Is Catholicism Christian? Are Catholics Saved?

[Ernie07]

There is much disagreement among Roman Catholics concerning doctrine, yet it will not admit this.

And a sordid history, doctrinal developments based on absolutely nothing while pretene is made as if it were early church teachings. Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix, later developments based on nothing the early church taught are heresies and blasphemous.

The Roman Catholic taunt that all these other denominations have divisions and disagreements is for it to make pretense that her doctrine is pure and that there is perfect unity.

This is not the case.

They will, and do, lie about many things, and deny Mary worship, prayers to Mary, and lie by stating they believe in salvation by grace. They also deny the rampant idolatry within her.

No Catholic is allowed to know they are saved, no matter what they tell you. They've been given an opportunity to make it into heaven. There are many if's to go along with that. One mortal sin and it is off to hell.

Frankly the RCC is a wickedly dark apostate sect that has deceived millions. This apostate sect has also claimed, without recanting, that all outside of her are anathema.

Hello,

You make it sound like disagreement is a bad thing. Of course there is disagreement within the Church, but once a doctrine has been decreed the disagreement formally ends. Now are there those that continue to personally disagree, sure. But that doesn't mean the Church is divided on truth. Every church council was filled with strong debate and lively arguments as people had strong and different opinions on what was the truth. A modern day "disagreement" might be some who would like the Church to allow contraceptives. People can have their own opinions, but there is no disunity on that topic for it is the truth and will never be changed because it has already been defined as a grave matter by the Church. What disagreements are you specifically speaking about?

I see where "later developments" might be a problem for you because you deny the authority of the Church. I felt the same way when I was anti-Catholic so I know where you're coming from. It is what it is.

For the love of all, why would I secretly worship Mary and yet deny it? How many times do I have to say that Catholics don't worship Mary. Mary doesn't forgive sins. Mary doesn't save us. Did she have an incredibly blessed part in the incarnation, why of course! She was chosen to be the mother of our Lord, God, and Savior!! I'm sure that when you ask for prayers that are certain people that are your "go to" people because of their closeness to God. Who was closer to Jesus than His mother? So why wouldn't I ask for her prayers...unless I don't read the 73 book Bible and have been convinced that praying to the dead is necromancy.

Of course Catholics don't know we are saved because we must persevere to the end just as Jesus said. What is a race (per Paul) if not for a beginning and the end? Who calls the result of the race at any time other than at the end? Catholics believe talk is cheap and must be validated by "works". I've said this many times, but I'll ask you, "do you think you will be saved even if you murder someone and have no remorse or contrition"? A mortal sin doesn't disqualify a person from heaven, an unconfessed and unrepentant sin does. Catholics believing that you need to be repentant of your sins and not just give lip service has always been believed by Christians up until the Reformation.

You have to realize that there is no separation between Jesus and His Church. To not believe in His Church is to deny Jesus. That is why all who deny the Church are anathema. I'm not saying that non-Catholics deny Jesus per se. It's just that you have been deceived into thinking His Church is something that it's not.

God Bless!

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

You're right Angelia. We have two Catholic apologists attempting to convince non-Catholics that Catholicism is just as evangelical as Evangelicalism, and that there is really nothing wrong with the RCC. Indeed it is the bastion of truth. Fortunately the non-Catholics on this forum are well-versed in the nature of Catholicism which is FALSE CHRISTIANITY.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) regards the Council of Trent as authoritative and applicable to their current doctrines, and quotes extensively from it. And this Council was primarily to declare Protestants as heretics (subject to "anathema" -- a curse) and opposes salvation by grace through faith plus NOTHING.

The only recommendation for Catholics who happen to come here is "Come out of Mystery Babylon".

Hi Nehemiah,

I'm humbled that you think I'm an apologist and maybe by your definition I am. I never considered myself in that category though.

Just curious, what do you think of the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.? Were they representing Jesus' Church? If not, who was?

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

I know nuns consider themselves to be married to Christ. I wonder if priests are not simply married to the church.

Ernie comes in attesting that he just and ordinary catholic and not an apologist but it is evident that he is not completely truthful in that respect.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I stated upfront that I am a devout Catholic. The fact that I'm knowledgeable about my faith doesn't make me an apologist. If that's how you see me then I do apologize because I thought of apologists as professionals like Scott Hahn and Tim Staples. It was not my intention to deceive and I'm sorry if that's what you feel that I did.

-Ernie-

 

[valiant]

Hi Magenta,

You are correct that the Catholic Church believes that there is no salvation outside the Church. That is because of the authority as given to it was by Jesus Himself. I understand that you interpret scripture differently, but at least that is the rationale. And if you think about it if I believe the Catholic Church was given the ability to loose and bound per Jesus' words then of course I would be bound by what it teaches. I think you know how I measure who Jesus' Church is so I won't go into that again.

Again, just so that you understand Catholic teaching ANY non-Catholic can be saved as long as they have what is called "invincible ignorance". This doesn't mean that the Church doesn't still believe that it is necessary to be saved. What this means is that if in your heart you believe the Catholic Church is Jesus' Church but refuse to accept it then you are not saved. But, if of no fault of your own (invincible ignorance) you don't believe in the Catholic Church you still have the chance of being saved. The classic example is the person born on an island having never heard of Jesus or His Church. You may disagree, but the Catholic Church doesn't condemn that person to hell.

Hope this helps.

-Ernie-

you are mixing up 'the catholic (universal) church' with the Roman Catholic church The latter came into being in 7th century ad.

For the first two hundred years and more the churches were independent of each other. They had no central leader. That was why they met in councils to discuss doctrine and come to general agreement on it. They were called 'the catholikos (universal) church' as opposed to churches which set themselves up as the only right one.

The Roman Catholic church is a sect that broke off from the true catholic church.

 

[Ernie07]

Keith Green wrote a series of 4 articles, based on reading Catholic catechism and other books. They are long, but certainly worth reading. I have 2 close evangelical friends who came out of hispanic Catholicism, who read these articles. Their only criticism was that he did not go far enough in revealing the massive lie the cult of the RCC is! (Sorry about the copy and pastes, Ernie, this are just to thorough to pass up!)

The Catholic Chronicles by Keith Green

Here are some excerpts from each of the 4. Click on the links to read further!



Catholic Chronicle #1 - The Holy Eucharist: Eating the Flesh of Deity

”One might wonder why, in a scriptural look at the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I would choose this subject - The Roman Interpretation of the Lord's Supper (more commonly known as "Communion") for the first of the "Catholic Chronicles." Most Protestants (1) would expect me to deal with what they might consider the more obvious departures from biblical foundation - such as the worship of and prayers to the Virgin Mary, the infallibility of the pope, purgatory and prayers for the dead, or the history of the torture and burning of accused "heretics" and such like that.

But for this first article I believe that we should get right to the root, before we begin exploring the branches of Roman doctrine and practice. And any Catholic who has even a small knowledge of his church knows that the central focus of each gathering (known as the "Mass") is the Holy Eucharist.”

Chronicle 1



Catholic Chronicle #2 - The Sacrifice of the Mass: What does it mean?

“In Chronicle I, we thoroughly examined the doctrine of transubstantiation - its history, practice, and real meaning. But we have waited for this second article to answer the question: WHY? Why must there be present in the Mass the literal body and blood of Jesus? What purpose does it serve?​

The answer is found in the startling words: "The sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice of the cross, for there is the same priest, the same victim, and the same offering." (1)
And in the words of Pope Pius IV.. "I profess likewise that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory (2) sacrifice for the living and the dead." (From the fifth article of the creed of Pope Pius IV.)
That is the incredible truth! The Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that in every Mass, in every church, throughout the world (estimated at up to 200,000 Masses a day) that Jesus Christ is being offered up again, physically, as a sacrifice for sin (benefiting not only those alive, but the dead (3) as well!) Every Roman Mass is a re-creation of Jesus' death for the sins of the world. NOT A SYMBOLIC RE-CREATION - but a literal, actual offering of the flesh and blood of the Lord to make daily atonement for all the sins that have been daily committed since Jesus was crucified almost 2,000 years ago. (4)
That's why the bread and wine must become physically Jesus' body and blood, so that they can be once again offered for sin: "The Holy Eucharist is the perpetual continuation of this act of sacrifice and surrender of our Lord. When the Lord's Supper is celebrated, Christ again presents Himself in His act of total surrender to the Father in death." (5)

He offers Himself continually to the Father, in the same eternal act of offering that began on the cross and will NEVER CEASE." (6)
"The Mass is identical to Calvary - it is a sacrifice for sin - it must be perpetuated to take away sin." (7)
The catechism of the Council of Trent required all pastors to explain that not only did the elements of the Mass contain flesh, bones and nerves as a part of Christ, "But also a WHOLE CHRIST." (8) Thus it is referred to as "the sacrifice of the Mass" and as "a RENEWAL of the sacrifice of the cross." (9)

Hi Angela,

For the purposes of time I will focus on the first Chronicle that being the Eucharist. The following logic would apply to the other 4 Chronicles as well.

This is a perfect example of why we must balance our education to hear from both sides. When I was an anti-Catholic all I heard was what my neighbor decreed as truth based on his personal interpretation of scripture and all I read was his books and sites that aligned with his interpretation. And like this article they are all very convincing. The problem is that they already have the answer "The Catholic Church is to be hated" so their explanations only show those things that align with their beliefs. Here are a few things this offer refused to include in his article either by ignorance or deception. Either way is disgraceful because you are misleading people.

In the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. the Eucharist is called out as "the most necessary viaticum" and "the body of Christ. Viaticum is defined as the Eucharist as give to those near death. Then the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. describes the "unbloody worship...partaking of the real flesh of the Word". This was the universal belief of the Church from its very beginning. The Church never defined how this occurs that the bread and wine changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord, just that it happened. Over time and much prayer and discernment Jesus' Church defined how it happens....not that it does happen which was believed 1200 years earlier.

If this writer is going to use the council of Trent in his piece why wouldn't he also use the words of earlier councils? I can't be sure, but I would bet so that he can deceive people into thinking the concept of the Eucharist was invented at the council of Trent. Intellectually lazy at the minimum, deceptive and evil at the worst.

If you read my faith journey post the best advice I can give by far is to balance your research. Don't just focus on Catholic hating sites. Go visit Catholic sites as well. Keep an open mind and let the Holy Spirit guide you into answering the question, "would my beliefs today be called Christian 'yesterday' and at all times"? If not then ask yourself, "why is that?"

-Ernie-

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

Well considering that those early beliefs led to gallows deaths and burnings at stake I prefer the Christian faith that doesn't lead to such stupidity respectfully.

Which beliefs led to deaths and burnings? There have been many horribly unfortunate and sinful killings perpetrated by all faiths at some point by misguided zealots. Are you saying the early Christian Church condoned and taught killings? Please provide proof because I don't believe that's the case.

And just because you believe as you say has nothing to do with my question you avoided so I'll ask it again:

And if you say the early Christian Church was wrong, how can you not say the Church for its first 1500 years fell into blasphemy? And if the Christian Church fell into blasphemy how can you not say that Jesus failed to protect His Church (for it took Him 1500 years to finally get it right)? And if you then have to admit that Jesus failed how can you say that He is God for God can't fail? If you're being intellectually honest how does your entire belief system not come crumbling down due to the gap between your version of the truth and that professed by the early Christian Church?

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

It is actually adherence to the Christian faith by some that led to their burnings at the stake and other cruel methods of death at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church.

Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging "false religion". That is why many Catholics in England and Ireland were killed by Reformers. I point this out only because there are horribly misguided scoundrels on all sides...Catholics and non-Catholics. Just as I don't believe all Lutherans or Calvinists are scoundrels I don't think you should believe that the Catholic Church as a whole is as well.

Again, important to research both sides of the argument.

-Ernie-

 

[Angela53510]

Hi Angela,

Thank you for your kind words and based on the responses you received from others I want to set the record straight and explain at least a little bit of who I am and what my intentions were in joining this Christian Chat site.

First of all, I am happily married, my wife and I have been blessed with 5 children, and I have a regular day job. I’m not a priest or a nun. I’m not in the seminary, qualifying to be a deacon, or an apologist. However, God did grace me with an incredible faith journey that enabled me to gain quite a bit of knowledge. I’ll share my story now and apologize upfront for its length.

I was born and raised a Catholic, but never really knew or even cared to know about my faith. When for the first time my faith was questioned by a new neighbor I had no answers and was easily swayed. My new neighbor described himself simply as a Christian. He described his personal relationship with Jesus (something I had never heard of) and frequently quoted from the Bible (again new to me). He used verses in the Bible to both back up his beliefs as well as point out the many errors in the Catholic faith.

After several discussions with him he thoroughly convinced me that the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon, the pope was the anti-Christ and Catholics were cannibals who worshipped Mary among other things. I decided to leave the Catholic Church and find another church to attend. But, that was more difficult than I imagined.

It never occurred to me how many Christian churches there were. When I started looking around I noticed that there were 5 within walking distance from my house and about 100 within a 10 mile radius. There was Lutheran, Methodist, Assembly of God, Pentecostal, Baptist, Presbyterian, and a bunch of non-denominational churches. It was very frustrating for me as each had slightly different practices and set of beliefs. I wasn’t looking for a feel-good church, I was looking for the truth. Which one taught the truth?

So I began researching. And I had 3 things I knew going in: 1) Jesus was my Lord, God, and Savior, 2) The Bible was the Word of God, 3) The Catholic Church preached error. I started with the Bible because I had never read it besides hearing it at Mass. I read through the entire Old Testament and as I read the gospel of Matthew a particular verse stuck out for me and that was MT 16:18, but not for the reason you might think. At the time I could care less about Peter as I learned from my neighbor that it was Peter’s faith that was the rock, and so I focused on the part where Jesus said He would build and protect His Church. So that became my mission…to find that church, Jesus’ Church.

Since I wasn’t sure who taught the truth amongst the many different Christian denominations I decided to look at the early Christian community to see if that might tell me something. I was very surprised to learn that there wasn’t the vast number of denominations we have today. Rather, there was just one Christian church. This was a huge deal to me because since there was just one church and Jesus said He would build His Church then this one had to be it. Just seemed logical to me. Otherwise, Jesus failed to do what He said He’d do. God can’t fail so this must be His Church. So now all I had to do was find out what that Church believed because what they believed had to be the truth since Jesus said He would protect His Church. Again, otherwise He would have failed. Then once I knew the truth I could just compare that with the denominations of today and the one that aligned with Jesus’ Church would be the church for me. Easy as pie I thought, but this is where my research led me in areas that surprised me and where I didn’t want to go.

I started reading about the early Church and was shocked to find out that they believed in the Eucharist, Mary ever-virgin and Mother of God, praying to the dead, and other “Catholic” beliefs. I felt like a dagger went through me each time because my neighbor proved to me why that wasn’t true. Because of my anti-Catholic bias I searched and searched to find anyone within the Church who had different beliefs and couldn’t find anyone. I went from despair to anger knowing I had been deceived. It wasn’t the Catholic Church that got it wrong, but my neighbor who did. I was in Jesus’ Church but never knew it.

As my knowledge grew so did my confidence and I felt God wanting me to help other Catholics to not be so easily swayed as I was. I then started to talk to non-Catholics in person as well as online. I even watched debates between Catholic and non-Catholic apologists to pick up pointers. But, it all came down to the same thing. One side would state their belief and quote scripture, then the other side would say that is wrong and state their belief and back it up with their own Bible verses and then back again…sometimes even using the same verse but with different interpretations. I called it the “my interpretation is better than yours” game and it was horribly frustrating to me as generally it would end in an agreement to disagree if not a fist fight...haha..just kidding! I felt God calling me to do something different.

I felt the Lord calling me to defend the Catholic faith through the rationale He used to bring me back to the Catholic Church. To teach Catholics about how their faith is the only faith that can prove Jesus kept His promise. And this way they wouldn’t have to memorize all the different verses to defend the multiple attacks thrown a Catholic’s way. Basically, a foundation that can be built on if they so desired. At the minimum a way that would give them great confidence in their faith in the face of numerous attacks.

I joined this chat site to test out my method. I wanted to see how non-Catholics would react and if they would have answers. What I didn’t expect at all was indifference. I expected some sort of biblical interpretation as to why their faith would have made them a heretic in the early Christian Church, but instead it’s been basically a “who cares” type attitude. I’m shocked by this. I prove a gap in beliefs and the response is basically “no, there isn’t” or the Catholic Church is bad or a cut and paste from a Catholic hating website or no response at all. No direct response to my contention with not even any real reflection on their part.

Contrast the above with every attack on the Catholic faith where I have provided a scripture verse that backs up the Catholic belief. One may disagree with the Church’s interpretation, but at least I provide my rationale.

Thanks again and sorry for the length. As people started bashing me I felt I owed them the full story no matter how long it might be. And I apologize to everyone who feels that I'm an apologist. I never would have dreamed to call myself that as I always thought of people like Scott Hahn or Tim Staples to be apologists and I'm nowhere near that.

I start my day job on Tuesday so I’ll have much less time to converse, but I’ll do the best I can.

-Ernie-

Well, the other post I made, on the Catholic Chronicles is exactly what you are looking for. He takes Catholic dogma and compares it to the Bible on essential issues. Keith Green spent months going through Catholic doctrinal papers and catechism to make this.

The problem is most of us do not have the time to do this. Or the space in this forum. So what you mistake for indifference, may in fact just be time constraints. Plus, why should we spend months researching the Catholic Church, when simple things prove it wrong!? Anyway, the articles are long and thorough. You may disagree with them, but it is where I am coming from. I read them soon after I was saved. (And just so you know, Keith Green also did some articles on the problems in Protestant Churches! He wasn’t biased when it came to defending Biblical Christianity.)

Further, regarding the early church fathers, I have read a lot of the Didache in Greek. Some of it was just quoting or paraprhrasing the Bible. some was commentaries on the Bible. And some of it was just made up stuff. Like “a traveling evangelist who stays in a town more than 2 days is a false prophet.” So, although the early church fathers can confirm things in the Bible, they are not reliable for doctrine at all. They so often go far beyond the Bible. And so we cannot base our doctrine on the early church fathers, especially when they go far beyond the Bible. They did not meet Jesus, and they are not inspired, although they can be valuable to study.

As for the apocrypha - just no! Some of those books are just fiction stories, and in some cases, like 1 Maccabees, good intertestimental history. Others, like 2 Maccabees contain historical inaccuracies, leading the vast majority of Biblical scholars to outright condemn them as “ not inspired” or for use in doctrine. And that passage about praying for the dead - first, not right, it is found in a book with many historical mistakes. Second, hermeneutically speaking, you should never make a doctrine out of just one verses, ever! Even if it is in an inspired and canonical book, which 2 Maccabees is not.

https://www.gotquestions.org/praying-for-the-dead.html

Finally, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a pastor and chaplain, unable to work right now because of severe Rheumatoid Arthritis. I have my MDiv from a Baptist seminary, ATS certified! I am married with 4 grown children and 5 grandchildren.

So, here is a link to that post. There are links to all 4 articles in a better format than my copy and pastes!

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/161138-catholicism-christian-catholics-saved-25.html#post3400928

PS. I forgot to mention I have read the complete apocrypha for my New Testament Survey course. Good to know Intertestimental literature!

 

[Ernie07]

In the past, I involve a discussion with catholic, look love they promote unity, invite protestant to unite to catholic, in my country, catholic priest organized a joint worship between Isa AL masih/ ( in america Isa AL asih is assembly of God)

it was in the suara merdeka ( Indonesian news paper base oN central Java)

I heard some say that It is part of one world government element. Catholic start build one world religion. If so, than No body can stop her, It is in the bible, there Will be one world government orchestrs by Lucifer, and catholic work for lucifer.

Oh my goodness, please don't spread hate like that. Knowing I'm a Catholic you are saying that I work for Lucifer. Do you honestly believe that? For what belief have I not provided both a scripture verse and evidence that the early Christian Church believed as I believe? The fact that you don't agree with me or the early Christian Church doesn't make me a worker for Lucifer. The only thing we know for sure is that your interpretation and beliefs don't align with the early Christian Church and that the Church's don't align with yours. Those are the facts. Whether that bothers you or not is the real question.

Don't turn your passion for the Lord into hatred for the Catholic Church.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

Jackson,

In my country they are bonding with Islam too. Very dangerous. The Church is being lured into globalism. It's a very subtle deception with "humanitarian" goals and promises of peace. (a false peace)

I actually kind of agree with you in the sense that ecumenism can be taken too far. For ecumenical reasons Catholics give away the fact that the Bible was changed by those arguing against us. It's a key differentiator that is thrown away "to get along". Ecumenism could be happening too with Islam (I'm not well versed on that subject) and if so I agree it's a very dangerous slope.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

Precisely my point Catholic Christianity is one of traditions and pointing fingers when one wants so called "justice" present day Christianity is a faith of "love","understanding" and "compassion" not a bunch of pointing fingers and half truths,but each to their own.

Read early church history. There were several heresies that the Church had to battle off that were swaying many including Arianism (Jesus not divine), Gnosticism (Jesus not true God and true man) , Marcionism (2 Gods one of OT and one of NT), Montantism (Christians who fell from grace couldn't be saved), Docetism (Jesus' body was an illusion), Sabellianism (denied the Trinity) to name just a few and these all occurred within the 1st 400 years of the Church.

My point is that yes, the Church Jesus established is about love, understanding, and compassion, but also is called to zealously defend the truth. The Church has been constantly attacked during all times including today. The Reformers were no different than the heretical groups in the past...preaching what they believe to be the truth based on their own interpretation of the Holy Spirit.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

Rev 5:8

8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.

Catholic interpretation this verse is saint able to hear billions people pray to them.

to me This verse doesn't say so. This elderly just deliver the prayer, It not even say the elderly know they petitions

I was work AS a driver to deliver a Mail or packages to the customers, and I do not know what is in the package. My duty is only to deliver and my boss pay me for my labor.

The bolded comment sums up most of the people on this thread. I have no doubt that all of you have your own interpretations and that more often than not they are in opposition to the Catholic Church teaching. The fact that your interpretation would have had you labeled a heretic (non-Christian) by the early Christian Church is somehow lost on you. I'm a Christian today and can prove that I would have been labeled a Christian for all times by the Church. That is of utmost importance to me...my personal beliefs, emotions, interpretations, thoughts, ideas, etc. all pale in comparison to being able to validate Jesus kept His promise to protect His Church.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

You have to see the bible from the whole picture.

Not interprate from one verse.

a church AS a building, build upon a Concrete. AS a doctrine, build upon the teaching of Jesus, No apostle allow to create his own teaching.

I mean no disrespect Jackson as I've enjoyed our dialogue, but I'm much more interested in the truth according to Jesus' Church rather than the truth according to Jackson...or any other person.

-Ernie-

 

[Jackson123]

I mean no disrespect Jackson as I've enjoyed our dialogue, but I'm much more interested in the truth according to Jesus' Church rather than the truth according to Jackson...or any other person.

-Ernie-

Hello Ernie, bible is truth according to Jesus, If you read bible AS a whole, you Will know that church or christianity is base oN Jesus teaching, not peter teaching or Jackson teaching. Jackson is only a poor and un significant member. Jackson only bible reader and not trust in a man teaching.

what do you mean peter AS foundation of church? Is he God? Is he allow to create his own teaching?

 

[mailmandan]

you are mixing up 'the catholic (universal) church' with the Roman Catholic church The latter came into being in 7th century ad.

For the first two hundred years and more the churches were independent of each other. They had no central leader. That was why they met in councils to discuss doctrine and come to general agreement on it. They were called 'the catholikos (universal) church' as opposed to churches which set themselves up as the only right one.

The Roman Catholic church is a sect that broke off from the true catholic church.

There is certainly a difference between the Catholic, “universal” Church, which is the body of Christ and is made up of all genuine born again Christians and the Roman Catholic institution.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Just curious, what do you think of the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.? Were they representing Jesus' Church? If not, who was?

Seeing as how Constantine (who introduced paganism into the church of Rome) initiated this Council and that by the 4th century the Christian churches had already incorporated many unbiblical doctrines and practices, what was represented at Nicaea was "Christendom". That does not mean that what happened at the Council was negative, since Arianism was addressed at that time and the Nicene Creed came into existence.

 

[Jackson123]

The bolded comment sums up most of the people on this thread. I have no doubt that all of you have your own interpretations and that more often than not they are in opposition to the Catholic Church teaching. The fact that your interpretation would have had you labeled a heretic (non-Christian) by the early Christian Church is somehow lost on you. I'm a Christian today and can prove that I would have been labeled a Christian for all times by the Church. That is of utmost importance to me...my personal beliefs, emotions, interpretations, thoughts, ideas, etc. all pale in comparison to being able to validate Jesus kept His promise to protect His Church.

-Ernie-

So you believe this verse say Mary able to hear billion people like God?

to my knowledge God promise to protect His child in the sense of the faithful follower and do His Will. Not necessary formal institution.

wich is God child, small group of believer who do love or a formal church who kill other?

in God eyes, small group of people formal or informal but do love other and worship Jesus from they heart.

 

[Jackson123]

Oh my goodness, please don't spread hate like that. Knowing I'm a Catholic you are saying that I work for Lucifer. Do you honestly believe that? For what belief have I not provided both a scripture verse and evidence that the early Christian Church believed as I believe? The fact that you don't agree with me or the early Christian Church doesn't make me a worker for Lucifer. The only thing we know for sure is that your interpretation and beliefs don't align with the early Christian Church and that the Church's don't align with yours. Those are the facts. Whether that bothers you or not is the real question.

Don't turn your passion for the Lord into hatred for the Catholic Church.

-Ernie-

Hello Ernie

do you believe in the last day, antichrist Will rule the world AS mention in the rev 13?

 

[valiant]

Hi Nehemiah,

I'm humbled that you think I'm an apologist and maybe by your definition I am. I never considered myself in that category though.

Just curious, what do you think of the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.? Were they representing Jesus' Church? If not, who was?

Thanks.

-Ernie-

The council of Nicea was a group of independent churches which consulted with each other. It was not a Roman Catholic council. The RC Church had not been formed then. The Roman church was a localised church in the west.

 

[Jackson123]

Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging "false religion". That is why many Catholics in England and Ireland were killed by Reformers. I point this out only because there are horribly misguided scoundrels on all sides...Catholics and non-Catholics. Just as I don't believe all Lutherans or Calvinists are scoundrels I don't think you should believe that the Catholic Church as a whole is as well.

Again, important to research both sides of the argument.

-Ernie-

So, do you believe Jesus teach to kill unbeliever?