Catholic theologian will assert salvation by works.

You may be interested to know that both Catholics and Lutherans have recognised this 16th century 'talking past each other' in the JOINT DECLARATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH

Re: extra ecclesiam nulla salus, I can do little better than direct people to LUMEN GENTIUM in particular paras 14-16 from which the passage earlier quoted in the Catechism is drawn. Note that it refers to those who "know that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation". Two ways of responding to that: one is that 'Catholic Church' means all Christians everywhere (as Pope Paul VI made clear); or, that if one isn't a Catholic, then we cannot be said to 'know' that the RCC is 'necessary for salvation', and that therefore that anathema does not apply to us. For example - I left the Catholic Church 20 years ago; I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation (if I did, I'd still be a Catholic); therefore that condemnation does not apply to me.

 

[The Galatian]

Quite so. What frightens the haters is not so much that the RC Church is hateful to other faiths, but that it is accepting of them.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Quite so. What frightens the haters is not so much that the RC Church is hateful to other faiths, but that it is accepting of them.

Why did RC kill so many people either by Inquisition or by Proxy War?

Did they torture them and kill them without hatreds?

Just one of many :

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1676.cfm

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Quite so. What frightens the haters is not so much that the RC Church is hateful to other faiths, but that it is accepting of them.

This is a frightening thought and quite true. It is a turn about and for a good reason. The Catholic Church, as you say has become quite accepting of other faiths. It's Catechism says that even the Muslims are saved.
Catholicism has become very ecumenical. Pope John Paul was accepting of almost everyone. He invited Yasser Arafat, who came and saw him, the world's renowned terrorist. People from all persuasions and walks of like came to see the pope and sought his blessing.
Consider:
The most renowned of the Catholic apologists is Scott Hahn (that I know of). Hahn admits that 1Peter was written from Rome, and as it says in the last chapter was written from Babylon, thereby equating Babylon to Rome. Rome = Babylon. Thus Rome is the great whore of Revelation 17, not simply Rome the city, but the vatican in particular.
That great "church" described there is a one-world church that encompasses all churches (denominations), relitions, etc. The RCC is working very hard to attract all religions under the umbrella of Catholicism. It is very ecumenical and has its tentacles in every nation in the world. Some day it will be a one-world church, and the Pope will be the head (the second beast spoken of in Revelation 13). It is indeed frightening to see these things happening right now, right under our noses, so to speak. The end is near. Christ is coming soon. Hallelujah!
DHK

 

[The Galatian]

This is a frightening thought and quite true. It is a turn about and for a good reason. The Catholic Church, as you say has become quite accepting of other faiths. It's Catechism says that even the Muslims are saved.

Not quite. It says that they can be saved. God can save whomever He choses. But a person who, living in a Muslim country, or even a person living in an officially atheist state where religion is forbidden, can still be saved.

Catholicism has become very ecumenical.

Hatred is kind of unCatholic. It's really unBaptist, too, for most Baptists.

Pope John Paul was accepting of almost everyone. He invited Yasser Arafat, who came and saw him, the world's renowned terrorist. People from all persuasions and walks of like came to see the pope and sought his blessing.

It's all Jesus's fault. He was always hanging around with sinners. Scandalous. Pharaisees condemned him, too. But we are called to be an imitation of Christ, and our churches are not for the saved, but for those in need of salvation.

The most renowned of the Catholic apologists is Scott Hahn (that I know of). Hahn admits that 1Peter was written from Rome, and as it says in the last chapter was written from Babylon, thereby equating Babylon to Rome. Rome = Babylon. Thus Rome is the great whore of Revelation 17, not simply Rome the city, but the vatican in particular.

Jack Chick would have loved you. But more important, God loves you. Even if you can't bring yourself to love His people.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by riverm:
Uhhh, I’ve read the Bible, but who says your Cultic interpretation is better than mine?

It’s 100% obvious that the Bible teaches that the soul lives on after death. The New Testament shows various places that the dead are ALIVE in Christ, not in some state of unconsciousness and that the Scripture you quote refers to those Corinthians that are sick and do you sleep when you are ill? The sleep Paul is referring to is a physical sleep brought on by illness, not a spiritual sleep brought on by death.

As a matter of fact Jesus Christ Himself corrected the Sadducees OT belief of the state of the dead, by stating that God is the God of the living not of the dead... [/QB]

You don't distinguish between Sleep and Death, and Resurrection issue.

I didn't say that the dead people died completly and doesn't resurrect again. The Dead people are ALIVE in Gods' eyes and will resurrect again, but in the meantime until they resurrect, they are sleeping. That is the expression used by Jesus when He mentioned about Lazarus " Our friend Lazarus sleepeth " ( John 11:11)

" I may awake him out of sleep " ( John 11:11)

Is Jesus Cultic?

Read the Bible again,
1 Cor 11:30, many are weak and sickly among you, and many asleep. What does it mean by asleep ?

1 Cor 15:20
Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept.
( What does it mean by slept?)

1 Thessalonians 4: 14
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.

( What is sleep here?)

1 Thessalonians 4: 15
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

(Who are alive and who are asleep? )

After death they take the rest, and therefore praying to the dead person is a nonsense.

Ecclesiastes 9:5

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing , neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

This means that Dead people are still alive in God's view and wait for the resurrection either of Damnation or of Life as we read John 5:29

John 5:29
And (the hour) shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

I never deny the resurrection and the dead will rise again.

As for me, I was born again when I read Galatian 2:20 and had the same experience as John Wesley had on May 24, 1738. Do you have such experience of change in your life, and have established the personal relationship with God?
Before I was born again, I was one of the members at a church like Methodists and was baptized by sprinkling the water and defended for the existence of God quite well but there was no change of my life.
If you don't have such experience of conversion, you may have not been born again in Jesus by Holy Spirit. Please note that Wesley was already a Priest of Anglican Church and went to Georgia as a missionary, but he didn't have such experience and was very much challenged by Moravian Brethren and later on he was converted when he heard the message from Peter Boeler, the Moravian Missionary. The most of the Methodist doctrines were learned from Moravian Brethren.


Galatian asks me about whether I am JW. I am so-called Plymouth Brethren. The reason why I say so-called is because they deny any name of denomination but the outsiders call us as PB.
We deny denomination as 1 Cor 1:11-17 disapproves any denomination. As there was no Presbytarian Church of Rome or Methodist Church of Ephesus, or Corinthian Catholic Church at all in the Bible, we deny any denomination name but gather together in the name of Jesus Christ as Matt 18:20 mentions.

PB's share the same doctrines in most of the doctrinal issues, but the difference exist in the practices such as Baptism by immersion, Lord's Supper every week as per 1 Cor 11:23-30 and Acts 20:7, No Pastor except Elders and Deacons, Head Covering for the women as 1 Cor 11:1-16, calling each other Brothers and Sisters as Matt 23:8-11, etc.

If you read carefully the literatures by John Wesley, you can confirm that Dead people are expressed as sleeping.


Isaiah 8:19

should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead ?
If you check any faithful Methodist scholars, they will say that the prayer to the dead is ridiculous and is against their faith.

[ April 20, 2006, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
Consider:
The most renowned of the Catholic apologists is Scott Hahn (that I know of). Hahn admits that 1Peter was written from Rome, and as it says in the last chapter was written from Babylon, thereby equating Babylon to Rome. Rome = Babylon. Thus Rome is the great whore of Revelation 17, not simply Rome the city, but the vatican in particular.

Er... how does 'Rome the City' become 'The Vatican'; surely John is talking here about the pagan Roman Empire, which had demised by the end of the fifth century. I'm not sure how you leap from that to the Catholic Church and the Vatican...

 

[Living_stone]

Excuse me...but when is the Catholic Church going to give America and the world an apology for their false doctrines, the support of child molestors, and the ensuing cover-up without having to be dragged into court?

Um, false doctines aside (for they dont' believe them to be false and so they won't apologize for them) but I think it's pretty ignorant to claim they "support child molesters". A few higher authorities made poor decisions - blame them, that's fine. But don't blame the entire church. That's just rediculous. This problem is just as rampant on the Protestant side of the fence, but we don't hear about it because no particular protestant church is nearly as visible as the Catholic Church.

I don't like nor agree with some of the things Savage said...but this is certainly no time for the high and mighty Catholic Church to get sanctimonious and offended.

It's my understanding that:

A) This protesting is the work of a local bishop. It's not some official program from Rome.

B) Why woudn't you get offended if someone said that "the smart people won't go near you because everyone in your church is a pedophile so you must prey on the ignorant masses". That's an ignorant statement.

Can't we defend out brothers in Christ ever? Don't you think this is even a bit childish?

You see, Roman Catholicism is based on a misunderstanding of one verse. That's just one verse, but we can trace our traditions back to the NT and we have dozens and dozens of examples to back them up.

I suppose I'm sympathetic to the underdogs...

It's my understanding that there are more than one scriptural reasons to back up the catholic claim, and there are historical claims extending well before Constantine too...it's something I've wrestled with for years.

I don't know if this will help, but this site has been bothering me for a while because...it seems to make some sense.

The most renowned of the Catholic apologists is Scott Hahn (that I know of). Hahn admits that 1Peter was written from Rome, and as it says in the last chapter was written from Babylon, thereby equating Babylon to Rome. Rome = Babylon. Thus Rome is the great whore of Revelation 17, not simply Rome the city, but the vatican in particular.

That doesn't seem to follow necessarily. Revelation was written well before the Catholis "took over" Rome - and the Vatican didn't even exist for like a thousand years if I recall. Dan Brown, in his infamous book, claims that Constantine tried to give power to "the vatican power base" which is just silly because it didn't exist as such - though there was a pope even then.