Catholic vs Christianity

[kennethcadwell]

Wrong. That was taught by ONE priest after the Reformation. There are those who believe it, but it is not dogma nor canon.

This is not wrong, it was in the catechism classes I took and like I said we were shown the personal documents and then they were returned to the Vatican.

As well the catholic church I went to was also given a shadow box that had a splinter in it said to be from the actual cross Jesus was crucified on. It was given to them by the Vatican for a short time to show to the congregation.

I was surprised to see it knowing how the Vatican holds tons of religious relics and documents that they refuse to let the public see.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

This argument is rigged to begin with. For there cannot be a Catholic vs Christianity for Catholics are Christians by virtue they believe in Jesus Christ and follow after him.

Plus it doesn't hurt to mention the fact the first pope is Peter.

 

[kennethcadwell]

This argument is rigged to begin with. For there cannot be a Catholic vs Christianity for Catholics are Christians by virtue they believe in Jesus Christ and follow after him.

Plus it doesn't hurt to mention the fact the first pope is Peter.

Yes, but if you have been around a lot of the Catholic churches I have been around and apart of they will tell you they are not Christian.

 

[IAm3rd]

I go weekly.

As did I when I was Catholic... which wasnt that long ago. My last mass was Easter Vigil of this year.

 

[ThomistColin]

As did I when I was Catholic... which wasnt that long ago. My last mass was Easter Vigil of this year.

Take no offense, but I'll pray for your return. However, if that is where God has led, then I pray He answers no.

 

[IAm3rd]

Take no offense, but I'll pray for your return. However, if that is where God has led, then I pray He answers no.

I realized the Catholic Church was adding to the simple gospel... so I had to leave. I'm not saying Im right, but I'm much more at peace looking for a church then when I was in the CC.
I just want to serve God... I trust He will lead me.

 

[IAm3rd]

Let me explain what I mean by adding to the simple gospel.
For example, in 1950 the CC declared the bodily ascension of Mary into heaven to be a dogma. A dogma is something every Catholic MUST believe to be in good standing with the Church, and therefore be saved.
My problem here is that for 1949 years of Christian history the gospel, or 'what was needed to be believed for salvation' did not include this as dogma. So, simply put... they are adding to the gospel. They have added yet one more thing one MUST believe to be saved. And the kicker is that it's not even a salvific issue! ( until now )
Paul clearly warns against anyone preaching another gospel.
Wouldn't you agree that if christians were told for 1949 years that "THIS" is what you must believe to be saved, yet in 1950 they add another thing, that that is in fact adding to the gospel ?
And this is just one example...

Another dogma looms on the horizon. That of Mary as Co-redemtrix... MANY Catholics are pushing for this to become the newest dogma. While others are against it. But, if it does become the newest dogma the message of what must be believed to be saved will once again be added to.
The confession thing we were talking about earlier is another good example. It wasnt until the council of Trent that a Catholic MUST go to confession at least once a year to be in good standing with the body of Christ. Really ? 1500 years after Christ ? Why the CC continually adds to what one must do to be saved is beyond me.

 

[ThomistColin]

Let me explain what I mean by adding to the simple gospel.
For example, in 1950 the CC declared the bodily ascension of Mary into heaven to be a dogma. A dogma is something every Catholic MUST believe to be in good standing with the Church, and therefore be saved.
My problem here is that for 1949 years of Christian history the gospel, or 'what was needed to be believed for salvation' did not include this as dogma. So, simply put... they are adding to the gospel. They have added yet one more thing one MUST believe to be saved. And the kicker is that it's not even a salvific issue! ( until now )
Paul clearly warns against anyone preaching another gospel.
Wouldn't you agree that if christians were told for 1949 years that "THIS" is what you must believe to be saved, yet in 1950 they add another thing, that that is in fact adding to the gospel ?
And this is just one example...

Another dogma looms on the horizon. That of Mary as Co-redemtrix... MANY Catholics are pushing for this to become the newest dogma. While others are against it. But, if it does become the newest dogma the message of what must be believed to be saved will once again be added to.
The confession thing we were talking about earlier is another good example. It wasnt until the council of Trent that a Catholic MUST go to confession at least once a year to be in good standing with the body of Christ. Really ? 1500 years after Christ ? Why the CC continually adds to what one must do to be saved is beyond me.

I don't really have a problem with the bodiily assumption of Mary. However, I do agree that it is not a salvific issue. The once a year confession, that is. (We believe in mortal sins.) However, the whole you have to go at least once a year, should be done away with. Why even teach it? Just say, "You have to go to confession. That's it. Don't go that's on you."

I will say though, if they preach Mary as co-redemptrix, meaning that through her womb came Christ and the salvation of the world. I would just sit and say..."Catholic have believed that for about two thousand years." If however they mean she is a way to salvation other than Christ or equal to...Then, I'd have to leave the Church. But to be honest, I think the former is far more likely than the latter.

 

[kennethcadwell]

I don't really have a problem with the bodiily assumption of Mary. However, I do agree that it is not a salvific issue. The once a year confession, that is. (We believe in mortal sins.) However, the whole you have to go at least once a year, should be done away with. Why even teach it? Just say, "You have to go to confession. That's it. Don't go that's on you."

I will say though, if they preach Mary as co-redemptrix, meaning that through her womb came Christ and the salvation of the world. I would just sit and say..."Catholic have believed that for about two thousand years." If however they mean she is a way to salvation other than Christ or equal to...Then, I'd have to leave the Church. But to be honest, I think the former is far more likely than the latter.

When I go to confession, I just go in prayer to God in the name of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ and confess my sins and ask for forgiveness. Knowing we have a just Lord and Savior, He will forgive me of my sins.

I do not have to go through nobody else to do this. I have my own direct contact and relationship with the Lord our God.

 

[IAm3rd]

I don't really have a problem with the bodiily assumption of Mary. However, I do agree that it is not a salvific issue. The once a year confession, that is. (We believe in mortal sins.) However, the whole you have to go at least once a year, should be done away with. Why even teach it? Just say, "You have to go to confession. That's it. Don't go that's on you."

I will say though, if they preach Mary as co-redemptrix, meaning that through her womb came Christ and the salvation of the world. I would just sit and say..."Catholic have believed that for about two thousand years." If however they mean she is a way to salvation other than Christ or equal to...Then, I'd have to leave the Church. But to be honest, I think the former is far more likely than the latter.

I understand... and my problem is not with either of those teachings in and of themselves, but rather that they are made to be dogma so many years after Christ. But, I know you understand my point.

 

[ThomistColin]

When I go to confession, I just go in prayer to God in the name of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ and confess my sins and ask for forgiveness. Knowing we have a just Lord and Savior, He will forgive me of my sins.

I do not have to go through nobody else to do this. I have my own direct contact and relationship with the Lord our God.

Remember we take the part about personal sin harming the entire Body of Christ and that confessing to one another heals that as extremely important.

 

[Last]

Well catechism was the class children and all new members even adults had to go through when coming to the church in and around my area between Kansas and Missouri. It was not called RCIA.

Then something is really screw up. Child take catechism classes from around 8 to confirmation. It takes years and years. RCIA is for adults and children of the age of reason.

If you were not taught how the Romans corrupted the catholic church then you are the one who have not been taught all the true history of your own denomination. We were shown documentation of historic events that backed this up.

Such as what exactly? Name something. All you do is act vague and ambiguous.

Plus we had visitors all the time from other catholic churches from around the world, plus from the Vatican come there on a regular basis. They said the same thing that I said about the sermons being the same around the world.

I think you might be the nutjob then because "The Vatican" does not visit parishes. What do you even mean by the Vatican? The Pope and Cardinals came to visit you? Who from the Vatican visited you? The Vatican told you everyone teaches the same sermons? That does not make sense, as priests (they are called priests, not preachers) offer homilies, not sermons. They do not say the same homily. That is why I took several classes in homilies - because priests write their own.

Jesus did say to confess our sins to each other, but He did not say we had to personally go to confession with a priest to do this to be forgiven. If we go to Him in prayer and ask for forgiveness, He will forgive us. They acted like this was wrong and tried to correct me for it, but the bible is not against this.

He gave the apostles the power to forgive sins.

If you believe catholic priest were always allowed to smoke then once again you do not know your own full history. For the longest time they taught it to be a sin because you were defiling your body by smoking, and some catholic churches still teach it is a sin.

Catholic priests have always been allowed to smoke and drink. In Italy, it would be common to see a priest drinking wine or even enjoying a cigar. In other cultures, like in the American bible belt, priests might do those things but not publicly, because it would go against the puritan culture. Again, there is no canonical rule against it.

Celibacy was promoted, but was not a command. Paul said I wish you were all like me, but that it is not a command from God to be celibate. The other thing that was taught on this issue was the reason this was held on to for so long was because the scriptures that say a preacher should be the husband to one wife, and then they mix that with the church is the bride of our Lord. Because of this they use that marriage as the only one needed, which is why they do/did not marry.

The bible says nothing about 'preachers' - it talks about bishops not having more than one wife, because it many cultures people had more than one! It does not say a priest must have a wife.

A future pope being the false prophet is in the Vatican's own documents.

No, it's not.

The other thing you did not explain is how they go by the title of father, which Jesus specifically said not to do.

I already said time and time again that it is hyperbole, not a literal command. If you follow legally, then "Father" would simply mean God.

If you take and make people do extra things for forgiveness of sins that is not mentioned in the bible, then yes it is adding to the word.

Catholics do not do anything that the bible does not teach in terms of getting forgiveness.

 

[Last]

You are wrong there. Private confession was not mandated until the 700s AD, however, it was instituted at the end of the 2nd century.

Private confession was introduced to the rest of the Catholic Church by Irish monks in the 700s. There was a big uproar about allowing it.

 

[Last]

Actually not true. The Irish Monks created the formula of the confessional. Confession to one's elders (i.e. Presbyters or Bishops) began at the end of the 2nd century. It was not made Catholic dogma until the 700s.

No, Irish monks were the first to confess their sins on a regular basis. Prior to that was public confession followed by the rite of penance.

 

[Last]

This is not wrong, it was in the catechism classes I took and like I said we were shown the personal documents and then they were returned to the Vatican.

There are only two possibilities here: You are nuts, or the person that taught you RCIA was nuts. That the Vatican visited you, showed you documents and returned them to the Vatican - all in some parish in the midwest is the most absurd thing I have heard on a forum.

As well the catholic church I went to was also given a shadow box that had a splinter in it said to be from the actual cross Jesus was crucified on. It was given to them by the Vatican for a short time to show to the congregation.

I was surprised to see it knowing how the Vatican holds tons of religious relics and documents that they refuse to let the public see.

That would be an relic of the true cross and there are many of those in existence.

 

[Last]

Let me explain what I mean by adding to the simple gospel.
For example, in 1950 the CC declared the bodily ascension of Mary into heaven to be a dogma. A dogma is something every Catholic MUST believe to be in good standing with the Church, and therefore be saved.
My problem here is that for 1949 years of Christian history the gospel, or 'what was needed to be believed for salvation' did not include this as dogma. So, simply put... they are adding to the gospel. They have added yet one more thing one MUST believe to be saved. And the kicker is that it's not even a salvific issue! ( until now )
Paul clearly warns against anyone preaching another gospel.
Wouldn't you agree that if christians were told for 1949 years that "THIS" is what you must believe to be saved, yet in 1950 they add another thing, that that is in fact adding to the gospel ?
And this is just one example...

A dogma is a declaration of something that has always been believed. There was never a tomb for Mary because she body was assumed into Heaven. We know the tombs and locations of many of the apostles, yet there is nothing for Mary.

Another dogma looms on the horizon. That of Mary as Co-redemtrix... MANY Catholics are pushing for this to become the newest dogma. While others are against it. But, if it does become the newest dogma the message of what must be believed to be saved will once again be added to.

I don't think you know what that word even means.

The confession thing we were talking about earlier is another good example. It wasnt until the council of Trent that a Catholic MUST go to confession at least once a year to be in good standing with the body of Christ. Really ? 1500 years after Christ ? Why the CC continually adds to what one must do to be saved is beyond me.

Actually that would be a practice and how things are practiced can be changed.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Remember we take the part about personal sin harming the entire Body of Christ and that confessing to one another heals that as extremely important.

To confess to another person is not necessary for salvation, it was a symbolism to always been honest and truthful with each other and not to lie. If you go to God in prayer in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and ask for forgiveness that is all you need to do, and you will be forgiven.

We do not have to go through another person for that. The bible says that our Lord Jesus is our mediator to God, and we only have to ask in His name and it shall be done. It does not say Jesus, and other men are mediator's. Just Jesus is, we do not have to go through others, and do penance for forgiveness of that sin.

There are only two possibilities here: You are nuts, or the person that taught you RCIA was nuts. That the Vatican visited you, showed you documents and returned them to the Vatican - all in some parish in the midwest is the most absurd thing I have heard on a forum.



That would be an relic of the true cross and there are many of those in existence.

If you don't believe the Vatican at times sends their own personal priest's to visit different Catholic churches around the world, and then return back over there. I guess your church has not had a visit yet to your knowledge, and it is a well known fact that the pope does travel from time to time. When he does he visit's some of the catholic churches in the area where he is at.

Being in the catholic church, and learning to become a priest yourself like you said you did. I should not have to tell you the exact details on how the Romans defiled the church. If you don't know, your studies have not been to well informed. The Romans corrupting the early catholic church is well known documented history, you don't even have to be a catholic to know this information. Yet you who are in, and said studied to become a priest don't know.

The other thing is preacher, priest, and pastor don't not mean differently to me. They all refer to the same position in the church, just different titles. They are still just brother's and sister's in Christ, not above us or below us, we are all the same in the body. The title I don't agree with is them going by father, Jesus specially said not to.

 

[notuptome]

Catholicism teaches that salvation comes from Jesus Christ and by faith in His promises. Works are simply what maintain the faith you have received, since it is clear that people do in fact leave Christianity. Works make your faith stronger.

Salvation is by grace. The faith to receive this grace comes from God through the word of God the bible. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God.

Works do not make faith stronger. The word of God makes faith stronger. Reading and praying over Gods word is what makes for strong faith. Works that we can do only flow outward never inward. God alone works in the heart and that through His word and His Holy Spirit. It is clear that people leave false religions but never leave the sheep fold that is Christ.

There is no such thing as bible doctrine. Doctrine is man's reason applied to faith.

Sheer lunacy. Scripture says that professing themselves to be wise they became fools. The bible is doctrine. The bible tell us of Jesus Who is the author and finisher of our faith. Lean not to thine own understanding but acknowledge the Lord in all thy doings.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[kennethcadwell]

Salvation is by grace. The faith to receive this grace comes from God through the word of God the bible. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God.

Works do not make faith stronger. The word of God makes faith stronger. Reading and praying over Gods word is what makes for strong faith. Works that we can do only flow outward never inward. God alone works in the heart and that through His word and His Holy Spirit. It is clear that people leave false religions but never leave the sheep fold that is Christ.

Sheer lunacy. Scripture says that professing themselves to be wise they became fools. The bible is doctrine. The bible tell us of Jesus Who is the author and finisher of our faith. Lean not to thine own understanding but acknowledge the Lord in all thy doings.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

If works do not play a part in how strong ones faith is, then James would be wrong.

Faith without works is dead.

 

[notuptome]

I don't really have a problem with the bodiily assumption of Mary. However, I do agree that it is not a salvific issue. The once a year confession, that is. (We believe in mortal sins.) However, the whole you have to go at least once a year, should be done away with. Why even teach it? Just say, "You have to go to confession. That's it. Don't go that's on you."

God does not make a distinction between sin. All sin is sin and all sin condemns the sinner and disrupts fellowship between the believer and the Lord.

The bodily assumption of Mary is beyond words. Mary will receive like all the believer-saints of God a new body fashioned like the resurrected Christ.

I will say though, if they preach Mary as co-redemptrix, meaning that through her womb came Christ and the salvation of the world. I would just sit and say..."Catholic have believed that for about two thousand years." If however they mean she is a way to salvation other than Christ or equal to...Then, I'd have to leave the Church. But to be honest, I think the former is far more likely than the latter.

What a politically parsed answer. Rome may teach it but it is wholly wrong. No redeeming value in the idea.

For the cause of Christ
Roger