Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Exactly!
The "reformers" ( who were protestants - who were "protesting" Catholicism ) were once part of Catholicism, and "came out" from it - or, "split off" of it - to start their own version of a church which was still part Catholicism - thereby continuing error at least in part. All of the protestants came out of Catholicism. That is why they are called protestants - because, they "protested" Catholicism. But, they also "carried with them" parts of Catholicism ( because that is what they knew ) - a lot of which was / is in error, biblically.
What many people don't realize or understand is that - since well before Catholicism ever existed, there have always been ( since the personal ministry of Christ ) Christians who were never protestants - even to this day. These [ true, original ] Christians were the ones that the "Holy Roman Empire" ( the original name of the modern "Roman Catholic Church" ) persecuted for centuries -- because they would not "join" Catholicism, and thus were considered enemies of the Catholic Church.
I used the words 'true' and 'original' in the statement above to indicate that those Christians who were persecuted by the Catholic Church were in fact the true original Christians from the Church that Christ Himself started. Believe it or not -- Catholicism was / is not that true, original Church. Rather, it was / is actually the "mortal enemy" of that true, original church. And, [ true ] history shows very clearly that this is the case. Only, [ the hierarchy / upper-echelon of ] the Catholic Church would like for you to believe differently.
This is not "hate speech" --- it is "the God's honest truth" -- the ugly truth that Satan does not want Catholic people to understand.
The 'dark ages' was not about the [ true, original ] Christian Church "behaving badly" ( as most societies in the world have been led to believe today ) --- it was about the [ true, original ] Christian Church being severely persecuted by a man-established entity which - from a world society view of history - managed to 'usurp' - in 'identification' terms - the position / standing / etc. - as being the Church that Christ started ( which is false ).
The Catholic people are being lied to by the Catholic hierarchy. The true nature of the history of the Catholic Church is everything but Christian.
And that is the reason for this thread...
The "reformers" ( who were protestants - who were "protesting" Catholicism ) were once part of Catholicism, and "came out" from it - or, "split off" of it - to start their own version of a church which was still part Catholicism - thereby continuing error at least in part. All of the protestants came out of Catholicism. That is why they are called protestants - because, they "protested" Catholicism. But, they also "carried with them" parts of Catholicism ( because that is what they knew ) - a lot of which was / is in error, biblically.
What many people don't realize or understand is that - since well before Catholicism ever existed, there have always been ( since the personal ministry of Christ ) Christians who were never protestants - even to this day. These [ true, original ] Christians were the ones that the "Holy Roman Empire" ( the original name of the modern "Roman Catholic Church" ) persecuted for centuries -- because they would not "join" Catholicism, and thus were considered enemies of the Catholic Church.
I used the words 'true' and 'original' in the statement above to indicate that those Christians who were persecuted by the Catholic Church were in fact the true original Christians from the Church that Christ Himself started. Believe it or not -- Catholicism was / is not that true, original Church. Rather, it was / is actually the "mortal enemy" of that true, original church. And, [ true ] history shows very clearly that this is the case. Only, [ the hierarchy / upper-echelon of ] the Catholic Church would like for you to believe differently.
This is not "hate speech" --- it is "the God's honest truth" -- the ugly truth that Satan does not want Catholic people to understand.
The 'dark ages' was not about the [ true, original ] Christian Church "behaving badly" ( as most societies in the world have been led to believe today ) --- it was about the [ true, original ] Christian Church being severely persecuted by a man-established entity which - from a world society view of history - managed to 'usurp' - in 'identification' terms - the position / standing / etc. - as being the Church that Christ started ( which is false ).
The Catholic people are being lied to by the Catholic hierarchy. The true nature of the history of the Catholic Church is everything but Christian.
And that is the reason for this thread...
The drums of hate and bigotry keep pounding because unlike other forums, no one is required to document their sources.
Last edited:
I don't know what you mean by "no New Testament." But I can name several successful churches that started from scratch. My current church -- a Bible church, non-denominational -- was begun by a group of men who used the Bible as their basis to begin a biblical church. Also, my old church in Illinois -- same thing -- a Bible church. No previous dogma to weigh them down. They don't subscribe to any catechisms or canons or creeds of men -- just the Bible.
G
No --- it is love speech --- you just do not realize it yet...
What historical sources do you consider reliable? Don't say 'the Catholic Church'. The Vatican is one of the most unreliable - and least trustworthy - sources of history there is in the world today. Why? Because they have "changed history" by re-writing documents / etc. in order to suit their purposes. If you are not willing to go outside of the Catholic realm for information - in order to find the truth -- you never will... ( "in this life"; on Judgment Day, I am quite sure that you will understand perfectly - as will we all... )
I don't think so. You are being "politically correct" about it. This description indicates the intent to disrupt fellowship or make offenses. I have no such purpose. On the contrary, better fellowship may be had among those who understand the truth in love and agree. I am only trying to help those who truly want to know the truth about the history of the Catholic Church to open their eyes and see it.
I am not angry. I am not trying to 'get a rise' out of anyone. I am not trying to belittle or condemn any Catholic "lay" person. ( I believe that the Catholic hierarchy - the controlling 'upper-echelon' of the organization - is full of pure evil. However, the "lay" person membership - no doubt to a large degree - is simply deceived. )
If you are ever able to open your eyes and see the truth about the Catholic Church, you will understand why I say these things.
For just a moment, assume that I am correct in the things I have stated. Would you not want to know the real truth?
Well -- I am telling you the real truth -- the truth you need to be able to see. The rest is up to you.
You can swallow your pride and take a good long hard look at the true reality in which we live -- or, you can continue to believe what you have been 'fed'... ( In 'The Matrix' terms -- "you can take the red pill or the blue one; the choice is yours"... )
Always an option:
"We can certainly agree to disagree agreeably."
Not persecution. Rather, a wake-up call.
When you make a statement - in conversation, in public - do you immediately follow it with the long list of intricate details of every thought and idea that lent itself to forming the framework of the supposition that supports what you just stated?
This is not a formal literary documentary environment. It is a conversational exchange of ideas.
Yes - people should, at times, document the source of vitally important findings from their research of a subject being discussed -- so that others can "follow up"... However, there is no requirement for every statement made by any individual in any post to be "proofed" in the same post. It is ultimately up to the reader to decide the merit they give to the information in someone's post.
What historical sources do you consider reliable? Don't say 'the Catholic Church'.
The Vatican is one of the most unreliable - and least trustworthy - sources of history there is in the world today. Why? Because they have "changed history" by re-writing documents / etc. in order to suit their purposes. If you are not willing to go outside of the Catholic realm for information - in order to find the truth -- you never will... ( "in this life"; on Judgment Day, I am quite sure that you will understand perfectly - as will we all... )I don't think so. You are being "politically correct" about it. This description indicates the intent to disrupt fellowship or make offenses. I have no such purpose. On the contrary, better fellowship may be had among those who understand the truth in love and agree. I am only trying to help those who truly want to know the truth about the history of the Catholic Church to open their eyes and see it.
I am not angry. I am not trying to 'get a rise' out of anyone. I am not trying to belittle or condemn any Catholic "lay" person. ( I believe that the Catholic hierarchy - the controlling 'upper-echelon' of the organization - is full of pure evil. However, the "lay" person membership - no doubt to a large degree - is simply deceived. )
If you are ever able to open your eyes and see the truth about the Catholic Church, you will understand why I say these things.
For just a moment, assume that I am correct in the things I have stated. Would you not want to know the real truth?
Well -- I am telling you the real truth -- the truth you need to be able to see. The rest is up to you.
You can swallow your pride and take a good long hard look at the true reality in which we live -- or, you can continue to believe what you have been 'fed'... ( In 'The Matrix' terms -- "you can take the red pill or the blue one; the choice is yours"... )
Always an option:
"We can certainly agree to disagree agreeably."
Not persecution. Rather, a wake-up call.
When you make a statement - in conversation, in public - do you immediately follow it with the long list of intricate details of every thought and idea that lent itself to forming the framework of the supposition that supports what you just stated?
This is not a formal literary documentary environment. It is a conversational exchange of ideas.
Yes - people should, at times, document the source of vitally important findings from their research of a subject being discussed -- so that others can "follow up"... However, there is no requirement for every statement made by any individual in any post to be "proofed" in the same post. It is ultimately up to the reader to decide the merit they give to the information in someone's post.
T
First off, it's not our fault that we're tainted with sin. It's our first parent's fault.
We are not going to Hell simply because of Adam and Eve's rebellion. We go to Hell for any personal sin that we ourselves commit, which are in the multitudes, admittedly.
An infant, just like everyone else, is tainted with sin, but has not yet reached the point where it can incur personal guilt on itself through sin.
Hence why infants are sinless and innocent.
You made a wise move in quoting Romans 6:23, but it fails to answer the point I'm trying to convey: Persons under the age of reason cannot sin.
Infants can still be affected by sin, but they themselves are not guilty.
Infants die because of Adam and Eve's rebellion, not because they warranted it.
We are not going to Hell simply because of Adam and Eve's rebellion. We go to Hell for any personal sin that we ourselves commit, which are in the multitudes, admittedly.
An infant, just like everyone else, is tainted with sin, but has not yet reached the point where it can incur personal guilt on itself through sin.
Hence why infants are sinless and innocent.
You made a wise move in quoting Romans 6:23, but it fails to answer the point I'm trying to convey: Persons under the age of reason cannot sin.
Infants can still be affected by sin, but they themselves are not guilty.
Infants die because of Adam and Eve's rebellion, not because they warranted it.
We are all blind and ignorant until we come to a genuine saving knowledge of Christ.
My righteous indignation is at the Catholic church doctrine not the poor souls that are enslaved by it. Now I have less tolerance for those who endeavor to teach such false and unbiblical doctrines to other unsuspecting souls.
Didn't Jesus rebuke the Pharisees for just such a statement? Because you say you have no sin your sin remaineth? John 9:41
For the cause of Christ
Roger
My righteous indignation is at the Catholic church doctrine not the poor souls that are enslaved by it. Now I have less tolerance for those who endeavor to teach such false and unbiblical doctrines to other unsuspecting souls.
Didn't Jesus rebuke the Pharisees for just such a statement? Because you say you have no sin your sin remaineth? John 9:41
For the cause of Christ
Roger