Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[Simona25]

Sorry, but I disagree. SALVATION is the most important one to get right, and this is where Catholicism goes against the scriptures. They teach a different way to be saved.

And tragically, the Protestantism and the big-bang of denominations that followed, rejected the form of catholicism, but kept its very essence, its poison, its pagan/juridical understanding of salvation. Instead of wanting to unite with God, people want to escape (to be saved from) the hands of God. No wonder atheism was born in the western world.

 

[notuptome]

And tragically, the Protestantism and the big-bang of denominations that followed, rejected the form of catholicism, but kept its very essence, its poison, its pagan/juridical understanding of salvation. Instead of wanting to unite with God, people want to escape (to be saved from) the hands of God. No wonder atheism was born in the western world.

Why would any reasonable person not want to escape Gods wrath? I can hardly believe that Luther and the reformers wanted to escape God but they wanted to be free to worship God in truth. They caught sight of Gods marvelous grace and accepted it over the onerous burden of self righteousness and salvation by merit.

Atheism hates God and hates purity. There is no virtue in any religion that denies the blood of Christ and the deity of Christ. Pagans of the far east are no better than the atheist of the west.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Simona25]

Why would any reasonable person not want to escape Gods wrath?

Exactly. That's why I said that atheism was born in west. People perceive God as an irritant, a terrifying prosecutor that punishes you eternally if you don't behave the way He wants or if you don't love Him back.
Religiosity is motivated by fear, not by love. Atheists wanted to free themselves from fear, that's why they rejected God.

 

[notuptome]

Exactly. That's why I said that atheism was born in west. People perceive God as an irritant, a terrifying prosecutor that punishes you eternally if you don't behave the way He wants or if you don't love Him back.
Religiosity is motivated by fear, not by love. Atheists wanted to free themselves from fear, that's why they rejected God.

Atheists are among the most dishonest of people. It is right for men to fear judgment. Gods judgment is indeed very severe. Gods mercy is also great. If one rejects the greatest gift ever given and secured at the greatest cost ever surrendered how can one expect mercy? Atheists are also among the most religious of people. They simply worship themselves and not God. Religious people ought to fear Gods wrath. Being religious is not the same as receiving Jesus Christ as Savior. It is simply substituting one form of self righteousness for another.

If we who know the Lord are to be witnesses for Him then we must testify of His saving grace. We must allow the Holy Spirit to bring conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment. I cannot testify of how Christ saved me by telling lost souls that it will be alright for them if they only do their best and remain sincere in whatever it is that they believe.

Belief must be according to Gods word not the word of man. The Holy Spirit only works through the word of God not the writings of men.

Scripture says that it is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance. To know Gods goodness they must first consider the severity of Gods judgment.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Simona25]

If one rejects the greatest gift ever given and secured at the greatest cost ever surrendered how can one expect mercy?

Love and interest are two incompatible realities. If your love expects something in exchange than it is no longer love...
God loves men even in Hell. It is love and joy that punishes the black heart (see the parable of the prodigal son where the older brother isolates himself from the joyful people that surround him).
Jean Paul Sartre said "Hell is the other one". He couldn't be more right! If we don't learn to love, we will suffer eternally!

 

[notuptome]

Love and interest are two incompatible realities. If your love expects something in exchange than it is no longer love...
God loves men even in Hell. It is love and joy that punishes the black heart (see the parable of the prodigal son where the older brother isolates himself from the joyful people that surround him).
Jean Paul Sartre said "Hell is the other one". He couldn't be more right! If we don't learn to love, we will suffer eternally!

As much as God loves us He hates sin. If we will not forsake our sin and come to Christ our sin will condemn us to eternal condemnation in the lake of fire.

The incompatible reality is that Gods love will not over ride His justice. Those in hell deserve to be there. Reject the atonement and reject all hope.

Herein is love not that we loved Him but that He loved us and Christ died for us while we were yet sinners.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Last]

And tragically, the Protestantism and the big-bang of denominations that followed, rejected the form of catholicism, but kept its very essence, its poison, its pagan/juridical understanding of salvation. Instead of wanting to unite with God, people want to escape (to be saved from) the hands of God. No wonder atheism was born in the western world.

That is NOT the Catholic position. That's the position of Calvin that plagues protestantism. Please do not presume to speak on what we believe.

 

[Last]

That is the point. The natural man, the unsaved man cannot repeat cannot understand the Spirit.

Which is a subtle way of the other claim made by fundies - if you disagree with me, it's because you aren't saved. I don't need facts or logic, you are wrong and I am right because I have the spirit!

That argument is quite sad and narcissistic. It makes the person God Himself. You do not speak for God. Therefore your opinions are not God's. God leads us all, but you cannot tell another person that they are wrong because God is telling you all things.

[quote[In fact it is foolishness to him. Any church doctrine based on merit with or without grace is not going to satisfy God. Grace alone is able to save. [/QUOTE]

And that statement shows that you do not understand Catholicism. You only understand Catholicism as the parody that anti-Catholics make it out to be.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Actually Jesus Christ coined the term "born again," as recorded in John 3:3, when he told Nicodemus "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Obviously you're not a student of history or you would know the term has been used since the time of Christ forward. For example St Augustine penned in A.D. 412:

"For it is not written, `Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents' or `by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,' but, `Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.' The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]).

Just one of many examples in antiquity where church leaders used the term born again in the context of the status of Christians.

"Born again Christians" was a term made up in the 1960s by American Evangelicals.

 

[Last]

Yes there are people who CLAIM to be ORthodox (such as the current 'patriarchates like Bartholowmew and Kyril and John X ect) but they are NOT ORthodox once they accept a heresy, they CEASE to be Orthodox and are outside the Church, cannot receive Communion and the Faithful cannot pray with him (however they should pray for his return).

It does not sound like you are actually Orthodox but are either part of a schismatic group or are schismatic in your heart.

RC on the other hand doesn't see it this way. It says heresy and Truth can exist together in the Church.[/quote]

No it does not.

That is why SSPX has an illogical position. This is why you have 'conservative' branches of the New Roman Catholic and Liberal branches. This is why the world patriarchates are allowed to take communion from RC parishes along with Nestorians, Monophysites, and even Protestants. You will all pray together for the "peace of the world" (whatever you mean by this no one really knows since they prefer the ambiguity. On the other hand we True Orthodox pray for God's peace that is True Peace of Christ's reign on earth and for the growth of the Church by converting the heterodox and heathen.

Are you a recent convert to your group? What were you before?

 

[Last]

Actually Jesus Christ coined the term "born again," as recorded in John 3:3, when he told Nicodemus "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

The term is mentioned several times in scripture. I have already pointed this out and why they did it and you prove my point!!

They created a term BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN. They dumped a ton of man-made traditions on it like sinner's prayers, altar calls and I could go on for days and days. Then when you say the term is a recent one and it's a dumping ground for traditions, people like you go on about how it's in the bible.

No it's not! None of that "Born again Christian" stuff is in the bible. The two words "born again" are found several times. Never "Born again Christian" never "sinner's prayers" none of the getting saved by a miracle crusade or any of that stuff that is all wrapped up in that term.

Obviously you're not a student of history or you would know the term has been used since the time of Christ forward. For example St Augustine penned in A.D. 412:

"For it is not written, `Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents' or `by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,' but, `Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.' The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]).

Obviously you don't seem to be able to read my post or comprehend what I have said several times now. You are only proving my point all the more. If you have no figured it out, I don't know how to make it any more clear:
"Born again" - found in the bible
"Born again Christian" - invented in mid-20th Century American evangelicalism. Used to brainwash people into accepting a variety of man-made traditions because 'born again' is found in the bible. People see 'born again' in the bible and so they accept a NON-BIBLICAL MAN-MADE definition of what it means to be born again.

 

[Simona25]

That is NOT the Catholic position. That's the position of Calvin that plagues protestantism. Please do not presume to speak on what we believe.

The so called 'theory of satisfaction' has been the soteriologic doctrine of the RCC for centuries. It is Anselm of Canterbury, saint and doctor of the RCC that formulated it around the year 1100, but after him other theorists (catholic and protestant) have contributed to its 'polishing'. It is only at the II Council of Vatican that the RCC adopted a concept of salvation that is closer (formally) to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[ThomistColin]

The so called 'theory of satisfaction' has been the soteriologic doctrine of the RCC for centuries. It is Anselm of Canterbury, saint and doctor of the RCC that formulated it around the year 1100, but after him other theorists (catholic and protestant) have contributed to its 'polishing'. It is only at the II Council of Vatican that the RCC adopted a concept of salvation that is closer (formally) to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Are you simply ignoring the Council of Trent?

 

[Simona25]

Are you simply ignoring the Council of Trent?

The theory of satisfaction was still present (in its essence) in the catholic catechist books (inspired by the Council of Trent).



9 Q: Would it not have been enough for an Angel to come and make satisfaction for us?

A: No, it would not have been enough for an Angel to come and make satisfaction for us, because the offense given to God by sin was, in a certain sense, infinite, and to satisfy for it a person possessing infinite merit was required.
(The Catechism of Saint Pius X)

 

[ThomistColin]

The theory of satisfaction was still present (in its essence) in the catholic catechist books (inspired by the Council of Trent).



9 Q: Would it not have been enough for an Angel to come and make satisfaction for us?

A: No, it would not have been enough for an Angel to come and make satisfaction for us, because the offense given to God by sin was, in a certain sense, infinite, and to satisfy for it a person possessing infinite merit was required.
(The Catechism of Saint Pius X)

But you are equating satisfaction, or justification with faith alone, which the Council of Trent denies.

 

[Last]

The so called 'theory of satisfaction' has been the soteriologic doctrine of the RCC for centuries. It is Anselm of Canterbury, saint and doctor of the RCC that formulated it around the year 1100, but after him other theorists (catholic and protestant) have contributed to its 'polishing'. It is only at the II Council of Vatican that the RCC adopted a concept of salvation that is closer (formally) to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You sound like the fundies here that spout a bunch of names and terms they picked up on the internet without understanding them.

 

[Last]

The theory of satisfaction was still present (in its essence) in the catholic catechist books (inspired by the Council of Trent).

9 Q: Would it not have been enough for an Angel to come and make satisfaction for us?

A: No, it would not have been enough for an Angel to come and make satisfaction for us, because the offense given to God by sin was, in a certain sense, infinite, and to satisfy for it a person possessing infinite merit was required.
(The Catechism of Saint Pius X)

You do realize you are touching an issue that has to do with the great heresies of God in the first centuries of the Church? Why must Christ be God?

I am curious as to what you know and what you are just parroting.

 

[Simona25]

You do realize you are touching an issue that has to do with the great heresies of God in the first centuries of the Church? Why must Christ be God?

I am curious as to what you know and what you are just parroting.

Few posts above you said "That is NOT the Catholic position. That's the position of Calvin that plagues protestantism. Please do not presume to speak on what we believe."

Now, all of a sudden, you remembered that, in fact, that was the catholic position until the XIX century (!!!) as it can clearly be seen in your books of catechism.

 

[Simona25]

But you are equating satisfaction, or justification with faith alone, which the Council of Trent denies.

ThomistColin, what on earth are you talking about? Where did I even mentioned "faith alone"?

You and Last have both something in common: dishonesty and avoidance of what is actually being said.

 

[Simona25]

You sound like the fundies here that spout a bunch of names and terms they picked up on the internet without understanding them.

Matthew 5:37
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Maybe next time when a true fact is being said about your church, you will chose honesty and simplicity over guile.