Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Stuff like this is the reason why I refuse to give a penny to this site. I rather just donate money to St. Jude's hospital or to help feed hungry children than give my hard earned money to those who have nothing better to do in life than to sit on their computers all day and put down other people's religions. This place has gone to the dogs.
Last edited:
A
I thought it was obvious. Apparently you were so busy lashing out that you missed it. The topic is about Catholic Heresy and Pat wrote an article referencing the uber-important Papal 12 page report some participants are likening to the historic Second Vatican Council. Pope Francis at the Vatican is calling for the RCC to welcome and accept gay people, unmarried couples and those who have divorced, as well as the children of these less traditional families.
The 12-page report, written by a committee picked by Francis, says that without abandoning church teaching on the sacrament of marriage, pastors should recognize that there are “positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitation.” That is a striking departure from traditional Catholic preaching that such couples are “living in sin.”
The report states that gay people have “gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community,” and that some gay couples provide each other “mutual aid to the point of sacrifice” and “precious support in the life of the partners.”
People engaged in serious sexual immorality such as homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc... are soon to be free to openly live lives of sweeping sexual immorality in the RCC.
Yet Jesus didn't spend time with sinners simply for their company. He always met them with an expectation for their repentance and change (e.g. salvation-->sanctification-->glorification) whom He often instructed to "go and sin no more."
^Scripture doesn't teach that sanctification is replaced by immorality in Christ's body His church for whoever wants to reject God's holiness and immerse themselves in wickedness but still be part of the church enjoying the fellowship. Hence, the quandary moral rank and file Catholics are increasingly finding themselves in.
"Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." -2 Thessalonians 2:3.
"As it was in the days of Lot, so shall it also be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man." -Matthew 24:37.
"Let there be no sexual immorality, impurity, or greed among you. Such sins have no place among God's people." -Ephesians 5:3
Etc... etc... etc...
There are only two forces that hold back the sexually immoral from giving themselves completely over to their sin and they are rejection by society and the non-negotiable unalterable repudiation and teachings of God's church rooted in God's holiness which is an extension of his very character.
When society no longer rejects sin as abnormal and fully accepts and encourages it and the church no longer practices the New Testament model (for an example read 1 Corinthians 5) but instead fully accepts the sexually immoral AND their sexual immorality in the assembly: there no longer exists the historical hindering force.
What you're observing is these two roadblocks presently being incrementally swept away. This is prophecy coming to pass.
Those of us who stand for God's love AND holiness and follow the New Testament in our personal lives and in our assemblies grow fewer and are increasingly looked upon as "out of step" with an enlightened society and a more relevant church. The split between what will become the apostate church and God's true church living victoriously until Christ's return is but a hairline but that split will come.
And when it does the lovers of sensuous pleasures in the apostate church that accepts their "lifestyles" will eventually far outnumber the lovers of God. The result, of course, will be a social revolt against God's uncompromising true church.
No matter. We will be a thorn in the side of the harlot church stinging and searing the consciences of apostates by our devotion to God and His holiness and uncompromising truth until the end of the age.
So don't just get your fact straight but get your life straight too instead of posting up on the wrong side and lashing out at those of us who are on the right side.
The 12-page report, written by a committee picked by Francis, says that without abandoning church teaching on the sacrament of marriage, pastors should recognize that there are “positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitation.” That is a striking departure from traditional Catholic preaching that such couples are “living in sin.”
The report states that gay people have “gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community,” and that some gay couples provide each other “mutual aid to the point of sacrifice” and “precious support in the life of the partners.”
People engaged in serious sexual immorality such as homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc... are soon to be free to openly live lives of sweeping sexual immorality in the RCC.
Yet Jesus didn't spend time with sinners simply for their company. He always met them with an expectation for their repentance and change (e.g. salvation-->sanctification-->glorification) whom He often instructed to "go and sin no more."
^Scripture doesn't teach that sanctification is replaced by immorality in Christ's body His church for whoever wants to reject God's holiness and immerse themselves in wickedness but still be part of the church enjoying the fellowship. Hence, the quandary moral rank and file Catholics are increasingly finding themselves in.
"Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." -2 Thessalonians 2:3.
"As it was in the days of Lot, so shall it also be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man." -Matthew 24:37.
"Let there be no sexual immorality, impurity, or greed among you. Such sins have no place among God's people." -Ephesians 5:3
Etc... etc... etc...
There are only two forces that hold back the sexually immoral from giving themselves completely over to their sin and they are rejection by society and the non-negotiable unalterable repudiation and teachings of God's church rooted in God's holiness which is an extension of his very character.
When society no longer rejects sin as abnormal and fully accepts and encourages it and the church no longer practices the New Testament model (for an example read 1 Corinthians 5) but instead fully accepts the sexually immoral AND their sexual immorality in the assembly: there no longer exists the historical hindering force.
What you're observing is these two roadblocks presently being incrementally swept away. This is prophecy coming to pass.
Those of us who stand for God's love AND holiness and follow the New Testament in our personal lives and in our assemblies grow fewer and are increasingly looked upon as "out of step" with an enlightened society and a more relevant church. The split between what will become the apostate church and God's true church living victoriously until Christ's return is but a hairline but that split will come.
And when it does the lovers of sensuous pleasures in the apostate church that accepts their "lifestyles" will eventually far outnumber the lovers of God. The result, of course, will be a social revolt against God's uncompromising true church.
No matter. We will be a thorn in the side of the harlot church stinging and searing the consciences of apostates by our devotion to God and His holiness and uncompromising truth until the end of the age.
So don't just get your fact straight but get your life straight too instead of posting up on the wrong side and lashing out at those of us who are on the right side.
The reality is that everything must be tested against the scriptures. If a teaching does not line up with the scriptures then it's a false teaching and we're to reject it. Catholic teachings do not line up with the bible, so we're to reject them.
Warning others is like grabbing their arm to stop them falling off that cliff, which they don't see.
The bible is God's Holy and perfect word. Why not trust it instead of false teachings of fallible men?
Warning others is like grabbing their arm to stop them falling off that cliff, which they don't see.
The bible is God's Holy and perfect word. Why not trust it instead of false teachings of fallible men?
Last edited:
T
We Catholics don't oppose scripture, we oppose your interpretations of it.
Remember the consequences of the reformation. Remember the multitudes of denominations which have sprang from divisions among the Christian brotherhood. Research history and you'll realize how the results of Luther's rebellion point to the truth of Catholicism.
Read the writings of the early church fathers, the early Christian leaders, and you'll realize that the word "Catholic" is written all over their notes.
Educate yourselves, and you'll find that we're not as stupid as you think we are.
G
That is understandable. Those who know the truth oppose the Catholic interpretation of it.
The consequences of the existence of the Catholic Church have been waaaaaaaaaay more severely detrimental to human history in general, and Christianity in particular.
The absolute majority of these came out of Catholicism.
Research history ( in addition to some good biblical understanding ) - without prejudice - and you'll discover that the Holy Roman Empire / Roman Catholic Church :
~ Is not the Church that Christ started -- but is, in fact, "Satan's false church" on the earth.
~ Is the "current manifestation" of the occult 'Mystery Religions' that has been around since Nimrod.
~ Has, on the surface, the appearance of Christianity - while, at the core ( at the top ), is "as anti-Christian as it can get"...
~ Has been run, from the top of the 'hierarchy', by some of the most wicked men to ever walk on the face of the whole earth.
~ Has both sanctioned and carried out more death and destruction upon [ true ] Christianity than any entity ever in existence.
This is the plain and simple truth that has been hidden from you all your life.
"This may sound very harsh, but - 'so help me God' - it is the truth - and, you need to realize, recognize, understand, believe, and accept it."
You need to swallow your pride and consider the distinct possibility that you are in error. Is your eternal soul worth it?
I don't see it written in the Bible anywhere. If it were part of God's Truth, I believe God would have made sure that it would be written in the Bible.
Educate yourself, and you'll find that you have been deceived all your life.
( Incidentally - speaking of "educate yourself" - check out -- e d u c a t e - y o u r s e l f . o r g -- I have not read everything on the site - therefore, I cannot promote it as "all truth"; however, what I can say is - that what I have read - has been very informative - and thought-provoking... )
The intent of this post is the kind of thing Katy is talking about in this quote.
The absolute majority of Catholics worldwide are headed for that cliff - which they do not see. Beyond it is hell and the lake of fire - forever, and ever, and ever.
It it truly sad...
Taylor -- I do not have anything against you - or any person who may be Catholic. My only intent in making posts like this one is to ( hopefully ) prompt others to search out the [ real ] truth about the Catholic Church.
The consequences of the existence of the Catholic Church have been waaaaaaaaaay more severely detrimental to human history in general, and Christianity in particular.
The absolute majority of these came out of Catholicism.
Research history ( in addition to some good biblical understanding ) - without prejudice - and you'll discover that the Holy Roman Empire / Roman Catholic Church :
~ Is not the Church that Christ started -- but is, in fact, "Satan's false church" on the earth.
~ Is the "current manifestation" of the occult 'Mystery Religions' that has been around since Nimrod.
~ Has, on the surface, the appearance of Christianity - while, at the core ( at the top ), is "as anti-Christian as it can get"...
~ Has been run, from the top of the 'hierarchy', by some of the most wicked men to ever walk on the face of the whole earth.
~ Has both sanctioned and carried out more death and destruction upon [ true ] Christianity than any entity ever in existence.
This is the plain and simple truth that has been hidden from you all your life.
"This may sound very harsh, but - 'so help me God' - it is the truth - and, you need to realize, recognize, understand, believe, and accept it."
You need to swallow your pride and consider the distinct possibility that you are in error. Is your eternal soul worth it?
I don't see it written in the Bible anywhere. If it were part of God's Truth, I believe God would have made sure that it would be written in the Bible.
Educate yourself, and you'll find that you have been deceived all your life.
( Incidentally - speaking of "educate yourself" - check out -- e d u c a t e - y o u r s e l f . o r g -- I have not read everything on the site - therefore, I cannot promote it as "all truth"; however, what I can say is - that what I have read - has been very informative - and thought-provoking... )
The intent of this post is the kind of thing Katy is talking about in this quote.
The absolute majority of Catholics worldwide are headed for that cliff - which they do not see. Beyond it is hell and the lake of fire - forever, and ever, and ever.
It it truly sad...
Taylor -- I do not have anything against you - or any person who may be Catholic. My only intent in making posts like this one is to ( hopefully ) prompt others to search out the [ real ] truth about the Catholic Church.
Last edited:
Again, you rely on media that distorts the facts. An interim report is not a final report. The questionable paragraphs have been dropped.
Media coverage has focused heavily on remarks made about homosexuals, though in the daily Vatican briefings that preceded the release of the report on Monday there was almost no mention of gays. Indeed, there was only one major speech on this subject out of a total of 265.
The interim report was not approved by the synod or the pope.
Almost none of the bishops were even asked to approve the report.
The report was leaked to the media behind the back of the bishops.
Three of the 191 synod fathers, or 1.6 percent of the entire body, were mostly responsible for the report. Six new members have since been added to prepare the final report.
As soon as the report was leaked, it was criticized by 41 bishops.
Criticisms focused on the failure to support traditional Church teachings, the heightened set of false expectations, and the moral confusion the interim report has engendered.
On October 16, the ten working groups of bishops will present their amendments to the report.
The final report of this synod will be issued October 18.
That report will be the basis of discussion over the next year when the synod meets again in October 2015.
Following next year’s meeting, the pope will present his thoughts on the completed document.
Reality Check: No matter what happens, most Catholics who long ago decided to bolt are not sitting on deck waiting to suit up again. It is nonetheless amusing to witness how many angry Rosie O’Donnell Catholics are acting out these days.CONFUSION OVER SYNOD REPORT MOUNTS - Catholic League
…The final document is more cautious than Monday’s interim report, saying that homosexual persons must be “welcomed with respect and delicacy” and must not suffer “unjust discrimination,” but also reaffirming there is “no basis” for comparing, “even remotely,” same-sex relationships with marriage between a man and a woman.
It’s here: final Relatio of synod, plus speech of Pope Francis—UPDATED
AgeofKnowledge, your psychotic hate speech is uncalled for; you put Catholicism down from a position of self-righteousness, attempting some kind of higher ground. Your facts are wrong, as I have proven. Buchanan is wrong, as I have proven. The media, which hates the Catholic Church, is wrong, which you accept. There is no acceptance of sinful lifestyles. "harlot church", "apostate church". "sensuous pleasures in the apostate church", etc., etc., this is the language of a paranoid psychotic bigot, yet you complain of being lashed out against. You have the freedom in here to bash, misrepresent, distort, and lie about Catholicism, but when we defend ourselves and prove your ignorance its called lashing out. gimmie a break.
Media coverage has focused heavily on remarks made about homosexuals, though in the daily Vatican briefings that preceded the release of the report on Monday there was almost no mention of gays. Indeed, there was only one major speech on this subject out of a total of 265.
The interim report was not approved by the synod or the pope.
Almost none of the bishops were even asked to approve the report.
The report was leaked to the media behind the back of the bishops.
Three of the 191 synod fathers, or 1.6 percent of the entire body, were mostly responsible for the report. Six new members have since been added to prepare the final report.
As soon as the report was leaked, it was criticized by 41 bishops.
Criticisms focused on the failure to support traditional Church teachings, the heightened set of false expectations, and the moral confusion the interim report has engendered.
On October 16, the ten working groups of bishops will present their amendments to the report.
The final report of this synod will be issued October 18.
That report will be the basis of discussion over the next year when the synod meets again in October 2015.
Following next year’s meeting, the pope will present his thoughts on the completed document.
Reality Check: No matter what happens, most Catholics who long ago decided to bolt are not sitting on deck waiting to suit up again. It is nonetheless amusing to witness how many angry Rosie O’Donnell Catholics are acting out these days.CONFUSION OVER SYNOD REPORT MOUNTS - Catholic League
…The final document is more cautious than Monday’s interim report, saying that homosexual persons must be “welcomed with respect and delicacy” and must not suffer “unjust discrimination,” but also reaffirming there is “no basis” for comparing, “even remotely,” same-sex relationships with marriage between a man and a woman.
It’s here: final Relatio of synod, plus speech of Pope Francis—UPDATED
AgeofKnowledge, your psychotic hate speech is uncalled for; you put Catholicism down from a position of self-righteousness, attempting some kind of higher ground. Your facts are wrong, as I have proven. Buchanan is wrong, as I have proven. The media, which hates the Catholic Church, is wrong, which you accept. There is no acceptance of sinful lifestyles. "harlot church", "apostate church". "sensuous pleasures in the apostate church", etc., etc., this is the language of a paranoid psychotic bigot, yet you complain of being lashed out against. You have the freedom in here to bash, misrepresent, distort, and lie about Catholicism, but when we defend ourselves and prove your ignorance its called lashing out. gimmie a break.
This would be figurative at best. Just how many Passovers have you celebrated? Israel was to look forward to the coming of Messiah Who provide a perfect sacrifice for sin. There was no saving merit in the Passover feast itself.
Christ was offered once and then He sat down at the right hand of the Father. It is finished He cried from the cross. I understand looking back at the cross but I do not think that is what you are saying or that the catholic church is imputing that meaning either. God did step into time with Christ Jesus. I know you believe it's just what you believe that is the problem. You are corrupting the gospel and the grace of God. Christ is shamed every time He is crucified in the mass. The body of Christ is united in Christ. the communion is a time of reflection and inward self examination. It is not a time of feasting upon flesh and blood. Pagans ate flesh and blood sacrificed to idols. The symbolic nature of John 6 is beyond any question. Even as Jesus spake they were not eating His actual flesh nor drinking His actual blood. Jesus said His words were bread indeed. We do not eat the pages but the thoughts and ideas the words present.
Ever notice that you are focused on the earthly and not on the heavenly?
Christ was sacrificed one time. It is a shame to Christ to crucify Him over and over again making Him present in a most humiliating way.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Christ was offered once and then He sat down at the right hand of the Father. It is finished He cried from the cross. I understand looking back at the cross but I do not think that is what you are saying or that the catholic church is imputing that meaning either. God did step into time with Christ Jesus. I know you believe it's just what you believe that is the problem. You are corrupting the gospel and the grace of God. Christ is shamed every time He is crucified in the mass. The body of Christ is united in Christ. the communion is a time of reflection and inward self examination. It is not a time of feasting upon flesh and blood. Pagans ate flesh and blood sacrificed to idols. The symbolic nature of John 6 is beyond any question. Even as Jesus spake they were not eating His actual flesh nor drinking His actual blood. Jesus said His words were bread indeed. We do not eat the pages but the thoughts and ideas the words present.
Ever notice that you are focused on the earthly and not on the heavenly?
Christ was sacrificed one time. It is a shame to Christ to crucify Him over and over again making Him present in a most humiliating way.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Educate yourself. You are not nearly as smart as you think you are. When the early church fathers used the word catholic they meant universal not roman catholic as it is used today.
There remains one true church which is not an organization but a living breathing body of believers who are living stones fitly joined together in Christ.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
There remains one true church which is not an organization but a living breathing body of believers who are living stones fitly joined together in Christ.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Jesus did not say His words were bread indeed. He said, "Amen, amen I say to you, my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed."
Ever noticed there was something missing at the Paschal feast of our Lord? Ever notice it does not mention once that they ate lamb. Jesus explained that well, "This bread is my body broken for you," and "This is the chalice of my blood, poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins." Jesus is the Lamb of God. He is the lamb we consume at the Paschal feast.
Ever noticed there was something missing at the Paschal feast of our Lord? Ever notice it does not mention once that they ate lamb. Jesus explained that well, "This bread is my body broken for you," and "This is the chalice of my blood, poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins." Jesus is the Lamb of God. He is the lamb we consume at the Paschal feast.
Last edited:
What are you talking about? They were to consume the lamb entirely. If the family was too small then they could join together with another family to consume the lamb. Anything left over was to be burned and not left over another day.
Man is not to live by bread alone but by every word of God. Luke 4:4
Jesus is the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.
Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. Jesus is the Living Bread come from heaven that if a man eat he shall never die. This is not physically eating but believing the word of God and by faith in what the word of God says receiving grace unto eternal life. Jesus is our manna a better manna than what Israel had in the wilderness journey.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Man is not to live by bread alone but by every word of God. Luke 4:4
Jesus is the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.
Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. Jesus is the Living Bread come from heaven that if a man eat he shall never die. This is not physically eating but believing the word of God and by faith in what the word of God says receiving grace unto eternal life. Jesus is our manna a better manna than what Israel had in the wilderness journey.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.
John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
[SUP]66 [/SUP]After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
John 6:66...hmm, where have I seen those numbers before?
Spot the fake verse!
[SUP]67 [/SUP]So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” [SUP]68 [/SUP]Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,
. [SUP]67 [/SUP]So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” [SUP]68 [/SUP]Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? we have your words in the New Testament.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. [SUP]54 [/SUP]Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. [SUP]55 [/SUP]For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. [SUP]56 [/SUP]Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [SUP]57 [/SUP]As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. [SUP]58 [/SUP]This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[SUP][c][/SUP] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” [SUP]59 [/SUP]
These are the WORDS that Peter was talking about in verse 68.
John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
[SUP]66 [/SUP]After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
John 6:66...hmm, where have I seen those numbers before?
Spot the fake verse!
[SUP]67 [/SUP]So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” [SUP]68 [/SUP]Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,
. [SUP]67 [/SUP]So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” [SUP]68 [/SUP]Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? we have your words in the New Testament.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. [SUP]54 [/SUP]Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. [SUP]55 [/SUP]For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. [SUP]56 [/SUP]Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [SUP]57 [/SUP]As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. [SUP]58 [/SUP]This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[SUP][c][/SUP] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” [SUP]59 [/SUP]
These are the WORDS that Peter was talking about in verse 68.
There is a lot that is false in this post.
If eating the flesh of Christ was literal why does it require spiritual gymnastics to accomplish it?
Salvation is a gift. There are no mountains to summit no ocean depths to sound only simple childlike faith to receive Gods immense grace.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
If eating the flesh of Christ was literal why does it require spiritual gymnastics to accomplish it?
Salvation is a gift. There are no mountains to summit no ocean depths to sound only simple childlike faith to receive Gods immense grace.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
"Roman" Catholic" was first used as an insult by the Anglicans in the 16th century. There are 23 rites in the Church, "Roman rite" is interchangeable with "Latin Rite", and is the largest of all the rites. I never describe myself as a Roman Catholic. I am a Catholic in union with all the other rites. "Roman Catholic" only appears twice in the Catechism. The Pope does not use the term, unless he is addressing the Catholics in the Roman diocese (of which he has local jurisdiction as a bishop, but you can't understand that) I do not live in Italy, so the prefix word "Roman" for all Catholics is inaccurate. However, it is used because it is convenient.
"Catholic" comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus. It is an attribute, a character, not a definition of a denomination.
It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.
Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world."
That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.
Dr. Carroll, author of the Baptist church history entitled “The Trail of Blood,” makes the claim that Constantine called a council in 313 AD, the same year he issued the Edict of Milan, and this council first formed the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This theory breaks down, though, when one begins to read the history books and discovers that no Church council was held in 313.
But the main problem with all of these theories is that, if they were true, one would expect to be able to find all of the doctrines that are specifically “Catholic” coming about only after the “invention” of the Catholic Church. Whatever year one proposes as the beginning of Catholicism, one should expect to see none of these Catholic doctrines before it. Even a cursory reading of the Church Fathers from the first, second, and third centuries shows that this is not the case.
Here is what Church Fathers had to say. In every case the word "Catholic" is used. Notice the dates, as they span over
a century before Constantine.
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD
Is Catholic in the Bible?
Acts 9:31 [SUP]31 [/SUP]Then the churches throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had rest and were edified, and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied[TABLE="class: maintext, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: eng"]throughout[/TD]
[TD="class: greek2"]καθ’[/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]kath[/TD]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]2596[/TD]
[TD="class: eng2"]down, against, according to[/TD]
[TD="class: eng3"]preposition of uncertain origin[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: eng"]all[/TD]
[TD="class: greek2"]ὅλης[/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]olēs[/TD]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]3650[/TD]
[TD="class: eng2"]whole, complete[/TD]
[TD="class: eng3"]a prim. word[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
kath oles, katholicas, Catholic.
[SUP]Romans 1:8 [/SUP]First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.
all the world...universal...Catholic.
That begs the question. You mean The Early Church Fathers were not Catholic?
Do you get some kind of pleasure being proven dead wrong all the time?
"Catholic" comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus. It is an attribute, a character, not a definition of a denomination.
It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.
Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world."
That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.
Dr. Carroll, author of the Baptist church history entitled “The Trail of Blood,” makes the claim that Constantine called a council in 313 AD, the same year he issued the Edict of Milan, and this council first formed the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This theory breaks down, though, when one begins to read the history books and discovers that no Church council was held in 313.
But the main problem with all of these theories is that, if they were true, one would expect to be able to find all of the doctrines that are specifically “Catholic” coming about only after the “invention” of the Catholic Church. Whatever year one proposes as the beginning of Catholicism, one should expect to see none of these Catholic doctrines before it. Even a cursory reading of the Church Fathers from the first, second, and third centuries shows that this is not the case.
Here is what Church Fathers had to say. In every case the word "Catholic" is used. Notice the dates, as they span over
a century before Constantine.
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD
Is Catholic in the Bible?
Acts 9:31 [SUP]31 [/SUP]Then the churches throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had rest and were edified, and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied[TABLE="class: maintext, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: eng"]throughout[/TD]
[TD="class: greek2"]καθ’[/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]kath[/TD]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]2596[/TD]
[TD="class: eng2"]down, against, according to[/TD]
[TD="class: eng3"]preposition of uncertain origin[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: eng"]all[/TD]
[TD="class: greek2"]ὅλης[/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]olēs[/TD]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]3650[/TD]
[TD="class: eng2"]whole, complete[/TD]
[TD="class: eng3"]a prim. word[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
kath oles, katholicas, Catholic.
[SUP]Romans 1:8 [/SUP]First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.
all the world...universal...Catholic.
That begs the question. You mean The Early Church Fathers were not Catholic?
Do you get some kind of pleasure being proven dead wrong all the time?
Last edited:
It offends you to be called Roman Catholic? Seems to me that it should be a universally accepted term.
This of course is an improper question. The proper question should be is the Roman Catholic church today the same catholic church that was started at Pentecost with the Apostles and disciples?
Again improper question. The proper question should be were the early church fathers Roman Catholic? We do not use the term catholic in like fashion to the era in which the term has its genesis. Your continuing attempts to shape things to your perspective is only going to frustrate you. God is not deceived nor is God to be mocked. Evil men and seducers continue to change God into the image they have of Him. God will mock them and have them in derision.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Again improper question. The proper question should be were the early church fathers Roman Catholic? We do not use the term catholic in like fashion to the era in which the term has its genesis. Your continuing attempts to shape things to your perspective is only going to frustrate you. God is not deceived nor is God to be mocked. Evil men and seducers continue to change God into the image they have of Him. God will mock them and have them in derision.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Since you are endeavoring to restructure the concept it likely means that you do not want to receive what God has said. I wonder who might have deemed whatever it is that you see as no separation between scripture and Christ as heresy? I wonder?
The word of God has the characteristics of God. The word of God does not pass away but endures forever. The word of God does not change not one jot or tittle. The word of God is living and powerful dividing the soul and the spirit, bones and the marrow, sharper than any two edged sword. The word of God goes forth and accomplishes what God has purposed it to, it never returns unto Him void.
The word of God is the authority of God. It is the keys by which men are forgiven their sins or are bound to their sins eternally.
Rites, rituals, superstitions, and traditions do not produce genuine salvation by grace through faith that comes from hearing the word of God. The Holy Spirit ministers in men's hearts through the word of God convincing of sin, righteousness, and judgment.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
The word of God has the characteristics of God. The word of God does not pass away but endures forever. The word of God does not change not one jot or tittle. The word of God is living and powerful dividing the soul and the spirit, bones and the marrow, sharper than any two edged sword. The word of God goes forth and accomplishes what God has purposed it to, it never returns unto Him void.
The word of God is the authority of God. It is the keys by which men are forgiven their sins or are bound to their sins eternally.
Rites, rituals, superstitions, and traditions do not produce genuine salvation by grace through faith that comes from hearing the word of God. The Holy Spirit ministers in men's hearts through the word of God convincing of sin, righteousness, and judgment.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Lord, Lord have we not made many orphanages, schools and arts in your name? All this and you deny the God of eternal salvation by rejecting His only begotten Son. Preferring your righteousness to the righteousness of God.
We cannot earn salvation we can only receive it as a gift from God. Good works are not a substitute for grace. Paul said all the qualities and education he had he counted but dung that he might obtain Christ. None of those things are any good without the saving grace of God.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
We cannot earn salvation we can only receive it as a gift from God. Good works are not a substitute for grace. Paul said all the qualities and education he had he counted but dung that he might obtain Christ. None of those things are any good without the saving grace of God.
For the cause of Christ
Roger