The $100,000 Roman Catholic Question.

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Dig deeper. Calvinism didn't originate with Calvin. Calvin took his ideas (almost plagiarized) them from Augustine (one of the devout heroes of the Catholic faith). Calvin almost worshiped Augustine. Augustine was a thorough "Calvinist" if there ever was one. Check your history.

HP: Never were words more truthfully spoken.

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

Unless I am mistaken, you have chosen to ignore something I've posted to you.

After I said this...

"Differing groups do indeed emphasize different aspects of teaching, just as God told us to expect....

"Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind, for who are you to judge anothers servant" and "to his own master he will stand or fall, and God is able to make him stand"

God told us that some are an eye, some are a hand, and some an ear. But God gives the increase, and He causes all things to work together for good.

God instructs us to allow the differences."

I asked you this...

"But let me ask you this. Since these differences trouble you so, and you seem to like the "Catholic" style of so called "unity", which of these Catholic groups have it right?...


Adrian Dominican Sisters
Amadeans
Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Apostolic Union of Secular Priests
Assumptionists
Augustinian Sisters, Servants of Jesus and Mary
Austrian Congregation

Baladites
Baptistines
Barnabites
Latin Basilians
Benedictine Confederation
Bethlehemites
Boni Homines
Bridgettines
Brothers Hospitallers of St. John of God
Brothers of Our Lady of Mercy
Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament
Consecrated life (Catholic Church)
Daughters of Divine Charity
Daughters of the Cross
Daughters of the Holy Spirit
Discalceation
Dominican Nuns of the Perpetual Rosary
Dominican Order
Fathers of Mercy
Fonte Avellana
Franciscan
Franciscan Apostolic Sisters
Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn
Franciscan Missionary Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
Jesuati

Knights of Saint Mary
Knights of the Cross


Marianist Family
Marist Sisters
Maryknoll Sisters of St. Dominic
Mercy International Centre
Militia Templi

Oblate Sisters of Providence
Oblates of St. Joseph
Olivetans
Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration
Presentation Sisters
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter

Religious Sisters of Mercy
Resurrectionist Order
Rogationists

(there was about 10 times this many, but I had to delete most of them to not exceed the charachter limit for each post)"

I'll repeat.

All of those Catholic groups do not all believe the exact same things. There are great differences from group to group.

Since you seem to need for the Catholic Church to command everyone exactly what everyone must believe, which one of those hundreds..(the link in my 1st post will take to all of the hundreds)..of differing Catholic groups is the one that is correct, at the exclusion of all the others?

Thanks,

Mike

 

[Jarthur001]

Dig deeper. Calvinism didn't originate with Calvin. Calvin took his ideas (almost plagiarized) them from Augustine (one of the devout heroes of the Catholic faith). Calvin almost worshiped Augustine. Augusine was a thorough "Calvinist" if there ever was one. Check you history.

HP: Never were words more truthfully spoken.

Dig still deeper...

RCC is semi-pelagian and always has been, other then maybe the 1st 100-150 years after Augustine. Arminian claim on their own, they are semi-pelagian.

As to Calvin/Augustine, I would say Calvin used 50-60 % of Augustine, but went way beyond Augustine. Augustine is indeed a hero of the Catholic faith, but so is Peter. We all have reasons to like, love or dislike things as they apply to us. Like..RCC "fathers" use black and white in mass, but that will not stop me from putting on a Tux.

Agreeing with a writer does not mean you worship the writer. Truth did not start with Augustine or for that matter Calvin. If it is not in Gods Word, who should hold to it as gospel? NONE.

On the other hand, if Gods Word up holds the writer, what should we do?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Doubting Thomas,

Unless I am mistaken, you have chosen to ignore something I've posted to you.

[insert]yada,yada,yada[/insert]

I'll repeat.

All of those Catholic groups do not all believe the exact same things. There are great differences from group to group.

Since you seem to need for the Catholic Church to command everyone exactly what everyone must believe, which one of those hundreds..(the link in my 1st post will take to all of the hundreds)..of differing Catholic groups is the one that is correct, at the exclusion of all the others?

Thanks,

Mike

You aren't mistaken--I did ignore that, as I'm not Roman Catholic. If those groups are "officially" apart of the Roman Communion yet choose to deviate from the Apostolic Deposit as proclaimed by the Undivided Church, then they are just as at fault for their private interpretations as are Solo Scripturists.

At any rate, as this is Ash Wednesday I'll refrain further posting until after Easter. God Bless, and have a fruitful Lenten season. :wavey:

DT

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jarthur 001: Truth did not start with Augustine or for that matter Calvin. If it is not in Gods Word, who should hold to it as gospel?

HP: That is precisely why I reject the novel notions Augustine introduced into the church via his heathen studies, i.e., that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will.

 

[Eliyahu]

You aren't mistaken--I did ignore that, as I'm not Roman Catholic. If those groups are "officially" apart of the Roman Communion yet choose to deviate from the Apostolic Deposit as proclaimed by the Undivided Church, then they are just as at fault for their private interpretations as are Solo Scripturists.

At any rate, as this is Ash Wednesday I'll refrain further posting until after Easter. God Bless, and have a fruitful Lenten season. :wavey:

DT

40 days weeping for Tammuz was the famous practice of Babylon as we read Ezekiel 8:14, which was the Lent.
Read this article to learn how much similar between Roman Religion and Babylon Religion, here:
http://www.blessedquietness.com/Web Pages Saved/whoreofbabylon.htm
YOu can read the exactly same title in Jeremiah 44 called by the people, Queen of Heaven, offering the cookies.

Following the paganism is very easy, and even many of Protestants follow some part or trace of such paganism by calling the Day of Resurrection as Easter Day as the goddess name was Eastar as we read Ezekiel 8:14.

BTW do you know why Pope John Paul I died so quickly in a month after his inauguration in 1978? Was his health so bad but nobody knew it?
Watch out the sects inside RCC! Catholics kill other Catholics too as we know that Nazis and Franco in Spain did so.
Sometimes Catholic countries declared the wars each other, sometimes 2 men claimed their own legitimacy for the office of Pope and fought each other. They do many things, do you know?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

40 days weeping for Tammuz was the famous practice of Babylon as we read Ezekiel 8:14, which was the Lent.

Jesus fasted 40 days in the wilderness as we read in Matthew 4:1-2. Hope you have a blessed Lent.:wavey:

 

[DHK]

As to Calvin/Augustine, I would say Calvin used 50-60 % of Augustine, but went way beyond Augustine. Augustine is indeed a hero of the Catholic faith, but so is Peter.

Peter?? That is their claim? Do you also believe in the big bang? How about David Koresh or Jim Jones? Are you gullible? Because the Catholic Church claims something is true does that make it true? What has the Catholic Church in common with Peter?
Peter preached the Word of God; the gospel; he preached against the very things that the RCC believes in.
Peter was married and had a wife. Catholic priests don't.
Peter learned from God that all meat was clean and nothing was to be refused.
To this day there are some Catholics that will only eat fish on Friday.
The Catholic Church has nothing in common with Peter; they only think they do.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Peter?? Are you gullible? Because the Catholic Church claims something is true does that make it true? What has the Catholic Church in common with Peter?

Maybe Matthew 16:13-19 has some significance...

Peter preached the Word of God; the gospel; he preached against the very things that the RCC believes in.

The Gospel? I told you Roman Catholics hear the Gospel everyday at Mass...

Peter was married and had a wife. Catholic priests don't.

Maybe that's a good thing juding from the 'marriage' thread on this board.

Peter learned from God that all meat was clean and nothing was to be refused.
To this day there are some Catholics that will only eat fish on Friday.
The Catholic Church has nothing in common with Peter; they only think they do.

Judging from the Apostolic Fathers, the early church had quite a bit in common with Peter...In regard to fish on Friday's, looks like someone doesn't know the difference between 'doctrine' and 'practices', but that understandable...

 

[Rufus_1611]

Maybe that's a good thing juding from the 'marriage' thread on this board.

Doctrines of devils can never be good things.

"1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3Forbidding 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." - 1 Timothy 4:1-3​

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Doctrines of devils can never be good things.

"1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3Forbidding 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." - 1 Timothy 4:1-3​

The Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They renounce marriage: see Matthew 19:12, no one forbids it to them. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it, due to the temptation of immorality. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:27-34, even makes a case for preferring celibacy to marriage. Paul’s conclusion in verse 38 say’s that he who marries does well and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

After Christ’s teaching on marriage and divorce in Matthew 19, the disciples question Him in Matthew 19:10 about it being better not to marry. Christ responded in Matthew 19:11-12 about the value of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom. For the sake of the kingdom is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people. Other people are called to marriage.

 

[Rufus_1611]

The Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They renounce marriage: see Matthew 19:12, no one forbids it to them. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

They are not forbidding, they are simply selecting from those who volunteer correctly? Thus, if you volunteer to be celibate you may be selected as a priest. If you decide to get married, you can not be a priest, even though there is no Biblical requirement for a vow and the Bible actually says the opposite, for a Bishop should be the husband of one wife.

 

[Eliyahu]

Jesus fasted 40 days in the wilderness as we read in Matthew 4:1-2. Hope you have a blessed Lent.:wavey:

No, Jesus never commanded us to fast 40 days specifically on a certain season. It came from Babylonian religion.
Are you really fasting 40 days, without food, without drink? You may die!

 

[Agnus_Dei]

They are not forbidding, they are simply selecting from those who volunteer correctly? Thus, if you volunteer to be celibate you may be selected as a priest. If you decide to get married, you can not be a priest, even though there is no Biblical requirement for a vow and the Bible actually says the opposite, for a Bishop should be the husband of one wife.

Your interpretation of 1 Timothy 3 is saying an unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven? For one if the husband of one wife really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic ‘keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way’ would mean that he had to have ‘children’. Childless husbands, or even fathers with one child, would not qualify!!!

Also since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements, not of their having met or of candidates for bishops meeting them, it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry. Clearly you interpretation of such literalism must be rejected.

Therefore, clearly Paul’s point is not that he must have a wife, but that he should have ONLY one wife. Truth is it is precisely those who are uniquely ‘concerned about the affairs of the Lord’ as per 1 Corinthians 7:32, those to whom it has been given to ‘renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom’ per Matthew 19:12, who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have ‘left everything’ to follow Christ (Matthew 19:27).

 

[Agnus_Dei]

No, Jesus never commanded us to fast 40 days specifically on a certain season. It came from Babylonian religion.
Are you really fasting 40 days, without food, without drink? You may die!

I didn't know fasting only meant without 'food and water'.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Your interpretation of 1 Timothy 3 is saying an unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven? For one if the husband of one wife really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic ‘keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way’ would mean that he had to have ‘children’. Childless husbands, or even fathers with one child, would not qualify!!!

Also since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements, not of their having met or of candidates for bishops meeting them, it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry. Clearly you interpretation of such literalism must be rejected.

Therefore, clearly Paul’s point is not that he must have a wife, but that he should have ONLY one wife. Truth is it is precisely those who are uniquely ‘concerned about the affairs of the Lord’ as per 1 Corinthians 7:32, those to whom it has been given to ‘renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom’ per Matthew 19:12, who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have ‘left everything’ to follow Christ (Matthew 19:27).

I am not saying the text requires a bishop to be married, I am saying it allows for it and encourages it. The Catholic church does not allow for it, rather discourages it and I would say forbids it because they do not allow any one to take the role who does not volunteer to be celibate. Even when they break this vow of celibacy with an adult female or a child, there is often little to no penalty, but if they break the vow through marriage then they are defrocked.

 

[Eliyahu]

I didn't know fasting only meant without 'food and water'.

Fasting could be some various types. However, when DT quoted Jesus' 40 days, in that case, the type of Fasting was without food, without drinks ( though without drinks can be arguable).
So are you fasting 40 days? If you try to base Lent on what Jesus did, then you must show exactly how Jesus did, and you have to fast 40 days ( at least without food).
Otherwise you may be feasting! with the signboard of Lent.

 

[DHK]

Maybe Matthew 16:13-19 has some significance...

No it doesn't. Jesus was never addressing the RCC. The RCC is a pagan church, always was, and always will be. It certainly wasn't founded on Peter. Its foundation had more to do with that pagan emperor Constantine who made Christianity a state religion and proceeded to introduce pagan idols into this "state religion (now the RCC), which the RCC retain unto this very day.
[quote}The Gospel? I told you Roman Catholics hear the Gospel everyday at Mass...[/quote]
In your dreams. As I have already testified to you, I was a Catholic for 20 years. There is no gospel in the Catholic Church. There is no gospel in the Mass. The Sacrifice of the Mass is not the gospel. It is a blasphemous bloodless re-sacrifice of Christ, who was once sacrificed for our sins the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit. (1Pet.3:18).

Maybe that's a good thing juding from the 'marriage' thread on this board.

Celbacy of priests is called a doctrine of demons in the Bible. Peter was married. Yes marriage is a good thing, blessed and condoned of God throughout the Bible.

Judging from the Apostolic Fathers, the early church had quite a bit in common with Peter...In regard to fish on Friday's, looks like someone doesn't know the difference between 'doctrine' and 'practices', but that understandable...

I understand perfectly the difference, but I don't think you do. You see, our practice arises from our doctrine. If there is no doctrine there would be no practice. But the practice of the RCC arises from idolatry, paganism, extra-Biblical practices, ungodly traditions, and out and out heresies. It is an ungodly pagan institution.

 

[Eliyahu]

The Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Bible, it is built upon the apostles and prophets. Christ did not leave a written book to guide his Church, he left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit


This contains a ridiculous statement.

1. Bible existed before the Roman Catholic church, even before the NT Church was established in Acts 2.
Read 2 Tim 3:16. When Paul mentioned All Scriptures, it means the Old Testaments, all the books of OT.
They existed before any NT church was established. How could a church produce the Bible? I am sure that this statement doesn't believe that Bible is the Word of God which existed before the creation of the World.
Ridiculous and Ignorant Statement!

2. Church is built upon the apostles and prophets.
This sounds better than saying Peter is the foundation of the church.
But read this:

1 Cor 3
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

Yes, the church was built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, with Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone.

Ephesians 2:20
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

You can hardly find " Peter" there. But, who are the prophets mentioned by Paul there? Only the NT prophets? or all the prophets including Elijah who choped out the Idol worshippers who were virtullay the same as today's Roman Catholics?

The people empowered by Holy Spirit do not follow the idol worshippers, goddess worshippers, but have been persecuted by the Whore of Babylon, the Roman Catholic throughout the history.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Fasting could be some various types. However, when DT quoted Jesus' 40 days, in that case, the type of Fasting was without food, without drinks ( though without drinks can be arguable).

I don’t like speaking for others, but my take on DT’s statement to refute your statement of lent was taken from paganism. And I agree with DT, BTW. My view is if even if it could be ‘proven’ lent was of pagan origin, what difference would that really make; as long as the person is fasting or abstaining from something during lent to bring one into a closer relationship with God and His Son leading up to Easter. Even the wedding band on my finger is of pagan origin, but I don’t view it as such.

So are you fasting 40 days?

No, I still have a lot to learn, but I like the idea of Lent, fasting and the feasts, but I haven’t read about these customs yet, and I’d like my whole family to participate. We’re still emerging from fundamentalism, where we were such romophobics.

If you try to base Lent on what Jesus did, then you must show exactly how Jesus did, and you have to fast 40 days ( at least without food).
Otherwise you may be feasting! with the signboard of Lent.

Personally I wouldn’t base lent on what Jesus did per say (no food and water), but I would give up something and use that as a focus for improving my relationship with God and His Son through prayer.