ECT The Roman Catholic "Religion"

[Old man]

"The Plain Truth about the Roman Catholic Church" (Religion)

Peter as the first Pope

The Papacy and Priesthood

The Worship of Mary

Purgatory

The Mass

Image Worship

Salvation by Works


www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

A simple test of the true faith is whether scripture supports all claims. If it's not in the Bible, it's the commandments of men. This is why the RCC tried to suppress scripture, even murdering translators and people caught with scripture in native tongues. Can you imagine, murdering for possessing the word of God, which was freely preached to all in the NT? The work of Satan! They knew the jig was up, once the truth was out. This is why God gave us scripture, hard coded, to know the truth. To this day, they whine over Sola Scriptura, as it destroys their religion, with all its false doctrines. This also applies to all Protestant cults, with their false prophets not of scripture.

 

[chrysostom]

looks like we have another candidate for
catholic hater of the year award
there is a lot of competition

 

[Cruciform]

Peter as the first Pope

Here

The Papacy and Priesthood

Here

The Worship of Mary

Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics do not "worship" Mary or any other past Saint. Please get your facts straight.

Purgatory

Here

The Mass

Here

Image Worship

Another Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics do not "worship" sacred images or objects. Again, please get your facts straight.

Salvation by Works

Strike three with yet another Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics do not believe in "salvation by works." Try again.


End of thread.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Old man]

looks like we have another candidate for
catholic hater of the year award
there is a lot of competition

Nope, wrong, no hate involved. Some of my best friends are catholic, just an expos'e , in hope of your catholic religion being avoided by any considering it.

 

[Old man]

Here


Here


Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics do not "worship" Mary or any other past Saint. Please get your facts straight.


Here


Here


Another Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics do not "worship" sacred images or objects. Again, please get your facts straight.


Strike three with yet another Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics do not believe in "salvation by works." Try again.


End of thread.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

No need to try again as your quotes of "Here" are really of no solid facts. By that I mean, one Pope in history said this, another one comes along and says that.

One cardinal writes this and another one writes that, example, one writing says the change from the Sabbath to the first day of the week Sunday is from 7 or 8 NT Scriptures speaking of the first day of the week, another cardinal says the change has nothing to do with Scriptures as it was done only by and through the power of the RCC.

One year St. Christopher is the protector of travelers and then the next year the Vatican says he has been relieved of his duty.

So no, no need to try again because from the 1000s & 1000s of nearly 2000 years of writings you have to choose from you can pick the one that works best for you at the time it is needed, which is most likely the case with all your "Here's" you quote.

 

[Cruciform]

No need to try again as your quotes of "Here" are really of no solid facts. By that I mean, one Pope in history said this, another one comes along and says that.

Your OP has been categorically refuted point-by-point in Post #4. You've shown that you comprehend next to nothing about what Catholics actually believe and teach. Pick a different topic, and avoid further public embarrassment.

Moving on... :yawn:

 

[Old man]

"Overview of how the Catholic faith contradicts the Bible"

Calling the Priests "Father"

Praying repetitive words using rosary

Virgin Mary worship

Celibacy of Priests

Worshiping idols, icons and images

Baptism by sprinkling

Only Priests can understand the Bible

Etc. Etc.


www.bible.ca/cath-overview-false-teaching.htm

 

[chrysostom]

Nope, wrong, no hate involved. Some of my best friends are catholic, just an expos'e , in hope of your catholic religion being avoided by any considering it.

how does attacking the church help you?

 

[geralduk]

looks like we have another candidate for
catholic hater of the year award
there is a lot of competition

The UK has now made laws against what is called hate crime .

Now a man can speak the truth in an offensive manner .
But another man can speak the truth in the right way for the right motive that then makes the truth the offence ,by some.
If then I speak the truth and another hates it .Am I then inciting hatred?
Or if a person hates the truth that I speak .am I the one who hates or the one who hates the truth?
Hiding behind an accusation of anothers "hatred" is well below what a Christian should be doing.
The errors of the Roman church were proved beyond all reasonable doubt both by biblical argument and by her own reaction to thos arguments .
You cannot or should not accuse someone of hatred simply because they tell the truth about the reformation.
But as the Roman church still teaches those errors despite the reproof and correction of the reformation and now claims she is infallible in them. Means that church (?) or organisation has no chance to repent of them .For she has declared to the world she is infallible .
An absurd assertion that cannot be justified anywhere by scripture .
Nor have those errors somehow changed into the truth by such an assertion.
We are in a reverse reformation and that may seem to give the Roman church much 'encouragement' in her errors .But she would be mistaken to do so .For the scriptures speak of a "great falling away" and men giving ears to false teachers ,the doctrines of devils and seducing spirits.
A doctrinal error 400 years ago or more is still an error both by the Bible the Word of God and the Spirit of truth by which" we know the spirit of error"
It is not then hatred but faithfulness to gods word to hold fast to that which is good and to bear witness to the truth .
If then you hate that or another does then they are simply colouring the person speaking the truth with their hatred and that "without a cause"
The biblical arguments againts those errors can be found and read to the profit of all who care to consider them. Both catholic and protestant alike.
They still stand and cant be gainsaid .
Though many will deny them .

in Christ
gerald

 

[geralduk]

"Overview of how the Catholic faith contradicts the Bible"

Calling the Priests "Father"

Praying repetitive words using rosary

Virgin Mary worship

Celibacy of Priests

Worshiping idols, icons and images

Baptism by sprinkling

Only Priests can understand the Bible

Etc. Etc.


www.bible.ca/cath-overview-false-teaching.htm

The growing assertion by a lot of people that only when you know Greek and Hebrew can you truly understand the scriptures.
is but another false 'priesthood' in the making and a 'protestant one at that .

To counter such an error I would suggest that people consider how much Saul of Tarsus knew the 'original texts ' and Hebrew.
as to many of the pharassees etc who opposed Christ and eventually put him to death.



Should make such "learned" men and women walk more carefully and soberly.

in Christ
gerald

 

[Old man]

The UK has now made laws against what is called hate crime .

Now a man can speak the truth in an offensive manner .
But another man can speak the truth in the right way for the right motive that then makes the truth the offence ,by some.
If then I speak the truth and another hates it .Am I then inciting hatred?
Or if a person hates the truth that I speak .am I the one who hates or the one who hates the truth?
Hiding behind an accusation of anothers "hatred" is well below what a Christian should be doing.
The errors of the Roman church were proved beyond all reasonable doubt both by biblical argument and by her own reaction to thos arguments .
You cannot or should not accuse someone of hatred simply because they tell the truth about the reformation.
But as the Roman church still teaches those errors despite the reproof and correction of the reformation and now claims she is infallible in them. Means that church (?) or organisation has no chance to repent of them .For she has declared to the world she is infallible .
An absurd assertion that cannot be justified anywhere by scripture .
Nor have those errors somehow changed into the truth by such an assertion.
We are in a reverse reformation and that may seem to give the Roman church much 'encouragement' in her errors .But she would be mistaken to do so .For the scriptures speak of a "great falling away" and men giving ears to false teachers ,the doctrines of devils and seducing spirits.
A doctrinal error 400 years ago or more is still an error both by the Bible the Word of God and the Spirit of truth by which" we know the spirit of error"
It is not then hatred but faithfulness to gods word to hold fast to that which is good and to bear witness to the truth .
If then you hate that or another does then they are simply colouring the person speaking the truth with their hatred and that "without a cause"
The biblical arguments againts those errors can be found and read to the profit of all who care to consider them. Both catholic and protestant alike.
They still stand and cant be gainsaid .
Though many will deny them .

in Christ
gerald

Well said!:thumb:

 

[Cruciform]

"Overview of how the Catholic faith contradicts the Bible"

I see. You want to further prove my statements from Post #7 above. As you like...

Calling the Priests "Father"

Here

Praying repetitive words using rosary

Here

Virgin Mary worship

Here

Celibacy of Priests

Here

Worshiping idols, icons and images

Here

Baptism by sprinkling

Catholics baptize by all three Christian modes: pouring, sprinkling, and immersion. All three are acceptable. So who knows where you got the erroneous idea that we baptize only by sprinkling.

Only Priests can understand the Bible

Again, I don't know where you picked up such an assumption, but it's complete false. The Catholic Church has never suggested that "only priests can understand the Bible." Try again.


So much for your mindless anti-Catholic claims above. Got any more? I'll be happy to rebut those as well.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Old man]

I see. You want to further prove my statements from Post #7 above. As you like...



Here



Here


Here


Here


Here


Catholics baptize by all three Christian modes: pouring, sprinkling, and immersion. All three are acceptable. So who knows where you got the erroneous idea that we baptize only by sprinkling.


Again, I don't know where you picked up such an assumption, but it's complete false. The Catholic Church has never suggested that "only priests can understand the Bible." Try again.


So much for your mindless anti-Catholic claims above. Got any more? I'll be happy to rebut those as well.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

So "only priests can understand the Bible." "Only priests" meaning the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is a false claim?

So then does that mean that the interpretations and renderings of the Catholic Church of the Scriptures is not the "one and only" and Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) can be the Way of salvation?

 

[chrysostom]

So "only priests can understand the Bible." "Only priests" meaning the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is a false claim?

the pope, bishops, and priests guide us
like the shepherd guides his sheep
Jesus ask peter to feed His sheep

three times

 

[Dan Emanuel]

...one Pope in history said this, another one comes along and says that....

While every pope say's something, its not every day that the pope's revise and publish a brand new Catechism. That only happen's about once every 400-500 year's or so, if there last two are any indication. There last 1 came out in the 1990s, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any significant change's to what the papacy teaches' authoritatively and without error.


Daniel

 

[Old man]

While every pope say's something, its not every day that the pope's revise and publish a brand new Catechism. That only happen's about once every 400-500 year's or so, if there last two are any indication. There last 1 came out in the 1990s, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any significant change's to what the papacy teaches' authoritatively and without error.
Daniel

"what the papacy teaches' authoritatively and without error"

The only teachings when it comes to my faith is the "All Supreme Authoritative and without error" Word of God and there is none other on earth, so what the pope or any other so-called "man" of authority has to say is meaningless in my spiritual life.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

"what the papacy teaches' authoritatively and without error"

The only teachings when it comes to my faith is the "All Supreme Authoritative and without error" Word of God and there is none other on earth, so what the pope or any other so-called "man" of authority has to say is meaningless in my spiritual life.

The papacy taught you that Pauls epistle's are Scripture. Do you believe what the papacy taught you? What do you do with Jesus Christ giving Peter the key's to His kingdom? What about when Jesus told Peter --none of the other Apostle's, just Peter --to "Feed?"


Daniel

 

[Cruciform]

So "only priests can understand the Bible." "Only priests" meaning the hierarchy of the Catholic Church...

That isn't what you said, is it. Ultimately, the understanding of Divine Revelation (Scripture and Tradition) reflected in the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church represents the true, authentic, and binding interpretation of God's Word for believers. The personal opinions of lay believers regarding the supposed meaning of the Bible carry no inherent doctrinal authority whatsoever.

That being said, we laymen are certainly free to interpret the Scriptures for ourselves, as long as we do so within the doctrinal boundaries established by the formal teachings of the Church. For example, since the Trinity is a central and defining doctrine of the Catholic Church, we are not permitted to interpret any passage of Scripture in a manner which would either deny or reject the doctrine of the Trinity. This is the standard of interpretation and belief employed by Christians from the very beginning of Christ's one historic Church. The Church teaches us, we do not teach the Church (Ac. 15:2; 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).


Every one of your supposed anti-Catholic "proofs" has been categorically refuted in Posts #4 and #13 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

...I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any significant change's to what the papacy teaches' authoritatively and without error.

In fact, the formal teachings of the Church's Magisterium (teaching hierarchy) cannot and will never change in their essence. So, no, I wouldn't hold my breath on that score. :nono:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+