Standing Up To Rome

[WeberHome]

-
My mom had me baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944;
and when old enough; enrolled me in catechism where I eventually
completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation.

My aunt and uncle were Catholics, their son is a Catholic, one of my half
brothers is now a semi retired Friar. My father-in-law was a Catholic, as was
my mother-in-law. Everybody alive on my wife's side are Catholics; her
aunts and uncles, and her cousins. My sister-in-law was a nun for a number
of years before falling out with the hierarchy that controlled her order.

I have things to thank the Church for. It instilled within me an unshakable
confidence in the Holy Bible as a reliable authority in all matters pertaining
to faith and practice. It also instilled within me a trust in the integrity of
Jesus Christ. Very early in my youth; I began to believe that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

I was very proud to be affiliated with Roman Catholicism, and confident as
all get out that it is the one true Christian religion. Some Catholics see red
whenever the Church is criticized and/or critiqued, but I never did. Some
Catholics see criticism and/or critique of the Church's beliefs and practices as
hatred for Catholics. I have never understood that mentality.

Ironically, one of the Church's enemies, the Jehovah's Witnesses, sometimes
react the same way when somebody criticizes and/or critiques the Watch
Tower Society. For some odd reason, it translates in their minds as hatred
for Jehovah's Witnesses. I think some people have trouble telling the
difference between a sport and a sport's fans; if you know what I mean.

Oddly, though I was confident that the Bible is a reliable authority in all
matters pertaining to faith and practice; I had never actually sat down and
read it. A co-worker in a metal shop where I worked as a welder in 1968
suggested that I buy one and see for myself what it says.

Everything went smoothly till I got to the New Testament, and in no time at
all I began to realize that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible;
nor does it always agree with Christ. Well; that was not cool with me
because I was, and still am, confident that the Holy Bible is a reliable
authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, and that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome and its hierarchy, or do I switch to following Christ and the
Holy Bible?

The decision was a no-brainer due to my confidence in the Holy Bible as a
reliable authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice; and due to
my trust in Jesus Christ's integrity-- that he knew what he was talking about
and meant what he said. So here I am today 47 years later still a Protestant.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

 

[Cruciform]

Everything went smoothly till I got to the New Testament, and in no time at all I began to realize that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible; nor does it always agree with Christ.

QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

 

[WeberHome]

-

According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the
Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

Christ and the Bible.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[JonahofAkron]

You done did it now.

 

[WeberHome]

-
†. John 6:53 . . Amen, amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

The kind of life obtained by correctly ingesting Christ's flesh, and correctly
imbibing his blood, is eternal life.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

Note the tense of Christ's "has" verb in John 6:54. It's present tense rather
than future, indicating that people who correctly ingest his flesh, and
correctly imbibe his blood, have eternal life right now-- no delay and no
waiting period.

There has never been a time when eternal life didn't exist because it's the
kind of life that sustains God; viz: eternal life always was, it always is, and it
always shall be. In other words: eternal life is an imperishable kind of life
that's impervious to death, decay, and the aging process. Were that not
true, it would be possible to assassinate God.

That being the case, then the kind of life obtained by correctly ingesting
Christ's flesh, and correctly imbibing his blood, never wears out nor ever
wears off because in order for it to wear out or wear off, it would have to
die; which, by eternal life's very nature, is impossible. If it were possible for
eternal life to die, then it wouldn't be eternal.

So then, once someone obtains eternal life, they never need to obtain it
again seeing as how eternal life is impervious to death-- and seeing as how
it's impervious to death, then it's impervious to the wages of sin (Rom 6:23)
which means that it would not die in between confessions and/or in between
doses of Eucharist.

Christ compared himself to the manna that Yhvh's people subsisted on out in
the wilderness prior to their entry into the land of Canaan. Manna was
nourishing, but it was merely an organic sustenance; viz: it didn't have any
life in it. No matter how much of the stuff that the people consumed, manna
couldn't keep them alive forever. They eventually died. And the people
couldn't get by on just one dose of manna; they had to consume it on a daily
basis or risk starvation.

In contrast, Christ is far and away superior to organic sustenance. His body
and blood aren't common sustenance, they are life; and the quality of the
life is such that people need to partake of it just once and they will live
forever-- they don't have to keep eating and drinking his blood over and
over and over again as if it were manna.

Now, the trick to obtaining this benefit is in correctly partaking of Christ's
flesh and blood. When people do it incorrectly, they fail to obtain eternal life;
ergo: they risk passing on with only human life; which is a perishable kind of
life that will not survive the Great White Throne event depicted at Rev
20:10-15.

Q: How does one partake of Christ's body and blood correctly?

A: Well; one thing we can be very sure of is that Christ wasn't literal. The
reason being that right after the Flood, God forbad humanity to eat living
flesh and blood (Gen 9:3-4). So if people are determined to eat Christ's flesh
and blood, either literal or transubstantiated, they are going to have to first
make sure it's quite dead; which of course is impossible seeing as how Christ
rose from the dead with immortality. (Rom 6:9)

The night of Christ's last Passover meal, all the men present with him were
Jews. Well; seeing as how according to Heb 9:16-17, the new covenant
wasn't ratified until Christ died, then he and his men were still under the
jurisdiction of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the
Old Testament: which covenant forbids Jews to eat any manner of blood
(Lev 7:26-27). So if Christ had led those men into eating his blood, he would
have led them into a curse (Deut 27:26) and thus relegated himself to the
position of the least in the kingdom of God. (Matt 26:26-28)

Bottom line: We can, and we should, rule out transubstantiation as a valid
explanation of John 6:32-58.

Now; the trick is: the words that Christ spoke in that section of John were
cryptic. Though his words look like ordinary language and grammar; they
said things that the human mind would find difficult to unravel.

†. John 6:63 . .The words I have spoken to you are spirit

Seeing as how Christ's words were spoken in spirit-speak; then you'd need
some sort of Enigma device to translate them; or at least someone proficient
in spirit-speak.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

 

[Cruciform]

Christ and the Bible.

And according to whose infallibly binding interpretation of the Bible do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

 

[brewmama]

-


Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome and its hierarchy, or do I switch to following Christ and the
Holy Bible?

The decision was a no-brainer due to my confidence in the Holy Bible as a
reliable authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice; and due to
my trust in Jesus Christ's integrity-- that he knew what he was talking about
and meant what he said. So here I am today 47 years later still a Protestant.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

I guess you missed the part of the Bible that says "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation,"

or on the road to Emmaus, the 2 disciples , meeting Jesus, did not recognize Him, even when " He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself."

It took the Eucharist to know Him. "30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

 

[keypurr]

-


Christ and the Bible.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Right answer friend.

God comes first of not at all.

You have been blessed.

 

[brewmama]

Or the clear statement that the Bible is not of private interpretation:

"So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”

 

[WeberHome]

-

And according to whose infallibly binding interpretation of the Bible do you
claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and
Christ"?

†. 1John 4:1 . . Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see
whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out
into the world.

In order to "try" the spirits (whoever and/or whatever those spirits might be
in, whether thoughts, prophets, writings, clergy, or laymen) one must first
have access to an independent, unbiased, non proprietary source of truth
with which all other instructional materials must comply. That in itself is an
impossibility for John and Jane Doe pew warmer because they depend
entirely upon the integrity of Rome's magisterium for the truth-- a
magisterium composed of human beings who, in reality, may be under the
influence of the very spirits whom pew warmers are supposed to try; but
have no independent, unbiased, non proprietary means to do so.

What I'm saying is this: if the magisterium itself is the unwitting pawn of
dark beings, then the rank and file are inadvertent puppets of the dark
beings through their trust in the integrity of Rome's magisterium; viz: a
Catholic is the perfect patsy because Rome has convinced the rank and file
that the clergy alone has the truth, and convinced them that, on their own,
they cannot find the truth without the clergy's help: a classic catch-22.

In the study of logic, that's called circular reasoning; viz: pointing to Rome's
own proprietary teachings to prove that it's right. That kind of evidence is
inadmissible in a court of law because it's like dismissing the charges against
a defendant simply by virtue of the fact that he says he didn't do it. In other
words, Catholics are confident Rome has the true interpretation of The Holy
Bible because Rome's teachings say it does. Thus the average pew warmer
is a naive child who renders an utterly thoughtless compliance to the string
pulls of an organization which the rank and file have absolutely no way to
validate except by taking its own word for it.

Catholics may read the Holy Bible on their own; but must interpret any
doctrines they derive from Scripture in accordance with Rome and with
Tradition.

CCC 85 . .The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to
the living teaching office of the Church alone.

To that rule, the rank and file might be inclined to retort: So what? Well; the
consequence of that "so what" attitude is the destruction of conscience and
integrity.

A famous social psychology experiment published in Stanley Milgram's
"Behavioral Study of Obedience", revealed that people are too easily
persuaded to compromise their integrity and suppress their own conscience
while under the supervision of a higher authority. The experiment was
performed with subjects who were under the impression that they were
giving increasingly higher doses of electricity in 15 volt increments, wired to
strangers in an adjoining room who answered questions incorrectly. The
registered voltage could go as high as 420, and the person receiving them
(who was of course just an actor playing a part in the experiment) would let
out increasingly agonized cries from the shocks.

Amazingly, the subjects throwing the switch would sometimes break into
tears from the stress of knowingly causing a stranger undeserved pain.
Others would be sweating, trembling, stuttering, or biting their lips, and
some even broke into uncontrollable nervous fits of psychotic laughter like
souls gone mad; but would still faithfully continue to administer what they
were led to believe was pain and near-causes of death from the electric
shocks jolting suffering people in the adjoining room failing to answer
questions correctly. And even when the actors protested the shocks because
of an existing heart condition, the electricity continued to flow because the
switch operators were told they would not be held accountable if somebody
should die during the experiment.

When Nazi death camp guards were asked how they could, in all good
conscience, justify abusing and killing so many innocent men, women, and
children; they simply answered: "You can't blame any of us for that; we
were only following orders."

It's beyond belief, but many of those very same German guards were
Christians who attended church on Sunday, sang the lovely hymns and
partook the Eucharist; then during the week, impaled newborn Jewish
infants-- thrown out of hospital windows --in midair on their bayonets.

There you have the typical Catholic mentality: "It is not for me to reason
why, it's only for me to faithfully comply." Thus many Catholics willingly
suppress their conscience, and surrender control of their sensitivities, their
reasoning, and their better judgment to the Borg-collective nerve center of a
Magisterium like all good little Catholic boys and girls are supposed to do.
And if The Magisterium is wrong? Well, so what? Can you really blame the
rank and file? After all; they were only doing their duty; and how could God
possibly condemn anybody for that?

But it's not going to work that way at the Great White Throne event depicted
at Rev 20:11-15. Nobody but nobody is going to pass the buck. If an
otherwise intelligent pew warmer foolishly chooses to let others do their own
thinking for them, then they will perish in a fool's death even if their own
personal IQ is 200 or better.

†. Luke 6:39 . .Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the
ditch?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-

I guess you missed the part of the Bible that says "Knowing this first, that
no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation,"

†. 2Pet 1:20 . . Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture
that is a matter of personal interpretation

That verse is easily interpreted by merely reading the information that
accompanies it.

†. 2Pet 1:21 . . for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather
human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

You see: Peter isn't saying that John and Jane Doe pew warmer can't
possibly understand the Old Testament on their own; he's merely saying
that the books of the Old Testaments aren't the product of a fertile
imagination and/or somebody's creative writing skills like Steven King
and/or Stephanie Meyer and Beatrix Potter.

When the language and grammar of 2Pet 1:20-21 are carefully examined;
it's readily seen that what Peter is actually talking about is not the
understanding of prophecy, but rather; the origin of prophecy.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

 

[Cruciform]

That in itself is an impossibility for John and Jane Doe pew warmer because they depend entirely upon the integrity of Rome's Magisterium for the truth...

No more so than does every non-Catholic depend entirely upon the supposed integrity of his preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect for the truth.

...a Magisterium composed of human beings who, in reality, may be under the influence of the very spirits whom pew warmers are supposed to try...

QUESTION: Were the apostles---who were also human beings---ALSO possibly "under the influence of the very spirits" whom 1st-century "pew-warmers" were supposed to try? (Before answering, see, e.g., 1 Jn. 4:6; 1 Tim. 3:15.)​

Also, precisely how---by what means or method---according to the New Testament's teaching, is a lay believer intended to "test the spirits"?

What I'm saying is this: IF the Magisterium itself is the unwitting pawn of dark beings...

A gigantic "if." The central fallacy here is in assuming that Christ's one historic Church itself COULD in fact lapse into formal doctrinal error, an assumption against which Christ's own Church---as well as Divine Revelation---has taught for two millennia now. For example, see this, this, and this.

In the study of logic, that's called circular reasoning...

Again, no more circular than the Protestant's tacit appeal to the supposed doctrinal "authority" of his chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect for his personal interpretations and beliefs.

Catholics may read the Holy Bible on their own; but must interpret any doctrines they derive from Scripture in accordance with Rome and with Tradition.

Of course, just as the Protestant interprets the Bible in accordance with the doctrinal traditions of his favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. For instance, the Baptist exegete is forbidden by his Baptist doctrinal tradition from interpreting any passage of the Bible in a way which would deny or reject the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. This simply is not allowed in his particular non-Catholic tradition. Likewise for Catholics, who read Scripture according to the formal and binding doctrines of Christ's one historic Church. One's beliefs, after all, are never formed in a vacuum.


In light of the above, I'll ask again:

According to whose infallibly binding interpretations of the Bible do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[rougueone]

QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

The authority is Jesus. Who is infallible.

Then Cruciform we have the flip side of the coin, " "The very tradition, teaching, & faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles & preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded..." ~ St. Athanasius (4th cent.).

Whose Fathers ?

 

[Cruciform]

The authority is Jesus.

Is it Jesus who's interpreting the Bible when you read it, or is it you? :think:

Then Cruciform we have the flip side of the coin, " "The very tradition, teaching, & faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles & preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded..." ~ St. Athanasius (4th cent.). Whose Fathers ?

The Fathers of the early Christian Church---those recognized and honored scholars and leaders of Christ's one historic Church who lived between the 1st and 8th centuries A.D.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Greg Jennings]

QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

Do you believe that all popes throughout history have been infallible and uncorrupted?

 

[dialm]

The very early church was good. It was so good that it was given the power of the government. And that was the problem. Men who were not Christians came into the church as a vehicle for attaining political power. The Reformation was the start of the separation of church and state. The Roman church refuses to be reformed. The political aspect that is the Roman church is the number one main problem seperating Protestants and Catholics. Theology is the lesser problem in this instance.

 

[rougueone]

QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

The authority is Jesus. Who is infallible.

Then Cruciform we have the flip side of the coin, " "The very tradition, teaching, & faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles & preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded..." ~ St. Athanasius (4th cent.).

Whose Fathers ?

The 66 books of Scriptures are the journal from the beginning-Genesis, to mankind's end, Revelation.

 

[WeberHome]

-
Christ spoke for God.

†. John 3:34 . . For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's
Spirit is upon him without measure or limit

†. John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those
things which I have heard of Him.

†. John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things
as the Father taught me.

†. John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me,
He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

†. John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who
sent me.

†. Heb 1:1-2 . . In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the
prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has
spoken to us by His son

It is his Father's wishes that people heed Christ.

†. Matt 17:5 . .While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud
overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying: This is My
beloved son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to him!

It's risky to ignore the words that Jesus Christ spoke for God.

†. John 12:48 . . He who rejects me, and does not receive my sayings, has
one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

According to the words that Jesus Christ spoke for God: it is his Father's
wishes that non believers be evangelized first and baptized afterwards (Matt
28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16). Seeing as how infants are de facto incapable of
believing, then their baptism has to be held off until they're old enough to
understand.

There are Christian churches out there who've got the cart before the horse
and by doing so declare themselves Christ's opponents.

†. John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do as I wish.

And they don't think much of him much neither.

†. John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

†. John 14:21 . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one
who loves me.

†. John 14:23-24 . . If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who
does not love me will not obey my teaching.

I've noted in my many years of Bible study that there are two things that
God values very highly. One is honesty, and the other is loyalty; which
Webster's defines as unswerving in allegiance to one's lawful sovereign or
government.

†. Luke 6:46-49 . .Why do you call me lord and master and do not do what I
say?

. . . Everyone who comes to me, and hears my words, and acts upon them, I
will show you whom he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug
deep and laid a foundation upon the rock; and when a flood rose, the torrent
burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well
built.

. . . But the one who has heard, and has not acted accordingly, is like a man
who built a house upon the ground without any foundation; and the torrent
burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was
great.

Churches that circumvent Christ's instructions as per Matt 28:18-20 and
Mark 16:15-16 by baptizing infants are not only disloyal; but they are also
no different than pagans practicing dark arts and/or worshipping Shiva and
Vishnu.

†. 1Sam 15:23 . . Rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is
as iniquity and idolatry.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

 

[HisServant]

QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

The criminal has no infallible and binding authority.

Most disgusting institution that has ever existed on this planet.

ISIS is kinder and gentler than the RCC was in its hay day.

 

[JonahofAkron]

I think that a great question has been raised. Have all of the popes and their traditions been infallible? A particular nuisance in the Borgias comes to mind....