Why The RCC Is A Cult

[lakeside]

DHK, please give Bible evidence or outside the bible documentation that Peter only went to Rome to be martyred. Of course you are correct, yes, Peter was martyred in Rome but Peter was also the one apostle with the most authority, most of all No other apostle is given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. In Matthew 18:18, we read that all the Apostles are given the power to bind and to loose; but Peter alone is promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 16:19. This shows us that the power which is given to all the Apostles to bind and to loose in Matthew 18:18, must be exercised under the keys which are given alone to Peter. Peter has a unique position of authority in the Church.
Here’s what’s really interesting. Most people don’t know that this reference to the keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 16:19 (and to Peter’s binding and loosing with them) comes from Isaias chapter 22. Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16 are a reference to the function of the prime minister of the Kingdom in the Old Testament

 

[McCree79]

DHK, please give Bible evidence or outside the bible documentation that Peter only went to Rome to be martyred. Of course you are correct, yes, Peter was martyred in Rome but Peter was also the one apostle with the most authority, most of all No other apostle is given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. In Matthew 18:18, we read that all the Apostles are given the power to bind and to loose; but Peter alone is promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 16:19. This shows us that the power which is given to all the Apostles to bind and to loose in Matthew 18:18, must be exercised under the keys which are given alone to Peter. Peter has a unique position of authority in the Church.
Here’s what’s really interesting. Most people don’t know that this reference to the keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 16:19 (and to Peter’s binding and loosing with them) comes from Isaias chapter 22. Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16 are a reference to the function of the prime minister of the Kingdom in the Old Testament

Peter was given the keys. He was the first to proclaim the gospel. Subsequently, that is granted to all who are called to proclaim the gospel. See the contrast in Matt 23:13 of the scribes and Pharisees.

You also have failed to address why James was calling the shots if Peter was in charge.

 

[OldRegular]

No, OldRegular, you did not read Section 1272 correctly. I don't know how you missed it but Section 1272 says, "even if sin prevents baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation." I realize it's hard for you to accept but saved people can lose their salvation due to sins committed after baptism. You even supplied the words "saved eternally" which isn't anywhere in the Catholic lexicon.

I read it correctly and repeat it for your benefit:

1272* Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

I enlarged the type so you can read it better!

 

[OldRegular]

A whole lot of 'Trail Of Blood' fantasy. BTW, if you ever actually expect to convince Catholics that you hold the true 'biblical positions', you might try to quell the seething hatred. All your mocking and vitriol is not at all Christ like. It really doesn't attract anyone to your way of thinking.

And the papists were "Christ Like" when they were slaughtering all those Christians, true believers, who dissented from Rome. There was little difference between the behavior of the Romanists under their pope than the Roman empire they replaced. They killed dissenters and that is a historical fact.

And, just a reminder. Melanie, myself, and Thinkingstuff were Baptists when we joined this board and became Catholic years ago.

You are saying you fell from Grace?

We believed just like you do now. We studied the teachings of the Catholic Church and are convinced it IS biblical Christianity.

Then you were and are completely wrong. Very tragic in my opinion!

We were all told by other members of the BB that if we were 'true believers' that we would leave the Church of Rome. We are all still very convinced that we were in error as Baptists and that we made the right choice to become Catholics. As Melanie said, you are not going to change what you believe about Christ's Holy Church and we are not going to leave it. Your badgering and name-calling isn't effective.

The primary problem with the Roman Cult is that they follow the false teachings of the pope and the teaching magisterium. Their god is the pope and their salvation is in his hands. They are certainly not the Church of Jesus Christ but of the pope and the teaching magisterium.

I posted earlier the following:

Originally Posted by OldRegular
In the OP the statement is made:

1272* Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

If I read the above correctly it states that one who is baptized is saved eternally absent any other action on their part.

Yet I then read the following:

980 It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church: …"a laborious kind of baptism." This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism…

So the question I put to all adherents to the Church of Rome on this BB; especially Briony-Gloriana, since she exclaimed, "Oh for crying out loud.....": Which of the above statements is true?

Zenas replied:

No, OldRegular, you did not read Section 1272 correctly. I don't know how you missed it but Section 1272 says, "even if sin prevents baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation." I realize it's hard for you to accept but saved people can lose their salvation due to sins committed after baptism. You even supplied the words "saved eternally" which isn't anywhere in the Catholic lexicon.

But I did read 1272 correctly! It states:

Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark,

Surely you can read plain language. Yet in order to keep adherents in bondage to the papacy and priesthood the Roman cult denies part of what they teach.

 

[OldRegular]

If what you said was true, there would be no adherence to Catholicism. However, it is not and no amount of debating will change your view of the church nor mine.

Scripture addresses your statement above very appropriately. You really should take it to heart and repent of your allegiance, your bondage, to the papacy and teaching magisterium.

Matthew 7:13-15
13. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

 

[lakeside]

McCree, in your post # 122, you said I also failed to address why St.James was calling the shots if St. Peter was in charge.
First of all in Acts 15 is that we see St.Peter is the one who rules definitively on the question of doctrine, and all kept silent. His bishops then spoke in favor of his teaching, acknowledging that Peter was indeed the authority in the Church. No one questions Peter's judgment. Then we have James who speaks in favor of Peter's teaching by giving an opinion on a pastoral issue. Hardly a challenge to the authority of Peter. Also while you are reading Acts 15 we can see where it disproves the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If Peter would have relied upon the Scriptures, he would have concluded that Gentiles had to be circumcised, since all the Patriarchs and prophets were, the apostles were, and even Jesus was. But St.Peter, by virtue of his authority, decides the issue as the chief shepherd of the Church (and the decision was not based on the Scriptures).

McCree, regarding any epistle where Peter was leading people away from the true faith, there is no such epistle. Would you produce chapter and verse, if you can find it.

 

[OldRegular]

Of course there were atrocities committed by both Catholics and Protestants (Magisterial Reformers) and the Catholic Church (as mentioned) has apologized for it's part. There is perhaps no better trump card in the deck of anti-Catholic urban legends than "The Inquisition." The Inquisition (as we have witnessed here) is raised as banner proof that the Church is the intolerant, oppressive enemy of modern thought, science, and freedom. However, it was nothing on the scaled that is generally claimed on this board. The gross exaggerations and historical inaccuracies in the Trail of Blood have been debunked on numerous threads here before. That was not my point, Rebel. Old Regular is fond of mocking, name calling and viotriol at a level that is both un-Christ like and unkind. It's uncalled for. If his objective is to cause such disgust by the couple of Catholic posters to this board that they quit contributing he may have achieved his goal.

You can dump on OldRegular all you want. That doesn't change the truth. The cult, called Roman Catholicism, has never revoked the teachings of the Canons of Trent which teaches that everyone outside the Roman Catholic communion is anathema. accursed, lost, hell bound. I have at least acknowledged {my post #31} that there are children of God within the Roman Catholic Communion.

In fact Vatican 1 affirmed the Canons of Trent and much more! Consider first, from Vatican I, the infallibility of the pope:

Therefore,

faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

that is, when,

1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,​

he possesses,

by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,​

that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.​

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.​

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

So from the Canons of Trent and Vatican I we get an infallible pope with everyone outside the Roman Catholic Cult condemned to hell.

So don't preach to me Walter about

mocking, name calling and viotriol at a level that is both un-Christ like and unkind

To be continued!

 

[BobRyan]

1. Lateran IV condones the "extermination" of heretics and Jews.
2. "Doctrine of Discovery" for the murder of indigenous populations that don't convert.
3. Clement XIV abolishes forever the Jesuit order in the 1700's. around 1773.

 

[Zenas]

I read it correctly and repeat it for your benefit:



I enlarged the type so you can read it better!

And your point is? The Catechism says that being baptized is like being adopted by Christ. Unless you are adopted as Christ's child you can't go to Heaven. BUT, even if you are a child of Christ you can be disinherited. From an earthly POV you can't change who your father is but it is up to him whether you will inherit anything from him or not.

 

[OldRegular]

And your point is? The Catechism says that being baptized is like being adopted by Christ. Unless you are adopted as Christ's child you can't go to Heaven. BUT, even if you are a child of Christ you can be disinherited. From an earthly POV you can't change who your father is but it is up to him whether you will inherit anything from him or not.

Well I know it is all up to the pope and teaching magisterium who gets to Heaven. Jesus Christ doesn't have anything to say about it as the Canons of Trent and Vatican I so clearly state. I am simply pointing out to you what that statement says about baptism. I presented in my initial post happen when fallible men try to define salvation and, furthermore, declaring the pope infallible is as useless as shoveling sand against the tide. If the pope makes it to heaven it is only by the Grace of God and the Blood of Jesus Christ!

FYI

In the OP the statement is made:

1272* Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

If I read the above correctly it states that one who is baptized is saved eternally absent any other action on their part.

Yet I then read the following:

980 It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church: …"a laborious kind of baptism." This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism…

So the question I put to all adherents to the Church of Rome on this BB; especially Briony-Gloriana, since she exclaimed, "Oh for crying out loud.....": Which of the above statements is true?

*************************************************************************************************************************************

A perfect example of the abundance of confusion within the RCCult!

 

[Zenas]

Well I know it is all up to the pope and teaching magisterium who gets to Heaven. Jesus Christ doesn't have anything to say about it as the Canons of Trent and Vatican I so clearly state. I am simply pointing out to you what that statement says about baptism. I presented in my initial post happen when fallible men try to define salvation and, furthermore, declaring the pope infallible is as useless as shoveling sand against the tide. If the pope makes it to heaven it is only by the Grace of God and the Blood of Jesus Christ!

FYI



A perfect example of the abundance of confusion within the RCCult!

Calm down, OldRegular. You're getting to sound a little demented and very hard to follow--unlike Catholic teaching which more logical than any religious system I have ever seen. I will agree with one thing you said here about the pope making it to heaven. If ANYONE makes it to heaven it is only by the grace of God and the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[lakeside]

Amen Zenas.

 

[OldRegular]

Calm down, OldRegular. You're getting to sound a little demented and very hard to follow

I have simply quoted the teaching of the RCCult. The so-called Church of Rome is a cult derived from the pagan Roman Empire. If it sounds demented then blame the teaching magisterium and the pope.

--unlike Catholic teaching which more logical than any religious system I have ever seen.

Scientology is a religious system. Islam is a religious system. The RCCult is a religious system. So what.

I will agree with one thing you said here about the pope making it to heaven. If ANYONE makes it to heaven it is only by the grace of God and the blood of Jesus Christ.

But that is not what the Cult of Rome teaches as I show in post #127. That is not what Vatican I states or the Canons of Trent. I have not yet finished with the false teachings of Vatican I and haven't even started on Vatican II!

 

[OldRegular]

No one questions Peter's judgment.

I suggest you read Galatians if it is permitted. Paul had to take Peter to the woodshed!

Galatians 2:11, 12
11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Looks like Paul was the boss-man rather than Peter!

 

[McCree79]

I suggest you read Galatians if it is permitted. Paul had to take Peter to the woodshed!

Galatians 2:11, 12
11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Looks like Paul was the boss-man rather than Peter!

Lakeside, it appears OldRegular has correctly answered for me. Regarding post #126.

 

[DHK]

DHK, please give Bible evidence or outside the bible documentation that Peter only went to Rome to be martyred. Of course you are correct, yes, Peter was martyred in Rome but Peter was also the one apostle with the most authority, most of all No other apostle is given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. In Matthew 18:18, we read that all the Apostles are given the power to bind and to loose; but Peter alone is promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 16:19. This shows us that the power which is given to all the Apostles to bind and to loose in Matthew 18:18, must be exercised under the keys which are given alone to Peter. Peter has a unique position of authority in the Church.
Here’s what’s really interesting. Most people don’t know that this reference to the keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 16:19 (and to Peter’s binding and loosing with them) comes from Isaias chapter 22. Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16 are a reference to the function of the prime minister of the Kingdom in the Old Testament

Do some calculations. First, I don't know your particular beliefs. But many Catholics claim that he ruled in Rome for 25 years. Is that the premise we are starting from. Or what is it? How long do you claim he was in as a "whatever"? Give me something to work with--bishop, pope? What are we talking about?

Jesus lived for about 33 1/2 years. He may have died in 29-30 A.D. with Pentecost following shortly after. After that there was a great persecution. During this persecution (Acts 8) the disciples were scattered, but the Apostles remained in Jerusalem. Peter was still in Jerusalem.
In Acts 10 Peter is in Joppa but after preaching to Cornelius in Caesarea, he returns to Jerusalem. There Herod tries to kill him, but God kills Herod instead. Finally in chapter 15 the Jerusalem Council is held. We know that this date is about 50 A.D. Ten years have now elapsed from Pentecost until this time. In Galatians 2:11 it says:
Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
--This took place after the Council. Peter knew better and thus the sharp rebuke from Paul.
Nevertheless, Peter had a ministry in Antioch sometime between 50 A.D. and the time of his writing of his First Epistle which he wrote ca. 62-63 from Babylon. You probably will object and say that this is a secret code name for Rome, but we normally take the Bible literally and have no evidence that he wrote from Rome.

1Pe 5:13 She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son.
--Some time after that he was taken to Rome and killed.

His first epistle is written:
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
--an unlikely address had he been in Rome. He was writing to the dispersed Christian Jews who were under great persecution. The areas mentioned are in Asia, or which also is Babylon. He writes to comfort them.

There is good authority that Peter suffered martyrdom in 68 A.D.
His second epistle likely was written just before his death.
When Paul wrote to the Romans 8-10 years earlier there is no mention of Peter. If he were the leader of any existing church in Rome Paul would have mentioned him. Consider all the names mentioned in chapter sixteen and all the people he did greet, Peter is not one of them.
Secondly, why would the epistle to Rome even be necessary if Peter had been there. That would have been totally redundant. Did Peter really need Paul's teaching? Was he that far down the ladder?

Paul is said to have died in ca. 67; Peter, 68 A.D.
Paul makes no mention of Peter.
Paul rebukes Peter while he is in Antioch just a few years previous to his death.
James, not Peter, is the pastor of the church in Jerusalem, and it is James that announces the judgment of the council which was in 50 A.D.
Peter was in Babylon in 62-63 A.D. suffering death in 68 just five years later.

How, as some Catholics claim, was he a pope for 25 years?
"It must be a miracle!" :laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

There is no Biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. The RCCult would have better evidence if they claimed the Apostle Paul as their first pope specially since he had to spank Peter a little. Frankly I doubt that any born-again Christian with any knowledge of Scripture and Jesus Christ would allow himself to be worshiped as the RCC worship the pope or that ring, whichever?

Of course if you are brainwashed from childhood anything is possible; I guess!

 

[OldRegular]

More from Vatican I, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

I profess also that

there are seven sacraments of the new law,

truly and properly so called,
instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and
necessary for salvation,
​

though each person need not receive them all.​

They are:

1. baptism,
2. confirmation,
3. the Eucharist,
4. penance,
5. last anointing,
6. order and
7. matrimony; and​

they confer grace.
Of these

baptism,
confirmation and
order​

may not be repeated without sacrilege.​

Good thing that a person doesn't have to receive all of these sacraments else even the pope would not make it.

It would be interesting to see which Scripture the RCCult uses to justify these seven sacraments. I am sure some of the Converts to RCCult can provide those Scripture. Course I haven't figured out what #6, "order", is, or means, whatever.

Notice they confer Grace. I thought Grace was unmerited favor but looks like RCCult folks have to work to get Grace!

Peter was married but he wasn't the pope. Paul was not married and he was not the first pope. Schaff sort of implies that the first pope was Constantine but who knows. I suspect he puts his pants on like every one else!

 

[OldRegular]

You know, Yeshua, Paul was a member of the Church of Rome. Acts 28:30. Iranaeus of Lyons says that he and Peter were its faithful leaders at the time of their death. Paul, like all the other apostles were Catholics.

I don't believe for one minute that the Apostle Paul was a catholic or universalist. Or Peter either for that matter. They both taught salvation by Grace even if Paul did have to take Peter to the woodshed to convince him!

They were members of the very church that you and others here love to denounce as heretical. When you call the Roman Catholic Church heretical you are calling all the apostles heretical. It is the church that Jesus founded and left here to teach and care for the faithful.

Jesus Christ did not found a Cult

Since the New Testament was written by Catholics and preserved by Catholics for the first 1,500 years of Christianity, it is safe to say that they have a full and complete understanding of it.

Like I said, you have a flawed understanding of Pauline justification.

If they of the RCC understood the Bible there would be no pope, no bloody eucharist, no teaching magisterium, no worship of Mary or those called Saints, no penance, no unmarried priesthood, no replacing the teaching of the Bible with the teachings of the pope and "teaching magisterium". There would have been no RCCult, no Crusades, no slaughter of those who would not worship the pope, no Inquisition, no forced conversions as does Islam.

 

[Zenas]

I have simply quoted the teaching of the RCCult. The so-called Church of Rome is a cult derived from the pagan Roman Empire. If it sounds demented then blame the teaching magisterium and the pope.

You have cherry picked the quotes you want to emphasize, which you know is always misleading because you have taken them out of context. But we all do that sometimes so I will give you a pass on that. However, the crazy talk is yours, not what you are quoting, and when you say the Catholic Church is derived from the pagan Roman Empire you either make yourself a fool or a liar.

Scientology is a religious system. Islam is a religious system. The RCCult is a religious system. So what.

Your brand of Christianity, which regards men as puppets on God's string, is a religious system. If you would bother to really study Catholicism rather than looking for ways to attack it (which you're not very good at), your would realize it makes more sense than anything you have ever considered.

But that is not what the Cult of Rome teaches as I show in post #127. That is not what Vatican I states or the Canons of Trent. I have not yet finished with the false teachings of Vatican I and haven't even started on Vatican II!

The Church teaches that the Pope is infallible, not that he is impeccable. There is no dogma, no council, nothing in the Catechism that implies all popes go to heaven. I can't wait for your pontifications (pardon the pun) on Vatican II. Don't forget to quote the really bad parts in giant capital letters.