Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[Saint-John]

RoboOp umm Im behind you on this score old Roman emprie transforms(beast comes back to life) new rome empire (mother of harlots .false religions..mystery Babylon)
Just because people have some idea that Jesus Chirst is the son of the living GOD does not make them a christian.
Same as if you belive you are Nepoleon ,no matter how sincere you are.
Gods way only eg acts 2.38 ...yes God is a dictator !! ie the 10 COMMANMENTS not the 10 SUGGESTIONS !!!! do your in dont your out the choice is yours.
New test Jesus made the way easy and people know they are christians, christ ones, anointed ones (by the Holy Ghost)
because God gave them Mark 16.15-20 believers not those who dont do the truth.....

 

[loveme1]

.yes God is a dictator

No Yahvah God is loving and kind and knows what is best for us.

He does not exalt himself for he is Almighty forever.

It is when his creations exalt themselves that he must teach them what happens when you Rebel against him.

unruly creations cause long suffering to Yahvah God, it grieves him, but he is always many, many steps ahead... with goodness in mind for those that accept Salvation, admit they have done wrong and be taught to walk in a loving obedience.

 

[dscherck]

Brilliant speak !



Brilliant Truth !



Do not add to nor take away from the Word of God, scripture does, indeed, state.
That fact tells me that though Catholics are Christians, there studying books , like Barach and Siriach, that Christians don't. That right there!!!!!! will call the rise of Satan, for in Christ's true church, there is NO division. Man made the seperation of religions , NOT God.

You are aware that prior to Martin Luther, ALL Christian bibles had Baruch and Sirach in their canon. If anything we should worry about Martin Luther and the early reformers who removed books from the Scriptures.

My biggest, and, ONLY problem with Catholicism is there feeling that they're sect is going to Heaven and THEY are the true alone Christ's church. This thought process is what mincemeats christianity protestantism and catholicism christianity, divisively, so, so, shredded

Actually, the Catholic Church considers Protestants to be a part of the Church, albeit imperfectly. The Catholic Church has no problem recognizing the validity of Protestant baptism. While the Catholic Church does believe that it is THE Church founded by Christ, they have no problem acknowledging that the Holy Spirit is indeed moving through Protestant communities and that there will most likely be many Protestants who will be in Heaven. The schism is a product of man's failings, but Christ can and does work through His people on both sides of the theological divide. We must however continue to pray for unity and strive to bring all Christians to the fullness of Truth. Naturally Catholics/Protestants disagree on what the "fullness of Truth" entails, but we have the same goals.

I don't care about fact that Mary is sinless or not, even though to me she was a virgin and blessed, not without sin, and, not a name capitalized, not said as anything but 'mother' in scripture. Wouldn't it be 'Mother' if she was esteemed as more powerful being than others. She found favor with God because she was following God's will, like Abraham, like Enoch, like David, Elijah, Noah, et al, and, yes, all these folk found favor with God, were blessed in some way, just ordinary blessing. As I see it, for Mary, nothing blessing her out of the ordinary past carrying the Saviour Of The World in her stomach area. , sure, she will be blessed for generations, no doubt, she carried God in her, so to speak.

But, anyway, uh, yeah, I just believe that the heresy is more belittling troubling to me than preaching wrong Truth. I mean, it's both things but, yeah, enough, I don't want to disrupt the peace , I just stated some of my 'Mary' thoughts my intention, to , hopefully, have Catholics who believe they are the ONLY bride of Christ that I think God will divorce you at the Judgment Seat for that kind of thinking

I tend to keep her title as "mother of God" with the title "mother" in lowercase but the word "God" in uppercase because her title isn't for her glory, but because of who her Son is. Her Son, Jesus, IS GOD. And I do think that she's worthy of a bit more honour that Abraham, Enoch, David, etc because of who her Son is. The others mentioned did follow the will of God, but even they had faults. Noah was a drunkard, David a murderer and adulterer, Abraham was a coward, but Mary... Mary followed God's will perfectly. Look at the humility in her answers. "Let it be done to me according to your will." "Do whatever he tells you"
The few quotes we have of her in Scripture all point to her devout humility. And we know that she was there for Our Lord from the very beginning, to the very foot of His cross. So I think Mary does deserve more honour. She isn't a deity in any way, shape, or form. But she is a wonderful model of Christian obedience and humility worthy of emulation.

 

[NoFallTooFar]

I couldn't resist..

 

[dscherck]

I couldn't resist..

 

[NoFallTooFar]

The pope isn't my savior. He's just a man.

A man who knows no truth.

 

[1still_waters]

The problem is that the Roman Catholics are trying to do things that aren't clearly spelled out in the Bible. We say they basically deify Mary. They say they just venerate her.

But here's the deal, none of this would even be a deal if they didn't try to contort scripture to create some dogma/doctrine that isn't clearly there in the first place!

While doing research on this I read something from Pope John Paul, about the Rosary. He was pontificating on how the Rosary is very Christ centric. And he did a nice job of walking that high wire.

BUT again, heres the thing. That high wire shouldn't have to be walked in the first place, because the Roman Catholics shouldn't have tried to come up with a phantom dogma that isn't clearly spelled out.

Catholics are VERY good at saying, "No we don't do the stuff you say we do." But their explanations tend to put a frog hairs distance between the accusation and what they actually do.

And again, it wouldn't be an issue if they'd just quit trying to make phantom dogmas that don't exist CLEARLY in the scripture in the first place.

 

[SantoSubito]

The pope isn't my savior. He's just a man.

A man who knows no truth.

Vestments are used in the worship of God, including the Popes. Having precious things for the worship of God is nothing new and God commands and obviously approves of the use of such things, just look at all the things God commanded to be made out of gold in the Temple. One such thing (if the Roman monuments are to be believed) was a Menorah made out of solid gold the as tall as a man and as broad as two.

But whatever you think of our buildings you can't say we don't build to last.

 

[SantoSubito]

The problem is that the Roman Catholics are trying to do things that aren't clearly spelled out in the Bible. We say they basically deify Mary. They say they just venerate her.

But here's the deal, none of this would even be a deal if they didn't try to contort scripture to create some dogma/doctrine that isn't clearly there in the first place!

While doing research on this I read something from Pope John Paul, about the Rosary. He was pontificating on how the Rosary is very Christ centric. And he did a nice job of walking that high wire.

BUT again, heres the thing. That high wire shouldn't have to be walked in the first place, because the Roman Catholics shouldn't have tried to come up with a phantom dogma that isn't clearly spelled out.

Catholics are VERY good at saying, "No we don't do the stuff you say we do." But their explanations tend to put a frog hairs distance between the accusation and what they actually do.

And again, it wouldn't be an issue if they'd just quit trying to make phantom dogmas that don't exist CLEARLY in the scripture in the first place.

You keep saying stuff like this even if we address your arguments. Like when you misconstrued quotes from Papal Encyclicals by selective reading and bolding them. I've yet to see an actual reply from you on those, but that's another matter.

Anyway, how is the Rosary not Christ-centric? The whole thing involves meditating on events from the life of Christ, your particular problem with it seems to be the Hail Mary.

 

[dscherck]

The pope isn't my savior. He's just a man.

A man who knows no truth.

 

[loveme1]

The pope knows the "truth" and he is directly against it!!!!!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The pope isn't my savior. He's just a man.

A man who knows no truth.

See how low they will go? They try to sanction the pope carrying a gold cross by equating it with a woman preparing her savior for his burial. Are they going to bury that cross and redeem mankind from his sin by doing so??

 

[sitwatcher]

Catholics are nice people. I was a catholic before. But there are lots of things that they believe. Pray to this saint,that saint. Pray to Mary,Joseph,Peter, etc... and also worshipping with an image or we call it "sto niño". Later on I found out in the bible that says
Jeremiah 33:3

Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.


Calling unto the Lord means pray to him. I just wonder. Why lots of catholics are praying to various names. That even the Lord said call unto me.
He did not say..Call unto me and to "name" and to "name"and to "name". .. There was a pope who visited our country and all the catholics were rejoicing,
I have seen it on tv but theres one thing that made me think... there was a certain youth who shouted that the pope was Jesus personified.


When Jesus prayed he was not holding beads of rosary. I cannot see in the bible that it is required to pray the rosary.

 

[rainacorn]

I'm eager to hear how YOU interpret those verses since it really doesn't seem to support the Pope or any church leader being blinged out like a rapper.

 

[SantoSubito]

I'm eager to hear how YOU interpret those verses since it really doesn't seem to support the Pope or any church leader being blinged out like a rapper.

I don't get why people have a problem with the Popes using a gold-plated cross staff that has been in use for God knows how long. Let me ask you something, does your pastor have jewelery? Does his wife and daughter? Do you? Are you really going to condemn the Pope for having a gold crucifix and trimmed vestments that have been passed down for from Pope to Pope and hold immense sentimental value, not just to the Pope, but to the whole Catholic Church, while you may still be holding on to grandma's pearl necklace?

 

[Ugly]

I don't get why people have a problem with the Popes using a gold-plated cross staff that has been in use for God knows how long. Let me ask you something, does your pastor have jewelery? Does his wife and daughter? Do you? Are you really going to condemn the Pope for having a gold crucifix and trimmed vestments that have been passed down for from Pope to Pope and hold immense sentimental value, not just to the Pope, but to the whole Catholic Church, while you may still be holding on to grandma's pearl necklace?

Because the way a ministry utilizes its funds is not the same as the way a person uses their private funds.

And maybe because i'm not standing on national television talking about how we need to help the poor and needy while swinging around this expensive gold item in the name of God and ministry. Private life and the head of ministry is not an equal comparison.

 

[SantoSubito]

Because the way a ministry utilizes its funds is not the same as the way a person uses their private funds.

Not necessarily. In your particular understanding of stewardship I would wager that a gold necklace is a frivolous waste of money that could better be spent helping the poor, or at least it should be if you want to be consistent. Also the Popes function is more than simply a ministry leader, he's also the reigning monarch of a sovereign country.

Catholics at least have a concept of Sacramentals (things that are used to remind us of truths of the Christian faith and God), but nothing similar to that exists in Protestantism to my knowledge outside of confessional Lutheranism and Anglicanism.

And maybe because i'm not standing on national television talking about how we need to help the poor and needy while swinging around this expensive gold item in the name of God and ministry. Private life and the head of ministry is not an equal comparison.

Not everyone thinks as you do about such things either, most Brits wouldn't have a problem with the Queen addressing her subjects from the balcony of her palace about the need to help the poor. Similarly Catholics and most people I've met don't have a problem with the Pope addressing the world about the same issue while holding symbols of his office.

My archbishop has a silver-plated Croizer that belonged to the first bishop of Oklahoma City, and no one finds it wrong that he has it at hand when he speaks about the poor.

Anyway my larger point is things have meaning outside of cash value. These things are cultural and religious treasures in much the same way the Crown Jewels or the statue of liberty are cultural treasures to Brits and Americans.

 

[dscherck]

I'm eager to hear how YOU interpret those verses since it really doesn't seem to support the Pope or any church leader being blinged out like a rapper.

Are you upset that leaders of God's people are attired in finely decorated outfits? Tell me then what you think of Exodus 28?

The simple fact of the matter is this. The money for these fine things comes from the people. When a poor man offers his tithe for the church, some of it goes towards various social programs, and other parts of it goes towards making things of beauty for the Church and it's people to use. You'd have a poor man give his money to the Church to buy a beautiful gold tabernacle for use during the worship of the King of Kings, Lord of Lords. You'd then melt that tabernacle down and give him back his money back. How can you make the assumption that the poor are so arrogant as to only want money? What if they want beauty? What if they think that it's entirely appropriate to donate money so that the priests and leaders of the Church can offer sacrifice to the Lord while attired in beautiful garments? Do you think they'd appreciate being told that they don't get to have things of beauty in their churches because they're poor and they need the money more?

Our Lord commanded His temple priests to be arrayed in fine garments, His temple to be covered with gold, jewels, and to have implements used in the temple made of gold and other precious metals/gems. But now you'd ignore these clear examples and tell the poor that they don't get to array their religious leaders in fine vestments or decorate their places of worship with things of beauty?

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

The truth is I was brought to believe Yeshua by the infilling of the Holy Spirit. This occurred without the benefit of previously having knowlege of this possibility. The Holy Spirit has led me since that experience beginning with revealing what I need to know from written Scripture. I suppose this too fits your description and definition of dogma, however I use the term relative to various specific teacings from the traditions of man as being claimed to be commandment from our Maker. Thank you for your definition.

I understand, and well said. God bless.

 

[rainacorn]

Are you upset that leaders of God's people are attired in finely decorated outfits? Tell me then what you think of Exodus 28?

The simple fact of the matter is this. The money for these fine things comes from the people. When a poor man offers his tithe for the church, some of it goes towards various social programs, and other parts of it goes towards making things of beauty for the Church and it's people to use. You'd have a poor man give his money to the Church to buy a beautiful gold tabernacle for use during the worship of the King of Kings, Lord of Lords. You'd then melt that tabernacle down and give him back his money back. How can you make the assumption that the poor are so arrogant as to only want money? What if they want beauty? What if they think that it's entirely appropriate to donate money so that the priests and leaders of the Church can offer sacrifice to the Lord while attired in beautiful garments? Do you think they'd appreciate being told that they don't get to have things of beauty in their churches because they're poor and they need the money more?

Our Lord commanded His temple priests to be arrayed in fine garments, His temple to be covered with gold, jewels, and to have implements used in the temple made of gold and other precious metals/gems. But now you'd ignore these clear examples and tell the poor that they don't get to array their religious leaders in fine vestments or decorate their places of worship with things of beauty?

Read through this again and see how many words you just put in my mouth.