Michael Wrenn
New Member
I am simply wondering about the seeming contradiction of accepting other denominations' baptisms but then not allowing those Christians to take communion in a RC church.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Catholic Church
- Thread starter milby
- Start date
- Status
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
Christians should not have fellowship in the Catholic Church. The Catholic institution is an idolatrous organization and The Word of God forbids us to fellowship with such.
Ephesians 5:11 (KJV) And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Why are you reading something into my posts that is not there? On second thought, you do that quite often.
I am not wishing that I could go take communion in the RCC, I am simply pointing out and asking about a seeming inconsistency that they have, hoping maybe one of our Roman Catholic members will answer.
Oh, btw, during my college days, I did an internship for a social work/sociology class with a RC nun; she exemplified the Gospel like few whom I have seen -- including some here.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
You must be mistaken. Nuns do not "exemplify the Gospel". Their object of worship is not the Lord Jesus Christ. What she probably exemplified is her adoration for her idol Mary.
No one can "exemplify the Gospel" except the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 15 reveals what the Gospel is:
1 Corinthians 15:1 (KJV) Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
There is the Gospel. Now, did your RC nun get crucified, buried, and then raise herself from the dead? I am willing to bet she didn't.
Last edited by a moderator:
My best friend did exactly as you stated here, became a Baptist...
he asked his former priest if RCC saw him condemned, was like pulling teeth, finally priest told him that he was, but could still repent and be saved if back to Mother Church!
he was told that the RCC sees protestants saved IF in "willful ignornace" of oficial RCC teachings, but IF , like you anf him, know the truth and reject it, than God repudiates you, as that is a Mortal Sin!
LOL, Ive rejected the RC Church of my youth & into my 30's so its good to know what these papists truly believe & what they think of my walk with Christ. Ive also rejected other so called Christian churches as apostate & secular .... Guess what? They also would make similar statements about my salvation. Hence I am concerned with what God thinks not men & their man made religions. :godisgood:
And yet there are many now, like myself, that are rejecting the church of their youth and heading straight to the Church founded on Peter. As a Baptist I didn't use bigoted language like 'papists' or make the kind of disparaging remarks you make about Catholics. You really need to grow up.
And, by the way, by reading your past posts regarding the CC, it is obvious you never knew what the Catholic Church truly teaches.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please put the shoe on the other foot. The word has been used before the 1700's. Look in older Protestant commentaries. It is a common word. Do you also know that Catholics use the term "born again's as a slur against Baptists, and the name "anabaptist" was a vile name against a our forefathers, who simply baptized others on confession of their faith. You need to grow up.
Go to this link:
It gives lines of apostolic succession. Scroll down until you come to this one.
Roman - Old Catholic Succession
The first will be Peter at 64 A.D. and will continue through all the various popes. And then somehow it will end here:
Rodney P. Rickard - April 26, 1997
Wil Michael Wrenn - May 10, 2003
Is this what you believe?
Your post is missing the link but I'm familiar with it already. His line of apostolic succession is through Antioch, so yes, I believe it! And whether or not Arch-bishop Wrenn is in communion with Rome or not has nothing to do with whether or not his succession is valid or not (IMHO) and it is sad to see the many disparaging remarks and the amount of disrespect shown to this man of God on a Christian forum such as this one.
DHK, Archbishop Fulton Sheen once wrote: 'There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church; there are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.' You, I belive, fall into that first category.
Last edited by a moderator:
No church was founded on Peter or by Peter. When Paul was explicitly speaking of laying the foundation upon which the church at Corinth was built he said:
"There is no other foundation laid than Jesus Christ" - 1 Cor. 3:11
That is clear and explicit langauge.
However, Matthew 16:13-18 contains no such explicit and clear language but must be INTEPRETED to fit the Catholic ecclessiology.
For example, Christ does not say "Thou art Peter and upon YOU I will build my Church"
If Christ would have said that, it would be explicit and clear as 1 Cor. 3:11. But he did not say that.
Indeed, he said everything to prevent that intepretation.
1. The Context is about who is Christ not Peter - vv. 13-17
2. The question of the context was not directed merely to Peter but to all the disciples.
3. Jesus uses the second person singular when he says "Thou art Peter" but a THIRD PERSON singular when he says "upon THIS rock"
4. The nearest antecedent to the THIRD PERSON "this" in Matthew 16:18 is "this" in verse 17 which in turn has for its nearest antecedent Peter's testimony of Christ in verse 15.
5. The giving of the keys to Peter in Mt. 18:18 is merely in his characterization of the material Christ uses to build UPON THAT ROCK His church. This is proven by the application of the keys to a plural "you" in Matthew 18:18 which has for its antecedent "the church" in verse 17. This is proven by Peter's analogy of the church composed of "lively stones" in 1 Pet.2:5 and by Peter's identification of the "rock" (petra) as Christ in 1 Pet. 2:8.
Rome refuses to recognize all this contrary evidence to their INTERPRETATION of Matthew 16:18-19. They refuse to see that their INTERPRETATION is in direct contradiction to 1 Cor. 3:11 and the exclusive words "there is no other foundation" than Jesus Christ to build the church upon.
You need to repent and return from apostasy.
Starnge that the Bible NEVERS grants to peter the primacy among the Apsotles though!
James head of Jerusalem Church, the vatican of the day, and peter seen equal to him and John there!
Paul was same authority as peter, even rebuking him...
peter saw pauls letters equal to OT prophets...
Where is this allenged supremacy from?
Also, the outright denial by Peter of any supremacy over other Elders - 1 Pet. 5:1-3
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
There is no "Apostolic Succession".
Revelation 21:14 makes it clear that there are no more than 12 Apostles.
Revelation 21:14 makes it clear that there are no more than 12 Apostles.
http://www.celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/
It is under apostolic lines.
But surely you can't believe what he believes and the RCC at the same time. On his home page he repudiates openly what the RCC believes, the entire RCC church.
There is no line of succession. I can prove to you that Peter was never in Rome, but it will take more time than I have right now. Take a look at his line of succession. Go to Celestine. Notice that Celestine actually resigned. There was no Pope for a period of two years. The succession was broken right there. Celestine was actually imprisoned. I find that hilarious. The cardinals imprisoned their own pope because he wanted to live a pious and ascetic life, closer to God, then he could by being a Pope. What a lark!
The disparaging remarks are unnecessary. You are right, and some infractions have been handed out because of it. However he does believe in some heresies. Those are doctrines outside of orthodox Christianity. They need to be pointed out. No Bible-believing Christian would believe in some of the things that he believes in. They are listed in a thread that is now closed.
FYI, Bishop Fulton Sheen was a heretic. I don't hold a lot of respect for him. I hate the doctrines of the RCC and any organization that points people to hell rather than heaven.
That has nothing to do with whether or not he holds valid Apostolic Succession. I have great respect for him dispite his position on the Catholic Church.
DHK, you seem to have indicated that EWF's bigoted remarks are ok because Catholics have made those kinds of statements about Baptists (or who you THINK were Baptists) in the past. Since when do two wrongs make a right or is 'any enemy of my enemy is my friend'?
Perhaps I just disagree with you. I don't find the word "papist" a "bigoted" or offensive term. It is part of our English language and a term that people have referred to those who follow the teachings of the Pope. I come across the term in older Protestant commentaries quite often.
My My .... a tad bit bitter I see. So then if your the big Catholic lover around here....why dont you enlighten us all since your the prevaor of RC understanding, you have it down pat.....oh thats right, your a recent catholic want to be, so you can clarify my 32 years as being one?
1st thing you need to realize little catholic want to be is that God called His followers to reject the ways of the world and follow Him. Thomas Aquinas said "Grace builds on Nature" Thats why the Israelites spent 40 years wandering the desert....a generation of slaves with slave mentality had to die off so a new people, both tough & strong could emerge. Most catholics today are really like those slave Jews..... not capable of dealing with God's truth or the truth of their own evil. Can you at least admit little catholic want to be, since you dont like the descriptively precise term "papist", that evil is everywhere in the world & is also deep within the RC Church? I know that you have this love affair with the RC Church...even after we have told you specifically what is wrong with them, but you continue in your fool hearty zeal for these falsely Christian people.
I am in New Jersey and if you disagree with my assessment then I can hook you up with SNAP ( Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) & maybe thats who you should speak to.
They (as practicing catholics still) will enunciate about all the evil that has festered as a result of this RC Church .... that has time & again promoted & protected a sense of false spirituality that consistently allows these atrocities to take place. Pope Leo the XIII in his prayer to St. Michael proclaimed that the "Smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary" & St. John Chrysostom stated, "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of RC bishops!"
I concur! Thats why I am a Radical orthodox Christian today & completely opposed to this false spirituality. :jesus:
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status