Why The RCC Is A Cult

[McCree79]

The problem with your theory (and it's really more wishful thinking than a theory) is that there is no evidence of a schism before 1054. Neither is there any evidence that a new church sprang up around the time of Constantine. There was one church before Constantine. There was no schism during the reign of Constantine. There was one church after Constantine. It was the same church before and after, except it was quite a bit larger after Constantine.

If there had been one church before Constantine and two churches after Constantine you might have a credible theory, but there were not.

Every church historian with any credibility disagrees with your position. Bruce Shelley (Baptist) and J.N.D. Kelly (Anglican) to name a couple. I've heard Leon McBeth (Baptist) takes the same position although I haven't read any of his books and can't say for sure.

Speaking of Constantine. If baptism is needed to be saved, then the RCC was ran for around 31 years, by a man without any of the "infused righteousness" of Christ. So, was he wasn't even part of the invisible church. Not really a Christian, if baptism is needed for acceptance into God's Kingdom.

Constantine wasn't baptized until right before he died. So, your own Pope must not have been too concerned with the "saving power" of baptism.

 

[lakeside]

McCree, as you say:" Speaking of Constantine. If baptism is needed to be saved, then the RCC was ran for around 31 years, by a man without any of the "infused righteousness" of Christ. So, was he wasn't even part of the invisible church. Not really a Christian, if baptism is needed for acceptance into God's Kingdom.

Constantine wasn't baptized until right before he died. So, your own Pope must not have been too concerned with the "saving power" of baptism.
Today 06:55 AM "

It just proves that Constantine was not the head of the Catholic Church, no Catholic is Catholic unless he/she is baptized. Not one person in history was ever the head of the Catholic Church unless he/she was baptized , including our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus.

 

[McCree79]

McCree, as you say:" Speaking of Constantine. If baptism is needed to be saved, then the RCC was ran for around 31 years, by a man without any of the "infused righteousness" of Christ. So, was he wasn't even part of the invisible church. Not really a Christian, if baptism is needed for acceptance into God's Kingdom.

Constantine wasn't baptized until right before he died. So, your own Pope must not have been too concerned with the "saving power" of baptism.
Today 06:55 AM "

It just proves that Constantine was not the head of the Catholic Church, no Catholic is Catholic unless he/she is baptized. Not one person in history was ever the head of the Catholic Church unless he/she was baptized , including our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus.

Yeah, the first "Pope" wasn't until Leo. But Constantine was running the show.
If the RCC claims Peter as Pope, because he was "head of the church". Then you also get Constantine, who was the head of the future RCC. History is very clear Constantine was in charge. The RCC was built on the foundation that the unbaptized Constantine built.

 

[lakeside]

You say Constantine was head of the RCC -"Roman" Catholic church I'm saying that a Pope is the Successor from Peter from Jesus in the "Catholic Church " . Constantine was not Baptized until his deathbed, no unbaptized person could be anything authoritative or even Catholic.

 

[OldRegular]

I was speaking about the RCC effort to make a god out of Mary; you know the holy quartet instead of the Holy Trinity. Furthermore, the RCC pope is not the vicar of Jesus Christ!

Interesting. I can say Obama is not the President, and I wish he weren't but that doesn't change the truth of the matter.

So you are conceding that The RCCult is attempting to make Mary a member of the Godhead, a quartet instead of the Trinity? Blasphemy!

There have always been dissenters from Rome. There would have been more but Rome had a policy of murdering those who dissented from Rome.

That would ring a lot truer if they had killed their most significant nemeses--Luther and Calvin.

At least you are honest enough to not deny that the RCCult slaughtered its dissenters.

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit indwells all true believers and will guide them to the truth if they are willing to listen. But obviously those in the RCCult are forbidden to listen. Luther listened, Calvin listened, and all those dissenters murdered by Rome listened. And I thank God that Baptists listened and still do.

The Holy Spirit indwells all true believers. No doubt about it. THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT GUIDE ALL BELIEVERS INTO TRUTH. That is the job of the Church.

Except what you call "the Church" is a cult and its head, supposedly the voice of Jesus Christ on earth, is in reality and by definition an antichrist.

Read John 16. Who was Jesus talking to? His disciples, who would become the apostles, the first elders of the Holy Catholic Church. He was not preaching a sermon to the public. If you really think the Holy Spirit leads believers into truth, you are admitting He is the author of confusion.

All true believers should be disciples of Jesus Christ. Sadly many are servants, not of Jesus Christ, but puppets of the pope and the cult called Roman Catholicism!

There are as many versions of truth as there are denominations. I have a much higher view of the Holy Spirit than that. Too bad you don't.

You really need to learn to read Zenas. I present the quote to which you are responding for the 3rd time. I will even bold the pertinent part for your edification.

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit indwells all true believers and will guide them to the truth if they are willing to listen. But obviously those in the RCCult are forbidden to listen. Luther listened, Calvin listened, and all those dissenters murdered by Rome listened. And I thank God that Baptists listened and still do.

Do you understand now. Listen!

 

[OldRegular]

You say Constantine was head of the RCC -"Roman" Catholic church I'm saying that a Pope is the Successor from Peter from Jesus in the "Catholic Church " . Constantine was not Baptized until his deathbed, no unbaptized person could be anything authoritative or even Catholic.

You people have already admitted that infidels and perverts served as pope so why get excited about a little water!

 

[OldRegular]

Yeah, the first "Pope" wasn't until Leo. But Constantine was running the show.
If the RCC claims Peter as Pope, because he was "head of the church". Then you also get Constantine, who was the head of the future RCC. History is very clear Constantine was in charge. The RCC was built on the foundation that the unbaptized Constantine built.

And as historian Schaff states [Volume 2, page 73]:

With Constantine, therefore, the last of the heathen, the first of the Christian, emperors, a new period begins. The church ascends the throne of the Caesars under the banner of the once despised, now honored and triumphant cross, and gives new vigor and lustre to the hoary empire of Rome.[emphasis added]

 

[lakeside]

OldRegular, you wrote; "You people have already admitted that infidels and perverts served as pope so why get excited about a little water! "

Tell that to both Jesus and St.John the Baptist if you are ever that fortunate to meet [T}hem.
__________________

 

[Zenas]

Speaking of Constantine. If baptism is needed to be saved, then the RCC was ran for around 31 years, by a man without any of the "infused righteousness" of Christ. So, was he wasn't even part of the invisible church. Not really a Christian, if baptism is needed for acceptance into God's Kingdom.

Constantine wasn't baptized until right before he died. So, your own Pope must not have been too concerned with the "saving power" of baptism.

Please consult the Protestant historians I just named and you will see that Constantine never "ran" the church. As you just suggested he wasn't even a member of the church. He did call the bishops together at the Council of Nicaea because the Arian controversy was creating strife in the empire. However, he did not vote or attempt to influence the outcome. His only interest was keeping peace within the empire.

 

[McCree79]

Please consult the Protestant historians I just named and you will see that Constantine never "ran" the church. As you just suggested he wasn't even a member of the church. He did call the bishops together at the Council of Nicaea because the Arian controversy was creating strife in the empire. However, he did not vote or attempt to influence the outcome. His only interest was keeping peace within the empire.

Constantine did absolutely influence the outcome. He spoke frequently his point of view. Eye witness account(Eusebius) says he won some with his arguments and others with entreaty.

 

[McCree79]

Constantine did absolutely influence the outcome. He spoke frequently his point of view. Eye witness account(Eusebius) says he won some with his arguments and others with entreaty.

Another quote of eye witness account.

'Urging them to be of one mind, he(Constantine) eventually succeeded in bringing them to agreement on all the issues before them. They were united in the confession of faith, and also about the date of Easter. And each individual put his signature to their common doctrine."

Constantine was leading the council and convinced them of his beliefs.

 

[Zenas]

You really need to learn to read Zenas. I present the quote to which you are responding for the 3rd time. I will even bold the pertinent part for your edification.

Do you understand now. Listen!

I did respond very thoroughly in Post 195. Maybe it is you who isn't reading. However, just in case you missed it, here it is again.

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit indwells all true believers

We agree on this point.

and will guide them to the truth if they are willing to listen.

No that is not true. That is the job of the Church who exercises its teaching role through the Magisterium. Read John 16 and you will see that the only ones present when Jesus made this promise were the apostles--who were about to become the first elders of His church. However, it is obvious that the Holy Spirit doesn't lead all believers to the truth. If He did they would all believe the same thing. The Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion.

But obviously those in the RCCult are forbidden to listen.

Wrong. They do listen and pass their teachings along to the flock. Actually the apostles passed some of their teachings along through scripture.

Luther listened, Calvin listened, and all those dissenters murdered by Rome listened.

I don't know what those guys were listening to but what they heard was not the Holy Spirit. Even the two of them disagreed about many things. As far as those who were executed, Rome did not do it. This was done by the civil authorities and it happened both ways. Calvin urged the killing of a dissenter from his doctrines. Cromwell killed thousands of Catholics. Even Henry Viii found it convenient to kill Thomas Moore.

And I thank God that Baptists listened and still do.

If they did listen there would be nothing to hear. The Holy Spirit leads the Magisterium and there aren't any Baptists in that body. But they don't even listen. They read scripture and interpret it according to their own preconceived notions that ignore the sacraments plainly set out therein and that believe the fairy tale of once saved always saved.

 

[PreachTony]

If they did listen there would be nothing to hear. The Holy Spirit leads the Magisterium and there aren't any Baptists in that body. But they don't even listen.

That is one of the saddest things I've ever read, Zenas. You've made point that Jesus was only speaking to the Apostles. If that was not meant for anyone other than them, even for instruction, then why did God allow it to become part of the written word? Why not preclude the gospel writers from including it, if it was not intended for all.

But all scripture is divine in inspiration, and is profitable for man. Not profitable for some, but profitable for man.

They read scripture and interpret it according to their own preconceived notions that ignore the sacraments plainly set out therein and that believe the fairy tale of once saved always saved.

So when the Holy Ghost of God guided the hand of Paul to pen down the verse "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30)" He was actually instructing Paul to write a fairy tale? That's a sad theology, Zenas.

 

[OldRegular]

If they did listen there would be nothing to hear. The Holy Spirit leads the Magisterium and there aren't any Baptists in that body. But they don't even listen. They read scripture and interpret it according to their own preconceived notions that ignore the sacraments plainly set out therein and that believe the fairy tale of once saved always saved.

So you confess that you are not servants of Jesus Christ but puppets of the pope and teaching magisterium. How pathetic!

Scripture tells us:

John 8:32. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

But you are not free, you are a slave, a puppet, dancing to the tune of the cult masters, the teaching magisterium and the pope. It is because of puppets like you that Rome was able to carry out its bloody extermination of dissenters for hundreds of years during the dark ages of Europe. The puppets were kept ignorant of what Scripture said on penalty of death and blindly followed the priests who they were taught had, not only the power of physical life and death in their hand, but the power of eternal life in their hands. Sadly but truly the marks of an antiChristian Cult!

 

[OldRegular]

That is one of the saddest things I've ever read, Zenas. You've made point that Jesus was only speaking to the Apostles. If that was not meant for anyone other than them, even for instruction, then why did God allow it to become part of the written word? Why not preclude the gospel writers from including it, if it was not intended for all.

But all scripture is divine in inspiration, and is profitable for man. Not profitable for some, but profitable for man.


So when the Holy Ghost of God guided the hand of Paul to pen down the verse "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30)" He was actually instructing Paul to write a fairy tale? That's a sad theology, Zenas.

But realize that Zenas, and all like him are, puppets and believe only what they are told to believe!

 

[Walter]

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit indwells all true believers and will guide them to the truth if they are willing to listen. But obviously those in the RCCult are forbidden to listen. Luther listened, Calvin listened, and all those dissenters murdered by Rome listened. And I thank God that Baptists listened and still do.

Yeah, kinda like the Baptists down the street that just called a pastor that doesn't believe in hell and embraces same-sex marriage! lol BTW, Luther was much closer to the Catholic Faith than he was to yours!

You evangelicals are beginning to embrace all KINDS of heresy. Many have predicted that the evangelical collapse regarding homosexuality will be swift and for the very reason that their biblical interpretation is already so very individualized and they make much of being moved by the Spirit, God speaking to their hearts etc. All the nonsense you support and have been spouting is doing y'all in very quickly. For the most part it always been a house of cards waiting for one strong breeze to knock the whole thing over. Here is another example of what is happening all over evangelical land: http://www.religionnews.com/2015/03...icals-drop-celibacy-requirement-lgbt-members/

 

[Walter]

But realize that Zenas, and all like him are, puppets and believe only what they are told to believe!

Really strange statement from someone who won't even attempt to take a look at anything contrary to what you already believe. You believe what you believe about Catholicism and that settles it. Zenas referred you to books that give a Catholic position that would educate you as to what Catholics actually do believe, not what you assume they believe. I would add another to that list:
'Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic' by David Currie. One of your very own from Moody Bible Institute that FINALLY looked at Catholic teaching honestly. I have been following you too long on BB to know that you would NEVER dream of reading something that challenges what you already believe. However, there may be some on this board that actually wonder if they really have given the Catholic Faith an honest look (I am one of those that did) and not just accept what they have been taught by anti-Catholics. My conversion to the Catholic Faith came as I compared the positions presented by the Catholics who used to be allowed on this board (Carson Weber for one) with the positions of those who vehemently opposed them. Then I began reading books by both protestant & catholic apologists and eventually swam the Tiber.

 

[McCree79]

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit indwells all true believers and will guide them to the truth if they are willing to listen. But obviously those in the RCCult are forbidden to listen. Luther listened, Calvin listened, and all those dissenters murdered by Rome listened. And I thank God that Baptists listened and still do.

Yeah, kinda like the Baptists down the street that just called a pastor that doesn't believe in hell and embraces same-sex marriage! lol BTW, Luther was much closer to the Catholic Faith than he was to yours!

You evangelicals are beginning to embrace all KINDS of heresy. Many have predicted that the evangelical collapse regarding homosexuality will be swift and for the very reason that their biblical interpretation is already so very individualized and they make much of being moved by the Spirit, God speaking to their hearts etc. All the nonsense you support and have been spouting is doing y'all in very quickly. For the most part it always been a house of cards waiting for one strong breeze to knock the whole thing over. Here is another example of what is happening all over evangelical land: http://www.religionnews.com/2015/03...icals-drop-celibacy-requirement-lgbt-members/

....and you have catholic priest embracing and/or conducting gay marriage in St. Louis and Baltimore. Guess your house of cards will fall just as quick.

 

[lakeside]

McCree, please supply source on that.

 

[Walter]

....and you have catholic priest embracing and/or conducting gay marriage in St. Louis and Baltimore. Guess your house of cards will fall just as quick.

Here is the story in St. Louis: http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/03/05/catholic-priest-st-louis-same-sex-unions/6103345/

This is NOT a Catholic Church. It is a church that is not within the authority of Rome and has no connection to or intention of following the teachings of The Holy Catholic Church. Just because a church includes the word 'Catholic' within it's name does not make it part of the Holy Catholic Church. The Anglican Catholic Church calls itself Catholic also but is Anglican.

Now the priest in Baltimore that spoke in favor of SSM has been told by the Archdiocese to 'cease and desist'. Something that will not happen in the local Baptist churches that keep trying to be 'politically correct'. No authority over them. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...1103_1_church-law-gay-marriage-civil-marriage