PDA

View Full Version : I feel sorry for people closed minded to Catholicism



republicanchick
August 1st, 2015, 10:38 AM
yeh, for sure, they are missing out BIG TIME

But hey, you can lead a horse to water but you c an't...

I have been in just about every "church" you can imagine.. but none has what the Catholic Church has...

What's that, you may ask?

well, it does no good to say... but you can read past threads/posts of mine..

anyway, I did find ONE non-Catholic "church" I like

but I won't say which one b/c ... well, heck, same thing... no one seems to listen...

hard headed, etc..



+

eddie17
August 1st, 2015, 10:43 AM
Well im still searching a church tried almost all around where i live,would be nice to find one that lets the homeless and drug addicts in and let them have free tea and biscuits and shower (if they have some) and even let them sleep over for a roof over there head.

Or is it just a matter of keeping the congregation happy and not rocking the boat,and keeping our little clicks together.

republicanchick
August 1st, 2015, 10:56 AM
Well im still searching a church tried almost all around where i live,would be nice to find one that lets the homeless and drug addicts in and let them have free tea and biscuits and shower (if they have some) and even let them sleep over for a roof over there head.

Or is it just a matter of keeping the congregation happy and not rocking the boat,and keeping our little clicks together.

a church like that would still be... not the one Christ founded (necessarily) and would not necessarily have the Eucharist

some Catholic Churches help the poor... not enough, that is true...

but anyhow

Robert Pate
August 1st, 2015, 10:58 AM
You won't find the truth in a church.

The truth is only found in the Bible. The Bible reveals the Gospel and how we are justified by faith apart from works.

Jesus said, "And few there be that find it". Find the Gospel that Justifies the ungodly, Romans 4:5 and reconciles us and the world unto God 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19.

The Catholic church has NOT found it. They are to busy trying to re-habilitate the old dead Adam that was crucified with Christ, Romans 6:6.

republicanchick
August 1st, 2015, 11:04 AM
You won't find the truth in a church.

6:6.

you don't know one thing about me or my experiences, yet you tell me this kind of thing

presumptuous


icky

I know Catholicism

You don't

Rusha
August 1st, 2015, 01:06 PM
yeh, for sure, they are missing out BIG TIME

But hey, you can lead a horse to water but you c an't...

I have been in just about every "church" you can imagine.. but none has what the Catholic Church has...

What's that, you may ask?

well, it does no good to say...

Of course it doesn't. Though it does help that you are so eager to insist the Catholic Church has so much going for it ... even though you are unable to list it's attributes.

oatmeal
August 1st, 2015, 01:28 PM
yeh, for sure, they are missing out BIG TIME

But hey, you can lead a horse to water but you c an't...

I have been in just about every "church" you can imagine.. but none has what the Catholic Church has...

What's that, you may ask?

well, it does no good to say... but you can read past threads/posts of mine..

anyway, I did find ONE non-Catholic "church" I like

but I won't say which one b/c ... well, heck, same thing... no one seems to listen...

hard headed, etc..



+

Roman Catholicism is scripturally emaciated and destitute.

Why would I bother with RCism when I can read scripture for myself?

Especially when I get instructed by those who take God's words to heart

Cons&Spires
August 1st, 2015, 01:50 PM
Being closed minded to Catholicism is mostly within the ranks of those such as traditional Baptists.

They've been trained to basically see Catholicism as a an entirely different entity altogether, apart from Christianity, especially among it's more senior ranks.

Robert Pate
August 1st, 2015, 02:24 PM
you don't know one thing about me or my experiences, yet you tell me this kind of thing

presumptuous


icky

I know Catholicism

You don't


Experiences?

Are you going to base your salvation on your experience?

God has given us a book called the Bible. In this book he reveals to us all that we need to know to be saved.

You need to read Gods word and believe it.

serpentdove
August 1st, 2015, 02:41 PM
"...[Y]ou can lead a horse to water but you can't..." Water :idunno: sand Jn 4:10


"I have been in just about every "church" you can imagine.. but none has what the Catholic Church has..." The little boys don't feel that way. :granite:


"...[A]nyway, I did find ONE non-Catholic "church" I like..." From the Roman Catholic Church to seeker-friendly. :dizzy: You're going places. :o 2 Ti 4:3


"...[B]ut I won't say which one b/c ... well, heck, same thing... no one seems to listen..." Jesus loves you (Jn 3:16). Jesus is willing to save you (2 Pe 3:9). Repent (Eze 18:30-32; Ac 17:30). Believe (Mk 9:23).

See:

Roman Catholicism (http://vananne.com/culttoasters/#Roman_Catholicism)

kayaker
August 1st, 2015, 03:16 PM
yeh, for sure, they are missing out BIG TIME

But hey, you can lead a horse to water but you c an't...

I have been in just about every "church" you can imagine.. but none has what the Catholic Church has...

What's that, you may ask?

well, it does no good to say... but you can read past threads/posts of mine..

anyway, I did find ONE non-Catholic "church" I like

but I won't say which one b/c ... well, heck, same thing... no one seems to listen...

hard headed, etc..



+

ROFLOL>>>> You ever try furosemide, lasix, a diuretic? That horse will drink a swimming pool of consecrated baptismal water. You know, that water God used to destroy the wicked in Noah's day. That water God separated via Moses to destroy Pharoah's army trying to cross the Red Sea. That water you folks consecrate (make holy) to baptize with. John the Baptist didn't consecrate the Jordan before Jesus was baptized, and the Spirit descended upon Jesus... not the water. But, your elite can turn that water God used to destroy the wicked into some manner of 'baptismal spiritual regeneration' that replaced circumcision being a manner of salvation? If anything, your consecrated baptismal water raises the spirits of those wicked folk God smote with the flood and the Red Sea.

You folk ever try consecrated IV fluid? Great for demon dialysis! Your early church fathers would have literally devoured Jesus' body had He not ascended, right? When your Eucharist wine can be used for blood transfusions, and your wafers used for skin grafts and organogenesis (growing organs), let me know.

Otherwise... enjoy the ride!

kayaker

heir
August 1st, 2015, 07:05 PM
I feel sorry for people closed minded to CatholicismAnd I, for those blinded by it 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 KJV, 2 Corinthians 11:3 KJV, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV.

tetelestai
August 1st, 2015, 08:25 PM
yeh, for sure, they are missing out BIG TIME

Catholicism teaches that salvation is through Mary:

"God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary.” (Pius IX: Encycl., Ubi primum, February 2, 1849.)

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Salvation is through Christ Jesus and no one else:

(John 14:6) Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Salvation is not through Mary, it's through Christ Jesus.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 01:02 PM
The little boys don't feel that way.
Red Herring Fallacy.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 01:04 PM
And I, for those blinded by it 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 KJV, 2 Corinthians 11:3 KJV, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV.
Now you can go ahead and apply all three of those biblical texts to the myriad competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects of Protestantism---including yours.

Buzzword
August 2nd, 2015, 01:10 PM
I feel sorry for people closed minded to Agnosticism or Atheism.

Seriously, if you've never taken the time to truly consider either position, you've missed out on reams of amazing jokes at the expense of religion.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 01:11 PM
Catholicism teaches that salvation is through Mary:
In a secondary and derivative sense, yes. However, Jesus alone went to the cross to redeem humanity and, in that sense, only Jesus is the Savior.


Salvation is not through Mary, it's through Christ Jesus.
In the specific sense mentioned above, yes. Your glaring False Dilemma Fallacy, however, is noted.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Grosnick Marowbe
August 2nd, 2015, 01:20 PM
yeh, for sure, they are missing out BIG TIME

But hey, you can lead a horse to water but you c an't...

I have been in just about every "church" you can imagine.. but none has what the Catholic Church has...

What's that, you may ask?

well, it does no good to say... but you can read past threads/posts of mine..

anyway, I did find ONE non-Catholic "church" I like

but I won't say which one b/c ... well, heck, same thing... no one seems to listen...

hard headed, etc..



+

I agree. They're missing out of the chance to:

1) Pray to Mary and the Saints.
2) Worship the Pope.
3) Have the Priests watch over their children.
4) Worship idols.
5) Work their way to Heaven.
6) Be forgiven of their sins by some Priest.
7) Hear repetitious prayers that are scripted.

Yeah, people are really missing out!! What a shame, huh?

Cons&Spires
August 2nd, 2015, 01:30 PM
I feel sorry for people closed minded to Agnosticism or Atheism.

Seriously, if you've never taken the time to truly consider either position, you've missed out on reams of amazing jokes at the expense of religion.

Well they are essentially two interchangeable standings- an atheist is an agnostic, and an agnostic is an atheist.
Whether you may or may not be ideally inclined to something spiritual is irrelevant, because there is nonetheless an unbelief in a deity.

The thing is, agnosticism tends to be perpetual. You aren't going to receive empirical evidence unless God comes down Himself, and by then, you're trying to swim after a boat that's done sailed.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 01:51 PM
I agree. They're missing out of the chance to:

1) Pray to Mary and the Saints.
See this (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints).


2) Worship the Pope.
Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics simply do not "worship" the pope. Try again.


3) Have the Priests watch over their children.
According to public statistics, children are at far more risk being watched by a public school teacher or family member than a Catholic priest. Try again.


4) Worship idols.
Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics simply do not "worship" sacred objects or images. Try again.


5) Work their way to Heaven.
Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics do not believe that they can "work their way" to heaven, nor does the Church teach any such thing. Rather, salvation is wholly by God's grace. Try again.


6) Be forgiven of their sins by some Priest.
See this (http://scripturecatholic.com/confession.html).


7) Hear repetitious prayers that are scripted.
See this (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/01/does-bible-condemn-repetitive-prayer.html).


All you've shown here is your vast ignorance of the Catholic Church and its teachings.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

kayaker
August 2nd, 2015, 02:39 PM
See Him: John 8:12 KJV

Challenged by these: John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV, John 8:25 KJV, John 8:41 KJV

Now hear Him: John 8:18 KJV

Then see this: John 8:38 KJV being Jesus' testimony to His divine Paternity. What did Jesus specifically and succinctly see with His Father?

And hear that: John 8:40 KJV being God's testimony to Jesus' divine Paternity. What did Jesus hear from God that even Abraham didn't?

And, since Catholics cannot unveil the explicit details of this and that, no wonder they aren't these: John 8:31 KJV never having been "converted" (Matthew 13:15 KJV) by (John 14:17 KJV, John 14:26 KJV) achieving John 8:32 KJV.

kayaker

CabinetMaker
August 2nd, 2015, 03:01 PM
You won't find the truth in a church.

The truth is only found in the Bible. The Bible reveals the Gospel and how we are justified by faith apart from works.

Jesus said, "And few there be that find it". Find the Gospel that Justifies the ungodly, Romans 4:5 and reconciles us and the world unto God 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19.

The Catholic church has NOT found it. They are to busy trying to re-habilitate the old dead Adam that was crucified with Christ, Romans 6:6.
oops, quoted the wrong person. Fixed below.

Grosnick Marowbe
August 2nd, 2015, 03:22 PM
See this (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints).


Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics simply do not "worship" the pope. Try again.


According to public statistics, children are at far more risk being watched by a public school teacher or family member than a Catholic priest. Try again.


Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics simply do not "worship" sacred objects or images. Try again.


Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics do not believe that they can "work their way" to heaven, nor does the Church teach any such thing. Rather, salvation is wholly by God's grace. Try again.


See this (http://scripturecatholic.com/confession.html).


See this (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/01/does-bible-condemn-repetitive-prayer.html).


All you've shown here is your vast ignorance of the Catholic Church and its teachings.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Thanks for your input. However, I'll stick with my post.

Grosnick Marowbe
August 2nd, 2015, 03:28 PM
See this (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints).


Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics simply do not "worship" the pope. Try again.


According to public statistics, children are at far more risk being watched by a public school teacher or family member than a Catholic priest. Try again.


Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics simply do not "worship" sacred objects or images. Try again.


Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics do not believe that they can "work their way" to heaven, nor does the Church teach any such thing. Rather, salvation is wholly by God's grace. Try again.


See this (http://scripturecatholic.com/confession.html).


See this (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/01/does-bible-condemn-repetitive-prayer.html).


All you've shown here is your vast ignorance of the Catholic Church and its teachings.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Catholicism is a false doctrine.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 03:30 PM
No one is doubting you know your Catholicism.
I certainly am. Pate is no less ignorant of Catholic doctrine than you are.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 03:32 PM
Thanks for your input. However, I'll stick with my post.
...your already answered and categorically refuted post. As you like.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 03:34 PM
Catholicism is a false doctrine.
Catholicism isn't a "doctrine" at all. In any case, you have yet to actually prove your anti-Catholic claims, as Post #20 above plainly shows.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Grosnick Marowbe
August 2nd, 2015, 03:46 PM
Catholicism isn't a "doctrine" at all. In any case, you have yet to actually prove your anti-Catholic claims, as Post #20 above plainly shows.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Catholic is the name of the Universal Church. (Assembly of believers)
Catholicism is the doctrine. (The believers live by)
Catechism is the teaching of the doctrine. (questions and answers)

Have you read Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 ?

CabinetMaker
August 2nd, 2015, 03:51 PM
you don't know one thing about me or my experiences, yet you tell me this kind of thing

presumptuous


icky

I know Catholicism

You don't

]No one is doubting you know your catholicism. I think we are wonder whether that is ALL you know.

Grosnick Marowbe
August 2nd, 2015, 03:56 PM
I have a good friend that was raised in the Catholic Church for 18 years. This
friend of mine was commissioned by the Catholic church to visit various
countries. This person was invited to the Vatican to meet with Cardinals,
and Monsignors regarding their commission. Therefore, this friend has vast
knowledge and experience from Rome itself.

I was the first person to introduce this friend of mine, to a personal relationship
with The Lord Jesus Christ. My friend researched the Scriptures for many years,
from Genesis through Revelation. My friend made a decision to renounce
Catholicism, (doctrine) in order to dedicate their entire life to knowing/serving the
Lord.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 04:14 PM
Catholicism is the doctrine.
Post #27


Have you read Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 ?
Yes.

Grosnick Marowbe
August 2nd, 2015, 04:16 PM
...your already answered and categorically refuted post. As you like.

Read posts 28 and 30.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 04:22 PM
I have a good friend that was raised in the Catholic Church for 18 years. This
friend of mine was commissioned by the Catholic church to visit various
countries. This person was invited to the Vatican to meet with Cardinals,
and Monsignors regarding their commission. Therefore, this friend has vast
knowledge and experience from Rome itself.

I was the first person to introduce this friend of mine, to a personal relationship
with The Lord Jesus Christ. My friend researched the Scriptures for many years,
from Genesis through Revelation. My friend made a decision to renounce
Catholicism, (doctrine) in order to dedicate their entire life to knowing/serving the
Lord.
That's a very sad story. No one should ever assume that they somehow need to reject Christ's Body (the Church) in order to please its Head (Christ himself). The contradiction at the heart of your comments here is self-evident.

I recommend this brief, but compelling, book:




https://sites.baylor.edu/francisbeckwith/files/2014/11/9781587432477-24z5y65-194x300.jpg

Beckwith, RETURN TO ROME: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic (Brazos, 2008) (http://www.amazon.com/Return-Rome-Confessions-Evangelical-Catholic/dp/1587432471/ref=sr_1_1_twi_1_pap?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438554032&sr=1-1&keywords=return+to+rome)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 04:23 PM
Read posts 28 and 30.
Already answered.

Totton Linnet
August 2nd, 2015, 04:31 PM
The RCC has an appearance of godliness...but it denies the power thereof.

Grosnick Marowbe
August 2nd, 2015, 04:34 PM
That's a very sad story. No one should ever assume that they somehow need to reject Christ's Body (the Church) in order to please its Head (Christ himself). The contradiction at the heart of your comments here is self-evident.

I recommend this brief, but compelling, book:




https://sites.baylor.edu/francisbeckwith/files/2014/11/9781587432477-24z5y65-194x300.jpg

Beckwith, RETURN TO ROME: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic (Brazos, 2008) (http://www.amazon.com/Return-Rome-Confessions-Evangelical-Catholic/dp/1587432471/ref=sr_1_1_twi_1_pap?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438554032&sr=1-1&keywords=return+to+rome)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

This friend does not renounce humanity, they renounce Catholicism.
This isn't a sad story, but a story of love, freedom, and a personal
relationship with the Lord.

This is a victorious journey with Christ, toward eternal life.

Grosnick Marowbe
August 2nd, 2015, 04:43 PM
Post #27


Yes.

What's the doctrinal difference between the two? Why did the Vatican
decide to create Vatican 2?

There are Priests in the Catholic church who've barely read Vatican 1
There are Priests that have never read Vatican 2. Yet, they're still
serving/ministering to the Catholic church.

Grosnick Marowbe
August 2nd, 2015, 04:46 PM
Have you read Vatican 1 and 2 completely? Or, just Googled them ?

Cons&Spires
August 2nd, 2015, 04:51 PM
The RCC has an appearance of godliness...but it denies the power thereof.

I'm pretty sure she does not deny 'the power thereof'. Historically speaking, the pope is supposed as the physical embodiment of Chist.

Which hasn't really changed, actually. Throw it by a Catholic and they'd be inlclined to agree- they would go in that direction in argument, that he is the speaker of God and we're just the sorry people.

Grosnick Marowbe
August 2nd, 2015, 04:55 PM
I had a Catholic acquaintance many years ago who stated: "The Pope is infallible
while sitting on his throne."

Cons&Spires
August 2nd, 2015, 04:59 PM
I had a Catholic acquaintance many years ago who stated: "The Pope is infallible
while sitting on his throne."

Ex Cathedra

While he sits in Peter's seat, he is allegedly incapable of error.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 05:14 PM
Have you read Vatican 1 and 2 completely? Or, just Googled them ?
I've read the sixteen documents of Vatican II, and bits and pieces of the decrees of Vatican I.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 05:20 PM
What's the doctrinal difference between the two?
No doctrinal difference at all, as to their essence. As for matters of emphasis and/or detail, however, Vatican II did indeed move the Church's teaching of apostolic doctrine forward.


There are Priests in the Catholic Church who've barely read Vatican 1. There are Priests that have never read Vatican 2. Yet, they're still serving/ministering to the Catholic Church.
It would be rather difficult to go through the eight years of seminary required by the Church for the priesthood, and not be familiar with the writings of Vat. I and II. There may be a few priests who somehow managed to avoid reading them, but it certainly wouldn't be the norm.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 05:24 PM
This friend does not renounce humanity, they renounce Catholicism. This isn't a sad story...
Yes, they reject that one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which he declared that the powers of death would never prevail (Mt. 16:18; 1 Tim. 3:15). What could possibly be sadder, since to reject Christ's Church is to reject Christ himself (Lk. 10:16)?

Grosnick Marowbe
August 2nd, 2015, 05:25 PM
No doctrinal difference at all, as to their essence. As for matters of emphasis and/or detail, however, Vatican II did indeed move the Church's teaching of apostolic doctrine forward.


It would be rather difficult to go through the eight years of seminary required by the Church for the priesthood, and not be familiar with the writings of Vat. I and II. There may be a few priests who somehow managed to avoid reading them, but it certainly wouldn't be the norm.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

So, you agree with me that, some Priests haven't even read them.
There wouldn't have been a necessity, if Vatican one was sufficient.

There are doctrinal differences between the two.

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 05:28 PM
I had a Catholic acquaintance many years ago who stated: "The Pope is infallible while sitting on his throne."
Yes, under certain formal conditions, the Bishop of Rome (Pope) may indeed teach infallibly with respect to doctrine and morals.

Nanja
August 2nd, 2015, 05:31 PM
The RCC has an appearance of godliness...but it denies the power thereof.

No, their tenets are so far from God's Word, that if they have the appearance of having any godliness at all,
it is only to the Lost! And that applies to all religious denominations of man. They're ALL putrid in God's sight.

The Elect of God are called to come out Rev. 18:4, and they shall!

1Pet. 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people;
that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

~~~~~

Cruciform
August 2nd, 2015, 05:35 PM
So, you agree with me that, some Priests haven't even read them. There wouldn't have been a necessity, if Vatican one was sufficient.
The Catholic Church recognizes that binding doctrine continues to develop in the Church over time throughout Christian history. While no essentially new doctrines are introduced, the original apostolic deposit of faith (body of divine truth) is further expounded and explained in ever more detail and insight. It's in this specific sense that we say that "doctrine develops." That's why Vat. I was not "sufficient," and why doctrine has continued to develop in the Church, as it did with Vat. II.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Hedshaker
August 2nd, 2015, 09:13 PM
I feel sorry for people closed minded to Agnosticism or Atheism.

Seriously, if you've never taken the time to truly consider either position, you've missed out on reams of amazing jokes at the expense of religion.

I used to be agnostic but now I'm not so sure :)

Cruciform
August 3rd, 2015, 03:07 PM
I used to be agnostic but now I'm not so sure :)
:darwinsm:... HA!

Stuu
August 4th, 2015, 03:45 AM
The Catholic Church recognizes that binding doctrine continues to develop in the Church over time throughout Christian history. While no essentially new doctrines are introduced, the original apostolic deposit of faith (body of divine truth) is further expounded and explained in ever more detail and insight. It's in this specific sense that we say that "doctrine develops." That's why Vat. I was not "sufficient," and why doctrine has continued to develop in the Church, as it did with Vat. II.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
You don't strike me as the kind who would have been a fan of Vatican II.

Stuart

Squeaky
August 4th, 2015, 06:59 AM
yeh, for sure, they are missing out BIG TIME

But hey, you can lead a horse to water but you c an't...

I have been in just about every "church" you can imagine.. but none has what the Catholic Church has...

What's that, you may ask?

well, it does no good to say... but you can read past threads/posts of mine..

anyway, I did find ONE non-Catholic "church" I like

but I won't say which one b/c ... well, heck, same thing... no one seems to listen...

hard headed, etc..



+

I said
I feel sorry for anyone who believes outside the Word of God. And Catholicism doctrine isn't in the Word of God. A true believer doesn't even think beyond what is written. And you seem to be a way out there some where else.


1 Cor 4:6
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
(NKJ)

lifeisgood
August 4th, 2015, 07:19 AM
[B]yeh, for sure, they are missing out BIG TIME

Especially since Mary is the savior :nono: of the world according to RCC dogma:

Genesis 3:15Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Imagine that, God had it wrong all the time :nono: when He said that His Unique Son was the Savior of the world and not the RCC savior's Mary.

lifeisgood
August 4th, 2015, 07:31 AM
Yes, under certain formal conditions, the Bishop of Rome (Pope) may indeed teach infallibly with respect to doctrine and morals.

Just under 'certain' formal conditions?

The RCC says he is INFALLIBLE.
Either the pope is infallible or the pope is fallible.

RCC does not make the distinction of 'certain' formal conditions as you declare when the laity is told the pope is infallible.

Infallible means 'incapable of making mistakes or being wrong' EVER
synonyms: unerring, unfailing, faultless, flawless, impeccable, etc. imagine that!

I guess there has never been a pope making any mistakes at all, as they are infallible. Oh, maybe not, as you propose that he is only in 'certain formal conditions' infallible.

Either the pope is infallible as the RCC declares or the pope is only infallible in 'certain formal conditions' as you propose.

It has to be one or the other.
It cannot be both.

kayaker
August 4th, 2015, 08:22 AM
Just under 'certain' formal conditions?

The RCC says he is INFALLIBLE.
Either the pope is infallible or the pope is fallible.

RCC does not make the distinction of 'certain' formal conditions as you declare when the laity is told the pope is infallible.

Infallible means 'incapable of making mistakes or being wrong' EVER
synonyms: unerring, unfailing, faultless, flawless, impeccable, etc. imagine that!

I guess there has never been a pope making any mistakes at all, as they are infallible. Oh, maybe not, as you propose that he is only in 'certain formal conditions' infallible.

Either the pope is infallible as the RCC declares or the pope is only infallible in 'certain formal conditions' as you propose.

It has to be one or the other.
It cannot be both.

Wait for the Catholic Texas two step. Listen carefully now... we're about to hear the smoke and mirrors of it. That, or they do a disappearing act, classical Catholic disconnect. Catholics speak with forked tongue, double-speak, aka iniquity and deceit. By the time their audience's eyes glaze over, and ears become dull of hearing (Matthew 13:15 KJV), they begins speaking of the divine qualities of antiquity for two millennia. They'll put on their dog and pony show with incense, posh attire, and rituals bragging on Peter.

They gloss right over the fact Peter denied the Holy Spirit three times at Pentecost. Once when Peter wasn't standing and preaching the Pentecostal Gospel as were his peers (Acts 2:14 KJV). Secondly, Peter began speaking another gospel in Acts 2:22 KJV. Thirdly, Peter was addressing those mockers (Acts 2:13 KJV), who clearly heard the Pentecostal Gospel as did everyone else... but, among those mockers were those non-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV) who instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:37 KJV). Those non-Israelite instigators among the mockers were NOT lost sheep of the house of Israel, speaking of feed my sheep THREE times, alone!

So, the members of Peter's alleged one historic Catholic Church included those non-Israelite mockers. Wonder why Catholics are and have been so Scripturally deficient on such matters for the last two millennia? Catholics have surrendered, yielded, forfeited their God-given spiritual and Scriptural curiosity to a pack of hypocrites: Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29.

kayaker

republicanchick
August 4th, 2015, 11:44 AM
C
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Salvation is through Christ Jesus and no one else:

Jesus.

then throw out all your pastors ASAP!

and u may want to consider a little factoid that you seem to be glaringly ignoring, namely that Jesus came to us through MARY


And believe it or not, GOD did that...

true story



+++

republicanchick
August 4th, 2015, 11:46 AM
I said
I feel sorry for anyone who believes outside the Word of God. And Catholicism doctrine isn't in the Word of God. catholicism is not contrary to God's Word, and the Church preceded the written Word... You would know this if you studied history. The written Bible didn't come along until the printing press was invented in 1440... Even then Bibles were prohibitively expensive so only the Church had them..

Stuu
August 4th, 2015, 12:49 PM
catholicism is not contrary to God's Word, and the Church preceded the written Word...
Never mind the Jewish bible then.

Stuart

HisServant
August 4th, 2015, 02:25 PM
catholicism is not contrary to God's Word, and the Church preceded the written Word... You would know this if you studied history. The written Bible didn't come along until the printing press was invented in 1440... Even then Bibles were prohibitively expensive so only the Church had them..

Have you ever even tried to do an honest historical study of the Bible?

The books of the Bible predated the RCC by centuries.

Cruciform
August 4th, 2015, 02:34 PM
Just under 'certain' formal conditions? The RCC says he is INFALLIBLE.
The Church says that the Pope's teaching is infallible when it is delivered in a formal or official capacity. That's what the doctrine of papal infallibility entails.


Either the pope is infallible or the pope is fallible.
Rather, just as Peter taught infallibly under certain specific conditions---for example, when he wrote his New Testament epistles---so his successors (the popes) teach infallibly under certain specific conditions. Not everything Peter said was infallible, after all.


RCC does not make the distinction of 'certain' formal conditions as you declare when the laity is told the pope is infallible
On the contrary. The distinction is spelled out right there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Try again.


Infallible means 'incapable of making mistakes or being wrong' EVER.
This is merely your Straw Man Fallacy. See above.


Either the pope is infallible as the RCC declares...
Now go ahead and post the passage in the Catechism that supposedly states that "The Pope is incapable of making mistakes or being wrong EVER," as you claim above.


...or the pope is only infallible in 'certain formal conditions' as you propose.
That's exactly what the Church teaches. Sorry for your confusion/ignorance.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
August 4th, 2015, 02:36 PM
Especially since Mary is the savior of the world according to RCC dogma:
Straw Man Fallacy. Essentially a lie on your part (Prov. 19:5), since you've already been corrected on this in the past.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
August 4th, 2015, 02:39 PM
The books of the Bible predated the RCC by centuries.
The books of the Old Testament, yes; the New Testament documents, no.

HisServant
August 4th, 2015, 02:43 PM
Straw Man Fallacy. Essentially a lie on your part (Prov. 19:5), since you've already been corrected on this in the past.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I don't think they pose Mary as a savior. But they have sure carved out an area for her that goes beyond what the original apostles taught about her. What they do teach about her is very close to what was taught about Diana (Artemis) in pre christian Rome. So from a historical point of view, as the RCC being the state religion of the Roman Empire and its desire to unify all its non-christian citizens with Christianity, it makes since that it would pick and chose various existing doctrines and weave them into its doctrines to make it more attractive.

Anyhow, I find its teachings about Mary quizzical at best, and non-essential to salvation, so I give them a bit of a pass on it.

Cruciform
August 4th, 2015, 03:02 PM
I don't think they pose Mary as a savior. But they have sure carved out an area for her that goes beyond what the original apostles taught about her.
And how, exactly, do you claim to know this?


Anyhow, I find its teachings about Mary quizzical at best...
Of course, that assumes that you have an accurate grasp of what the Church actually teaches about Mary, when your own posted statements on this forum indicate anything but. To remedy your situation, I would recommend a careful and thorough reading of this excellent recently-published text:



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51p6Ylev4TL._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Staples, BEHOLD YOUR MOTHER: A Biblical & Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines (Catholic Answers Press, 2014) (http://www.amazon.com/Behold-Your-Mother-Historical-Doctrines/dp/1938983807/ref=sr_1_1_twi_1_har?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438721804&sr=1-1&keywords=behold+your+mother+by+tim+staples)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

HisServant
August 4th, 2015, 03:06 PM
And how, exactly, do you claim to know this?


Of course, that assumes that you have an accurate grasp of what the Church actually teaches about Mary, when your own posted statements on this forum indicate anything but. To remedy your situation, I would recommend a careful and thorough reading of this excellent recently-published text:



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51p6Ylev4TL._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Staples, BEHOLD YOUR MOTHER: A Biblical & Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines (Catholic Answers Press, 2014) (http://www.amazon.com/Behold-Your-Mother-Historical-Doctrines/dp/1938983807/ref=sr_1_1_twi_1_har?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438721804&sr=1-1&keywords=behold+your+mother+by+tim+staples)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I've read it enough to know it was debated for centuries and was never really official doctrine for a LONG LONG time.. and that attrition through the ages finally put the magesterium in a position to make it official doctrine more than a millennium and a half after Jesus ascended.

I also feel that it could never have been made doctrine before the Great Schism because the Eastern Orthodox Churches actually have a Church that is believed to mark where Mary is buried.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_the_Virgin_Mary This would invalidate the assumption of Mary. Not to mention there are around 50 or so early church writings that talk about the death of Mary.

The further you get away from an actual event, the more it will become mystery and myth.

Cruciform
August 4th, 2015, 03:08 PM
I've read it enough to know it was debated for centuries and was never really official doctrine for a LONG LONG time.. and that attrition through the ages finally put the magesterium in a position to make it official doctrine more than a millennium and a half after Jesus ascended.
You failed to actually answer the question posed in Post #64.

HisServant
August 4th, 2015, 03:14 PM
You failed to actually answer the question posed in Post #64.

I actually did... sorry you are so such a Troll and stuck in a box that you cannot see the obvious.

Cruciform
August 4th, 2015, 03:53 PM
I actually did...
That's your answer? You "know" the apostles supposedly didn't teach the Marian doctrines because some of them weren't formally defined until after the apostles died? On the same basis, then, you must also reject such Christian doctrines as the Trinity and Incarnation/Diety of Jesus Christ as well, correct? :think:

I'll ask again:

"And how, exactly, do you claim to know that the apostles supposedly did not teach the Marian doctrines?"



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
August 4th, 2015, 04:37 PM
That's your answer? You "know" the apostles supposedly didn't teach the Marian doctrines because some of them weren't formally defined until after the apostles died? On the same basis, then, you must also reject such Christian doctrines as the Trinity and Incarnation/Diety of Jesus Christ as well, correct? :think:

I'll ask again:

"And how, exactly, do you claim to know that the apostles supposedly did not teach the Marian doctrines?"



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Post for us the texts authored by Paul or the other 11 Apostles listing the Marian traditions as part of the traditions be taught and sufficient proof will have been provided. If you cannot post a writing attributed to Paul them 6 there is no proof he, or the others, taught them.

Ball is in your court.

lifeisgood
August 4th, 2015, 07:11 PM
The Church says that the Pope's teaching is infallible when it is delivered in a formal or official capacity. That's what the doctrine of papal infallibility entails.


Rather, just as Peter taught infallibly under certain specific conditions---for example, when he wrote his New Testament epistles---so his successors (the popes) teach infallibly under certain specific conditions. Not everything Peter said was infallible, after all.


On the contrary. The distinction is spelled out right there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Try again.


This is merely your Straw Man Fallacy. See above.


Now go ahead and post the passage in the Catechism that supposedly states that "The Pope is incapable of making mistakes or being wrong EVER," as you claim above.


That's exactly what the Church teaches. Sorry for your confusion/ignorance.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

When did Peter EVER say he was infallible? NEVER.
When do the RCC say their popeS are infallible? ALWAYS.

Town Heretic
August 4th, 2015, 07:15 PM
I feel sorry for people clos...

Sorry, that's just as far as I could get. If that thing was a pencil you'd tear the paper to pieces trying for a thesis...Fell asleep so often making an attempt to get to the point I wondered if I had sudden onset narcolepsy...but no.

It's you then. :Plain:

That said I like some Catholics. Some I don't. Catholicism gave me Merton and Brother Lawrence. I'm grateful for that much...but then it also gave us you. :think: So the way I see it this Pope owes me. :eek:

lifeisgood
August 4th, 2015, 07:22 PM
Straw Man Fallacy. Essentially a lie on your part (Prov. 19:5), since you've already been corrected on this in the past.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Lifeisgood name is nowhere to be found in the RCC Bible.
You know, the one that was 'fixed' by the infallible popeS so that the Bible fit RCC dogma.

I guess your infallible popeS should not have changed Gen. 3:15 to read:

Genesis 3:15Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

It is ALL about Jesus:

Genesis 3:15King James Version (KJV)
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Have you ever read the 'Mercies of Mary'? It even has the imprimatur affixed to it. You know the seal of approval of the RCC the infallible popeS approving what is said? Meaning, the RCC infallible popeS agrees with the author of the Mercies of Mary that she is the Savior of the world.

Stuu
August 5th, 2015, 01:05 AM
The Church says that the Pope's teaching is infallible when it is delivered in a formal or official capacity. That's what the doctrine of papal infallibility entails.


Rather, just as Peter taught infallibly under certain specific conditions---for example, when he wrote his New Testament epistles---so his successors (the popes) teach infallibly under certain specific conditions. Not everything Peter said was infallible, after all.


On the contrary. The distinction is spelled out right there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Try again.


This is merely your Straw Man Fallacy. See above.


Now go ahead and post the passage in the Catechism that supposedly states that "The Pope is incapable of making mistakes or being wrong EVER," as you claim above.


That's exactly what the Church teaches. Sorry for your confusion/ignorance.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
Never was anything so obviously the invention of ambitious great apes.

Stuart

Grosnick Marowbe
August 5th, 2015, 01:13 AM
Never was anything so obviously the invention of ambitious great apes.

Stuart

Speaking of "great apes" your rep power is extremely low? Does
that have anything to do with your IQ being the same? Low that
is?

Grosnick Marowbe
August 5th, 2015, 01:15 AM
When did Peter EVER say he was infallible? NEVER.
When do the RCC say their popeS are infallible? ALWAYS.

Well, their Popes are elected. Would they place a man in that position
if he wasn't infallible? Maybe?

republicanchick
August 5th, 2015, 11:57 AM
Never was anything so obviously the invention of ambitious great apes.

Stuart

another non-answer due to lack of answer


ok


++

Cruciform
August 5th, 2015, 05:24 PM
Post for us the texts authored by Paul or the other 11 Apostles listing the Marian traditions as part of the traditions be taught...
Such Tradition does not have to have been written down by the apostles themselves in order to qualify as Sacred Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html), as you wrongly assume. All that is required is that such authoritative teachings have come through the ordained successors (http://scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html) of the apostles---that is, the bishops as a body---in communion with Peter's successor (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), the Bishop of Rome. Sorry for your confusion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
August 5th, 2015, 05:32 PM
Lifeisgood name is nowhere to be found in THE RCC Bible.
There's certainly more than one English translation of the Bible approved by the Church.


You know, the one that was 'fixed' by the infallible popeS so that the Bible fit RCC dogma.
In fact, the Douay-Rheims was published before the KJV, so perhaps it's the King of England who "fixed" the text. In any case, there is no such thing as an infallible translation, so your point simply falls flat.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
August 5th, 2015, 07:35 PM
Such Tradition does not have to have been written down by the apostles themselves in order to qualify as Sacred Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html), as you wrongly assume. All that is required is that such authoritative teachings have come through the ordained successors (http://scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html) of the apostles---that is, the bishops as a body---in communion with Peter's successor (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), the Bishop of Rome. Sorry for your confusion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I'm impressed. You COMPLETELY avoided answering the question I asked. Interestingly, that actually answers the question: you have no such writings. Thanks fir being honest.

glassjester
August 5th, 2015, 07:37 PM
When did Peter EVER say he was infallible? NEVER.
When do the RCC say their popeS are infallible? ALWAYS.


First question: Did Christ found a church on Earth?

Second question: If a church truly belongs to Christ, will Christ allow it to teach error?

kayaker
August 5th, 2015, 08:44 PM
When was the Catholic Church founded? At Pentecost? Peter denied the Holy Spirit not standing and preaching the Pentecostal Gospel (Acts 2:14 KJV). Everyone heard the Pentecostal Gospel, even in multiple languages. Peter denied the Holy Spirit the second time preaching another gospel beginning in Acts 2:22 KJV. Those mockers included the non-Israelites (Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; John 8:33 KJV; Romans 9:6, 7, 8; Revelation 2:9, 3:9) who instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:37 KJV). Therefore, Peter denied the Holy Spirit addressing those who were NOT the lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL... speaking of FEED MY SHEEP!

So, who sanctioned the members of Peter's one historic Catholic Church? Jesus? I really don't think so... can you spell 'rooster'?

kayaker

Stuu
August 6th, 2015, 02:42 AM
Speaking of "great apes" your rep power is extremely low? Does
that have anything to do with your IQ being the same? Low that
is?
Hello, fellow great ape! I'm sorry but I don't understand what point you might be driving at.

Stuart

Stuu
August 6th, 2015, 02:43 AM
another non-answer due to lack of answer


ok


++
Non-answer to what question?

Stuart

lifeisgood
August 6th, 2015, 09:25 AM
The Church says that the Pope's teaching is infallible when it is delivered in a formal or official capacity. That's what the doctrine of papal infallibility entails.

Rather, just as Peter taught infallibly under certain specific conditions---for example, when he wrote his New Testament epistles---so his successors (the popes) teach infallibly under certain specific conditions. Not everything Peter said was infallible, after all.

On the contrary. The distinction is spelled out right there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Try again.

This is merely your Straw Man Fallacy. See above.

Now go ahead and post the passage in the Catechism that supposedly states that "The Pope is incapable of making mistakes or being wrong EVER," as you claim above.

That's exactly what the Church teaches. Sorry for your confusion/ignorance.

Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+

Sorry, Cruciform, the RCC does NOT teach as you say that it does.

The RCC vociferously says that the Bible teaches pope succession, e.g., however, you know that that is NOT true.

IRENEAUS (AD 130-202) was the headspring of the RCC.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says "his was the first systematic exposition of Catholic belief."
Irenaeus introduced the false teaching of apostolic succession from Peter and the importance of tradition above the Bible.
Like Justin, Irenaus believed in transubstantiation and the annihilation of the wicked.
Based on Irenaeus, textual critics developed the heretical "Two document theory" that purports that the writers of the Gospels copied from each other.
(Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. Irenaeus.)

BTW, infallible is infallible.
Either your pope is infallible or he is fallible. He cannot be both.

Again, I repeat, Peter never said he was infallible. The RCC says that all your popeS are infallible.

I would appreciate the RCC STOP lying about Peter.

lifeisgood
August 6th, 2015, 09:27 AM
First question: Did Christ found a church on Earth?

Second question: If a church truly belongs to Christ, will Christ allow it to teach error?

First answer: No!

Second answer: Jesus did not found a Church on Earth.

lifeisgood
August 6th, 2015, 09:28 AM
I'm impressed. You COMPLETELY avoided answering the question I asked. Interestingly, that actually answers the question: you have no such writings. Thanks fir being honest.

:thumb:

lifeisgood
August 6th, 2015, 09:35 AM
There's certainly more than one English translation of the Bible approved by the Church.

In fact, the Douay-Rheims was published before the KJV, so perhaps it's the King of England who "fixed" the text. In any case, there is no such thing as an infallible translation, so your point simply falls flat.

Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+

The RCC can have ALL the Bibles in the world, and they probably have, however, they promote NONE of them because Irenaeus made tradition more important than the word of God and the RCC follow his directives as he is the headspring of the RCC and you follow Irenaeus instead of the Lord Jesus Christ and what He did at the Cross of Calvary, exclusively.

I am so happy that the King of England "fixed" the lie of the RCC that Mary is the savior of the world, just to give you an example.

Have you never read 'The Mercies of Mary,' you know, the one with the imprimatur on it?

Cruciform
August 6th, 2015, 03:22 PM
I'm impressed. You COMPLETELY avoided answering the question I asked.
There was no question posed in Post #69. In any case, your demand there is internally flawed, and therefore inherently irrational. Why? Post #77.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
August 6th, 2015, 04:08 PM
Sorry, Cruciform, the RCC does NOT teach as you say that it does.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:


891 The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful---who confirms his brethren in the faith---he proclaims by a definite act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor [the pope], they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine for belief as being divinely revealed, and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions must be adhered to with the obedience of faith...


In short:

"A Pope only exercises infallibility on rare occasions - a handful of times in history. Here are the conditions:

1. The Pope must speak ex cathedra ("from the Chair" of Peter) in his official capacity.

"The Chair is - let us say it again - a symbol of the power of teaching, which is a power of obedience and service, so that the Word of God- the truth! - may shine out among us and show us the way of life." ~ Pope Benedict XVI
2. The decision must be binding on the whole Church.
3. It must be on a matter of faith or morals.
4. He must be intending to teach."

http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope.php


This is exactly what the Church teaches, and precisely what I've been saying. You're simply wrong.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

aikido7
August 6th, 2015, 04:12 PM
yeh, for sure, they are missing out BIG TIME

But hey, you can lead a horse to water but you c an't...

I have been in just about every "church" you can imagine.. but none has what the Catholic Church has...

What's that, you may ask?

well, it does no good to say... but you can read past threads/posts of mine..

anyway, I did find ONE non-Catholic "church" I like

but I won't say which one b/c ... well, heck, same thing... no one seems to listen...

hard headed, etc..



+Alarm and fear--much like in American politics--prevents people from opening up their experience to new ideas.

When you find yourself hard headed do you make a connection to your underlying fear?

Cruciform
August 6th, 2015, 04:16 PM
No!...Jesus did NOT found a Church on Earth.

"And I [Jesus] tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18).


QUESTION: Who's the liar---Jesus Christ, or you?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
August 6th, 2015, 04:18 PM
There was no question posed in Post #69. In any case, your demand there is internally flawed, and therefore inherently irrational. Why? Post #77.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

You already proved you can't provide the requested documents, why do you bother with further responses that only serve to further prove you have no idea what traditions Paul was referring to?

Grosnick Marowbe
August 6th, 2015, 04:18 PM
"And I [Jesus] tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18).


QUESTION: Who's the liar---Jesus Christ, or you?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Your "Church" cannot offer you eternal life. That's between the
individual and God.

Cruciform
August 6th, 2015, 04:19 PM
:thumb:
Oops! Post #88 above. Try again.

Grosnick Marowbe
August 6th, 2015, 04:21 PM
Hello, fellow great ape! I'm sorry but I don't understand what point you might be driving at.

Stuart

Exactly my point!

Cruciform
August 6th, 2015, 04:26 PM
You already proved you can't provide the requested documents, why do you bother with further responses that only serve to further prove you have no idea what traditions Paul was referring to?
Your rhetorical demand for "documents" is inherently self-defeating (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html), and so no such documents need be provided. Why, then, do you bother with further demands for "documents" that only serves to demonstrate the intrinsically self-refuting nature of your approach? Back to Post #77.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
August 6th, 2015, 04:28 PM
Your "Church" cannot offer you eternal life. That's between the individual and God.
...according to the opinions that you have been fed by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. :yawn:

Cruciform
August 6th, 2015, 04:32 PM
...Irenaeus made tradition more important than the word of God and the RCC follow his directives as he is the headspring of the RCC and you follow Irenaeus instead of the Lord Jesus Christ and what He did at the Cross of Calvary, exclusively.
Don't quit your day job, friend. Patristic Studies and Ecclesiastical History obviously aren't your thing. :darwinsm:


Have you never read 'The Mercies of Mary,' you know, the one with the imprimatur on it?
What is it that you imagine an imprimatur signifies, exactly...?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

CabinetMaker
August 6th, 2015, 05:01 PM
Your rhetorical demand for "documents" is inherently self-defeating (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html), and so no such documents need be provided. Why, then, do you bother with further demands for "documents" that only serves to demonstrate the intrinsically self-refuting nature of your approach? Back to Post #77.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
Yes, they very much do need to be provided. Without them you have no justification for your traditions. The RCCs traditions are nothing more than the traditions of men.

Cruciform
August 6th, 2015, 05:41 PM
Yes, they very much do need to be provided. Without them you have no justification for your traditions.
Nonsense. We have the very same justification that Christians have always had: "They are the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)."

Also, your statement here merely begs the question in favor of the inherently self-refuting (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html) 16th-century Protestant notion (tradition of men) of sola scriptura. Try again.



http://preachersinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SolaScriptura.jpg



The RCCs traditions are nothing more than the traditions of men.
Declares one who is merely parroting the entirely non-authoritative opinions (traditions of men) of his preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Stuu
August 7th, 2015, 02:30 AM
Exactly my point!
What, that we are the same species of African great ape?

Was the point made to support another statement, or to celebrate our solidarity with our cousins the other great apes?

Stuart

lifeisgood
August 7th, 2015, 06:15 AM
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:


891 The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful---who confirms his brethren in the faith---he proclaims by a definite act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor [the pope], they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine for belief as being divinely revealed, and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions must be adhered to with the obedience of faith...


In short:

"A Pope only exercises infallibility on rare occasions - a handful of times in history. Here are the conditions:

1. The Pope must speak ex cathedra ("from the Chair" of Peter) in his official capacity.

"The Chair is - let us say it again - a symbol of the power of teaching, which is a power of obedience and service, so that the Word of God- the truth! - may shine out among us and show us the way of life." ~ Pope Benedict XVI
2. The decision must be binding on the whole Church.
3. It must be on a matter of faith or morals.
4. He must be intending to teach."

http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope.php


This is exactly what the Church teaches, and precisely what I've been saying. You're simply wrong.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

You can show all the books of the RCC you want, other religions can also pull out their books, the truth is that I can pick ANY Catholic, which I have done in the past, and they will NOT open the RCC's Catechism. The majority of Catholics don't even own a Catechism. They simply go through the motions, being that they are taught that the popeS decide their destiny.

RCC's instruction for the laity is:
the popeS are infallible, listen to him (do not listen to the Bible)

you do not need God, as the popeS are the Vicar of God on Earth
go to mass (and crucify Jesus again and again)

confess your sins to a sinner like you

the sinner will forgive you your sins (how can a sinner forgive sins of another sinner)

the sinner will appoint you the penance for you to atone for the sin committed

The RCC is sending millions to Hell today, because their infallible popeS have separated them from the ONLY, EXCLUSIVE way of Salvation --- Jesus Christ and what He did at the Cross of Calvary.

Mary must be turning over her grave seeing how the RCC demeans her son.

I am sure the Lord in His infinite infallibility has saved many from the RCC claws, but as a whole, the RCC is NOT pointing people to Jesus Christ and His work at the Cross as their ONLY, ALONE, and EXCLUSIVE way for salvation.

The RCC is NOT the Savior of the world.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, (NOT the mother of God) is not the Savior of the world.

Jesus the Christ and what He did at the Cross of Calvary is the ONLY way for ANY ONE to be saved.

There is no other way as no other way is needed.

lifeisgood
August 7th, 2015, 06:29 AM
"And I [Jesus] tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18).


QUESTION: Who's the liar---Jesus Christ, or you?

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Jesus' Church is NOT a denomination.
Jesus' Church is NOT the RCC.
Therefore, my answer stand:
Jesus did not found a Church on Earth.

Now, Ireneaus, on the other hand, --- NOT JESUS --- was the headspring of the RCC "his was the first systematic exposition of Catholic belief." Irenaeus --- NOT PETER or JESUS --- introduced the false teaching of apostolic succession from Peter and the importance of tradition above the Bible. Like Justin, Irenaus believed in transubstantiation and the annihilation of the wicked. Based on Irenaeus, textual critics developed the heretical "Two document theory" that purports that the writers of the Gospels copied from each other.
(Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. Irenaeus.)

lifeisgood
August 7th, 2015, 06:37 AM
"And I [Jesus] tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18).


QUESTION: Who's the liar---Jesus Christ, or you?

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Peter himself underscores the fact that Jesus is the foundation of Jesus' Church and not Peter himself, in Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:4-8, when he alludes to Jesus Christ as the “stone rejected by builders” and as the “rock that makes unbelievers fall.”

Furthermore, the apostle Paul calls Jesus the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), and the spiritual rock (1 Cor. 10:4) of the church.

The Bible does not support the idea of Peter saying that he is the very first pope of the RCC or of any denomination, for that matter, NEITHER does Jesus Christ.

It would be nice if the RCC stop calling Peter a liar.

lifeisgood
August 7th, 2015, 06:41 AM
QUESTION: Who's the liar---Jesus Christ, or you?


Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Answer: The RCC denomination is the liar.

lifeisgood
August 7th, 2015, 07:12 AM
What is it that you imagine an imprimatur signifies, exactly...?
Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

LOL!

RCC Imprimatur: False doctrine approved by the RCC denomination doctrinal approval committee seal, which declares that their approved books are to be considered ABOVE the Bible.

I am assuming you are a young priest and have not been taught in seminary that without the RCC denomination doctrinal approval committee imprimatur seal books that do not expound the false doctrine of RCC denomination cannot be printed. Therefore, the RCC denomination consider their imprimatured books sealed by the committed approved by their infallible popeS to be above the Bible.

Books, such as, e.g., The Mercies of Mary preaching that Mary is the Savior of the world and NOT Jesus Christ.

Cruciform
August 8th, 2015, 01:54 PM
You can show all the books of the RCC you want, other religions can also pull out their books, the truth is that I can pick ANY Catholic, which I have done in the past, and they will NOT open the RCC's Catechism. The majority of Catholics don't even own a Catechism. They simply go through the motions, being that they are taught that the popeS decide their destiny.
What individual lay Catholics may or may not do is irrelevant. Your claim was that I was wrong in stating that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible in his teaching under certain formal circumstances. My response in Post #89 utterly refutes your entirely false claim.


RCC's instruction for the laity is: the popeS are infallible, listen to him (do not listen to the Bible)
Straw Man Fallacy. Come back when you actually know what you're talking about.


...you do not need God, as the popeS are the Vicar of God on Earth
Straw Man Fallacy. Here you merely reveal your own vast ignorance of Catholic teaching.


go to mass (and crucify Jesus again and again)
See just above. It applies to the rest of your post as well.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
August 8th, 2015, 02:02 PM
Jesus' Church is NOT a denomination.
No, it is His one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), which since the end of the 1st century has been commonly known as "the Catholic Church." This is a historical fact.


Jesus' Church is NOT the CC.
...according to the opinions (traditions) of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. :yawn:


Therefore, my answer stand: Jesus did not found a Church on Earth.
Your tacit claim that Jesus Christ lied in Matthew 16:18 (Post #91) is noted.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
August 8th, 2015, 02:10 PM
Peter himself underscores the fact that Jesus is the foundation of Jesus' Church and not Peter himself, in Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:4-8, when he alludes to Jesus Christ as the “stone rejected by builders” and as the “rock that makes unbelievers fall.” Furthermore, the apostle Paul calls Jesus the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), and the spiritual rock (1 Cor. 10:4) of the church.
Already decisively answered here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4319820&postcount=279). Try again.


The Bible does not support the idea of Peter saying that he is the very first pope of the RCC or of any denomination, for that matter, NEITHER does Jesus Christ.
Already answered here (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) and here (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm). Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
August 8th, 2015, 02:12 PM
Answer: The RCC denomination is the liar.
Already answered (Post #108).

Cruciform
August 8th, 2015, 02:14 PM
RCC Imprimatur: False doctrine approved by the RCC denomination doctrinal approval committee seal, which declares that their approved books are to be considered ABOVE the Bible.
So, then, you are utterly ignorant of what an imprimatur actually signifies. That's what I thought. :yawn:

lifeisgood
August 9th, 2015, 06:34 PM
I understand your frustration, Cruciform.

patrick jane
August 9th, 2015, 07:09 PM
yeh, for sure, they are missing out BIG TIME

But hey, you can lead a horse to water but you c an't...

I have been in just about every "church" you can imagine.. but none has what the Catholic Church has...

What's that, you may ask?

well, it does no good to say... but you can read past threads/posts of mine..

anyway, I did find ONE non-Catholic "church" I like

but I won't say which one b/c ... well, heck, same thing... no one seems to listen...

hard headed, etc..



+



I feel sorry for anyone close-minded to God, His Son Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit or good and righteous living.

John 13:34-35 KJV -

Cruciform
August 9th, 2015, 10:05 PM
I understand your frustration, Cruciform.
Nothing in Post #111 expresses any "frustration" whatsoever. It stands as given.

lifeisgood
August 10th, 2015, 11:20 AM
Nothing in Post #111 expresses any "frustration" whatsoever. It stands as given.

Your frustration is showing, Cruciform, but I understand.

republicanchick
August 10th, 2015, 03:03 PM
LOL!

e imprimatur seal books that do not expound the false doctrine of RCC denomination cannot be printed. ist.

name the false doctrines of Catholicism




__

Grosnick Marowbe
August 10th, 2015, 03:55 PM
If the Catholic church would:
1) Disband the Priests and Nuns.
2) Get rid of their idols
3) Disband the need for a Pope.
4) Get rid of all their false doctrines.
5) Stop praying to Mary and the Saints.
6) Stop the usage of pre-written prayers.
7) Stop using their Rosary's.
8) Stop their works based belief sytem.
9) Accept The Grace Gospel. (Paul's Gospel)
10) Start preaching the truth that fits into The Dispensation
of Grace.

Then, they'd be on the right path and be able to preach God's
Grace towards man, then, their Parishioners would have a chance
to receive eternal life.

Cruciform
August 10th, 2015, 04:50 PM
If the Catholic church would:
1) Disband the Priests and Nuns.
2) Get rid of their idols
3) Disband the need for a Pope.
4) Get rid of all their false doctrines.
5) Stop praying to Mary and the Saints.
6) Stop the usage of pre-written prayers.
7) Stop using their Rosary's.
8) Stop their works based belief sytem.
9) Accept The Grace Gospel. (Paul's Gospel)
10) Start preaching the truth that fits into The Dispensation
of Grace.

Then, they'd be on the right path and be able to preach God's
Grace towards man, then, their Parishioners would have a chance
to receive eternal life.
No, Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) won't be conforming its teachings and practices to the entirely non-authoritative dictates of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect any time soon. :yawn:

Cruciform
August 10th, 2015, 04:52 PM
Your frustration is showing, Cruciform, but I understand.
Post #111

lifeisgood
August 10th, 2015, 06:38 PM
Post #111

Still showing, Cruciform.

Have you ever read the 'RCC imprimatured' The Mercies of Mary where it says that Mary is the Savior of the world and NOT Christ?

lifeisgood
August 10th, 2015, 06:50 PM
No, Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) won't be conforming its teachings and practices to the entirely non-authoritative dictates of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect any time soon. :yawn:

Christ never established any denomination. EVER. RCC or otherwise. The religious leaders of Jesus' day crucified Him on a Cross.

And the religious leaders of the RCC or any other modern denomination would crucify Him all over again having had the chance because He would not fit their denomination laws, bylaws, catechism, etc.

Maybe you would have a better case for your assertions that the RCC is the true denomination providing one example of Jesus praying the rosary, one example of Jesus condoning nuns and priests, one example of Jesus worshiping statues/idols/relics, one example of Jesus kissing the hand of any pope, one example of Jesus preaching a works salvation, etc.

One example, then you could work from there.

lifeisgood
August 10th, 2015, 07:02 PM
name the false doctrines of Catholicism__

Confess your sins to a RCC priest.
"Receive" all appropriate RCC sacraments.
Believe that Grace comes only via Rome's sacraments, and only through Mary.
Buy or earn as many indulgences as possible so as to avoid Purgatory.
Believe that Grace can only be distributed to you by Mary.
Attend the Roman Catholic Mass on all Sundays and holy days.
Obey all of Rome's rules (i.e., precepts of the Church).
Be a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
Submit yourself to the Pope.
Pray the Rosary.

Modern RCC leaders are even saying that you don’t really need to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved!

Article #841 of the Catechism says: "The Church's relationship with the Muslims. 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'" This means that the Catholic church believes that the Muslims will be saved just like anyone else even though Muslims don't believe in Jesus, and that they worship the same God that we all do even though Allah was originally a pagan moon god.

The Roman Catholic church is the self-proclaimed “mother” of all churches.

03 Sep 2000 (AP) VATICAN CITY (AP) - One of Pope John Paul II's closest aides has written to bishops worldwide declaring that the Catholic church is the “mother” of other Christian churches … In the document, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told the bishops that it was incorrect to refer to Christian churches, ranging from Orthodox to Protestant, as “sister” churches of the Catholic church ... stating that the term “sister” puts them on an equal footing and they are not “sisters” but the Catholic church is the “mother”.

That's just for starters.

Cruciform
August 10th, 2015, 09:39 PM
Christ never established any denomination. EVER. RCC or otherwise...
Already answered (Posts #108 and #109).


...providing one example of Jesus praying the rosary...
Not a Catholic doctrine. Try again.


...one example of Jesus condoning nuns and priests...
Not a Catholic doctrine. Try again.


...one example of Jesus worshiping statues/idols/relics...
Merely a Straw Man Fallacy on your part, since the Catholic Church has never taught the "worship" of anything other than the true God. Try again.


...one example of Jesus kissing the hand of any pope...
Not a Catholic doctrine. Try again.


...one example of Jesus preaching a works salvation...
Merely a Straw Man Fallacy on your part, since the Catholic Church has never taught "salvation by works." Try again.


You're just not very good at this, are you. :yawn:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Grosnick Marowbe
August 11th, 2015, 12:50 AM
No, Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) won't be conforming its teachings and practices to the entirely non-authoritative dictates of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect any time soon. :yawn:

Well then, you guys will have to stand before God at His Judgment and
be judged by your works! The outcome will be, "The Lake of Fire."

Cruciform
August 11th, 2015, 03:14 PM
Well then, you guys will have to stand before God at His Judgment and be judged by your works! The outcome will be, "The Lake of Fire."
Post #118 :yawn:

lifeisgood
August 12th, 2015, 06:08 AM
Already answered (Posts #108 and #109).

You mean all your here, here, here, here, here, here, here, ad infinitum.
Have taken the time to read them all.

And they all tell me that Jesus NEVER, EVER, NEVER, EVER established ANY denomination, RCC or otherwise.
So try again.


Not a Catholic doctrine. Try again.

That the RCC forces over its members. Try again.


Not a Catholic doctrine. Try again.

That the RCC forces over its members. Try again.


Merely a Straw Man Fallacy on your part, since the Catholic Church has never taught the "worship" of anything other than the true God. Try again.

Yeah, right.
Do you not know that that which you bow down to with all your heart, mind, and spirit, you worship?

When you, Cruciform, bow down to one of the statues/idols/relics, anywhere you do such, because Cruciform believes the RCC doctrines, Cruciform is worshiping them instead of worshiping God and God will not take lightly to it.

The first word of Jesus in His ministry here on earth, was 'repent.'


Not a Catholic doctrine. Try again.

That the RCC forces over its members. Try again.


Merely a Straw Man Fallacy on your part, since the Catholic Church has never taught "salvation by works." Try again.

Is this a lie?
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church through which men enter through Baptism as through the door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse to enter it or to remain in it [fn, LG 14; cf. 16:16; John 3:5] (P 846).

Does not the RCC teach that TO BE SAVED a person must do the following:
1. Have faith in God and Christ.
2. Be baptized in water.
3. Not commit a mortal sin after baptism of water.
4. If one commits a mortal sin, go through the sacrament of Penance.
5. Keep the Ten Commandments.
6. Be a member of the RCC.

So, if the above is a lie, then you Cruciform are following a lie.


You're just not very good at this, are you. :yawn:

The Israel of antiquity and modern times also rejected/reject the warnings of God.

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly (Jn. 10:10).

No statues/idols/relics in Jesus' warning.

Besides there is not a picture or a death mask of Jesus/saints/apostles/prophets, etc. anywhere that statues/idols can be fashioned after.

Try again.

lifeisgood
August 12th, 2015, 06:50 AM
Your tacit claim that Jesus Christ lied in Matthew 16:18 (Post #91) is noted.Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

No, the RCC is the liar.

If the RCC took the time to read what Jesus said, and believe His words, then the RCC would not be teaching a lie; however, because the RCC denies Jesus and His Truth, and has changed His Truth for Peter, then the RCC is teaching a lie.

Matthew 16:15 Jesus saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock [the truth My Father gave to you Peter, not on you Peter] I will build my church [not the RCC denomination but My, Jesus' church]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [the truth My Father gave to you Peter, not you Peter].

Peter must be turning over in his grave seeing that the RCC teaches that the Truth Peter received from the Father about Jesus being the Christ, the Son of the living God, has been transformed into being that the Father said that it has everything to do with Peter and not the Truth Peter received from the Father that it is ALL about Jesus and nothing about Peter.

The religious leaders of Peter's day church crucified him because they did not like that Peter was pointing them exclusively to Jesus Christ and what He did at the Cross of Calvary and not to himself.

Definitely, Peter is turning over in his grave and if he could have the opportunity to come back to life, the first place he would go would be to the Vatican and straighten them out, oh, well, he would be crucified all over again, because what Peter would say would not be in conform to the RCC denomination doctrine.

republicanchick
August 12th, 2015, 11:53 AM
Christ never established any denomination. EVER. RCC or otherwise. NOT true.. I guess you reject Mt 16:18? so much for believing the Bible as one's authority...

And the religious leaders of the RCC or any other modern denomination would crucify Him all over again having had the chance because He would not fit their denomination laws, bylaws, catechism, etc. have to say there is some truth to this one.. Priests often reject those who are the most Catholic... so true..

don't get that, but it is so





Maybe you would have a better case for your assertions that the RCC is the true denomination providing one example of Jesus praying the rosary, one example of Jesus condoning nuns and priests, no, it is incumbent upon YOU to prove that he does NOT want this. I have had times in life when I felt threatened by some evil or another and the only thing that worked was the rosary


example of Jesus worshiping statues/idols/relics, one example of Jesus kissing the hand of any pope, one example of Jesus preaching a works salvation, etc. Maybe if he had lived on Earth longer?




One example, then you could work from there.

No, you have to show (since you are the malcontent here) where we are told, whether in Bible or elsewhere, it is wrong to do those things?

a priest or nun is just someone dedicated to God first...

too bad you see that as evil


"Woe unto them who call good Evil and evil Good" (that's in the bible you claim to believe in)


+
___

republicanchick
August 12th, 2015, 11:56 AM
Confess your sins to a RCC priest.
"Receive" all appropriate RCC sacraments.
Believe that Grace comes only via Rome's sacraments, and only through Mary.
.

you need to study Catholicism from a

surprise, surprise

Catholic!

you know, a practicing, catechized Catholic, like a priest

(meaning one who has not ditched the Faith yet stays in the Church for his own selfish reasons just the same... However most priests are not in that category, I would hope)



_

HisServant
August 12th, 2015, 12:02 PM
you need to study Catholicism from a

surprise, surprise

Catholic!

you know, a practicing, catechized Catholic, like a priest

(meaning one who has not ditched the Faith yet stays in the Church for his own selfish reasons just the same... However most priests are not in that category, I would hope)



_

Priests creep me out in the worse way... kind of like how clowns do... I avoid them like the plague.

republicanchick
August 12th, 2015, 12:08 PM
Priests creep me out in the worse way... kind of like how clowns do... I avoid them like the plague.

people who are creeped out by those who love God and serve His people creep me out in the worst way... kind of like how clowns do... I avoid them like the plague

Good bye, Creepazoid


(don't bother responding... I don't associate with "people" like u)


_

CabinetMaker
August 12th, 2015, 12:17 PM
you need to study Catholicism from a

surprise, surprise

Catholic!

you know, a practicing, catechized Catholic, like a priest

(meaning one who has not ditched the Faith yet stays in the Church for his own selfish reasons just the same... However most priests are not in that category, I would hope)



_
I tried. But I ask hard questions and they get tiered of trying to answer them so they quit trying. If they don't know their own faith well enough to defend it, why would i want to learn from them?

republicanchick
August 12th, 2015, 12:23 PM
I tried. But I ask hard questions and they get tiered of trying to answer them so they quit trying. If they don't know their own faith well enough to defend it, why would i want to learn from them?

I somehow doubt this

I have been to many RCIA classes and there has never been a time someone leading it (priest.. etc)showed impatience with someone who sincerely sought truth and clarity RE the Faith



+

CabinetMaker
August 12th, 2015, 12:47 PM
I somehow doubt this

I have been to many RCIA classes and there has never been a time someone leading it (priest.. etc)showed impatience with someone who sincerely sought truth and clarity RE the Faith



+
Well there's the rub. I ask hard questions and they decide that I am not sincere so they feel no need to patient and deal with my questions.

Cruciform
August 12th, 2015, 05:01 PM
You mean all your here, here, here, here, here, here, here, ad infinitum.Have taken the time to read them all.And they all tell me that Jesus NEVER, EVER, NEVER, EVER established ANY denomination, RCC or otherwise.So try again.That the RCC forces over its members.Try again.That the RCC forces over its members.Try again.Yeah, right.Do you not know that that which you bow down to with all your heart, mind, and spirit, you worship?When you, Cruciform, bow down to one of the statues/idols/relics, anywhere you do such, because Cruciform believes the RCC doctrines, Cruciform is worshiping them instead of worshiping God and God will not take lightly to it.The first word of Jesus in His ministry here on earth, was 'repent.'That the RCC forces over its members. Try again.Is this a lie?
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation:the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church.He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church through which men enter through Baptism as through the door.Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse to enter it or to remain in it [fn, LG 14; cf. 16:16; John 3:5] (P 846).Does not the RCC teach that TO BE SAVED a person must do the following:1.Have faith in God and Christ.2.Be baptized in water.3.Not commit a mortal sin after baptism of water.4.If one commits a mortal sin, go through the sacrament of Penance.5.Keep the Ten Commandments.6.Be a member of the RCC.So, if the above is a lie, then you Cruciform are following a lie.The Israel of antiquity and modern times also rejected/reject the warnings of God.The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy:I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly (Jn. 10:10).No statues/idols/relics in Jesus' warning.Besides there is not a picture or a death mask of Jesus/saints/apostles/prophets, etc. anywhere that statues/idols can be fashioned after.Try again.
Posts #109 and #109.

Cruciform
August 12th, 2015, 05:04 PM
No, the RCC is the liar.If the RCC took the time to read what Jesus said, and believe His words, then the RCC would not be teaching a lie; however, because the RCC denies Jesus and His Truth, and has changed His Truth for Peter, then the RCC is teaching a lie...
Already categorically refuted in Post #109 above.

Cruciform
August 12th, 2015, 05:07 PM
Priests creep me out in the worse way... kind of like how clowns do... I avoid them like the plague.
...just as your preferred recently-invented, man-made anti-Catholic sect has conditioned you to react.

lifeisgood
August 13th, 2015, 08:35 PM
Posts #109 and #109.

It's OK Cruciform, I can read the RCC catechism and all it does is separate me from Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross pointing me to another gospel, another Jesus, by another spirit.

patrick jane
August 13th, 2015, 08:54 PM
i fell sorry for people -

Cruciform
August 13th, 2015, 09:39 PM
It's OK Cruciform, I can read the RCC catechism and all it does is separate me from Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross pointing me to another gospel, another Jesus, by another spirit.
Already answered (Post #108).