Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[fordman]

One of the things I found by studying was the non-biblical things they did teach, and the main thing I found was how they say in their church history that the Catholic church existed since Peter and Paul and founded by the Lord Jesus.

So whats wrong with studying ones history? When you were in the RCIA class, were you not taught about Apostolic succession? If not, let me tell you a little about it. Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles. The Catholic Church can trace through history the lineage of Popes from St. Peter to our current Pope Francis, something that is impossible in thirty three thousand differnt Protestant denominations. Not sure what church you belong to now, but I would be willing to wager that it can only be traced back a couple of hundred years, conservatively, started by a mere man.

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

However in studying the term/word catholic was not even used tell the 2nd century (101-200 AD), so the Catholic church denominational name could not have existed prior to this. This makes and shows over 70 years of the early church before the term even started.

Christ left the adoption of a name for His Church to those He commissioned to teach all nations. Christ called the spiritual society He established, "My Church" (Mt.16:18), "the Church" (Mt.18:17). In order to make a distinction between the Church and the Synagogue and to have a distinguishing name from those embracing Judaic and Gnostic errors we find St.Ignatius (50-107ad) using the Greek word "Katholicos" (universal) to describe the universality of the Church established by Christ. Remember.... St. Ignatius was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St.Peter, ( apostolic succession) the Bishop of Rome. It is in his writings that we find the word Catholic used for the first time. St.Augustine, when speaking about the Church of Christ, calls it the Catholic Church 240 times in his writings.



Pax


"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. ---Lk.1:48.

 

[Jeff_56]

'heresy' has no place in 'civilized discussion. the rdd(sic) is a blatant and violent enemy of yahshua(jesus) and his followers.

the heresy the catholic deceived ones are promoting here has been known and exposed by yahshua ever since before it even started.

hitler's regime murdered fewer believers and fewer jews than the roman abomination has, yes, far far fewer.

you don't know, and maybe never will -- most people on earth never give up worshping demons, including most who are in the rdd(sic). that is the fatal and abominal and final result of the heresy of the rdd(sic).

there is absolutely no peace nor tolerance in yahshua's people with the rdd(sic) abomination. to be saved, each individual must come out of it or they have no chance at all. it has devoured souls of men since it started, and has and will receive no mercy from yahweh, except for those who he permits to come out of it, if any.

 

[kennethcadwell]

So whats wrong with studying ones history? When you were in the RCIA class, were you not taught about Apostolic succession? If not, let me tell you a little about it. Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles. The Catholic Church can trace through history the lineage of Popes from St. Peter to our current Pope Francis, something that is impossible in thirty three thousand differnt Protestant denominations. Not sure what church you belong to now, but I would be willing to wager that it can only be traced back a couple of hundred years, conservatively, started by a mere man.

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.



Christ left the adoption of a name for His Church to those He commissioned to teach all nations. Christ called the spiritual society He established, "My Church" (Mt.16:18), "the Church" (Mt.18:17). In order to make a distinction between the Church and the Synagogue and to have a distinguishing name from those embracing Judaic and Gnostic errors we find St.Ignatius (50-107ad) using the Greek word "Katholicos" (universal) to describe the universality of the Church established by Christ. Remember.... St. Ignatius was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St.Peter, ( apostolic succession) the Bishop of Rome. It is in his writings that we find the word Catholic used for the first time. St.Augustine, when speaking about the Church of Christ, calls it the Catholic Church 240 times in his writings.



Pax


"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. ---Lk.1:48.

There is nothing wrong with studying history, but when you are taught a false history that the catholic church was founded by Jesus and existed since the days of Peter and Paul. That is false history taught by the catholic church as the catholic church did not exist tell the 2nd century (101-200 AD).
The true Church that is the body of all believers in Christ is what was founded and started by Jesus, and carried over by Peter, Paul, and the rest of the disciples. Contentions and debates already started up within the church during the first 70+ years before the catholic term/church was even used and heard of. And that is wrong to say only the catholic church can trace its roots back to the original apostles, as all Christianity derived from the Lord and the original Apostles.
Since then man has made adaptations, changes, perversions, and corrupted the word of God. And this includes the catholic church as it has taken away, added, and gave themselves titles to put them in place of Christ. The pope has no authority to change the words of the bible like they have done, and Paul makes that very clear in Galatians 1:8.

I am not saying other denominations are not corrupted on points, but to say the catholic church is the one and only true church is false......By the way I am non-denominational, which is the movement to go back to the true words of God.

 

[mikeuk]

There is nothing wrong with studying history, but when you are taught a false history that the catholic church was founded by Jesus and existed since the days of Peter and Paul. That is false history taught by the catholic church as the catholic church did not exist tell the 2nd century (101-200 AD).
The true Church that is the body of all believers in Christ is what was founded and started by Jesus, and carried over by Peter, Paul, and the rest of the disciples. Contentions and debates already started up within the church during the first 70+ years before the catholic term/church was even used and heard of. And that is wrong to say only the catholic church can trace its roots back to the original apostles, as all Christianity derived from the Lord and the original Apostles.
Since then man has made adaptations, changes, perversions, and corrupted the word of God. And this includes the catholic church as it has taken away, added, and gave themselves titles to put them in place of Christ. The pope has no authority to change the words of the bible like they have done, and Paul makes that very clear in Galatians 1:8.

I am not saying other denominations are not corrupted on points, but to say the catholic church is the one and only true church is false......By the way I am non-denominational, which is the movement to go back to the true words of God.

Another old chestnut - a red herring . First read the definition of church in the catechism given by RCC and it probably aligns with your own!
The designation proper name Roman (capital C )catholic was essentially used to identify the roman strand after the great schism from the Eastern Rite. The catholic ( small c) church means universal in the sense of gods people, and as an illegal organisation for the first couple of centuries under Rome handed down Christianity by word of mouth and tradition, not designated organisational letterhead. Apart from the odd minor group declared heretical, fundamentally there was only one church till the schism , so no real need for a name

It is only from the time of endless Protestant schisms to the now 10000+ denominations post reformationthat naming became much of an issue.

So the name issue is a red herring, but the line of succession for the one main church identifiable for the church history. The more important issue is the belief set handed down , check out justin martyr, writing at the time of polycarp disciple of john the apostle and you see for example the dogma and interpretation eg real presence has remained consistent, although liturgy did develop as time went on.

 

[mikeuk]

There is nothing wrong with studying history, but when you are taught a false history that the catholic church was founded by Jesus and existed since the days of Peter and Paul. That is false history taught by the catholic church as the catholic church did not exist tell the 2nd century (101-200 AD).
The true Church that is the body of all believers in Christ is what was founded and started by Jesus, and carried over by Peter, Paul, and the rest of the disciples. Contentions and debates already started up within the church during the first 70+ years before the catholic term/church was even used and heard of. And that is wrong to say only the catholic church can trace its roots back to the original apostles, as all Christianity derived from the Lord and the original Apostles.
Since then man has made adaptations, changes, perversions, and corrupted the word of God. And this includes the catholic church as it has taken away, added, and gave themselves titles to put them in place of Christ. The pope has no authority to change the words of the bible like they have done, and Paul makes that very clear in Galatians 1:8.

I am not saying other denominations are not corrupted on points, but to say the catholic church is the one and only true church is false......By the way I am non-denominational, which is the movement to go back to the true words of God.

By the way Kenneth, I don't understand why Protestants bother with the name issue because their denominations and names didn't start for 1500 years later, so why they think the date of a name matters to truth , is beyond me!

 

[Jeff_56]

ah, to truth! there's hundreds of churches that may post freely here on this site, and not break the site rules.

they are not identified clearly and plainly as HERESY! get it? HERESY!.

the rdd(sic) abomination IS identified as HERESY. i.e. false doctrine. i.e. opposed to JESUS. i.e. deadly error. i.e. FALSE GOSPEL. i.e deceptive. i.el. doctrines of demons .... and on and on....

nothing in heaven nor on earth can change the roman abomination into anything good. not even yahweh himself.



oh, yahweh can and does make everything (good and bad, true and false, good and evil) work out for the good of those who love him, who are called according to his purpose ---
so yahweh through yahshua is well able to save a person from catholicism if they are willing. but he won't if they willfully and willingly and continually continue to love hasatans's darkness in the catholicism instead of loving the light.

 

[fordman]

There is nothing wrong with studying history, but when you are taught a false history that the catholic church was founded by Jesus and existed since the days of Peter and Paul.

Okay... if you beleive this to be true, if it wasent Jesus Christ that founded the Catholic Church, than who did?

That is false history taught by the catholic church as the catholic church did not exist tell the 2nd century (101-200 AD).

So how do you explain the historic documented facts of Apostolic Succesion that proves otherwise. History is what it is, even if you don't agree with it.

The true Church that is the body of all believers in Christ is what was founded and started by Jesus, and carried over by Peter, Paul, and the rest of the disciples.

Yes...once again it is called The one true Apostolic Church......... The Catholic Church!

And that is wrong to say only the catholic church can trace its roots back to the original apostles, as all Christianity derived from the Lord and the original Apostles.

Okay..... Than what other Churches can (historicly)trace its roots back to the original apostles other than the Catholic Church? perhaps yours? I think not!

Since then man has made adaptations, changes, perversions, and corrupted the word of God. And this includes the catholic church as it has taken away, added, and gave themselves titles to put them in place of Christ.

Really? And you can show proof of this claim. Preferabily something that is imprimatur. The only one I know of that has taken away, added to Scripture was Martin Luther and the thousands of Protestant sects. I would be more than happy to show you if you'd like.

The pope has no authority to change the words of the bible like they have done, and Paul makes that very clear in Galatians 1:8.

Care to show which Pope you are refuring to thats changed the words of the bible, and what words this pope was supposed to have changed?

I am not saying other denominations are not corrupted on points, but to say the catholic church is the one and only true church is false.

Than you are going against the words of Christ

By the way I am non-denominational, which is the movement to go back to the true words of God.

Oh I see.... you belong to one of the differnt 33,000 plus denominations?

You speak of the true words of God, you do know who compiled the books that gave you the bible don't you? The Holy Catholic Church. Even Martin Luther, the father of all the Protestant sects knew this.


"We are compelled to concede to the Papists (Catholics) that they have the word of God, that we received it from them, ans without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all." Martin Luther--- commentary on St.John.

Again...documented history. you may not like it, but it is what it is.


Pax


"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. ---Lk.1:48.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Okay... if you beleive this to be true, if it wasent Jesus Christ that founded the Catholic Church, than who did?


So how do you explain the historic documented facts of Apostolic Succesion that proves otherwise. History is what it is, even if you don't agree with it.


Yes...once again it is called The one true Apostolic Church......... The Catholic Church!




Okay..... Than what other Churches can (historicly)trace its roots back to the original apostles other than the Catholic Church? perhaps yours? I think not!


Really? And you can show proof of this claim. Preferabily something that is imprimatur. The only one I know of that has taken away, added to Scripture was Martin Luther and the thousands of Protestant sects. I would be more than happy to show you if you'd like.



Care to show which Pope you are refuring to thats changed the words of the bible, and what words this pope was supposed to have changed?


Than you are going against the words of Christ






Oh I see.... you belong to one of the differnt 33,000 plus denominations?

You speak of the true words of God, you do know who compiled the books that gave you the bible don't you? The Holy Catholic Church. Even Martin Luther, the father of all the Protestant sects knew this.


"We are compelled to concede to the Papists (Catholics) that they have the word of God, that we received it from them, ans without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all." Martin Luther--- commentary on St.John.

Again...documented history. you may not like it, but it is what it is.


Pax


"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. ---Lk.1:48.

Our Lord Jesus Christ founded the Church made up of the body of believers in Him, that was first called Christianity (Acts 11:26). The Christian church is what was founded by the Lord from 33 AD on..........not the catholic church that was not founded sometime tell 101-200 AD.

Just because they use the apostolic succession does not mean the church goes all the way back to Peter and Paul, as that is their faulty assertion. Go back and read true history, and not the faulty catholic history which is what I did in study and you will find the term, word, church did not start tell the 2nd century.

More than one pope as come out publicly and stated that what they say is to be followed even if it is not in the bible, and even if it contradicts the bible. Plus they give themselves titles as father and pope, when the bible clearly says do not be called this because we only have one spiritual Father. Plus they for years have stated you are not truly forgiven of your sins if you do not go to the priest in confession for that forgiveness, bible does not say you do. This is just a few.
I will give you an example from the previous pope, as the bible says we are not to fellowship together with the works of darkness. This pope is allowing Christians and Muslims to worship together.

No I am not going against the words of Christ, as nowhere in the bible does it label catholic as the true church. The word of God says the true Church is the body of believers in Him, Christianity........If your baptist and believe in Him and follow, if you are evangelist and believe and follow Him, if you are catholic and believe in Him and follow, and any other denomination in the world; If your belief is rooted in Him you are of the true Church....

Well if you want to look at history then go study the true history that is obvious that you do not like, that the catholic church was not started for some 70+ years after Jesus crucifixion. And that contentions, debates, and divisions had already started within the church within those first 70+ years. And just because the catholic church may have been one of the first denominations that came out from the true Church of believers does not mean it is not corrupted, and teach things contrary to the bible to which they do.

 

[kennethcadwell]

By the way Kenneth, I don't understand why Protestants bother with the name issue because their denominations and names didn't start for 1500 years later, so why they think the date of a name matters to truth , is beyond me!

It is not just protestants that bother about the name, as it is all Christians pretty much that are not part of the catholic church. Because the true Church is made up of the body of believers in Christ all around the world rather they are in the catholic denomination or not. And for many years they falsely told people if you are not in the catholic church you are not saved. Nowhere in the bible does it say you have to be catholic, as it says you have to believe in and follow Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Rather you are baptist, catholic, evangelist, protestant, non-denominational, or and other denomination if you believe and follow the Lord then you are part of the Church.......

 

[mikeuk]

The Christian church is what was founded by the Lord from 33 AD on..........not the catholic church that was not founded sometime tell 101-200 AD.

Since you believe in myths and fairytales, there is little more to be said.
The truth of that was pointed out - just one more anticatholic myth

You seem to think that time was like the present, every street corner littered with yet one more church with a sign up, that gave it a "name". Totally wrong. it was only after the reformation, that because of the lack of doctrinal compass, tens of thousands of opposing factions set up with different names. There was a church, and the succession brought about the new testament you now have, and even luther credits the catholic (small c) church for that. It only really began Big C Roman Catholic at the schism of Eastern Rite.

Kenneth. I have no problem with people disliking catholic doctrine as presented in the catechism. I dislike intensely the myths propagated about it.

If they do not like apostolic succession through peter. Good for them, but do not say it is not based in scripture, because that is a bona fide interpretation of "to you I give the keys" of the kingdom "upon this rock I will build" , "what you bind on earth" and the rest of it. All catholic doctrine originates in the scripture or the demonstrable practice of either tradition o jews or christiasn, kings of david, moses and so on, or reasonable deductions from those. Even Luther was forced to admit that christianity owes catholicism for the bible, which without catholicism would not have existed.

Far too many myths.
Take the OP, pointing out a mythical heresy that "mary saves" totally wrong. It does not believe that, never has.
Take the OP , pointing out a mythical heresy that "mother of god" is nowhere alluded to in the bible. Except that Elizabeth honoured mary with that 'how am I honoured that the "mother of my lord" should come to me! The difference is ...what precisely???
Take Roger condemning RCC for thinking the church is a building or organisation. Er no again - it thinks it is the people of god, body of christ, temple of the holy spirit, defined if you care to read them.

But your argument is farcical.
If you deny the authority of the succession to the fourth century, you also remove the authority of the new testament!
If you say that an orgqanisation needs to prove it existed as a named entity "catholic" back in first century, you can discount every strand of protestantism including yours. You have no chain of provenance at all!
SO the "when it started argument" is silly. What matters is the consistency of what it believes and promotes as doctrine.

So.. Please challenge it on what it does believe, and actual history"! not the anticatholic myths.

Another myth is it is a "heretical organisation"., which is a misuse of a word. Doctrines are heretical, not organisations, and if you look at the basis of catholic belief the nicene creed, I am guessing almost all of us agree on that, so it is some of the details and doctrines you may disagree

But then who does not? Onthis forum, take one of three permutations, OSAS, once saved but can lose it, not saved till the game is complete. disregarding which is right - 2/3 of those are heretical since they are mutually exclusive.
Take real presence. Or not. Half of those are heretical.

It does not stop a discussion. It also illustrates a point which is the scriptures are ambiguous and since every faction of that will claim the holy spirit guided them, that is not a test either. 2/3 of the ones who say that are misled as well!

So there needs to be authority. Moses seat , call it what you will. Catholics can identify their authority which in essence has meant little has changed in dogma over millenia. Which should be the sign of a true church. Protestants cannot identify authority, so all are free to make it up as they go along, and that is why they schism regularly. No compass. So considering they are always in schism, did not start till the last couple of centuries, they are hardly halll marks of the "true church"

So tackle catholocism on what it actually believes, not silly things like a date, or the myriad of myths.

I will tell you this...go to any mass, and it is almost continous scripture quoted. I saw very little in evangelicals groups. The bible for them was more of a weapon to hit everyone else with, not a basis for liturgy or life.

 

[Jeff_56]

yahweh, yahshua(yahweh's salvation) , torah, scripture, is in no place nor way ambiguous.

yahweh says catholicism is satanic. (herein referring to the rdd(sic) in rome as catholicism simply; not any other 'universal' or other meaning)

yahshua(yahweh's salvation) says catholicism is satanic.

torah says catholicism is satanic.

scripture says catholicism is satanic.

there is no deviation nor any ambiguity nor shadow in yahweh's word on this. there is no tolerance in heaven for rdd(sic) satanic doctrines and practices and results. it is death-dealing, lying, stealing, and anti-christ entirely.

that is recognized(at once, or gradually) by everyone who acknowledges the truth, and finally realizes that the roman abomination is heresy.

 

[Jeff_56]

where is mercy?


that's a fine and good question. especially here and now where truth takes a stand against antichrist.


did martin luther receive mercy ? certainly! absolutely ! how? he repented. yahweh opened his eyes and started showing people the path to and through the gospel again. yahweh led him out of darkness, into his marvelous light.

before that, what had happened ? martin luther had expected to be and stay and remain a roman catholic priest in good standing. why didn't yahweh just let him go on in error and die in his heresy ?

because yahweh sent yahshua the messiah to die for martin luther, so that martin luther could be cleansed of his sin and restored to life in christ jesus truthfully and fully in grace by faith in jesus.

after he received his sight, martin luther rejoiced when the antichrist kicked him out / excommunicated him ! he rejoiced in truth and freedom in christ jesus ! he received mercy because he humbled himself and repented and served jesus instead of idols.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
did charles chiniquoy receive mercy ? certainly! absolutely ! how? he repented. yahweh opened his eyes and revealed the truth to him, and he accepted it and turned to yahweh in yahshua to serve yahweh in truth and by faith in yahshua, instead of idols.

he had been a respected priest all across the untied states and canada and europe, and did not seek to leave the roman abomination -- they kicked him out, the pope ordered him excommunicated, because he would not kiss the popes ring or worship idols any more, or participate in pagan heathen repugnant to yahweh practices any more. HE WAS SAVED ! so the pope rejected him.
yahweh called and chose charles chiniquoy for his own purpose and plan and life in christ jesus. he set him free from the enemy, from the antichrist, from the power of sin and of the devil, from the doctrines of demons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

did yahweh tell them they could continue to practice idolatry and still receive mercy ? NO! NEVER! they willingly repented, that even being merciful gift from yahweh in yahshua, and received yahweh's mercy and forgiveness in christ jesus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hundreds of parishioners in charles chiniquoy area were given the choice. remain with the roman church, or leave it with charles chiniquoy. no threats were used. no bribes. just the truth - charles chiniquoy had been 'removed', and would not be coming back again to that place.
while he was preaching there the previous weeks or months or years,
he had in that time preached to the congregants the truth, instead of romes lies.

every one of them left the roman abomination to stay with charles chiniquoy in truth of jesus christ.
and many others as well. as yahweh bestowed mercy on those who repented.(of the IDOLATRY/ errors/heresy of rdd(sic)).

many thousands had left with /after martin luther as well - to receive true life from and in christ jesus after repenting of their idolatrous practices in the rdd(sic).


those who remained in antichrist. those who remained in heresy. those who remained in rdd(sic), died in their sin, separate from God and did not receive mercy

because they would not.

they refused to seek and to follow JESUS.

those who seek and follow JESUS receive mercy for their souls.

this is God's goal, to show mercy on everyone - he takes no pleasure even in the death of the wicked.

he desires all to repent and be saved in christ jesus. the messiah was sent and DIED ON THE TREE AS A CRIMINAL so they could be saved,

if they would.

 

[kennethcadwell]

This is not a myth or fairy tell, as this is the true history of catholic not the faulty teaching that it existed in the 1st century. The catholic church can not have been started before the term was even used;



The word catholic (with lowercase c; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal"[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]) comes from the Greek phraseκαθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and ὅλος meaning "whole".[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church.".[SUP][5][/SUP] ("Catholicos, the title used for the head of some churches in Eastern Christian traditions, is derived from the same linguistic origin.)
The term Catholic (usually written with uppercase C in English) was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages. In non-ecclesiastical use, it derives its English meaning directly from its root, and is currently used to mean the following:

Since you believe in myths and fairytales, there is little more to be said.
The truth of that was pointed out - just one more anticatholic myth

You seem to think that time was like the present, every street corner littered with yet one more church with a sign up, that gave it a "name". Totally wrong. it was only after the reformation, that because of the lack of doctrinal compass, tens of thousands of opposing factions set up with different names. There was a church, and the succession brought about the new testament you now have, and even luther credits the catholic (small c) church for that. It only really began Big C Roman Catholic at the schism of Eastern Rite.

Kenneth. I have no problem with people disliking catholic doctrine as presented in the catechism. I dislike intensely the myths propagated about it.

If they do not like apostolic succession through peter. Good for them, but do not say it is not based in scripture, because that is a bona fide interpretation of "to you I give the keys" of the kingdom "upon this rock I will build" , "what you bind on earth" and the rest of it. All catholic doctrine originates in the scripture or the demonstrable practice of either tradition o jews or christiasn, kings of david, moses and so on, or reasonable deductions from those. Even Luther was forced to admit that christianity owes catholicism for the bible, which without catholicism would not have existed.

Far too many myths.
Take the OP, pointing out a mythical heresy that "mary saves" totally wrong. It does not believe that, never has.
Take the OP , pointing out a mythical heresy that "mother of god" is nowhere alluded to in the bible. Except that Elizabeth honoured mary with that 'how am I honoured that the "mother of my lord" should come to me! The difference is ...what precisely???
Take Roger condemning RCC for thinking the church is a building or organisation. Er no again - it thinks it is the people of god, body of christ, temple of the holy spirit, defined if you care to read them.

But your argument is farcical.
If you deny the authority of the succession to the fourth century, you also remove the authority of the new testament!
If you say that an orgqanisation needs to prove it existed as a named entity "catholic" back in first century, you can discount every strand of protestantism including yours. You have no chain of provenance at all!
SO the "when it started argument" is silly. What matters is the consistency of what it believes and promotes as doctrine.

So.. Please challenge it on what it does believe, and actual history"! not the anticatholic myths.

Another myth is it is a "heretical organisation"., which is a misuse of a word. Doctrines are heretical, not organisations, and if you look at the basis of catholic belief the nicene creed, I am guessing almost all of us agree on that, so it is some of the details and doctrines you may disagree

But then who does not? Onthis forum, take one of three permutations, OSAS, once saved but can lose it, not saved till the game is complete. disregarding which is right - 2/3 of those are heretical since they are mutually exclusive.
Take real presence. Or not. Half of those are heretical.

It does not stop a discussion. It also illustrates a point which is the scriptures are ambiguous and since every faction of that will claim the holy spirit guided them, that is not a test either. 2/3 of the ones who say that are misled as well!

So there needs to be authority. Moses seat , call it what you will. Catholics can identify their authority which in essence has meant little has changed in dogma over millenia. Which should be the sign of a true church. Protestants cannot identify authority, so all are free to make it up as they go along, and that is why they schism regularly. No compass. So considering they are always in schism, did not start till the last couple of centuries, they are hardly halll marks of the "true church"

So tackle catholocism on what it actually believes, not silly things like a date, or the myriad of myths.

I will tell you this...go to any mass, and it is almost continous scripture quoted. I saw very little in evangelicals groups. The bible for them was more of a weapon to hit everyone else with, not a basis for liturgy or life.

 

[mikeuk]

This is not a myth or fairy tell, as this is the true history of catholic not the faulty teaching that it existed in the 1st century. The catholic church can not have been started before the term was even used;



The word catholic (with lowercase c; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal"[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]) comes from the Greek phraseκαθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and ὅλος meaning "whole".[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church.".[SUP][5][/SUP] ("Catholicos, the title used for the head of some churches in Eastern Christian traditions, is derived from the same linguistic origin.)
The term Catholic (usually written with uppercase C in English) was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages. In non-ecclesiastical use, it derives its English meaning directly from its root, and is currently used to mean the following:

It seems you still deliberately confuse small and large C - your argument totally irrelevant.

 

[fordman]

Our Lord Jesus Christ founded the Church made up of the body of believers in Him, that was first called Christianity (Acts 11:26). The Christian church is what was founded by the Lord from 33 AD on..........not the catholic church that was not founded sometime tell 101-200 AD.

So you are saying that we should dis-reguard the writings of the early church fathers, St Ignatius and St Augustine that I posted on page 2501 of this thread? Now as far as Acts 11:26, I'd like to ask how you come to this conclusion? Is it from your personal interpretation? If so, are you absoultly positive it is without error? If you are going to bring up Acts 11:26. one has to go back to vs. 19 to get the whole jest of it. You can't cherry pick! In Acts 11:19-26, the Jewish Christian antipathy to the mixed community was reflected by the early missionaries generally. The few among them who entertained a different view succeeded in introducing Gentiles into the community at Antioch (in Syria). When the disconcerted Jerusalem community sent Barnabas to investigate, he was so favorably impressed by what he observed that he persuaded his friend Saul to participate in the Antioch mission. Now as far as vs. 26 singly, “Christians” is first applied to the members of the community at Antioch because the Gentile members of the community enable it to stand out clearly from Judaism.

Just because they use the apostolic succession does not mean the church goes all the way back to Peter and Paul, as that is their faulty assertion. Go back and read true history, and not the faulty catholic history which is what I did in study and you will find the term, word, church did not start tell the 2nd century.

Sorry, but I feel you are incorrect.The Hebrew for church is a KAHAL, and in Greek ecclisia. In both cases it means assembly. There were promises of a KAHAL in Gen 28:3; 35:11; 48:4; 49:6. Israel is first called this is Exodus 12:6 the whole KAHAL. KAHAL is translated by ecclesia in the LXX. It is rare in the NT but appears more than a hundred times in the OT.

More than one pope as come out publicly and stated that what they say is to be followed even if it is not in the bible, and even if it contradicts the bible.

Really? As I asked earlier, please give the name of said pope/popes and the public statement you claim they was to have said? And of course you will be sure it is to be imprimatur...... right?

Plus they give themselves titles as father and pope, when the bible clearly says do not be called this because we only have one spiritual Father.

I'm guessing your talking about what Jesus said in Matt. 23:9. If it is your conclusion that it is wrong to call others "father," then what are you to make of the Scriptures that contradict Matt.23:9? For example, in Mark 7:9-13, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees and scribes for not honoring their "fathers." Yourself being a student of church history, should be aware calling the apostles and their successors "father" was common within the early Christian communities, correct? (1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Jn. 2:12; Acts 7:2; 22:1). So you see kenneth, as in the case of all scriptural interpretations, we must understand this passage in light of the rest of Scripture ( 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16). This interpretative principle is called the analogy of faith. This is an old Protestant arguement that dont/cant hold much merit, and can be easly dismissed with Scripture. Sorry.

Plus they for years have stated you are not truly forgiven of your sins if you do not go to the priest in confession for that forgiveness, bible does not say you do.

Kenneth, of you beleive this, you really should take a look at James 5:16 for God wants us to do it.

God, through Sacred Scripture, commands us to “confess our sins to one another.” Take notice that Scripture does not say confess your sins straight to God and only to God…it says confess your sins to one another. In Matthew, chapter 9, verse 6, Jesus tells us that He was given authority on earth to forgive sins. And then Scripture proceeds to tell us, in verse 8, that this authority was given to “men”…plural. In John 20, verses 21-23, what is the 1st thing Jesus says to the gathered disciples on the night of His resurrection? “Jesus said to them, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.'” How did the Father send Jesus? Well, we just saw in Mt 9 that the Father sent Jesus with the authority on earth to forgive sins. Now, Jesus sends out His disciples as the Father has sent Him…so, what authority must Jesus be sending His disciples out with? The authority on earth to forgive sins. And, just in case they didn’t get it, verses 22-23 say this, “And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'” Now Kenneth, you need to ask yourself, why would Jesus give the Apostles the power to forgive or to retain sins if He wasn’t expecting folks to confess their sins to them? And how could they forgive or retain sins if no one was confessing their sins to them?

I will give you an example from the previous pope, as the bible says we are not to fellowship together with the works of darkness. This pope is allowing Christians and Muslims to worship together.

Please show where the bible claims this.


A few posts back Kenneth, you say that Jesus didn't start the Catholic Church. Well, I put forth a question to to you which you have yet to answer. I will put it out there once again for I am quite curious to hear your responce.

"If you beleive that it was not Jesus Christ that started the Catholic Church, then who did?"



Pax


"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. --- Lk.1:48.

 

[mikeuk]

torah says catholicism is satanic.

scripture says catholicism is satanic.

Really? would you care to point out the verses where in scripture it uses exactly those words?
otherwise please confirm those statements are false!

 

[fordman]

scripture says catholicism is satanic.

Is that right! Lol! I'd like to see where exactly in Scripture it says that!

If the Catholic Church is as Satantic and evil as you say she is, well...... she is doing a poor job at it! Lol! She would be more efficient if she cried out...."sin does not matter, go ahead and sin all you will. Confession is nonsence. Abortion is okay, have all you want, its not a baby, its just a piece of flesh. The poor around the world don't need our help, let them fend for themselves. Don't believe in Christ, the Holy Trinity, heaven or hell. The main thing is that you need to worry about yourself. So eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die."

Don't you see how ridiculous your statement is? All these things I posted are exact opposites of what the Catholic Church teaches!


Pax tecum



"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. ---Lk.1:48.

 

[mikeuk]

From another thread Re: What the Early Church believed about salvation
but deserves posting here, for the wider question it begs.

Quote Originally Posted by Viligant_Warrior

And ... ?? Did not those same "early church fathers" found the Catholic church, which to this day teaches salvation depends on works, not grace. Thankfully, many Catholics reject that teaching and believe that grace alone has saved them.

My answer:

"The catholic church does not teach that! No catholic believes what you say. I wish you would study the thing you insult, or maybe you have , and are knowingly bearing false witness against it? Most of what it said about RCC is a myth invented by such as you.

Here is what the catechism actually says: Go read it.
1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life"


And that of course is illustrative of a far more general problem.
Most of what is criticised about RCC is a myth!, so most of the arguments are straw men and false. I tire of batting them back and showing them up for the myths that they are!. I had to wade through so many of these false myths, coming from mainstream protestant, to evangelical, finally home in the RCC

In most walks of life, particularly in politics and religion, people seem to have a deep seated psychological need for "something to hate" and "something to blame" which seems to make them feel more worthy, and having chosen a butt for their hatred, they then consider that any old myth is acceptable in attacking their personal "bogey man", here chosen as RCC as demonstrated by in some cases just ranting take Jeff! for example..

I find that disappointing when those attacking are supposed to be christian, so are supposed value truth and ethics, but by their conduct they clearly do not, as demonstrated by "not very vigilant warrior" above. But he is only one of many.

I urge criticism of RCC to confine itself to the truth.

If they study it they would discover that RCC shares most of their core beliefs as christians, indeed the catechism is built in part around the nicene creed, which most christians could sign up for, provided they study the definition of church used in the catechism. What most assume RCC thinks the "church" is in that context is a wild guess and totally wrong. RCC definition, has nothing to do with buildings or hierarchies.

It saddens me in the OP here, that RCC is attacked because someone somewhere believed that "Mary Saves" , and whether or not the anecdote is a fair reflection or not misses the more important point, that it is not what RCC has ever taught so RCC is not to blame. All sorts of other dross is quoted on this thread like "RCC discourages laity to read the bible" when it is clear doctrine we must study the bible, and many papal statements going back centuries confirm that.

It does not really matter whether you agree or disagree with views on the fundamentals of catholicism such as real presence, or keys of authority for Peter, what cannot be denied is that there is a bonafide scriptural argument for why that is argued eg the reference back to davidic kingdom keys of eliakim, and what his role was, and even in many cases Luther shared such views! So like them or hate them, they are an interpretation of what is there.

And whether you like it or not, accept the fact as Luther readily admitted, that without the succession church that became later officially designated as RCC would not have the new testament at all! So our separated brethren, have at least something to thank it for. We are all christians, read the catechism to prove it! whether or not you dislike some beliefs!

So please all I urge is people study it, understand what it really believes, and criticise it ON WHAT IT ACTUALLY BELIEVES if you feel you must not a lot of myths repeated so often they have gained the status of act whilst false!.

For sure indivdidual people are faulty and do bad things. No shortage of them anywhere, including in RCC, in which people have done horrendous things in the past, a lot of horrendous things, because the scale of RCC is **Huge** so has more bad people than most! But that only reflects on RCC if they are acting out the catechism and their vocation at the time. Judge it on doctrine and the reasoning behind it.

When we as christians focus around a cause rather than attacking each other, you see the good that can be done. The pro life rallys and action groups, have multiple denominations represented.

 

[KenAllan]

According to what the Holy Spirit teaches in the Bible we are not to associate or have anything to do with the Catholics.

The Holy Spirit teaches us that we are to have nothing to do with Idolaters and Immoral people.

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (NASB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
[SUP]10 [/SUP] I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
[SUP]13 [/SUP] But those who are outside, God judges.

Catholics are idolaters because they have Mary as another God which is a violation of the first commandment that we are not to have other gods before us.

Therefore we are not to associate with any so called brother if they are an immoral person. According to the Holy Spirit we are to remove our self from the Catholics and not have fellowship with them.

Its a waste of time to argue with the Catholics who refuse to follow what the Holy Spirit teaches in the Bible. Instead of arguing with the Catholics we need to bring the Gospel of Salvation to these fallen brothers so they too can enter into Heaven. Arguing produces nothing.

We need to isolate ourselves from the Catholics and pray to God that He will bring the Gospel back to these fallen brothers. We need to witness to the Catholics instead of arguing about the Gospel which they cannot understand the Truth contained in it.

In essence we need to witness and bring Salvation to the Catholics first before we can teach them the Truth in the Bible from the Holy Spirit. We need to help them get their Hearts right with God first then we can teach them the Truth in the Bible. Until then its a waste of time to argue with them.

 

[mikeuk]

I will not post all of what you write, because I hope this is a civilised conversation ,and most of what you wrote is inflammtory. .

So analyzing another anti catholic myth at the heart of the condescending nonsesne

Catholics are idolaters because they have Mary as another God .

We do nothing of the sort. So Keep to the facts.

Here the references. And it matters not whether you agree with our interpretation of verses (which are largely self explanatory so hardly up for debate) - what matters is they are based in scripture..

We honour Mary as elizabeth did 'how am I honoured that the "mother of my lord" should come to me' Luke 1:43
Noone can doubt she was a pretty special lady "blessed amongst women" Luke 1:42

Who else was deemed "full of grace, the lord is with you"? Luke 1:28 and who else was told "all generations will call you blessed" Luke 1:48 - that is the highest honour I am aware of that the bible bestows on any person! She is clearly special as well, as the woman of revelations 12:1

So to the issue.
Everyone asks others to pray for them, I hope!
So where we differ from others is we ask mary to pray for us,
because we are told in revelations that the prayers of saints reach heaven revelations 8:4. We are surrounded by the cloud of witnesses hebrews 12:1 We also know from the miracle at Cana john 2:3 that can intercede with Jesus, and he does what she asks on occasion, although was told when she asked him for his help to "wait for his time to come" sensibly interpreted as when he is resurrected!!

In addtion to prophecy. The bible clearly shows direct mirrors of the old testament and the new . Very important to understand the old in order to understand the new.
So We know that jesus was a davidic king (too many references to bother posting) including for example aligning to solomon and david directly by riding on a donkey 1king 1-33 so prophesied in zechariah

The davidic references are very important.

The mother of davidic king has influence, as the old testament shows, see how bathsheba is presented by solomon in 1 kings 2:19-22 "ask on my mother for I will not deny the" -

See also in those passages how the mother of a davidic king is also given the title "QUEEN" which is purely honorary and she only has the power of advocacy, but of enough respect to earn her both a throne and solomon bows to her, but it does not usurp his authority as king. The names of a dozen mothers of davidic kings make it into the bible, why else except because they are important and have influence? So calling her queen is just an honorary title as mother of a davidic king. It does not make her a ruler or coequal.

So all we do is accept that as saint and mother of a davidic king and mother of jesus she has influence.
So we ask her to pray for us and that is all. Asking her to do that does not make her a god, any more than asking you to pray for me, makes you a god!
And nowhere in catechism are we told that to do so is part of salvation!

Love it or hate it, it is biblically based. I hope that explains a little of the background to others.

The rest of what you write is just fanciful nonsense, born of too many (and insulting) myths repeated..

We are not idolaters any more than you are when you look at a photograph of your family, you have it there as a reminder of them! You do not worship it, I hope!

So I say again, judge us on what we actually believe which is nothing like the myths.