«Home

Catholic Tradition Above The Bible: Is That Safe?

Most of my Catholic contacts often say that they are taught to believe that they must be more loyal to the church than to the bible. In other words they don't see the bible as the final arbitre of truth and doctrines.

What do you think is the source of authority? The RCC's traditions, or is it God's word?

Does the church, and not just the catholic church only, but any church, have the right to adjust a command or teaching simply because the pope, or prelate says so?

A case in point is the teaching that Mary went straight to heaven without seeing death. On what basis should we believe such a teaching when there is no biblical basis for it?

Would you accept such a teaching because it may sound appealing?

Avatar
Newbie
286 answers

Read this article on Catholic baptism http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

0
Avatar
Newbie

Being true to the church is being true to the bible. Everything in canon law is based on biblical law. God bless you

0
Avatar
Newbie

Only a fool'a thorough one'would follow the church without having proper scriptural backing. And before anyone begins to criticise me. I am a religious scholar and it is well known in the religious world that the roman catholics have the highest amount of heresies ever known to any other church(no offense to the catholics). In as much as this fact remains that of which is always argued by blinded catholics,the truth remains that choosing a church to belong has more to do with researching the foundation and history of the church. Lets not fool ourselves with the origin,most families have beautiful first parents but along the line,certain bastards come in.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Bobbyaf

Yes, the alter wine used by Catholics for the holy communion contains alcohol.

And may I ask you a question;

Does the wine Jesus Christ shared with his apostle at the last supper contain alcohol or not?

Your problem is that your world revolves around the your warped version of protestantism and the lies fed into you. For your information, alcohol is not bad, and I know you would cry your eyes dry over that one again.

Too bad how myopic bigots come here to run their mouths without knowledge.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Bobbyaf

Based on the fact that you are tied to bible and all it teaches, I would answer you in that manner;

where is it written in the Bible that a person should not smoke?

My answer goes to the person that said he refused to attand church services because a priest smoke;

If smoking is a sin, the priest would answer for his sin before God on the day of reckoning. And if because you a person feels a priest is a sinner thus you can abandon you God, you would personally answer for yourself on that day too. The priest for himself and every man for himself.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Bobbyaf

Before I answer your question, I want you to tell me, is Baptism necessary to get a man into heaven or not? What really is the significance of Baptism in Christianity, in order words, what is Baptism?

You question would be sufficiently answered.

0
Avatar
Newbie

dear catholic and other friends. jesus christ is waiting for you. i pray that his love will overshadow you and draw you to himself. may he reveal himself to you in the most compelling way. time is running out fast for all of us. may we not be the loser at the end. god 'gave his son' (john 3:16), the one who 'receives him' god gives power to become a 'son' (john 1:10-12). the door remains open.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ poster

Obviously u know NOTHING about the Bible. Who are you to judge or to critic the Catholics for something u don't understand? U remind me of someone, SATAN.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I've read some of the replies to this topic and i must say that the Catholic church is a hot topic anyday, anytime.

My question is; if you claim to know so much about the church why are you asking questions?

I believe in the teachings of the church and will continue to do so.

You have tried, tested and passed judgement, keep it up.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Spoke to a Catholic member as to why they baptized babies, and he couldn't even supply a biblical basis for such. I felt sorry for him.

I further asked him to explain how has the RCC come to accept sprinkling as baptism. He said he'd have to get back to me on that matter.

Are there any able Catholic willing to explain the above?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Where are the Catholic apologetics?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I once heard a member of the RCC who said one of the reasons he stopped going to church services was because the priest smokes. Do you think that pastors, priests, and others leading out in church services should smoke? Do you think that it is ok for a Christian to smoke?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I have often seen on EWTN how the priests conduct the eucharist, and have noticed that after everyone is served the wafer, and wine that the priests drink all of the wine. What I want to hear from a honest catholic member if the wine is fermented or not.

There have been reports of recovery efforts for Catholic priests, and the statistics is growing.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Thank you for your contribution.

0
Avatar
Newbie

If your friends had said to you that the church is more then the bible they are so sucked, they are nothing but set of whipped asses that needs cover and if you had believed them its not your fault its because you are not seeing the truth, and he who say the church is a deceiver is a fool who pray for darkness than light because he has forgotten that JESUS told SAINT PETER That On upon you the rock i shall build my church, dont bother asking further questions cus they suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0
Avatar
Newbie

I see that our catholic apologists have grown dead silent. Such a pity because I was hoping that they'd have hung around for the long haul.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Let me repeat this question once more so that our Catholic friends can hear it. Does the wine that the priests administer in what is called the holy communion contain alcohol, or not?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Thanks for the tips bobbyaf

I am new to this forum. I hope I will quote properly the individual responses here so as not to cause problems because of errors.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Does the wine that the priests administer in what is called the holy communion contain alcohol, or not?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Most of what you're asking has been addressed in the thread. As to whether or not Catholics will take heed is another story. Let us pray they will.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Greetings All

Catholics only please. I would like answers from authentic Catholics. I hear and read things ABOUT Catholic practices, hence this approach.

I want to understand what YOU believe and practice about:

1. Mary the mother of Jesus.

2. Images (Saints etc)

3. The Bible (Holy Scriptures) and whether or not You Acknowledge other non-biblical sources such as the Koran, and if so why or why not?

Finally IF one needs to believe and practice as the Catholics do to be saved, what about those born and died/dying to Buddhism, Islam, protestantism etc.

That's all for now just to ensure I can keep good track of the posts.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Does the wine that the priests administer in what is called the holy communion contain alcohol, or not?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Bobbyaf,

Yes, Peter was married.  Does that mean celibacy is bad?  Look, as far as marriage and the Priesthood, the church recognizes both institutions as very holy; the Catholic Church has elevated them both to the level of sacraments (of which there are seven in total).  Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution and sacrament -an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.  The requirement of celibacy for the priesthood has not always been the case in the Catholic Church.  The decision can be reversed by the church authority in the future.  A celibate priesthood is not a dogma of the Catholic Church.  Furthermore, the Latin rite Church (one of many rites within the Catholic Church) is the only rite within the Catholic Church that has a celibate priesthood.  There are other churches and rites within the Catholic Church that have a married priesthood (e.g., Byzantine, Alexandrian, Ge'ez rite based in Ethiopia , Syriac, the Chaldean rite in Iraq, the Malabar rite is based in India, etc.).  It is only the Latin rite Church (the largest of the rites within the Catholic Church) that everyone sees and lambasts for having a celibate priesthood.  Even within the Latin rite, there are some married priests (converts from other denominations who were married before entering the Catholic Church).   

Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God is not a bad thing.  The Church does not make it mandatory for people to be celibate to serve God.  What is required is celibacy for the priesthood and no one is forced to become a priest.  A married person can do everything a priest can do except perform the sacraments (e.g., Baptism, Confirmation, the Holy Eucharist, Reconciliation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the Sick).  St. Paul teaches us that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is good.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Being a priest is not by force, but they cannot be one until they avoid marriage. You and I know that Jesus' life and ministry was unique. He had to avoid worldly things for my sake as well as yours, seeing the enormous responsibility that rested upon His shoulders.

As for Paul he adopted a personal position, but unlike the RC church he didn't enforce celibacy. So please don't come on this forum and try to make fools out of respondents. Keep your folly to yourself.

0
Avatar
Newbie

On the contrary those traditions do keep with the scriptures, you however lack knowledge of what's in scripture and that's why you think they do not line up. I also notice that you failed to answer the questions posted by myself and Omenuko about 1Peter, about where those souls were.

You will have to prove that the RCC removed the 2nd commandment. Show us the commandments by the RCC and tell us how the 2nd commandment was removed.

Mary isn't worshipped, unfortunately you need something to bang your head against, so bang away, you delude yourself only.

So when Jesus said "Take and eat, this is my body" and "All of you drink from this; for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins" Matthew 26:26-28

He didn't actually mean his body and blood, he didn't actually say his body and blood, he was only joking abi?

He didn't say this is a representation of my body and blood, he said "THIS IS MY BODY AND BLOOD"

When he spoke of us eating his flesh and drinking his blood, some disciples turned away, they knew exaclty what he was saying, if he didn't mean it that way, why didn't he explain himself to them. Infact he uses literal words. as in literally you will be eating my flesh and drinking my blood. Don't forget that Jesus is the Pashal lamb, what was done with the pashal lamb?

So where was the antedilluvians that Christ preached to? An answer is greatly needed, thank you.

Actually he's talking about you, you guys abandoned the true teachings of Christ and created your own to convenience yourself.

I already showed you how sola scriptura is unbiblical. Next stop, once saved, always saved.

Dude you are shooting yourself in the foot, if discernment comes from God, and the Catholic Church discerned the canon, how can it be the LovePeddler of Babylon?

oh os u get to decide which one will qualify

ah i see.

So everybody is just going by their own interpretation and what they think is right?

So which one of you preaches the truth when you all contradict each other and fight each other for the true christians?

So much for bible-believing christians, that contradict each other? If you are all bible-believing christians and your doctrines contradict each other, wouldn't that mean that the Bible is contradictory?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Bobbyaf,

Because your question is not a serious question. . . .Yes, St. Peter was married, so what? Was Jesus married? Was St. Paul married? Where in the Bible does it say you have to be married to become a priest? For one thing, St. Paul and Jesus saw the merits of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God. And no, I'm not saying being married disqualifies one as being able to serve God with the same capacity as a celibate. All I'm saying is that Bible does not condemn celibacy. Being a priest is not by force. . . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

Was St. Peter married?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ Chukwudi44

I see you're a slow learner, I guess you didn't realize that the 42 months are symbolic. 42 months have 1260 days in them, which is tantamount to 1260 literal years as was explained in previous posts.

Is it any clearer for you now?

0
Avatar
Newbie

haba bobbyaff ,when did 42 months become1260 years ,na wa for youoo,

0
Avatar
Newbie

If those traditions, as practiced by the RCC were in keeping with scriptures, then we wouldn't be having these discussions. Unfortunately, there is a long list that do not match scriptures. Why has the RC church removed the 2nd commandment that expressly forbids the graving and worshiping of images? Where in scriptures does it say that that was a tradition to continue, since it never started under the church that was established by Jesus? You see, that is the major difference between Catholics and us. The church to which we belong isn't headed by a mere man, but by Jesus Christ Himself who is the chief cornerstone.

* Mary worship? In the Bible you can only find how God hates the Queen of Heaven.

* The eucharist? In the Bible you can only find how God said don't drink blood.

* Purgatory? The word and concept are not in the Bible.

* Co-redemptrix? In the Bible you find there is only ONE Redeemer and Saviour. His name is Jesus.

What does Jesus say about Tradition? "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? Ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites."

--Jesus Christ (Matthew 15:3, 6, 7)

In the above verses Jesus is addressing you. One of your traditions tampered with, and removed one of God's holy commandments. Jesus also said these words, "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, "

So which is more important your sacred traditions which were invented by mere men, or God's immutable words?

We are very much familiar with texts like these used by you to attempt to justify your thinking. So you haven't scored anything. Besides, we question whether or not you did receive any oral, or written traditions from the apostles as you have claimed, since none of them seem to match up with the same scriptures that were also written by the apostles. We don't need traditions to save us since Jesus saves. What we have is enough to guide us. It was David who said that "thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path" He also said "the entrance of thy word giveth light" If David, the patriarchs, and apostles were saved by their simple faith in Jesus, then we care not for traditions.

I do not trust such readings. Besides, discernment doesn't come from traditions, but from God's Spirit. God still uses prevailing circumstances to accomplish His work, despite the situation. Wasn't Nebuchaddnezzar a heathen king? Did God give him a revelation, that normally would have been given to the chosen prophets? Did God pronounce a harlot righteous and placed her name in the halls of fame? The prophecies could only have gone in one direction for the LovePeddler of Revelation, but God's plan to preserve His word under the circumstances allowed members of the church to accomplish His will.

Who said I didn't read them. Remember that both Daniel's and Revelation's predictions were not only centered around Catholic tyranny and murders, but included other characteristics that point to the RC church. I have listed quite a few in this thread before. Yes other denominations in history displayed similar atrocities, but they wouldn't qualify to fulfill the other prophetic characteristics that reveal the Anti-Christ.

This is not what the prophecy is focusing on. Incidentally, the term archangel is referring to Christ, but not in the sense that some persons see the word. In the encounter with Moses on the mountain, God was referred to as an "angel of the Lord" Archangel doesn't mean in the context in which it is used to mean an angelic creature. It is used to describe Christ's role as Chief messenger. The Greek word for angel also means messenger. Soul sleep is all over the bible. When a person dies they sleep and await the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ said it to Mary when Lazarus died. Paul said it in 1Cor. 15.

And I logically pointed out that Antiochus IV[/b]could not have ruled for [b]1260 years as the prophecy pointed out. Since the 4th beast was logically Rome, according to almost all historians, from which the little horn grew, it had to be a power that sprang from the demise of pagan Rome. Revelation 13 says, "5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." 42 months = 42X30=1260 symbolic days=1260 literal years.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Bobbyaf and co

No, the purpose of this thread is to determine whether “Catholic Tradition is Above the Bible; and if so, determine if its safe or not”.  As has been demonstrated by Lady, Chukwu44, and myself the premise of this thread is a false one.  Catholics use Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (aka the Bible) hand in hand, neither one overcoming or placed above the other.  The Bible teaches us to stay true to the traditions that have been written and to those that were taught orally (1 Cor. 11:2; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Thess. 3:10).  The passage below explicitly states that we are to keep and hold firmly to the written and oral traditions:

The passage tells us to keep firm to tradition (Oral and written).  How you guys (Bobbyaf and co) manage to gloss over this passage is beyond me.  To make things more complicated (or not) the Catholic Church used the same Sacred Oral Traditions handed down to us by the apostles to discern the canon of scripture (aka the Bible).  In other words, by condemning the Sacred Traditions held by the Church you are condemning the canon of scripture.  The question should not be whether we should hold on to Sacred Oral Tradition, but rather which oral tradition is authentically true?

As you can see from the above reading, the Pope and the faithful in communion with him (guided by the Holy Spirit) used Sacred Tradition to discern the canon of scripture.  Bobbyaf, how can you claim that the Catholic Church is ‘the LovePeddler of Babylon’ and at the same time conclude that they discerned the canon of scripture (the word of God)?  Can anything good come from evil?

I like how you forgot to read of the atrocities, I posted earlier, that Protestants committed against Catholics and there fellow Protestants.  (side note, the beginnings of America was sparked by Protestants fleeing Europe because of religious persecutions committed against them by their fellow Protestants; further, those same persecuted Christians that fled to the Americas turned around and began persecuting their brother Christians in America, how ironic).  Please provide proof that these brutal acts were committed by the Catholic Church for hundreds of years.  Bobbyaf, who were the innocent Christians that were persecuted by members of the Catholic Church?  Also, prove to us how these religious persecutions were one sided (e.i., show that they were the only ones being persecuted and that Catholic Christians were not).  Furthermore, the wheat and the weeds analogy has everything to do with what we are talking about.  If it did not, show me were the true Church of God is located.  And if/when you do so, show us that they are without sin and are perfect before the Lord.

What are you talking about?  There are people within the Church that do not want you to go to heaven.  These are not issues of “general spiritual matters”.  On the contrary, issues pertaining to salvation are grave issues and are paramount.  As Christians we are called to be holy and are called to be servants of God.  If someone develops a heretical belief that states Jesus is not God the Son, but is Michael the Archangel (Jehovahs Witnesses) than that is no small matter.  If someone comes up with the ridiculous/heretical belief of “Soul Sleep” (Seventh Day Adventist) than that is no small matter.  If someone dismisses the idea that the Eucharist is not the Blood and Body of Christ, than that is no small matter. 

And as far as the atrocities are concerned, I showed you and provided proof that it wasn’t a one-sided situation.  Both Protestants and Catholics committed wrongful acts in the name of religion.  Both have committed sin.  The Pope has apologized for the sins that members of the Catholic Church have committed.  I ask that you move on,  . . .

Not again.  I showed you and backed it up with other Bible authorities that the “little horn” is referring to Antiochus IV ( of the Seleucid/Greek Empire) and his attempt to coerce the Jews into giving up their religion and customs and adopt Hellenistic ways. 

More support:

Some youtube videos on the falsehoods of Seventh Day Adventism

The above passage is referring to the Roman Empire and the emperors Nero (who died from a self inflicted stab wound in AD 68) and Domitian (AD 81 -96).  Domitian forced the Romans to worship him.  Domitian like Antiochus Epiphanies IV (Dan 7, 8, 11, and 25) demanded that he be called divine titles such as “our Lord and god” and “Jupiter”.

The prophets Daniel (the Book of Daniel) and John (Revelation) are indeed talking of things that have transpired against God’s people.  The former was referring to the persecution of the Jews by the Seulecid king Antiochus IV and the latter was referring to the persecution of the early Christiants/Jews by the Roman Emperors Nero and Domitian.

The Pope does not claim to be God.  On the contrary, he needs Jesus Christ like you and me.  After the death of Pope John Paul the Great, I was reading some where that he went to confession just about every week.  Imagine that, the Pope going to confession every week.  He is a sinner just like you and me.  The successor of St. Peter (aka the Pope) receives his authority to lead the Church from Jesus Christ.  St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Mathew 16:18-20) and by implication his successors and the bishops in communion with him have this same authority.  The authority is not given to the person per se, but to the person who holds the office; who sits on the chair of St. Peter.

I don’t know where you got these quotes from, but I would say they are quotes taken out of context or fakes; written by anti-catholics to bear false witness against the Catholic Church.

The authority to forgive sins was given to the apostles by Jesus himself.  And by implication, the successors to the apostles received the same authority.  As we all know, the successors to the apostles are the bishops and priests within the Catholic Church.

You posted

Well, refer to my earlier post on your take on sins committed by both Catholics and Protestant Christians.  No one is innocent.  Oh, and save that your prophecy video for the less informed and week minded.

0
Avatar
Newbie

bobbyaff says tithing is right while bobbyaff disagrees ,do we have factions among the "true" christians

0
Avatar
Newbie

Question: Catholic Tradition Above The Bible: Is That Safe?

Answer: No

0
Avatar
Newbie

@bobbyaff,

Are u trying to say that God did not see anybody to use among the true christians during the collation of the bible or is is that they simple didn't exist by then.

I am more interested in the hypocrisy contained in the teachings of you proptestants.You peaple say infant baptism is wrong because the kids can't speak for themselves,yet you do take your own kids to your differant churches.

why don't you allow them get up to eighteen years before they can decide whether to go to church or not

Next you people claimed catholics were selling salvation through the sale of indulgences.Today you people preach tithes as necessary for salvation.

Tithing that was jewish rite done once every year(for your family) or every three years(for levites ,orphans,widows and strangers),it never involved money nor was it done every month.Today your greedy pot bellied pastors insist it must be paid every month.using the bible please explain to me how you arrived at monetary and monthly tithing

Tithing is no longer needed for todays salvation ,if you don't agree show me any where in the new testament where Jesus or any of his disciples paid or received tithes.people freely sold thier belongings and laid them at the apostles feet which they shared as everyone had need for it.Ananias and his wife only had to die because they told a lie concerning the value of the property sold.

About your campaign against the RCC my advice forv you is leave the church alone .Allow God to fight his battle.I would close with the word of gamaliel in acts 5

If the teachings of the RCC are of men .it will come to naught,but if it be of God you will not be able to overthrow it,you might even find bur self fighting against God

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ boobyaff,

you are a bloody hypocrite,first you bluntly refused to name your church ,how do u expect us to assess you?

You claimed that the RCC is the LovePeddler mentioned in the bible,yet you agreed that members of the RCC selected the books of the bible.Now where is it in the bible that the LovePeddler of babylon would compose a collection of books that would be the basic foundation of doctrines for the true christians.

Did you study logic courses in school at ll?

If the RCC is evil then do away wit everything that has to do wit them starting from the bible .Stop going to church on sunday as well,revert to the sabath worship,do away wit easter and christmas celebrations as well.

u are very funny you claim a pot is smelling yet you still eat from it .the apostle James asked in James 3:11-12

does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter one from the same opening?

can a fig tree my brethren ,bear olives tree? or a grapevine bear figs

so my dear if the RCC is evil as you said nothing good can come out of it.

The RCC has existed for almost 2 thousand years far above your 1260 yrs and it is still flourishing

Thev history of christianity cannever be seperated from the history of the RCC.

NO MATTER HOW MANY POST S YOU SEND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT NO BODY WOULD BE CONVERTED TO YOUR FAKE HIDDEN CHURCH

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hey y'all, i've spent a couple minutes going thru all the posts on this thread.I'm of the opinion that when it comes to religion, just let an individual be.there are so many belief systems in this world that if there ever was a single ONE that led to salvation, I guess the odds wouldn't be good for ANY of us.('bobbyaf' and 'lady' inclusive).The Bible is a collection of books written by inspired people right?, somebody/some group of people did the selection of 'inspired' scriptures to be put in the bible.some books were taken, some were not.for reasons we can't really explain probably political or whatever.How about the Quoran, caballah et al.It's rather myopic for an open minded fellah, to say the Bible is the last bus stop for communication with God.God loves us all, despite what religion you profess.all i'm saying is, the Bible was orchestrated by human's like me and you with their own short-comings and weaknesses, think outside the box.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Bobbyaf

My brother, you act as though you are personally affected by what happened during those times.  What do you want the Pope to do so he can placate you (Bobbyaf) for these grave sins.  Oh boy, cry me a river.

From the gospel Jesus tells us that there will be sinners in his Church and that weeds will grow with the wheat until the end of time (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43). . . . .In that passage its as though the weeds are equal in number to the wheat.  The implication of that passage is that the nonbelievers and dissenters mixed in with the elect and orthodox will be many, not few.  After all, Matthew 24:10 states that "many will fall away." It would be foolhardy to believe that the transgressions of members of the Church is reason enough to disprove that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. God has only us sinful, rebellious humans to work with. Many bishops and priests have been lax in their duty and have engaged in wrongful/sinful acts, and they will stand accountable before God.  In many instances their sins are far worst because they have led the innocent away from God.  The Bible says, "Let not many of you become teachers" (Jas. 3:1).  Jesus assumed this would be the case, and spoke of it frequently (Matt. 3:12; 13:24–30, 47–50; 22:1–14; 24:1–13; 25:14–30). Paul concurs (cf. Acts 20:30; 2 Tim. 2:15–20).

You will find sinners within the true Church. Even Judas was regarded as a true apostle (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:19; John 6:70–71; Acts 1:17).   At one point the apostles ran away when Jesus was being crucified.  Imagine that, your Lord and savior is being crucified before you and you have the audacity to deny him and flee.  Peter denied Jesus three times.  Before Paul's conversion he persecuted the body of Christ.  He probably killed many Christians.  Even though dissent and corruption are troubling and scandalous of their own accord, the attainment of moral purity is irrelevant with regard to the determination of which Church is divinely established by Christ.  

What of the Corinthians?  Did Paul discount them as part of the true universal (catholic) Church even when he was rebuking its members for exceedingly serious and widespread sins (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2; 3:1–4; 5:1–2; 6:1–8; 11:17–22; 2 Cor. 1:1; 11:2–4). What of the controversy of the Judaizers . . . .would you presume to say that they were not part of the true universal Church on account of their misguided understanding spoken of in the book of Acts (cf. Acts 15:5).  When discussing where and what the one "Church" is, I must draw the line and state that it is the Catholic Church.  1) It has apostolic succession and 2) because it is the only plausible choice that possesses four marks of the Church in their undiluted fullness (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic).

As you asked, the below is some information on the persecutions that Protestants leveled on Catholics and their fellow Protestants:

How am I trivializing the loss?  I pray that the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace and that they may enter the gates of Heaven to be with our Lord.  And I ask the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the angels and saints to pray for them to the Lord our God.  Amen. . . .

So you are either a JW or a Seventh Day Adventist.  Funny. . . .was that so hard to state?

Ok, where is that in the Bible?  Chapter and verse, please. . . .

Well, the angel Gabriel first praised Mary when he called her, "Hail, full of Grace" and further on in the Gospel of Luke Mary proclaims that all generations will call her Blessed.  So, honoring Mary is very Biblical.  She is the Mother of God (not God the Father, not God the Holy Spirit, but God the Son).

Like I said earlier, the Woman in Revelation 12:1, symbolized 1) the Church; 2) Israel; 3) Eve; and 4) the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Its call typology (see my earlier post).

Soul sleep. . . .a non biblical belief if I ever seen one.  I see you are showing your true colors (I know Seventh Day Adventist people believe this).  Please prove that she is asleep in her grave using the Bible.  Chapter and verse, please.

By your implication. . . . .If there were no Blessed Virgin Mary through whom Christ became incarnate, there could have been no Messiah.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Why thank you, I am also enjoying yours, I was wondering where you were though.

Thanks for clarifying the woman in Revelations well for Bobbyaf, I was seriously trying to figure out how to explain typology and all that to him, but I doubt he'll get it. Dude is hell bent on being blind. May God removed the scales from his eyes as he did the blind man.

Please go and do your research, and I already provided you with examples. You guys persecute us till this day.

How do you know they were innocent, and haven't innocent Catholic blood being shed by protestants. Read on Henry VIII and Elizabeth.

YES WE HAVE THE AUDACITY TO TALK ABOUT ATROCITIES COMMITED AGAINST CATHOLICS, WHY WERE CATHOLICS PERSECUTED? IT IS BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE?

WE ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRUTH THAT THE CHURCH HAS DONE WRONG IN THE PAST EVEN IF IT IS JUSTIFIED, AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PROTESTANTS TOO HAVE DONE WRONG TO CATHOLICS AND NO THEY WEREN'T JUSTIFIED. HENRY VIII KILLED CATHOLICS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO SLEEP WITH A WOMAN, TELL ME IF THAT IS REASON ENOUGH TO KILL PEOPLE. HIS DAUGHTER ELIZABETH KILLED CATHOLICS BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO CARRY ON HER FATHER'S LEGACY, TELL ME THAT IS REASON ENOUGH TO KILL PEOPLE.

GET THE HATRED OUT OF YOUR HEART AND THEN YOU WILL SEE THE TRUTH. YOU FEED YOURSELF WITH HATEFUL THINGS AND THEN YOU COME HERE AND ACT HOLIER THAN THOU. NONSENSE.

The history that they want you to believe? Absolutely, did they tell you about the Protestants killing Catholics? If they didn't they weren't telling you the full history.

They were canonized by the Pope, keep up with your delusions, we can all tell you want to believe, so continue and God will show you the truth one day.

None of the apostles were mentioned by name yet we know they're the elders sitting upong the thrones in the temple of God. Seriously dude, please tell me you're not that silly.

The woman is not still on the earth still being persecuted by the dragon, her children are on earth being persecuted by the dragon. Get it right. The dragon waged war against her seed.

Ok seriously he explained all this did you even take the time to read it?

Is it that you just can't accept that the woman could be Mary?

The woman is the Church, she is also Mary.

Also because the sig that appears in revelations also corresponds to the sign spoken of in Isaiah.

Isaiah said, "The Lord shall give you a sign, a virgin shall give birth" it corresponds to the sign in revelations which says "A sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun with the moon under her feet."

The sign in Isaiah is Mary, the sign in revelations has to be Mary. Both women give birth to the messiah, who is the mother of the messiah?

Ok let me take this one by one, verse by verse.

Revelations 12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

Who is this woman?

Who is the son?

Ok so why is the "counterfeit" church still flourishing? where is the real church? which church is the real church? when did the protestant reformation take place? does that amount to 1260 years?

um the truth always seem unreal, the truth is accused of being in unity with the devil, remember Christ was also accused of using devilish powers.

prophetic term doesn't say that days are years. i don't know how you managed to covince yourself of that, but whatever floats your boat.

There are types of Church (typology), however, Christ's church was not established until after Christ's crucifixion, so how did the Church give birth to Christ? If Christ's church existed before, there would have been no reason for him to come and establish his church?

And all "bible-believing" christians have proven themselves wrong time and time again. We're still waiting for the "real" church to emerge, it's been 2000 years now, way past 1260, what happened?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Lady, I'm enjoying your write-ups,

@Bobbyaff

Here we go again, Bobbyaf, grave sins were committed by members of the Catholic Church and we continually pray for their souls and the souls of the persecuted.  The Blessed Pope John Paul II has apologized on there behalf and has asked those who have been affected to find forgiveness and reconciliation.  Likewise, atrocities have been leveled on Catholic Christians by our brother non-catholic Christians during those same times.  No one is innocent and I will ask you to stop preaching to the choir about “your so called loss” because of the past transgressions of members of the Catholic Church.  You talk about the persecutions of members in Gods true Church, but yet you have not yet identified what Church tradition you follow (e.i., the faith tradition you most readily identify with; and yes I said faith tradition).  What Church do you belong to?  If I were to guess, I would guess Jehovah’s Witness or Seventh day Adventist.  Because only those churches have vivid imaginations and seemingly bend the Bible so that it could fit their wild Bible exegesis.

My friend, these are the saints (holy ones) in heaven.  Are you saying that Mary is not in heaven (the Mother of God the Son) because her name is not mentioned in that passage?   Why wouldn’t the Blessed Virgin Mary be in heaven?  Your hate for all things Catholic has even biased you against the Mother of our Lord.

In Catholic theology the woman in Revelation 12 is part of what we call fusion imagery/polyvalent (e.i., when one symbol is composed of elements from several different things) symbolism that is found in the book.  She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.  We would not disagree with you about ‘the woman’ symbolizing the Church.  But the Catholic understanding is fuller and broader. 

The Woman is Israel:

Because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars.  John takes these symbols from the book of Genesis 37:9–11.  In the passage Joseph (the patriach) has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him (side not: notice how bowing down to Joseph is NOT a sign of worship, but is one of showing honor to whom honor is due).  Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.

The Woman is the Church:

Because, as 12:17 tells us, "the rest of her offspring" are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.  As Christians we are to follow the teachings of Christ by preaching and spreading the good news (the Gospel).  We are to baptize believers into the Church thereby making them members of the Church.  In the New Testament, Christ, the Bridegroom, has sacrificially and lovingly chosen the Church to be His bride (Ephesians 5:25-27).

The Woman is Eve

Because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed—which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus.  Catholics also call this passage the Protoevangelium (the First Gospel).

The Woman is the Blessed Virgin Mary

Because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).

Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents.  We call this typology, which is basically a system of interpretation by which certain events, images, and personages could be understood as prophetic ‘types’ or ‘figures’ foreshadowing the life of Christ. 

Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary’s Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict.  Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent.  Eve did not ascend to heaven.  And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).

As far as your claim about the ‘time, and times, and a half time’ being 1260 literal years I addressed this earlier.  Please stop putting your wrong interpretations before what the bible actually says.  If you believe it is 1260 literals years prove it using the Bible.

You are correct in interpreting this passage as foreshadowing the persecution of Christians.  How you come to the conclusion that Pagan Rome passed its authority to the Catholic Church of Rome is still yet to be proven.  Please prove to us that Pagan Rome passed its authority to the Church of Rome.  And please provide credible sources and not anti-catholic website sources.  My friend, history is there to prove the truth. . . .the Catholic Church as nothing to hide.  Our pope apologized for the transgressions of members of the Catholic Church.  I feel that was a very Christian thing to do.  Yet, you still have not posted anything regarding the persecutions that Catholics went through (in many respects are currently experiencing) during those same times.

Uh, my friend, for the apostles to write scripture they had to be infallible otherwise the scriptures wouldn’t be the word of God.  The Church has to be infallible for them to discern the canon of scripture.  I think you may be misunderstanding the concept of infallibility.  The only way one can be infallible is with the help of God.  The apostles were infallible when they wrote the New Testament.  The apostles were infallible when they were preaching the Gospel.  Infallibility does not mean impeccability (e.i., impeccability is the absence of sin. Catholics believe this to be an attribute of God (logically God cannot sin, it would mean that he would act against his own will and nature) and therefore also an attribute of Christ).

Infallibility is not the absence of sin.  The apostles were with sin, but taught infallibly.  Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope.  It does not mean they cannot make mistakes.  Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).  You may disagree, fine, but this teaching is rooted in scripture.

Are you saying that every letter that St. Paul wrote in regards to the faith is scripture?  I would have you know that there are letters attributed to St. Paul that are not part of the canon of the Bible.  Are you saying that those letters are inspired and should be considered scripture?  The same applies to all the apostles. . . .are you saying that all the letters that the apostles wrote should be considered scripture.  If you answer anything, I would like for you to answer this.

I believe Lady has addressed this passage.  And quite frankly, I really don’t want to hear your personal opinion of where we go after death.  If you can prove using the Bible where we go after death, by all means, prove it.  But keep you personal feelings and assumptions to one side and what the Bible teaches to another.  Personally I’ll stick to what the Bible says and what the Church has taught and believed since the earliest days.

I think you misunderstand what Baptism is. In John 3:5 Jesus says “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”  When a Catholic says that he has been "born again," he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism.  The term “born again” does not totally convey what is happening and is not a good translation of the Greek, gennatha anothen, in John 3:5.  A better translation is “born from above”. 

The context of Jesus’ statements in John 3 makes it clear that he was referring to water baptism. Shortly before Jesus teaches Nicodemus about the necessity and regenerating effect of baptism, he himself was baptized by John the Baptist, and the circumstances are striking: Jesus goes down into the water, and as he is baptized, the heavens open, the Holy Spirit descends upon him in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father speaks from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son" (cf. Matt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–22; John 1:30–34).  This scene gives us a graphic depiction of what happens at baptism:  We are baptized with water, symbolizing our dying with Christ (Rom. 6:3) and our rising with Christ to the newness of life (Rom. 6:4–5); we receive the gift of sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27); and we are adopted as God’s sons (Rom. 8:15–17).

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo." "Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This means that, by virtue of our baptism, our sufferings are not in vain. They are joined to Christ and become efficacious for our salvation.

The question is not who are the 8 people. . . .the question is where did Jesus go?  And the Bible clearly states where he goes and why.

1 Peter 3:18-20

18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

0
Avatar
Newbie

Sweetie you might want to check again the Church is growing, evangelicals are flocking to the Church.

People are realising that the RCC has always taught what Christ and his apostles teaches, and what they believe too. They realise that they're the ones who have the wrong impression of the RCC. They realise that what they thought the RCC teaches, the RCC doesn't teach at all.

I provided a link about a former preacher named Scott Hahn who was doing the exact same thing you're doing, and was trying to "save" Catholics and expose the Church and then ended up finding out that all evidence of the truth points to the RCC, and now he is one of the best Catholic apologetics you will ever find.

Another one that I can tell you of is Alex Jones, who was also a preacher, and embarked on the same journey as you, and when he discovered the truth, he told his congregation and most of them abandoned him.

Here's his story. Watch and listen to it, and see why he gave up his own ministry, that has got to be hard. Your mind may not be changed but you will certainly get a lot from it. If you feel you know the truth, watch it, it wouldn't affect you any kind of way.

majority of those converting to the Catholic Church are preachers and theologians, especially when they set out on a journey to save Catholics. But really one has to be open to the truth, the Holy Spirit.

It takes decades for some to come to grip with it, they struggle and fight it, but truth always prevails, like Christ said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and "If they persecuted me, how much more will they persecute you"

There is a reason the devil wants you to think the Church is the devil, it doesn't want you to know the truth. But if you are really a truthful person, you will become Catholic when you see the truth. I did.

0
Avatar
Newbie

na wa o see textbook. How you people cope is amazing . . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

Oh I am so glad you're asking this question. The answer is heretics, and no they didn't believe in the Bible, the Bible was not compiled at that time. Infact their belief was that Jesus wasn't God and man. It was either he was God or man, some said he was only God and never man, others said he wasn't God but only man.

Remember we're talking about before the Bible was put together, so how were they "Bible-believing" Christians when the Bible was not defined as the Bible at that time?

Those "persecuted" were the gnostics, agnostics, and such. It is a fact of history that the burning at the stake that took place was done by the Romans, and the Jews, and that those that were truly persecuted were the Catholics, yes that's right the Catholics. Get your facts correct mister.

First of all this is not the only verse in the Bible. Just because she wasn't mentioned here doesn't mean that she wasn't mentioned at all in the Bible or the book of revelations. Mary was not mentioned here, because John had not seen her at the time. Notice that the apostles were in heaven, so much for no one is in heaven.

And as usual, picking and quoting to suit yourself, what did that chapter say before this?

As was mentioned, that is the correct interpretation by the Catholic Church, but also remember as was mentioned to you that Mary is a type of the Church. Tell me that the ark of the covenant that is now a woman, who gives birth to the messiah could not be Mary, and then explain how it couldn't be Mary.

Have you ever heard of typology? Look it up.

Ok now I see you like making claims, but here's something about claims you have to prove it, if you cannot prove it, then please know that you are a liar and are spreading false things. Prove to us that the Pagan Rome is the Papal Rome. And I mean bring us history and documents, not just random writings from uninformed anti-catholics. Bring unbias sources and prove your point.

Um the Church is infallible, Christ himself said so, he who abides in him will never loose his salvation, the Church is the body of Christ. The Pope is infallible, no not the Pope himself as just a man, but the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is infallible, the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven doesn't lead astray. God wouldn't give the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven to a man that will declare evil as the truth.

You have it backwards if there was no canonization there would be no scripture. It is only through canonization that we have scripture. If the Gospel of Matthew was not canonized you wouldn't call it scripture, if the book of Revelations wasn't canonized you wouldn't call it scripture. Paul wrote several other letters e.g the letter to the laodecians, they were not more or less important than the ones that we call scripture today but we do not call it scripture today, why? because it wasn't canonized. Canonization leads to scripture. Before canonizations these the books of the New Testament were not considered infallible and were not considered scripture, they were just letters that were written to communities, it was canonization that defined them as scripture. Get it in the proper order.

God would not use the devil and his agents to put together his Word that all people in all generations would consider infallible. Therefore the RCC is an agent of God's truth.

Um sir anything that is written IS NOT CALLED scripture. Do you call The Lord of the Rings scripture? Scripture is holy, my accounting textbook is not holy. It is not for a religious purpose and it is not authoritative.

The letters that Paul wrote that was not included in the Bible is not inspired? How so, did God inspire him when he wrote to the Corinthians and not to the Laodecians? Please explain.

And how do you know the successors were not inspired? God stops inspiring people to write things down? Did you know that these successors wrote as early as 70 AD? If their writing was included in the Bible you would consider it scripture and infallible?

How do you know the books of the Bible are truly inspired?

Why do you believe in the Bible?

1) Paul was not speaking of the Pagan people.

I will provide you with the preceeding passages that deal with the issue of resurrection of the dead.

It starts off at 1 Corinthians 15:12

12 But if Christ is preached as not raised from the dead, how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?

Paul specifically points out that it is people from the Church in Corinth that are preaching so he is talking to the people.

13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised

14 And if Christ has not been raised then empty is our preaching; empty, too your faith.

15 Then we are also false witnesses to God,, beacuse we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead were not raised.

16 For if the dead were not raised, neither has Christ been raised

17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins

18 Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ are perished

19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people.

20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep

21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being

22 For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life

23 but each one in proper order: Christ the firstfruits; then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ

24 then comes the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has destroyed every sovereignty and every authority and power

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet

26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death

27 for "he subjected everything under his feet." But when it says that everything has been subjected, it is clear that it excludes the One who subjected everything to him.

28 When everything is subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.

29 Otherwise what will people accomplish by having themselves baptize for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?

Paul was speaking to the Church about what people in the Church were preaching, it had nothing to do with paganism. Infact the baptism for the dead was used as a practical argument to prove that there is resurrection of the dead?

This was a practice among some Christians. The they he was referring to are the people in the Church who preached that there isn't resurrection. He is basically saying, how can they practice baptism for the dead if they don't believe the resurrection of the dead? These are Christians.

Pagans do not believe in the resurrection of Christ, and the dead, that's why they're Pagan and not Christian.

Again I tell you stop assuming that you are right. You believe that the practice of baptism for the dead was not done by the early christians, this verse proves you wrong. Try seeing what the Bible says, and stop seeing what you want to see. You have no proof that the early christians did not practice baptism for the dead, you just assume they wouldn't do that, you assume they would think and practice what you think and practice, what you think practice is wrong. In making that assumption, you miss their actual practices, stop assuming you are right.

Not baptism of water alone, you need both baptism of water and baptism of the Spirit. You need both. Baptism of water washes away the sins, and then you receive the Spirit. Baptism requires the use of water and the work of the Spirit.

In the Jordan Jesus was baptised of the water and the Spirit, after being baptised of the water the dove descended upon him and annointed him as the Son of God.

Even the apostles were baptised of water and then of the Spirit.

In Acts 1:5 Jesus says to his apostles "for John baptised with water, but in a few days you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit"

Baptism is salvific and it is not of water alone, it is of both water and Spirit.

Jesus wouldn't have asked the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit if it wasn't needed and if it was just a symbolic ritual. There would be no point in it if it isn't slavific, Christ wouldn't have stressed it. He wouldn't have said unless a man be baptized of both water and Spirit he will not be saved, he speaks of two baptisms for salvation, he didn't speak of one as symbolic and the other for salvation, he spoke of both for a person to be saved, that is to enter the Kingdom of heaven.

Baptism is both of water and Spirit. Both are needed.

And at what time will he be using difficult circumstances to save each and everyone of us? When will the true color's be revealed after testing. When will this testing take place?

I am very glad that you are the one who posted that verse, so I will post exactly what you posted.

1 Peter 3:18-20

18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

Who is the he that went and preached to the spirits in prison?

Ok so why did you say of the past? In saying that you reference another spirit.

Oh I am not disputing that the ones in prison were the people that died back in the day, infact that is my point. How is it that they were able to be saved, what and where is this prison that they were in?

Ok I see the misconception is that you think that in purgatory one can repent. No that is not the concept of purgatory at all. Purgatory is for those who are definitely going to heaven. It is not for those who did not repent and accept Christ. Those in purgatory have already accepted Christ.

So you see it is the teaching of Christ and his apostles.

The issue is, Is there a place that the dead go to that is not hell or heaven? The answer is yes, there is such a place, and it is that place that Christ preached when he descended unto the dead, sheol. That place is what we call purgatory.

See I told you you're fighting your own belief.

Ok I see we're both misunderstanding each other here. My argument is addressing them, because the Bible is addressing them. Now the questions is, if they were in "prison" as the Bible states, where and what is this prison?

This prison cannot be hell, no one can get out of there, it isn't heaven because they are in prison, heaven would not be referred to as prison, and Christ preached to them, there would be no need of preaching to those in heaven, they already made it whoo hoo. So what is this prison?

I agree, the Catholic Church agrees, but we know they weren't in heaven or hell, so where were they?

I will repeat what I have said multiple times on this forum. All Catholics and non-catholics believe what the RCC teaches, the difference is that Catholics are aware that they believe what they RCC teaches and the non-catholics are not aware that they believe what the RCC teaches.

So what say you now that you see that you believe what the RCC teaches?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ Mad Max

And others by the millions are likewise following suit, especially ever since the sex scandals that is still rocking the organization to date.

Well, if you're interested in seeing prophecy fulfilled in front of your very eyes I'd be glad to share some websites with you. In the mean time here is a prophecy video that you will definitely find interesting.

http://www.john1429.org/video/antichrist/Antichrist-128.html

0
Avatar
Newbie

mad max

you still need deliverance .a deliverance that will bringb you back 2 the true faith.

bobbyaff

why are you ashamed of your church ,is it that they have so much 2 hide

0
Avatar
Newbie

are you still one, Max?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Bobbyaf

Well,I know nothing about prophecy. But I was baptised and raised Catholic. It took varying time spans but every member of my family voluntarily departed from Catholism, without being urged by a soul. God's been in the business of delivering people a long time. No doubt he is more than capable of leading individuals to Himself,including Catholics.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The true Church of God would not be able to be surpressed, it was to be a light on the hill, light doesn't hide, it doesn't get surpressed. If the true Church got surpressed, Christ was lying.

If the Catholic Church did not infallibly define the books of the Bible, then the Bible isn't infallible. The New Testament books were not written to be scripture. Therefore when the Church defined the books of the Bible as scripture, She infallibly did so, or else the Bible wouldn't be infallible.

There is a whole lot of proof, do research on Jewish history. Remember the Jews were dispersed all over, and they had Torahs everywhere. Before the time of Christ, there was the Alexandrine Canon, the Pharisess and Saducees revised the canon, and refused to allow the Deuterocanonical books because they weren't written in hebrew or they weren't written in Palestine. They had four criteria for creating their revised Jewish Canon 1) They had to be in harmony with the Pentatuech 2) They had to have been written in the time of Ezra 3) They had to have been written in Hebrew 4) They had to have been written in Palestine.

Judith, Tobit, and parts of Daniel and Esther were written in Aramaic and probably outside of Palestine, Wisdom and 2 Maccabees were written in Greek, Baruch was written outside of Palestine, and Sirach and 1 Maccabees were written after the time of Ezra. Notice that none of them were removed because they were in conflict with the Pentateuch.

Thus the Palestinian Canon was created, but it wasn't until after the death of Christ did every Jew start using the Palestinian Canon. Jesus himself used the Alexandrine Canon.

You can read more about the difference between the Palestinian canon and the Alexandrine canon here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

I know them, however you do not. If you did you wouldn't have made the statement that they are additions by the Church for the salvation of souls.

Factually the apostles taught Purgatory. I will only present to you biblical passages, but also keep in mind that the successors of the apostles in their writings also acknowledged prayer for the dead because of their stay in purgatory.

1 Corinthians 15: 29

Otherwise what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why having them baptized for them?

To give a background of what is going on in this chapter. Paul is disputing the heresies of no resurrection of the dead. But notice that he mentions baptism for the dead. The normal protestant view is that once you're dead, you're going to hell or to heaven, no purgatory, but we know that in heaven one wouldn't need baptism because they are already saved, and in hell one cannot be saved, so no baptism there. So why would Paul speak of baptism for the dead? Why would the dead need baptism? There's no hope for them after deat right?

This passage also proves that baptism is salvific, it is not just merely symbolic, as several other passages state also

1 Corinthians 3:10-15

10 According to the grace of God given to you, likewise a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how h builds upon it.

11 for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ

12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, r straw

13 the work of each will come to light, for the day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each one's work

14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage

15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved but only as through fire.

How would you interpret the above passage?

first of all it says "he went and preached to the spirits in prison" so Jesus did go to preach to thoe who were in the land of the dead.

second, what spirit was used by Christ in the past?

How many spirits did Christ use? Did he use a different spirit while he was alive or what? explain that to me.

third, that verse proves that their probabtion wouldn't have been closed there and then, that verse proves your point to be false. If it was closed they wouldn't have been saved. Notice that is says "eight souls were saved by water" they were saved after their death. You assume that you hold the correct position when you say that their probabtion had been closed there and then. That verse is telling you that you are wrong.

You assume that no one can be saved even after death, that verse is telling you that 8 people were saved after death. You saw what you wanted to see, you didn't see the truth here.

So instead of taking what you believe and inserting it into the Bible, let the Bible tell you what it is actually saying. The problem is that protestants already have constructed what they believe and anything contrary would be wrong, therefore their interpretation of the Bible must fit their belief and not their belief fitting the Bible, it doesn't work that way. In this interpretation you contradicted the Bible verse.

In this statement you are claiming that God would contradict himself. You're ultimately saying that it is ok to have graven images and bow before it or look up to it as long as God instructs you to, even though he already gave the instruction not to make any graven images.

God wouldn't contradict himself. Lol, you know you just reminded me of something Olabowale, muslim, on this board said to me one day. Here's the story.

I was speaking to Olabowale one day on the phone and as usual we were discussing our religions. He then said to me that if a muslim is facing death, and those who wish to kill him want to kill him because he's a muslim, if he isn't ready to die it is ok for him to say that he is not a muslim, but if he is ready to die he can say that he is.

SO I asked him, "wouldn't that be lying?"

Olabowale said no, it wouldn't because Allah said so.

So apparentl as long as Allah said it's ok to break one of his commandments it is ok.

My dear Bobbyaf, do you see the connection between your statement and his? to both of you as long as God says so, it is ok to break his commandments.

(Are you Olabowale pretending to be a muslim, because I remember telling you you were making statements as a muslim would a while back)

Now that doesn't see like what God would do now does it?

What that commandment tells us is that we should not put anyone or anything in the place of God or above God. Even things that are not physical can be a graven image and can be bowed to. You can place money and sex above God.

When the center of your life is no longer God, then you have violated the first commandment. You have chosen whatever occupies your time as your god.

As for the statues, they are not worshipped, neither are they viewed as God. God is still and will always be very much the central figure in a Catholic's faith, if this changes they are no longer Catholic.

And that is why She is not God nor equal to God. SO no the Catholic leaders did no such thing. I know this because I have the church documents, it is there for everyone to read, so you don't need to go to anti-catholic websites to tell you what it is, you can go straight to the source, you can read the actual documents. You however are confused on what the terms used in the documents mean. Mary is not our mediator between God and man, also don't forget Jesus is God, and she can definitely ask something of her Son, and that is called mediation or intercession, actualy each one of us are mediators, as long as you can pray for me you are a mediator for me. So your point only shows your lack of knowledge on the meaning of the term mediator.

To your point about Mary being on a high esteem, how do you expect the Mother of God to be treated, what role do you expect her to play, do you understand motherhood at all. Would you appreciate it if one of your friends were to say your mother is irrelevant in bringing you to the world or were to say your mother is irrelevant at all?

And just so you know God places Mary on a high esteem and we follow suit. Luke 1 26-28

26 In the 6th month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth

27 to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And coming to her, he said "HAIL, FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH YOU"

Angel Gabriel here speaks for God as God is the one that sent him, and he HAILS her, that alone puts her on high esteem, God himself is giving Mary a ROYAL GREETING.

The word for full of grace in greek is Kecharitomene, and it is used for only one other person in the Bible, Jesus Christ. The same word used to describe Jesus Christ is the same word used to describe Mary, this is not of our doing, it is straight from the Bible.

Mary herself esteemed herself when she said "ALL GENERATIONS WILL CALL ME BLESSED"

Is she arrogant, absolutely not, for God himself gave her a royal greeting.

Notice also that she said ALL GENERATIONS, and not some generations or my generation, no, she said ALL GENERATIONS WILL CALL ME BLESSED, so why don't you call her blessed?

What would you call the mother of a King? a random woman, an irrelevant vessel to bring the King to the world to rule a kingdom and then relegated to the background.

Well sir Jesus isn't just any King, he is the King of the Davidic Kingdom, he sits on the throne of David forever Luke 1:31-33

31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus

32 He will be great and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father

33 and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom will have no end.

Now let us see who is queen in the Davidic Kingdom.

1 Kings 2:19

Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah: and the king arose to meet her, and bowed to her, and sat down upon his throne: and a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right hand.

Notice that the Queen sits on the right hand of the King and not just on any chair, she sits on a throne. In the Davidic Kingdom the mother is Queen. Jesus is King of the Davidic kingdom, Mary his Mother is Queen.

Remember also that God gave her a ROYAL GREETING. The word "HAIL" is not used for someone who is not of a royal household, it isn't even used for anyone but the reigning King or Queen.

This is not our doing, but God's doing. You can deny it till they kingdom come, it will never change. God doesn't change to fit our minds, our minds change to fit God. I know it is a hard pill to swallow but it is the truth. If Jesus sits on the throne of David, then his mother Mary is Queen, for the Mother reigns as Queen in the Davidic kingdom.

Now for co-redemptrix, have you ever heard of a co-pilot? Is he or she ever equal to the Pilot?

Well I've flown in planes too many times to know that and know enough about aeronautics to know that the co-pilot is never equal to the Pilot. Co does not insinuate equality.

Each one of us can be co-redemptrix, for we all play our part in building up the Church, and bringing souls to God.

Well I am sorry that you do no understand the Bibel, but there is no way Mary is in her grave. God isn't disrespectful to his mother. His mother isn't full of sin, she is ful of grace. As in she has complete grace, we all have partial grace and we won't have complete grace until we are in heaven, but she had complete grace on earth, and she had it even before she gave birth to God.

That sanctifying grace that we are all striving for after his birth and death and resurrection, she had it before he was born. She had every grace that can be given, she had it all. No one who is full of grace, the grace that she and Jesus have will  be in the grave.

If so then God's complete grace isn't able to save.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ Lady

Circumstantially, the true church of God was suppressed under Catholic rule, hence God used good scholars from the catholic church to have simply collated scriptures, but that is all they did, and I wouldn't say it was done infallibly either.

There is no proof of that.

I believe we both know them, so save the fora the trouble.

Factually, that doctrine was invented by the RCC. None of the apostles of Christ, or Christ Himself taught it. It is a fabrication invented by the church to have robbed poor people of their hard-earned money. That doctrine was associated with the indulgencies.

I am not surprised that you would have said that, but unfortunately, the verses in question say no such thing. By the way I was hoping you'd have quoted the passage as support. Let me do what you have failed to do and that is to show scriptural references.

1 Peter 3:18-20

18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

This has been one of the most misunderstood passages in the bible, largely because people tend to take out of context what was being said, or they usually fail to capture the grammatical syntax. If you read the grammar carefully you'd notice that it didn't say Christ went to preach, but rather that the Spirit by which He was quickened, was once used by Christ in the past , to reach out to the antediluvian. Their spirits were disobedient it says in those days, and not that the Spirit of God, or Christ after His death was now dealing with those persons who had already died.

Logically speaking if those antediluvians were rejected by God before, then why would God have to go in search after their souls, since their probabtion would have been closed there and then. The bible teaches that after a person dies the judgment follows which is a universal principle that isn't affected by time lines.

The difference lies in God's own motives for commanding those constructions. Moses was directly under God's instructions. God knows however, that when men make graven images outside of His instructions and supervision, their intentions are different. How else would we be justified in denouncing pagan images and icons if it were ok for all and sundry to up and make images for their own purposes?

Let me prove to you that Mary is worshipped, for if she weren't then Catholic leaders would not have placed her in such high esteem by teaching what Christ, nor His apostles have never taught The scriptures say "For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5

To assume that she is now queen of heaven, and co-redemtrix without one ounce of biblical proof is tantamount to Marian worship.

Only if I thought for one second that she wasn't in her grave awaiting the last trump. My anger rests with the level of deception that has gripped you and those who think like you. Its called holy indignation.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.