Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[kennethcadwell]

The Roman Catholic church did not exist in 325 AD. Whilst churches had gathered into groups they were still independent churches, with their status determined by the nature of their particular leaders. There was no Pope who was recognised by the worldwide church.

All the councils did was ratify what had been brought forward from the past on the basis of their apostolic connections. The muratorian canon in 2nd century AD listed almost all the books we call the New Testaments. Irenaus also listed the canonical books, and so did others. Missing were 2 Peter and 2 & 3 John, but it is very possible that they were seen as one with 1 John and 1 Peter (simply called John and Peter).

So it is to the independent churches in 2nd century AD that we look to for which books were canonical because 'accepted by all the churches' at a time when people still lived who knew men who had spoken with the Apostles. It was not to the RC church.

it is obvious your knowledge of early Church history, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers (ECF) is limited. For the EFC had much to say about the Catholic Church prior to 325 a.d. The early Church was the Catholic Church. It taught infallibly, gave us the New Testament and was made up of three ranks of clergy, bishop, priest and deacon. The idea of “Scripture Alone” didn’t exist (and still doesn't)nor could it have as the printing press would not be invented for more than a thousand years.

Ignatius of Antioch​

Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 110]).
​

The Martyrdom of Polycarp​

When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ass, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 [A.D. 110]).​

Irenaeus​

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there should arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? (ibid. 3:4).
​

Tertullian​

Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (The Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 [A.D.200])
​

Clement of Alexandria​

A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere (The Instructor of Children 3:12:97:2 [A.D. 191]).
Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel (Stromateis 6:13:107:2 [post-A.D. 202]).
​

Hippolytus​

When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: He is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop's command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . . On a presbyter [priest], however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains. (Apostolic Tradition 9 [ca. A.D. 215]).
​

Origen​

Not fornication only, but even marriages make us unfit for ecclesiastical honors; for neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow is able to be twice married (Homilies on Luke, 17 [ca. A.D. 235]).

​

Cyprian​

The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste. She knows one home . . . Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6 [A.D. 251]).
Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear or obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if anyone be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another (Letters 66 [A.D. 253]).


No charge for the history lesson.



Pax Christi


"From henceforth, all generations shall call me Blessed." ---- Luke 1:48.​

The Catholic church was not the early church, but it also did not start until the 4th century......
The Catholic church started in the 2nd century (101-200 A.D.), which is about 70+ years after Jesus crucifixion. So the early church lasted 70+ years before the Catholic church was even heard of.

People outside the Catholic church have been falsely taught that Constantine started the church in the 4th century when he just joined it in that century.
People inside the Catholic church are being taught a false history that the church existed since the original 12 apostles, when the term Catholic was not even used tell the 2nd century. (And I was in the church for 5 years.)

Within the bible we can see divisions and problems already existed within the early church lead by the Apostles and those who were understudies of theirs. To say a church denomination is the true church when it did not start up tell over 70 years later is deceptive and not correct, since the true Church mentioned in the bible is not a building or denomination.

The true Church is the body of all believers in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior..............

 

[valiant]

it is obvious your knowledge of early Church history, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers (ECF) is limited. For the EFC had much to say about the Catholic Church prior to 325 a.d. The early Church was the Catholic Church. It taught infallibly, gave us the New Testament and was made up of three ranks of clergy, bishop, priest and deacon. The idea of “Scripture Alone” didn’t exist (and still doesn't)nor could it have as the printing press would not be invented for more than a thousand years.

Ignatius of Antioch​

Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 110]).
​

The Martyrdom of Polycarp​

When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ass, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 [A.D. 110]).​

Irenaeus​

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there should arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? (ibid. 3:4).
​

Tertullian​

Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (The Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 [A.D.200])
​

Clement of Alexandria​

A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere (The Instructor of Children 3:12:97:2 [A.D. 191]).
Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel (Stromateis 6:13:107:2 [post-A.D. 202]).
​

Hippolytus​

When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: He is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop's command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . . On a presbyter [priest], however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains. (Apostolic Tradition 9 [ca. A.D. 215]).
​

Origen​

Not fornication only, but even marriages make us unfit for ecclesiastical honors; for neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow is able to be twice married (Homilies on Luke, 17 [ca. A.D. 235]).

​

Cyprian​

The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste. She knows one home . . . Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6 [A.D. 251]).
Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear or obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if anyone be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another (Letters 66 [A.D. 253]).


No charge for the history lesson.



Pax Christi


"​

I'm pleased you didn't charge for it because it is grossly misleading.

The Roman Catholic church did not exist as such until around 7th century AD or even later

The church the early fathers spoke about was 'the Catholic (Universal) church' NOT the Roman Catholic church.

I am a member of the Catholic (Universal) Church. I am NOT a member of the ROMAN Catholic church.

I suspect that you do not even know that there are a number of Catholic Churches today who are not in union with the Pope?

There are many Catholic churches today, but only one ROMAN Catholic church.

So you see your posting is NOT talking about the Roman Catholic church. I hope in future you will remember that before posting false information. I presume you are a Roman Catholic. It is they who try to deceive people with the kind of misleading information you provided.

In the first six centuries of the Christian era the 'Catholic (Universal) Church' was made up of a large number of independent churches, some of who had gathered together under prominent leaders although retaining independence.

SADLY SOME OF THOSE LEADERS, CONTRARY TO THE TEACHING OF JESUS CHRIST were trying to obtain control over those independent churches. Human politics being what it is they largely succeeded which was a sad day for 'the Catholic church' because it was then divided up into sections vying with each other, an became led astray by false tradition.

If you don't know that I suggest you read a church history written by an objective author..

The original Catholic church never claimed infallibility. It saw infallibility as residing in the Apostles. That was why the independent churches which formed 'the Catholic church' sought to ensure that only writing which were by Apostles or closely connected with Apostles, were included in the canon, along with the OT Scriptures confirmed by Jesus (we number them as 39). The doctrine of the Scripture alone was THEIR DOCTRINE and the very basis of the early church.

 

[fordman]

The Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures using people to write what He said.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
[SUP]16 [/SUP] All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
[SUP]17 [/SUP] so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

This passage says nothing about Scripture being "sufficient" as a sole rule of faith. An an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is "profitable" (Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is "sufficient"—which is, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage means.

All Scriptures comes from God! None come from the corrupted Catholic Church!

FYI....No one wrote the Christian Bible. The Bible is a library of books, and libraries are not written, they are made. The books and letters in the Christian Bible were written by Moses, David, Isaiah, Matthew, John, Paul, Peter and numerous other inspired writers. However, The Catholic Church did compile the bible. This she did by collecting the Jewish and Christian writings extant, and selecting from them the books and letters that form the canon of Scripture, declaring them to be writings that were inspired by God.

In fact the Catholic Church was not around when the Scriptures were written by the Holy Spirit.

Oh Yeah...well did you know before the last Book of the New Testament was written:The Catholic Church had celebrated her golden jubilee;The faith of Christ had been "proclaimed all over (the then known) world" (Rom. 1:8). Eleven of the twelve Apostles had died.

The Catholics did not appear until the 4th century, long after the Bible was written by God!

Wrong.... did you not read what I posted what the Early Church Fathers had to say about that? I know you are not a big fan of early church history because it blows your theory clean out of the water, but history is what it is my man, whether you like or agree with it at all!!

Even Peter who the Catholics claim was their first Pope says we are to REPENT and then be Baptized! Not be Baptized as a baby and repent later! To be Baptized one must first repent of his sins! How can a baby repent of his sins? He cannot!
Therefore the practice of Baptizing babies is a false doctrine invented by the Catholics to fool people into thinking they are True Christians!

As far as Acts 2:37-38 goes...... again, context (a crucial part of good biblical exegesis) is decisive. The context is the Day of Pentecost. A miracle had just occurred. The disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4) and began speaking in tongues. A crowd gathered to see what was happening, and those from many nations each heard tongues in their own language (2:6). Peter, the leader of the apostles, then stood up to "explain" to them what all the commotion was about (2:14). He interprets Pentecost and presents the gospel (nowhere mentioning either faith alone or Scripture alone, of course). At the end of his talk, the people were "cut to the heart" and asked Peter and the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" (2:37). And Peter replied (2:38): . . . "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Obviously, these were adults who could talk (and think, in most cases), who asked the question that Peter answered. This is a narrative, so it simply recorded actual words. Claiming that such a reply applies also to infants is nonsensical, as it was a response to people who understood what Peter had said in the first place, and his answer was specifically meant to address their question and them. Now, when an adult or someone past the age of reason becomes a Christian, obviously they have to repent before baptism (presuming they have ever sinned). Repentance is a necessary part of the "mature" following of Christ. So is baptism. For example, when one is received into the Catholic Church, one verbally renounces error and sin, confesses, and is conditionally baptized (meaning that if an earlier "baptism" was not valid, the current one would be). I imagine that conversion to most Protestant groups would involve a similar process. You don't simply baptize a person who shows no sign of repentance. This is what adult converts do; how they are accepted into the fold. It does not rule out infant baptism at all, because the application of what Peter said in that particular circumstance is not universal.

With that being said...... I couldn't help but notice you once again side-stepped my question, "So maybe you can show me in the bible where it specifically prohibts the baptisim of babies."

And how come no responce when I asked your beliefs if say say a baby is born in a vegetative state, with severe brain defects, and died at ten years of age, still incapable of rational thoughts or communication. Is it your belief that child is damned simply because he/she couldn't believe???? Or how about all aborted babies, (or are you pro-choice?) children who die at a young age, or "BEFORE" the age of reason, is it your belief they go to hell?


Pax Christi


"From henceforth, all generations shall call me Blessed." ----Luke 1:48.

 

[valiant]

The Catholic church was not the early church, but it also did not start until the 4th century......
The Catholic church started in the 2nd century (101-200 A.D.), which is about 70+ years after Jesus crucifixion. So the early church lasted 70+ years before the Catholic church was even heard of.

People outside the Catholic church have been falsely taught that Constantine started the church in the 4th century when he just joined it in that century.
People inside the Catholic church are being taught a false history that the church existed since the original 12 apostles, when the term Catholic was not even used tell the 2nd century. (And I was in the church for 5 years.)

Within the bible we can see divisions and problems already existed within the early church lead by the Apostles and those who were understudies of theirs. To say a church denomination is the true church when it did not start up tell over 70 years later is deceptive and not correct, since the true Church mentioned in the bible is not a building or denomination.

The true Church is the body of all believers in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior..............

I mainly agree with what you say There was no mention of the 'Catholic (universal) church' until 2nd century AD. And from then on all looked to the Apostolic writings.

When the Roman church sought to claim ascendancy at the Council of Nicea they were firmly put in their place by the Archbishoprics of Alexandria and Antioch. as well as that of Jerusalem. It was pointed out to them that the Roman church was not as ancient as Alexandria and Antioch. When Gregory the Great in 6th century AD tried to claim primacy over 'the Catholic (universal) church' he again was put in his place, although they made the concession that due to the prominence of Rome now that Alexandria and Antioch had diminished, he could be called 'first among equals'.

Even at this stage there was no place for a Pope. That would come much later. Peter of course was never sole bishop of Rome, for Rome did not have a sole bishop until mid 2nd century AD. Along with Paul he would have been made one of a number of bishops there when he went there to be martyred. Neither Paul in his letter to the Romans (there is no mention of Peter) and 1 Clement make clear that there was no sole bishop in Rome. Ignatius did not know of one. The 'modern day' RC historian Duchesne admitted a 'polyepiscopacy' in the RC church in its early days.

Roman Catholic church history is written by the Romans based on their own false tradition.

 

[fordman]

I'm pleased you didn't charge for it because it is grossly misleading
The Roman Catholic church did not exist as such until around 7th century AD or even later

Shall I go on.... or do you (both) get the point? There are many more ECF's I could quote from.

Lol!! Not only do you Protestants/Non-Catholics fail to agree on what Scripture says, but also on when the Catholic Church, the Church started by Jesus Christ (with a upper case 'C') was started!! Lol! You say it was aroud the 7th century or later, and kennethcadwell says not until the 4th century. Now which of the two of you are supposedly correct? I say neither, for the ECF say differntly when speaking on the Holy Eucharist, the doctrine of what you call the "Roman Catholic Church." They are very specific on the Real Presence if Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, something your "Catholic (Universal) Church" (the "C" in your Catholic should be lower case. 'c') does not! For example, and pay close attention to the dates:

The Didache: (c.90 a.d.)
But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.

First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.

And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. ( 9:1-5)


St.Ignatius of Antioch: (c.110 a.d.) I have no taste for corruptible food nor pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David;and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is incorruptible. (letter to the Romans 7:3)Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do,you doaccording to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNIONOF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery...(Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)They [i.e.the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Fathe, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)
[h=2] St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
[/h]We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)

[h=2]St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)[/h]…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)
If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)


Shall I go on.... or do you (both) get the point? There are many more ECF's I could quote from.



Pax Christi


"From henceforth all generations shall call me Blessed." ----- Luke 1:48.

 

[notuptome]

Shall I go on.... or do you (both) get the point? There are many more ECF's I could quote from.

Have you got any quotes from these ECF's where they give a testimony of coming to Christ and getting saved? I'd love to see something where they tell of how they were confronted by God about their sinfulness and the righteousness of Christ. How they realized that they fully deserved to go into eternal condemnation and asked God to have mercy upon them and save them from their sins.

I'd even like to hear how you were converted to Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[valiant]

Shall I go on.... or do you (both) get the point? There are many more ECF's I could quote from.

Lol!! Not only do you Protestants/Non-Catholics fail to agree on what Scripture says, but also on when the Catholic Church, the Church started by Jesus Christ (with a upper case 'C') was started!! Lol! You say it was aroud the 7th century or later, and kennethcadwell says not until the 4th century. Now which of the two of you are supposedly correct? I say neither, for the ECF say differntly when speaking on the Holy Eucharist, the doctrine of what you call the "Roman Catholic Church." They are very specific on the Real Presence if Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, something your "Catholic (Universal) Church" (the "C" in your Catholic should be lower case. 'c') does not! For example, and pay close attention to the dates:

The Didache: (c.90 a.d.)
But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.

First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.

And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. ( 9:1-5)


St.Ignatius of Antioch: (c.110 a.d.) I have no taste for corruptible food nor pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David;and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is incorruptible. (letter to the Romans 7:3)Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do,you doaccording to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNIONOF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery...(Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)They [i.e.the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Fathe, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)
St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)


We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)

…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)
If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)


Shall I go on.... or do you (both) get the point? There are many more ECF's I could quote from.



Pax Christi


"From henceforth all generations shall call me Blessed." ----- Luke 1:48.

I get the point precisely. That you are so dishonest that you will not admit that 'the Catholic church' spoken of by the ecf was a totally different church with a totally different approach to what the church was, from the Roman Catholic church which spawned the murderers, rapists and adulterers who were Popes from 9th -14th centuries AD. Your church almost destroyed Christianity. But as Jesus said, 'for the elect's sake' those days would be shortened. The RC church got its comeuppance having totally disgraced itself for hundreds of years.

And whilst you may have reformed somewhat, your whole existence is still based on lies..

The 'Catholic churches' in 2nd century AD were all independent and, apart from churches in Italy, owed no allegiance to the Bishop of Rome. who in truly humble fashion was continually trying to force himself on them. Of course you will lie to cover up the facts but anyone can discover them by reading a book on church history by independent authors.

The date at which the Roman Catholic church came into existence necessarily differs depending on what criteria we use. I was basing it on when the seeds of the papacy began to flower after the time of Gregory the Great, when THE RC church in truly 'Christlike' fashion used its political muscle to try to force churches to submit to its control, and to some extent, in the West, succeeded. The other contributor was basing it on the consequences to the church of the unChristian behavior of Constantine the so-called great, who was a catastrophe for the Christian church. Certainly it was from that date that heresy took over the Roman church. So you see your mockery is typically ROMAN CATHOLIC MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS. By now it has become such a part of you that you cannot escape it. I can deal with honest Roman Catholics who are prepared to admit their faults. It is people like you whom I despise.

As for Scripture being the sole arbiter of doctrine, why else did the early church fathers require proof of Apostolic authorship, before they would accept books as Scripture? You only have to watch how the councils squabbled among themselves about the matter to realise that. But you are so dogmatically brainwashed that you cannot even see it.

The basic canon was established in 2nd century AD on the basis of the origin of the writings which made men recognise that they were the word of God because they were Apostolic. The later councils merely 'mopped up' in respect of the one or two minorbooks which were not by that time regularly used in the churches (e.g. Hebrews, accepted because it was believed to be PAULINE, and James and Jude) together with Revelation which was disputed in the East. And they were composed of independent churches, who were trying to establish that all the writings were Apostolic. Why did they make that distinction if they did not believe in Scripture alone as the basis of sound teaching?

Perhaps you do not realise it but it is people like you who make the RC church generally despised by Christians.

As Isaiah said long ago, 'to the word (Torah) and to the testimony. if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no health in them.'

.

 

[lumberjack]

Red alert! Red alert! It's a catastrophe
But don't worry, don't panic
Ain't nothin' goin' on but history, yeah
But it's alright, don't panic
And the music keeps on playin' on and on...

*dances*

[video=youtube;6hIF81M0yQA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hIF81M0yQA[/video]

 

[valiant]

The Didache: (c.90 a.d.)
But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.

First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.

And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. ( 9:1-5)

I see nothing here about the so-called real presence, an idea which is simply blasphemy. Hanging God up in a casket to be bowed down to. How can any intelligent person even consider it as genuine for a moment? It is blatant idolatry.

The ideas in the Didache ares highly pictorial language such as we could all use and its early date confirms that in the earliest days there was no suggestion of the so-called blasphemous 'real presence'.

St.Ignatius of Antioch: (c.110 a.d.) I have no taste for corruptible food nor pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David;and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is incorruptible. (letter to the Romans 7:3)Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do,you doaccording to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNIONOF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery...(Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)They [i.e.the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Fathe, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

This is simply highly pictorial language from a man who was in a white heat of excitement because he was approaching martyrdom. He speaks vividly but there is nothing here which a Protestant could not say. We believe that we partake of the body and blood of Christ at the Lord's Supper, but of course in a spiritual sense. We are not cannibals. Ignatius no doubt believed the same..

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)

So where is the real presence mentioned? In the LORD'S SUPPER there is a spiritual change to the bread and wine, so that as we partake of the body and blood of Christ we are spirituallly partaking of Him. But the wine and bread does not change PHYSICALLY, and there is nothing above to suggest that it does. That is a typical RC blasphemy used to deceive the faithful..

That is why, unlike the early church, RCs do not partake of the wine.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)

…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

So? I do not see what you are making such a fuss about. This is parabolic language expressing a wonderful reality, that in partaking of the Lord's Supper we spiritually partake of Christ. All Christians believe that. There is no insistence on a 'real presence'

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

A bad choice by you these words. 'He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood - FROM WHICH HE CAUSES OUR BLOOD TO FLOW.'

Do you think he means that literally? I know the RC church is expert at making Protestant blood flow. Do you think he means that? Have YOU ever seen Christian blood flowing during your idolatrous services? Can't you see that it is figurative and pictorial. No blood really flows, and Irenaeus never thought that it did..

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

Once again highly pictorial. LOL you do try to make a lot out of nothing. Every time we have the Lord's supper we say, 'this is MY body which is broken for you --- this is MY blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you.' We understand that at the Last Supper it could not be HIS BODY. He was standing there in His body. Or did He have two bodies? It could not be His blood. His blood was still flowing through His veins. It HAD TO BE METAPHORICAL.
It is only simpletons who think otherwise (and RCs of course lol). And that is what Irenaeus is describing. At no stage does he seek to emphasise a real presence.

Shall I go on.... or do you (both) get the point? There are many more ECF's I could quote from.

How clever you are lol. Yes I get the point. That you are taking metaphor and turning it into blasphemy. You are clearly so blind that you are unable to understand spiritual application. Well it figures. Anyone who can call a priest 'father' in direct disobedience to Jesus Christ will swallow anything. Do you kiss his feet?


So quote away and enjoy yourself. No doubt you will eventually find some heretical RC (there are plenty of them) who went too far. All it will prove is that someone went too far.

Perhaps you should study the OT. That also spoke of eating flesh and drinking blood. That too was metaphorical. It meant people killing each other, nothing more, nothing less. You should read up about METAPHOR.

 

[MikeHenderson]

Its a shame on the Catholics to believe and teach there is truth outside of the Scriptures. This is why the Catholic Church today is NOT a Pillar of the Truth. The Catholics believe and teach that Mary was sinless. The Holy Spirit says Mary was a sinner because ALL have sinned and only Jesus Christ was without sin. The Catholics have given up the right to be the Pillar of Truth because of all the false doctrines taught about Mary in the Catholic Church today.

God took away the right of the Catholics to say they are the Pillar of the Truth when John Calvin and Luther exposed the lies of the Catholics to the whole World.

Today its the Protestant Church that God has handed over to the title of the Pillar of Truth! No longer are the Catholics the Children of God. They are now doing the will of Satan with all their false Doctrines, false Traditions, and total rejection of the Scriptures from the Holy Spirit.

Even Pope Francis is not a Christian because he teaches false doctrines that are not in the Scriptures but in reality are from Satan and the World.

Its not what the Catholics say that counts, its what the Holy Spirit says that counts!

2 Timothy 3:16-17
[SUP]16 [/SUP] All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
[SUP]17 [/SUP] so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The Holy Spirit says ALL Scriptures are profitable, are for teaching and learning, for reproof to rebuke the Catholics, to correct the teachings of the Catholics, to train us up in Righteousness, so that we are totally equipped and need nothing from the World and nothing from the Catholics!

The Scriptures from God is all we need! We do not need to listen to Satan nor the Catholics for we have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit which the Catholics do not have! Its the Holy Spirit that teaches us every Truth from God. We do not need the reprobate Catholics to teach us their lies from Satan.

Like Peter said, Repent and be Baptized! You Catholics need to Repent of your sins and THEN be Baptized! Your Baptism as babies do not count and are worthless in the eyes of God. Salvation is all about Faith and Grace, not by works of Baptism like the Catholic Church teaches.

Repent Fordman, repent Lumberjack! Toss aside Mary! Accept Salvation from Jesus Christ THEN be Baptized!

Both of you are on the Broad and wide road that leads to destruction. Only through Jesus Christ can you enter into Heaven. You cannot enter into Heaven as long as Mary is your god.

 

[KenAllan]

Matthew 4:10
[SUP]10 [/SUP] Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"


We are to Worship and serve God only! You cannot serve Mary! You cannot Worship Mary! You Catholics are wrong by serving and Worshiping Mary as your god!


The Truth comes through Jesus Christ. The Truth does NOT come through the Catholic Church!

John 1:17
[SUP]17 [/SUP] For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Every Catholic in the World needs to repent, toss aside Mary, and return to the Truth that has come to us through Jesus Christ! There is NO Truth outside of God! Only God has all the Truth, not the Catholic Church!

 

[valiant]

May I appeal to all true Christians to refer to the ROMAN Catholic church when referring to them. They are NOT The Catholic church. Even today many other churches are call Catholic, and the Catholic church as mentioned in the church fathers WAS NOT the Roman Catholic church.

We are all members of the Catholic (universal) church a term first used by Ignatius to refer to all true believers around the world. To call the Roman Catholic church 'the Catholic church' is to do the Devil's work for him.

 

[GaryA]

May I appeal to all true Christians to refer to the ROMAN Catholic church when referring to them. They are NOT The Catholic church. Even today many other churches are call Catholic, and the Catholic church as mentioned in the church fathers WAS NOT the Roman Catholic church.

We are all members of the Catholic (universal) church a term first used by Ignatius to refer to all true believers around the world. To call the Roman Catholic church 'the Catholic church' is to do the Devil's work for him.

As far as I am concerned, the use of the word 'catholic' today refers to the Roman Catholic Church. That has not changed in 52+ years. ( i.e. - for as long as I can remember ) If any other group today wants to be known as "catholic" - more power to 'em. However, I do not believe that the word 'catholic' should be applied to anyone who does not very deliberately desire to be identified as 'catholic'.

Regardless of the possible use of 'universal' / 'catholic' at some time in the distant past -- it does not apply today -- and should not be used to identify [ "all Christians", for example ]. To look into the historical record is one thing. To apply it to anyone over a thousand years after the Roman Catholic Church "usurped" it - in order to "lay claim" to being the original Church that Jesus started - is too late in history to try to "fix" -- "let it go" -- it only causes confusion. ( Which is what Satan wants... ) Too much time has gone by.

( i.e. - As far as I am concerned, the original Church should never be called 'catholic' or 'universal'... )

EDIT: To call the Roman Catholic Church "the Catholic Church" is perfectly normal.

 

[valiant]

As far as I am concerned, the use of the word 'catholic' today refers to the Roman Catholic Church. That has not changed in 52+ years. ( i.e. - for as long as I can remember ) If any other group today wants to be known as "catholic" - more power to 'em. However, I do not believe that the word 'catholic' should be applied to anyone who does not very deliberately desire to be identified as 'catholic'.

Regardless of the possible use of 'universal' / 'catholic' at some time in the distant past -- it does not apply today -- and should not be used to identify [ "all Christians", for example ]. To look into the historical record is one thing. To apply it to anyone over a thousand years after the Roman Catholic Church "usurped" it - in order to "lay claim" to being the original Church that Jesus started - is too late in history to try to "fix" -- "let it go" -- it only causes confusion. ( Which is what Satan wants... ) Too much time has gone by.

( i.e. - As far as I am concerned, the original Church should never be called 'catholic' or 'universal'... )

EDIT: To call the Roman Catholic Church "the Catholic Church" is perfectly normal.

All who say the Nicene creed today say 'I believe in the HOLY Catholic church'. It does not mean the Roman Catholic church, but new Christians may well be deceived. So it is very relevant today.

You may not be confused but others are. As Paul told us we are always to keep in mind not causing a weaker brother to stumble. I do not admire your attitude one little bit. Indeed I consider it sinful. It has been drawn to your attention. Your slack attitude could cause others to stumble. If they do YOU will be called to account.

 

[MikeHenderson]

Does anyone find it interesting that Pope Francis has been caught committing a fake miracle to be called a Saint? How can Pope Francis be a True Christian?

How can the Catholics claim their Church is the True Church when most of the Popes were never True Born Again Christians? How can the Catholic Church be the True Church when Pope Francis is not a Christian? I see no fruits of the Holy Spirit in Pope Francis. Therefore the Catholic Church is the Church of Satan and not of Jesus Christ!

No one who claims to walk with God can sin willingly! Pope Francis needs to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior before its too late and he ends up in the Lake of Fire with all the rest of the Popes of the Catholic Church!

 

[KenAllan]

Pope Francis is NOT a True Christian! How can he be a True Christian when he teaches animals have a Soul? Only Human beings have a Soul, animals do not have Souls.

I agree with Mike, the Catholic Church today is a Cult! They are a lot like the Mormons who have distorted the Scriptures to teach what they want and not what God says!

Do not worry Mike, God HAS judged the Catholic Church! This is why God used John Calvin and others to lead the True Christians out of the corrupted Catholic Church! Its over for the Catholics. They have lost the battle against God. God has won and the Catholics have lost!

 

[valiant]

Does anyone find it interesting that Pope Francis has been caught committing a fake miracle to be called a Saint? How can Pope Francis be a True Christian?

How can the Catholics claim their Church is the True Church when most of the Popes were never True Born Again Christians? How can the Catholic Church be the True Church when Pope Francis is not a Christian? I see no fruits of the Holy Spirit in Pope Francis. Therefore the Catholic Church is the Church of Satan and not of Jesus Christ!

No one who claims to walk with God can sin willingly! Pope Francis needs to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior before its too late and he ends up in the Lake of Fire with all the rest of the Popes of the Catholic Church!

LOL he should have followed Pope John's example. Pope John performed his miracles FROM HEAVEN (or thats what they claim). No way of checking that out !!!! So Pope John became a supposed Saint AFTER he entered Heaven LOL

 

[kedge]

How is mary not the mother of God?, according to your own belief Jesus is God and you clearly state that, so therefore mary is the mother of God and by your own admission written, is that a mistake or typo?, because it might give off the wrong impression plus as the Bible encourages one to first remove the rafter from your own eye before you attempt to lovingly remove the straw from your fellow mans eye.

 

[GaryA]

How is mary not the mother of God?

To say

"Mary is the mother of God."

is to say

"Mary is the mother of all that is God."

This would include:

~ God the Father

~ God the Holy Spirit

This is blatant blasphemy!

EDIT: Mary is the mother of the 'God-Man' Jesus -- she is NOT the mother of 'God'. There is a BIG difference!

 

[valiant]

How is mary not the mother of God?, according to your own belief Jesus is God and you clearly state that, so therefore mary is the mother of God and by your own admission written, is that a mistake or typo?, because it might give off the wrong impression plus as the Bible encourages one to first remove the rafter from your own eye before you attempt to lovingly remove the straw from your fellow mans eye.

We call a woman the mother of what she conceives. Mary did not conceive Jesus, the Holy Spirit produced Jesus through her. She simply conceived the manhood of Jesus. So she was the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God. In the early church controversies (before the Roman Catholic church existed) the Catholic church decreed that she should be called theopherus - 'God-bearer' and NOT the mother of God.