Is Catholicism Christian? Are Catholics Saved?

[Ernie07]

Interesting the Gerome knew that the apocrypha should not be included because the books lacked inspiration. Reading them it is quite evident that the Holy Spirit did not author them. They have been used by the church to promote self serving traditions that are quite unbiblical.

One must possess the Holy Spirit to know that the Holy Spirit did not author the apocrypha. The history of the Jews predates the history of the church. The Jews rejected the apocryphal books as historically inaccurate, contradictory and just filled with silliness.

I have an old bible with the offending books for study purposes. I do agree that it is terrible that Gods word was tampered with I just see the offending party as the church not the reformers. If we allow the apocrypha then must we also add the gnostic gospels?

Gerome translated the scriptures into Latin so only the church could read them. Luther translated them into German so the people could read them. Rome has a long history of withholding the word from the people. Even telling them when they could read the scriptures they could not understand them and to consult with the priest for the approved interpretation.

There is no nobility in the Roman Catholic church nor those who defend her atrocities.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Hi Roger,

One quick amendment to what you stated...it was the Hebrew speaking Jews who rejected the 7 books in question, but the Greek speaking Jews disagreed and accepted the 7 books. In summary, the Jewish people were not in agreement on what constituted the entirety of divine scripture.

The key for Christians though is that the early universal Church sided with the Greek speaking Jews so that at the council of Rome when the 27 books in the NT were formally decreed the 46 books in the OT were decreed as well. This decree was validated in later councils in Hippo in 393 A.D., Carthage in 419 A.D., and Nicaea in 787 A.D. These facts may be inconvenient and painful to some, but it's the truth.

And Jerome translated the Bible to Latin because it was the language of the people at that time. The fact that German was a popular language in the 16th century has no bearing on what was spoken in the 5th century. And I agree with you that the Catholic Church has a history of withholding false bibles from the people. If I were to hand you a "bible" that didn't include 2 and 3 John and Nahum wouldn't you discourage me from reading it as the true Bible? Similar to what the Catholic Church did in trying to protect people from false bibles.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Jackson123]

Hi Jackson123,

We have much in common as Jesus is the ruler of my life as well! Mary and the saints can help me along the way just as my good friends help me as well, but we will agree to disagree on this point.

Thank you for the respectful dialogue.

-Ernie-

Hello Ernie
thanks for your respon

how do you know Mary able to hear you, would you like to provide me with a verse or verses AS a clue why you believe Mary able to hear billion catholic?

 

[Ernie07]

Jesus would never teach eating of blood as eating of blood was strictly prohibited. Jesus taught a symbolic receiving of His blood to remember the atonement He alone provided. What a gory scene created in the re-crucifixion of Christ. As scripture says it puts the Lord to open shame.

You are teaching a false premise upon false premise.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Hi Roger,

All I ask is if what you are saying is the truth then please share when the Church believed as you say. I get it that this is your interpretation and I respect that, but I'm looking to validate who the Church is that Jesus said He would protect in MT 16:18. If what you say is the truth then it must be validated by His Church. When did that validation occur? Roger, you won't find any validation because it's not the truth. I say that in all sincerity and respect.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

16 The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain:
17 But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
18 The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.

I do not know If Onesiporus dead, and I do not know that It is a pray or a wish

Fair enough as I thought most understood that Onesiphorus was dead. Please read 2 Mach 12:46. You may not have it in your bible, but the Church read from the Bible that included that book for 1000 years until a few groups removed them from the Bible.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

The verses don't explicitly state that Onesephorus was already dead at the time Paul spoke those words only that he prayed for the Lord to grant Onesephorus mercy on that Day.

Fair enough as I thought most understood that Onesiphorus was dead. Please read 2 Mach 12:46. You may not have it in your bible, but the Church read from the Bible that included that book for 1000 years until a few groups removed them from the Bible.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

I have those books. They were not so much "removed" as they were always grouped together.
They are of a later date than the Hebrew Tanakh. And as with with Talmud they are Babylonian in origin. Use caution.

I have The Book of Enoch and various other early Jewish and Christian writings as well but that doesn't make them The Word of God.

Hi Lucy,

I'm not sure what you mean. Regardless of when they were written or their origin the Church decreed them to be divinely inspired. There were no asterisks or footnotes, just simply the Word of God in the same standing as the other 39 books in the OT and 27 books in the NT. The other books you mentioned are not the Word of God and the Church has never decreed them to be so I'm sorry but I'm not sure the point you are trying to make.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

That is an assumption, a guess.

2 Tim 1:
16) The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain:
17) But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
18) The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.

Also note that even if Onesiphorus had died, Paul did not pray TO him, or ask him to do anything for Paul, as the Catholics practice with Mary and their saints.


It definitely is. But again, you do not distinguish between the early church and the early Catholic church. They are different entities. We learn about the early church from the Bible. Catholics learn about their early church from "history" that happened in the early centuries.


This is another assumption that Catholics make: that the Catholic Church is the one started by Jesus Christ.


Again, I believe we are to validate our beliefs from the Bible.

Hi Shrume,

I think I addressed in earlier posts most of the points that you make regarding Onesiphorus and the early church as it relates to the Catholic Church so I won't go into that again. I do want to respond to your claim that Catholics make the assumption that the Catholic Church is the one started by Jesus. I'm not assuming anything. In fact, I've tried to lay out a criteria to prove who that Church is that Jesus spoke of in MT 16:18.

In today's Christian environment it is extremely difficult to identify the Church in MT 16:18 because of the many versions of the truth so many denominations claim. For me, we need to look back to the single universal Church of the first 800-1000 years. Since Jesus said He would protect His Church and there was only a single one even making that claim of being apostolic and universal it stands to reason that this is Jesus' Church. If not, then Jesus failed to keep His promise of building one. Since we know Jesus is God and can't fail then this single universal Church must be Jesus' Church.

It then stands to follow that Jesus' Church is protected from teaching error so that what this Church believed is the truth. And we can find out what they believed because it has been preserved in church council documents. Not Catholic Church council documents, but the Christian Church council documents. What we find is that the Church believed in the Eucharist, Mary Mother of God and ever virgin, authority of the Church, a 73 book Bible, infant baptism, praying to the dead among other beliefs. Those are truths based on the rationale laid out above. To not believe in these beliefs is to not believe in the truth.

That, in a nut shell, is why I'm Catholic. Thank you letting me share that.

-Ernie-

 

[pottersclay]

Plus the fact that the Catholic clergymen like to wear big hats.........it's the worst.....big hats were warned about with Paul but it doesn't seem to bother them. Big hats imo are the most offensive....wait that kissing the ring thing.....did they take that from the God father or vice versa....nay....it's the hat thing.....wait...holy water where did they get that idea? ....so much to say here.....I guess traditions don't define ones faith or do they.
Imo I think the more traditional a church becomes it's because of lack of true spiritual relationship with God in Christ.
Salvation by works, infant baptism, prayers to saints, all of it ....most of it ..to fill a void....sad to see our advasary deceiving the masses in the name of Christ.

 

[Ernie07]

I believe the rock Jesus was referring to was peter's faith, not peter himself.

Fair enough and I respect your interpretation and admit its plausibility. But, did the single universal Church of the first 800-1000 years agree with you? If not, why not? Was the Church wrong in what it believed? If so, then how can we say that Jesus didn't fail in His promise to protect His Church?

I'm a Catholic because Jesus loved me so much to humble Himself to become man and to sacrifice Himself on a cross for my sake. I'm a Catholic because Jesus loves me so much to build His Church and to protect it knowing that we would be easily deceived in knowing truth from falsehood without His divine help. And I'm Catholic because Jesus gave us the most personal relationship and encounter we can have with Him through the Eucharist.

God bless you FISnookman on your faith journey!

-Ernie-

 

[Magenta]

They were first called Christians in Antioch.

The word "catholic" is not even in the Bible.

 

[REM]

Catholicism is a cult set on idolatry, with no security of the believer. Another words you can lose your salvation which means they deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which seals the eternal security of one that is saved by the Grace of God. They believe they can crucify Jesus over and over again for each sin they commit.
They pray to Mary, Peter and who knows what other "saint" they pray to. God saves us from our sins not in our sins. Repentance in this case is warranted. (you can't stay a Catholic if your saved)

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Catholicism is a cult set on idolatry, with no security of the believer. Another words you can lose your salvation which means they deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which seals the eternal security of one that is saved by the Grace of God. They believe they can crucify Jesus over and over again for each sin they commit.
They pray to Mary, Peter and who knows what other "saint" they pray to. God saves us from our sins not in our sins. Repentance in this case is warranted. (you can't stay a Catholic if your saved)

I certainly didn't. They even changed the meaning of 'saint'. In The Bible saints is just a word for believers. We are all saints. The Holy Roman Church turned it into a title only they can bestow. With a load of conditions attached to it such as having to have performed a number of "miracles".

 

[notuptome]

Hi Roger,

All I ask is if what you are saying is the truth then please share when the Church believed as you say. I get it that this is your interpretation and I respect that, but I'm looking to validate who the Church is that Jesus said He would protect in MT 16:18. If what you say is the truth then it must be validated by His Church. When did that validation occur? Roger, you won't find any validation because it's not the truth. I say that in all sincerity and respect.

-Ernie-

I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation of Mat 16:18. The church is not built on Peter but on Jesus.

You lay a faulty foundation and then endeavor to build upon it. It has no chance of standing. The word of God the bible validates Gods truth. No church organization validates any truth but their own.

You claim to be saved through your faith in Jesus yet you deny that faith with false doctrines.

Here is the Roman Catholic gospel.

Water baptism as an infant to be place into the church.
Confirmation into full status in the church to receive sacraments.
Sacraments to receive grace in keeping salvation through meritorious efforts.
Hope that enough of the above is sufficient but have a back up position of purgatory through the fire of hell.
No real hope and no real peace.

Christ gives real hope and full assurance to those who trust in Him and not the Catholic church. The Holy Spirit lives in the hearts of those who are born again and sealed unto eternal life by Gods grace.

You cannot be honest with me until you are first honest with Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

Hi Roger,

One quick amendment to what you stated...it was the Hebrew speaking Jews who rejected the 7 books in question, but the Greek speaking Jews disagreed and accepted the 7 books. In summary, the Jewish people were not in agreement on what constituted the entirety of divine scripture.

The key for Christians though is that the early universal Church sided with the Greek speaking Jews so that at the council of Rome when the 27 books in the NT were formally decreed the 46 books in the OT were decreed as well. This decree was validated in later councils in Hippo in 393 A.D., Carthage in 419 A.D., and Nicaea in 787 A.D. These facts may be inconvenient and painful to some, but it's the truth.

And Jerome translated the Bible to Latin because it was the language of the people at that time. The fact that German was a popular language in the 16th century has no bearing on what was spoken in the 5th century. And I agree with you that the Catholic Church has a history of withholding false bibles from the people. If I were to hand you a "bible" that didn't include 2 and 3 John and Nahum wouldn't you discourage me from reading it as the true Bible? Similar to what the Catholic Church did in trying to protect people from false bibles.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

The Jews have always read their scriptures in Hebrew. It is less than 100 years ago that the Catholic church was still doing their mass in Latin. They did not want the laity to know or understand the bible. The bible was and remains in their eyes a threat to the Catholic church.

My father in law is in his mid nineties and will die going to a Catholic hell because he cannot deny the pope, Mary and the "church". He will not receive the bible as the truth regarding his need to be saved. Now that he has dementia it is very unlikely he has any opportunity to turn to Christ. Now that he is not giving his material wealth to the church they have abandoned him.

I know first hand the miasma that is the Roman Catholic church.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Hi Lucy,

I'm not sure what you mean. Regardless of when they were written or their origin the Church decreed them to be divinely inspired. There were no asterisks or footnotes, just simply the Word of God in the same standing as the other 39 books in the OT and 27 books in the NT. The other books you mentioned are not the Word of God and the Church has never decreed them to be so I'm sorry but I'm not sure the point you are trying to make.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

Just that I am aware of the books you are citing and even own copies. The Holy Spirit in me does not verify them as his word.
The Jews have a lot of books. They are a prolific lot but that didn't stop them from falling into idolatry.

 

[garee]

Here is the Roman Catholic gospel.

I would offer and add . The Roman gospel is built on necromancy (seeking after the dead) just as that of the apostate Jews performed as a law of the fathers a false zeal for knowing God not seen., same principle different names for fathers.

Scripture uses the word fathers in two different ways. One in respect to our father in heaven as in all things written in the law and prophets and the others, fathers on earth called apostolic succession as commandments or oral traditions of men . The latter usurps the authority of our father in heaven. One walks (understands) by faith the unseen, the other according to what we do see... walking by sight.

Therefore having received the reward of the flesh (false pride) instant gratification according to the natural course of this corrupted world .

1John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

 

[garee]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation of Mat 16:18. The church is not built on Peter but on Jesus.

It’s easy to see the gospel it is the key that unlocks the gates of hell as well as binding lying spirits. Duel purpose.

Sometimes it’s the smallest word (it)used twice that carries the final authority that unlocks the mysteries of the gospel

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Mat 16:17

It’s like God knew in advance men would chose the flesh of Peter the denier who was forgiven of his blasphemy against the Son of man as that seen. He does not forgive blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, not seen .(Blasphemy.. Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.)

The Catholic simply refuses to distinguish between the things of God and those of sinners, men in order to give the illusion the kingdom of God is here. God sends a strong delusion so that they can continue to believe the lie. .

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: "for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.Mat 16:22

 

[Inquistor]

The Eastern Orthodox Church was in existence long before the early 1500's. It came about after their Bishops were excommunicated due to quarrels over the Trinity

First of all, you have NOT pointed out any SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE of MULTIPLE "Christian denominations" in existence before 1500 AD, and secondly, the Eastern Orthodox Church was under the authority of the Pope since it's beginning ... so it was STILL a branch of the Catholic Church!

 

[Inquistor]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation of Mat 16:18. The church is not built on Peter but on Jesus.

You lay a faulty foundation and then endeavor to build upon it. It has no chance of standing. The word of God the bible validates Gods truth. No church organization validates any truth but their own.

You claim to be saved through your faith in Jesus yet you deny that faith with false doctrines.

Here is the Roman Catholic gospel.

Water baptism as an infant to be place into the church.
Confirmation into full status in the church to receive sacraments.
Sacraments to receive grace in keeping salvation through meritorious efforts.
Hope that enough of the above is sufficient but have a back up position of purgatory through the fire of hell.
No real hope and no real peace.

Christ gives real hope and full assurance to those who trust in Him and not the Catholic church. The Holy Spirit lives in the hearts of those who are born again and sealed unto eternal life by Gods grace.

You cannot be honest with me until you are first honest with Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

We can CERTAINLY talk about false doctrines! The very FIRST DEPARTURE from the Catholic Church was made by Martin Luther. No reasonable non-Catholic disputes that, since it's all history at this point. Martin Luther is the one who started the "faith alone" scenario. Shall we test that against "inspired scripture?" Here is the link to the scripture, in many versions (for clarification of the meaning):

Hebrews 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,


And immediately below, we can find SOME of Martin Luther's claims and statements that he lived by, and urged OTHERS to live by!!!

https://www.alltheinternet.com/?q=martin+luther+commit+adultery+times+day&ref=12282017101146&p=

It should not take anyone very long to see that Martin Luther's "faith" was in direct OPPOSITION to the INSPIRED SCRIPTURE found in Hebrews 10:26, and that, according the Hebrews scripture, Martin Luther had REJECTED the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made, by WILLING CONTINUING TO SIN, based on FAITH ALONE!!!

 

[Nehemiah6]

The very FIRST DEPARTURE from the Catholic Church was made by Martin Luther.

You are forgetting that long before Martin Luther there were men like John Wycliffe and others who exposed the GROSS ERRORS of the RCC and paid a severe price for doing so. The Catholic Church would not listen to Wycliffe and chose to kill him. So attacking Martin Luther will get you nowhere. Christians do not make Luther the Protestant Pope, but definitely rely on the Holy Bible (66 books) for their doctrine.