Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
It is indeed sad that many catholics never study their faith so come away with the illusions and myths. Ken Allan the ultimate example, but whose fault is that? The church exhorts study of scripture and in study of scripture , the church fathers and saints you see the richness of the faith, and the grounding in scripture - the fullness of scripture , not the silly proof texting used by such as Ken to try and undermine what he never knew, and still does not.
But be under no illusion, Jesus is the centre and nowhere overshadowed, and the mass , the source and summit of faith expressed in Christ in the Eucharist and a true Christian longs and thirsts for that union, so it is far from the empty ritual an outsider such as you seems to think.
The best of the preachers are the equal or better of any in evangelism, and the worst of them just as bad as many evangelical preachers too, I have been both sides of that fence. But churches top to bottom are made of people, and people are flawed which is why we need a redeemer. You cannot judge a congregation on the worst of its laity, or the moral laxity of some of the pastors.
If you want to see the richness of Catholicism, the hunger and thirst for God, you see it in the writings of saints, a true love story, and it is sad that many Protestants never see these things because of a dogma that results in Amnesia, and the silliness of oretending that those that have gone before can offer no insight.
" Me, Jesus and the bible only" is the doctrine that launched 10000 opposing doctrines and denominations. No newcomer could dream of reinventing physics ground up, ignoring the writings of newton, maxwell and Einstein, trying to make sense out of raw data only, and they would not get very far if they tried, because most do not have the intellect for it, and so have to be fed at the level they can absorb, yet that is precisely the thinking of many Protestant cults and why they all disappear at tangents, thinking " their version" is as good as any other - so then diverge on every matter of doctrine.
You see here on this thread how some for example try to split fine hairs in greek to avoid an obvious meaning of scripture , from a conversation that almost certainly took place in Aramaic, for no better reason than they do not like the obvious meaning, and they think, " me, Jesus and the bible" gives imprimatur for them to believe anything, so believe anything they do.
I have spent a long time both sides of the fence, and a study of history , the fathers , the origin of scripture leads inexorably back to Rome.
And if you think the worship is empty it is because you have an outsides view, and have yet to experience it yourself.
Last edited:
There are two focuses in life, righteousness and the relationships. Now the aids to the faith, have stifled the faith away.
I can worship Jesus anywhere, and break bread with any appropriate bread and wine symbols. I do not need a priest, or holy water, or a church or a group or a ceremony to worship Jesus and the Father. Ofcourse you can worship God in the mass, but there in lies the problem, it is as if the ceremony cleanses people, with the idea of transubstansiation as if Jesus body becomes real. Jesus meant us to understand that his sacrifice is the definition of the depth of love he has for us, and it is this love if we let it transform us, in knowledge, emotions, and spirituality, but not because we take a blessed wafer or wine. That is why the form has become the meaning, rather than the meaning itself.
Now I confess when I was 21 and prayed to the Lord what I should do, he laid in front of me the story of David and the five stones. They are there discarded, ignored in the spiritual battle, but they killed Goliath. What these stones represented to me was love. It is not sound arguments, or great ideas that change people, it is love, consistent, patient, long suffering, humble, meek, love. It is the thing that people shut off in their hearts and then say power, money, wealth etc matter more. Now the evangelical church suffer equally in failure, when there ideas become just being born again and not true transformation of the soul. Their gospel becomes dry and full of condemnation, but they do not quite know what is missing, because what they believe is enough.
Now give them a few centuries and they will build the ceremony church all over again.
So what I am saying is simple. The roman church is so full of aids it swamps and destroys the core message before it can come to maturity. It also teaches added doctrine and ideas that are not from Jesus, or helpful, and in some areas heresy.
A for instance is simple. Why should I accept anything the pope says are authoritative considering how he supports the whole catholic catechism with its inbuilt heresies?
I can worship Jesus anywhere, and break bread with any appropriate bread and wine symbols. I do not need a priest, or holy water, or a church or a group or a ceremony to worship Jesus and the Father. Ofcourse you can worship God in the mass, but there in lies the problem, it is as if the ceremony cleanses people, with the idea of transubstansiation as if Jesus body becomes real. Jesus meant us to understand that his sacrifice is the definition of the depth of love he has for us, and it is this love if we let it transform us, in knowledge, emotions, and spirituality, but not because we take a blessed wafer or wine. That is why the form has become the meaning, rather than the meaning itself.
Now I confess when I was 21 and prayed to the Lord what I should do, he laid in front of me the story of David and the five stones. They are there discarded, ignored in the spiritual battle, but they killed Goliath. What these stones represented to me was love. It is not sound arguments, or great ideas that change people, it is love, consistent, patient, long suffering, humble, meek, love. It is the thing that people shut off in their hearts and then say power, money, wealth etc matter more. Now the evangelical church suffer equally in failure, when there ideas become just being born again and not true transformation of the soul. Their gospel becomes dry and full of condemnation, but they do not quite know what is missing, because what they believe is enough.
Now give them a few centuries and they will build the ceremony church all over again.
So what I am saying is simple. The roman church is so full of aids it swamps and destroys the core message before it can come to maturity. It also teaches added doctrine and ideas that are not from Jesus, or helpful, and in some areas heresy.
A for instance is simple. Why should I accept anything the pope says are authoritative considering how he supports the whole catholic catechism with its inbuilt heresies?
M
Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrneans, a bishop and student only one generation on from the apostles disagrees, written more or less at the turn of the first century..
He says that a bishop or those he empowers is needed to be a valid eucharist. Indeed he notes the real presence, and if it were not real presence why indeed would there be a question over what was "valid". If it were just bread and wine, validity would not be an issue.
So that is what the early church did and thought no doubt because that is what was passed on to them. And at that point the faith was indeed passed on by word of mouth, and letter as Paul says. Tradition . Handing down. The new testament as you have it, indeed even heretical canons like Marcions, which is the first recorded canon of scripture, were still a thing of the future.
So why do you disregard the teaching of the early church. Not what scripture says, but what the descendants of the apostles were taught that it means?
The pillar and foundation of truth is the church! the bible says so! and in ignatius you see the church speaking.
He says that a bishop or those he empowers is needed to be a valid eucharist. Indeed he notes the real presence, and if it were not real presence why indeed would there be a question over what was "valid". If it were just bread and wine, validity would not be an issue.
So that is what the early church did and thought no doubt because that is what was passed on to them. And at that point the faith was indeed passed on by word of mouth, and letter as Paul says. Tradition . Handing down. The new testament as you have it, indeed even heretical canons like Marcions, which is the first recorded canon of scripture, were still a thing of the future.
So why do you disregard the teaching of the early church. Not what scripture says, but what the descendants of the apostles were taught that it means?
The pillar and foundation of truth is the church! the bible says so! and in ignatius you see the church speaking.
Last edited:
well all you have to do to avoid it is leave your heretical church.
In the 8th century the church of Rome and its satellites seceded from the Catholic church to form the Roman Catholic church. Thereby they became a sect.
Note what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says,
In the 8th century the church of Rome and its satellites seceded from the Catholic church to form the Roman Catholic church. Thereby they became a sect.
Note what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says,
The Papacy was not organized until the second half of the 8th century. It broke away from the Eastern Church under Pippin III (in the Ency. Brit., 13th Ed., vol. 21, page 636; see also The Papacy, by Abbe Guette."
Even before then they had established heretical beliefs, but after it they became even more heretical.
growth of pre-RC and RC doctrine (some dates are approximate)
1 . Prayers for the dead . …………-------------------……300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints …………---------…….375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D.
6 Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus……………. .----------------------------------------- 431 A.D.
7 Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1…………………………… .593 A.D..
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D.
11 Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ……………………………………………… … 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D.
21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…………………………………………----------------… 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ………------------……….1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……………………………-----------------------------------……1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.
Turn away from these and we will welcome you back into the Catholic (universal) churchEven before then they had established heretical beliefs, but after it they became even more heretical.
growth of pre-RC and RC doctrine (some dates are approximate)
1 . Prayers for the dead . …………-------------------……300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints …………---------…….375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D.
6 Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus……………. .----------------------------------------- 431 A.D.
7 Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1…………………………… .593 A.D..
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D.
11 Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ……………………………………………… … 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D.
21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…………………………………………----------------… 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ………------------……….1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……………………………-----------------------------------……1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.
Tourist, Mwc68, Mikeuk all say they follow Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Now i ask you Tourist, Mwc68, and Mikeuk if you really are following the Holy Spirit then why are you teaching that Mary was sinless?
Romans 3:9-12
[SUP]9 [/SUP]For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."
Romans 3:23
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Clearly the Holy Spirit teaches Mary was a sinner. So how can you Tourist, Mwc68, Mikeuk all say you follow the Holy Spirit when you are teaching the opposite of what the Holy Spirit says? Do you not know you all are calling the Holy Spirit a liar?
Acts 20:29-30
[SUP]29 [/SUP] For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
[SUP]30 [/SUP] Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.
Jesus Christ knew the Catholics would speak perverse things to draw away His disciples to follow other gods like Mary.
1 John 2:4
[SUP]4 [/SUP] He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Exodus 20:2-3
[SUP]2 [/SUP] "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] You shall have no other gods before Me.
Praying to Mary make Mary your god. Since you do pray to Mary you are breaking the Commandment of having other gods before you which makes you a liar and the Truth is not in you.
Obviously you all were lying when you said you follow the Holy Spirit. Since none of you see anything wrong with lying to deceive people.
Eeverything you say from now on is to be taken as a lie from all of you.
Now i ask you Tourist, Mwc68, and Mikeuk if you really are following the Holy Spirit then why are you teaching that Mary was sinless?
Romans 3:9-12
[SUP]9 [/SUP]For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."
Romans 3:23
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Clearly the Holy Spirit teaches Mary was a sinner. So how can you Tourist, Mwc68, Mikeuk all say you follow the Holy Spirit when you are teaching the opposite of what the Holy Spirit says? Do you not know you all are calling the Holy Spirit a liar?
Acts 20:29-30
[SUP]29 [/SUP] For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
[SUP]30 [/SUP] Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.
Jesus Christ knew the Catholics would speak perverse things to draw away His disciples to follow other gods like Mary.
1 John 2:4
[SUP]4 [/SUP] He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Exodus 20:2-3
[SUP]2 [/SUP] "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] You shall have no other gods before Me.
Praying to Mary make Mary your god. Since you do pray to Mary you are breaking the Commandment of having other gods before you which makes you a liar and the Truth is not in you.
Obviously you all were lying when you said you follow the Holy Spirit. Since none of you see anything wrong with lying to deceive people.
Eeverything you say from now on is to be taken as a lie from all of you.
The silliness of anyone who claims that all Roman Catholic teaching is based on Scripture far exceeds any other silliness. Just see the list above. If Roman Catholics studied Scripture without preconceptions they would soon desert the Roman Catholic church.
It is a blasphemous ritual and cannibalistic. Jesus is kept in the background by the prominence of Mary and the saints, and by making out that a piece of bread is God.
But were never truly a Christian. You did not know Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. You personal Savior is the Roman Catholic church. Renounce it and receive the LORD Jesus Christ as your Savior and we will welcome you back into the true Catholic (universal) church.
But you can judge it for keeping the moral laxity of their pastors under wraps. They should have been immediately exposed (forgive the pun LOL).
But you ignore those very saints when they don't agree with you. I have given a few examples among many of how the early fathers saw the Rock as Peter's statement, or even Christ Himself. There are over forty of them. Why do you then deny what they say? We can learn from the spirituality of some and the gross sin of others. But we do not treat them as in any way inspired, or authoritative. They must be tested by the Scriptures.
I personally do not know anyone who holds that view. We hold our views on Scripture in common with many others and come to satisfactory agreement on what they teach. The early church was on your terms divided into 10,000 denominations, for each church was independent of all others. An it was good when it was so. The deterioration began when they got political power.
LOL we realise that because you have been a physicist you think you are above God. But it is sad if you cannot see the difference between a science which has to grow on the basis of facts (and now of unproven theories), and the knowledge of God which has to be personal and individual to have any worth at all. We have only one place we can turn to find the truth about God, and that is to the Scriptures. In there is all the learning and experience that we need. Not by turning to those whom we can clearly see have erred from the truth of Scripture. The Scriptures are our equivalent of newton, maxwell and Einstein, and any other scientist you care to name.
well the majority of the early fathers seemingly split fine hairs with the Greek (and they were Greek speaking) for they to believed that the Rock (petra) was the statement and confession of Peter, and that the foundation of the church was Jesus Christ.
And no wonder. Let us think for a moment of the situation. Jesus took His disciples to Caesarea Philippi because He wanted to broach one important question, WHO WAS HE? He led His disciples question by question, and then said, 'who do YOU say that I am?' There was no doubt a pregnant pause before Peter (who else?) blurted out, 'YOU ARE THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.'
Such a statement had never been made on earth before. That a man on earth was the Living God. The disciples would have held their breath. Would He confirm it or not? It was also the moment for which Jesus had Himself waited. At last His disciples were beginning to understand. Surely He had to say SOMETHING. Are we really to believe that to the disciples who had heard the most astounding revelation of all time HE MADE NO ANSWER concerning the matter but simply turned all the attention on Peter, ignoring the anticipation of the disciples? It is absurd.
Of course He made answer. 'You are petros, and on THIS PETRA (this truth that you have proclaimed ABOUT ME), I will build My congregation. The context DEMANDS this explanation. The other Gospel writers saw this and omitted reference to Peter that all the glory might be on Christ. It was Jesus way of accepting what Peter had said and making clear to the disciples that what Peter had said was TRUE.
It is inconceivable that having led His disciples up to this amazing revelation and realising how astounded they must be, He should ignore them and turn all His attention on Peter. It was the words of Jesus that had to be rammed home, not the future of Peter.
I am glad you had the honesty not to claim that it was through the study of Scripture. But nothing in early church history, the early fathers (apart from Rome itself) or about the origin of Scripture in the 1st century AD points to Rome. It is all in your imagination and the lies about history of many in the Roman Catholic church. The truth is that you were ignorant of the facts and swallowed whole what Rome told you.
I have experienced it and I was relieved to get away from it. It was spiritually dead.
It is a blasphemous ritual and cannibalistic. Jesus is kept in the background by the prominence of Mary and the saints, and by making out that a piece of bread is God.
But were never truly a Christian. You did not know Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. You personal Savior is the Roman Catholic church. Renounce it and receive the LORD Jesus Christ as your Savior and we will welcome you back into the true Catholic (universal) church.
But you can judge it for keeping the moral laxity of their pastors under wraps. They should have been immediately exposed (forgive the pun LOL).
But you ignore those very saints when they don't agree with you. I have given a few examples among many of how the early fathers saw the Rock as Peter's statement, or even Christ Himself. There are over forty of them. Why do you then deny what they say? We can learn from the spirituality of some and the gross sin of others. But we do not treat them as in any way inspired, or authoritative. They must be tested by the Scriptures.
I personally do not know anyone who holds that view. We hold our views on Scripture in common with many others and come to satisfactory agreement on what they teach. The early church was on your terms divided into 10,000 denominations, for each church was independent of all others. An it was good when it was so. The deterioration began when they got political power.
LOL we realise that because you have been a physicist you think you are above God. But it is sad if you cannot see the difference between a science which has to grow on the basis of facts (and now of unproven theories), and the knowledge of God which has to be personal and individual to have any worth at all. We have only one place we can turn to find the truth about God, and that is to the Scriptures. In there is all the learning and experience that we need. Not by turning to those whom we can clearly see have erred from the truth of Scripture. The Scriptures are our equivalent of newton, maxwell and Einstein, and any other scientist you care to name.
well the majority of the early fathers seemingly split fine hairs with the Greek (and they were Greek speaking) for they to believed that the Rock (petra) was the statement and confession of Peter, and that the foundation of the church was Jesus Christ.
And no wonder. Let us think for a moment of the situation. Jesus took His disciples to Caesarea Philippi because He wanted to broach one important question, WHO WAS HE? He led His disciples question by question, and then said, 'who do YOU say that I am?' There was no doubt a pregnant pause before Peter (who else?) blurted out, 'YOU ARE THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.'
Such a statement had never been made on earth before. That a man on earth was the Living God. The disciples would have held their breath. Would He confirm it or not? It was also the moment for which Jesus had Himself waited. At last His disciples were beginning to understand. Surely He had to say SOMETHING. Are we really to believe that to the disciples who had heard the most astounding revelation of all time HE MADE NO ANSWER concerning the matter but simply turned all the attention on Peter, ignoring the anticipation of the disciples? It is absurd.
Of course He made answer. 'You are petros, and on THIS PETRA (this truth that you have proclaimed ABOUT ME), I will build My congregation. The context DEMANDS this explanation. The other Gospel writers saw this and omitted reference to Peter that all the glory might be on Christ. It was Jesus way of accepting what Peter had said and making clear to the disciples that what Peter had said was TRUE.
It is inconceivable that having led His disciples up to this amazing revelation and realising how astounded they must be, He should ignore them and turn all His attention on Peter. It was the words of Jesus that had to be rammed home, not the future of Peter.
I am glad you had the honesty not to claim that it was through the study of Scripture. But nothing in early church history, the early fathers (apart from Rome itself) or about the origin of Scripture in the 1st century AD points to Rome. It is all in your imagination and the lies about history of many in the Roman Catholic church. The truth is that you were ignorant of the facts and swallowed whole what Rome told you.
I have experienced it and I was relieved to get away from it. It was spiritually dead.
Mwc68 how can you say you are a brother in Christ when you follow and Worship Mary as your god?
How can you say you are a brother in Christ when you teach the lie that Mary was sinless?
How can you be a brother in Christ when you teach only the Catholic Church has the Truth and reject all the Truths from the Holy Spirit?
You mwc68 cannot call yourself a brother in Christ. Everything you teach is from a church the Catholic Church. Nothing you teach is from the Holy Spirit.
Do you not know that it is Jesus Christ AND the Holy Spirit that we are to follow? We are NOT to follow a church here on this World. We are to follow Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit doing the Will of the Father. Teaching that Mary was sinless is NOT doing the Will of the Father.
Matthew 7:21-23
[SUP]21 [/SUP] "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
[SUP]23 [/SUP] And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
This is what will happen to you mwc68 if you keep on doing the will of the Catholic Church!
Its interesting that Jesus says these false Christians will have the power to cast out Demons. The Catholic Church claims it casts out Demons. This proves the Catholic Church practices lawlessness!
How can you say you are a brother in Christ when you teach the lie that Mary was sinless?
How can you be a brother in Christ when you teach only the Catholic Church has the Truth and reject all the Truths from the Holy Spirit?
You mwc68 cannot call yourself a brother in Christ. Everything you teach is from a church the Catholic Church. Nothing you teach is from the Holy Spirit.
Do you not know that it is Jesus Christ AND the Holy Spirit that we are to follow? We are NOT to follow a church here on this World. We are to follow Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit doing the Will of the Father. Teaching that Mary was sinless is NOT doing the Will of the Father.
Matthew 7:21-23
[SUP]21 [/SUP] "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
[SUP]23 [/SUP] And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
This is what will happen to you mwc68 if you keep on doing the will of the Catholic Church!
Its interesting that Jesus says these false Christians will have the power to cast out Demons. The Catholic Church claims it casts out Demons. This proves the Catholic Church practices lawlessness!
Why Mikeuk are you so upset over what the Scriptures say? Why are you so upset when other quote from the Scriptures?
Could it be mikeuk that your father is Satan?
No one who has the Indwelling of Jesus and the Holy Spirit can ever call God a liar!
I've seen over and over where KenAllen has shown by Scriptures that Mary was a sinner. But yet i have seen no evidence from you or the other Catholics where in the Scriptures God said Mary was without sin. Never have any of you shown us where in the Scriptures does it say Mary was without sin.
Could it be because ITS NOT IN THE BIBLE that God said Mary was without sin!
I challenge you mikeuk and Tourist and mwc68 to show us where in the Scriptures did God ever say Mary was without sin!
Its not in the Bible, therefore all the Catholics here are lying and calling the Holy Spirit a liar!
Could it be mikeuk that your father is Satan?
No one who has the Indwelling of Jesus and the Holy Spirit can ever call God a liar!
I've seen over and over where KenAllen has shown by Scriptures that Mary was a sinner. But yet i have seen no evidence from you or the other Catholics where in the Scriptures God said Mary was without sin. Never have any of you shown us where in the Scriptures does it say Mary was without sin.
Could it be because ITS NOT IN THE BIBLE that God said Mary was without sin!
I challenge you mikeuk and Tourist and mwc68 to show us where in the Scriptures did God ever say Mary was without sin!
Its not in the Bible, therefore all the Catholics here are lying and calling the Holy Spirit a liar!
M
Don't take it to heart.
I would take it as a complement considering the kind of people who say it. Would you really want friends like Jeff?
With his reasoning, the time to worry if he agrees with you instead!
I would not bother responding to valiant, he is an eccentric: Valiant world has nothing to do with the real one! His idea that rome broke out of the Eastern Church . HOW RIDICULOUS. Even the east - the council of constantinople, which is certainly East of Rome (one of the councils that formalised the nicene creed for example) acknowledged in Canon 3
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 64%, align: center"]
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour AFTER THE BISHOP OF ROME!; because Constantinople is New Rome
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Disaffected easterns who don't like authority have tried to pick nits to say that "honour" is not the same as "authority" And in Valiant you have just the same. But who else screamed heresy about the self declaration of authority by the popes of that time - they were already pointing at "keys of the kingdom" Try to find the mass of ECF that speak out against that, and the silence is DEAFENING!. A few disaffected cuckoos like valiant, but hey, they come with the territory. Make the world more colorful. Happy to believe in opposite things with equal conviction most of such people.
His reasoning is wonderful The "upon this rock" speech HAS to be Greek in his reckoning, it cannot be the language they all actually used, because that is the ONLY way he can even pretend a small crack in what Jesus actually said which was Thou art Peter and upon this Peter I will build my church. And that is what it means in aramaic and the same in Greek unless you twist it. The point is all these people have vivid imagination. They could not care what it means, so long as it does not mean the obvious!
So ignore him!
As for that guy who claims to be ex catholic Ken, he clearly did not ,does not and will never have a clue about what RCC , thinks means or says. Still doesnt. Put both on the ignore list if I were you...
I would take it as a complement considering the kind of people who say it. Would you really want friends like Jeff?
With his reasoning, the time to worry if he agrees with you instead!
I would not bother responding to valiant, he is an eccentric: Valiant world has nothing to do with the real one! His idea that rome broke out of the Eastern Church . HOW RIDICULOUS. Even the east - the council of constantinople, which is certainly East of Rome (one of the councils that formalised the nicene creed for example) acknowledged in Canon 3
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 64%, align: center"]
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour AFTER THE BISHOP OF ROME!; because Constantinople is New Rome
[/TD][/TR]
[/TABLE]
Disaffected easterns who don't like authority have tried to pick nits to say that "honour" is not the same as "authority" And in Valiant you have just the same. But who else screamed heresy about the self declaration of authority by the popes of that time - they were already pointing at "keys of the kingdom" Try to find the mass of ECF that speak out against that, and the silence is DEAFENING!. A few disaffected cuckoos like valiant, but hey, they come with the territory. Make the world more colorful. Happy to believe in opposite things with equal conviction most of such people.
His reasoning is wonderful The "upon this rock" speech HAS to be Greek in his reckoning, it cannot be the language they all actually used, because that is the ONLY way he can even pretend a small crack in what Jesus actually said which was Thou art Peter and upon this Peter I will build my church. And that is what it means in aramaic and the same in Greek unless you twist it. The point is all these people have vivid imagination. They could not care what it means, so long as it does not mean the obvious!
So ignore him!
As for that guy who claims to be ex catholic Ken, he clearly did not ,does not and will never have a clue about what RCC , thinks means or says. Still doesnt. Put both on the ignore list if I were you...
All historians agree that Ignatius had an unhealthy emphasis on the bishopric. He was trying to establish his own importance and prevent heresy. But he chose the wrong way to do it. And he was two generations after Paul and Peter and knew that there was no sole bishop at Rome. Is 110 AD the turn of the 1st century LOL?
Well according to Jesus' words he was wrong. 'Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of Me.' And neither Peter nor Paul said any such thing.
He does not note the real presence. He speaks with vivid imagery, like David in 2 Sam 23.17; like the Psalmists when they spoke of 'eating flesh'; like Jesus in John 6 (which was long before the Lord's supper was established). Like we do when we take the bread and say, 'this is My body which is given for you,' 'this is MY blood of the new covenant which is shed for you'. Any outside would think we were cannibals, but they would be wrong. The language ifs figurative and speaks of something spiritual, and we all recognise the fact just as Ignatius readers did.
well as I have shown you it is NOT. And your 'no doubt' reveals it all. It is just surmise. Young enthusiastic men can get all kinds of strange ideas which time causes them to Modify. But poor Ignatius did not have time.
But Paul was speaking of the people he was writing to. They had received the tradition about Jesus; life and teaching and it had not at that stage been written down. But long before Ignatius it had been written down and it was passed down in writing. THAT was the tradition that Paul was speaking of.
In Paul's day, yes, but not in Ignatius' day. By then the four Gospels had been in writing for many years and were possessed by most churches. No other 'handed down tradition' was accepted by the early church.
why do you? I have shown you what the early Greek fathers said about the Rock. Why do you deny it? We accept the certain teaching of the early church as it is found in the Gospels and the epistles. They are the only source of guaranteed truth.
But they were not taught by the Apostles. And they were not the descendants of the Apostles. They were men who like we do turn to the Scriptures and interpret them for themselves. THEY were sola scriptura.
Yes, the Apostolic church taught directly by the Apostles. But by the time of Ignatius that had died out long before. Ignatius was Ignatius speaking, NOT the church.
He was not the Apostolic church which was what Paul was referring to.
Well according to Jesus' words he was wrong. 'Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of Me.' And neither Peter nor Paul said any such thing.
He does not note the real presence. He speaks with vivid imagery, like David in 2 Sam 23.17; like the Psalmists when they spoke of 'eating flesh'; like Jesus in John 6 (which was long before the Lord's supper was established). Like we do when we take the bread and say, 'this is My body which is given for you,' 'this is MY blood of the new covenant which is shed for you'. Any outside would think we were cannibals, but they would be wrong. The language ifs figurative and speaks of something spiritual, and we all recognise the fact just as Ignatius readers did.
well as I have shown you it is NOT. And your 'no doubt' reveals it all. It is just surmise. Young enthusiastic men can get all kinds of strange ideas which time causes them to Modify. But poor Ignatius did not have time.
But Paul was speaking of the people he was writing to. They had received the tradition about Jesus; life and teaching and it had not at that stage been written down. But long before Ignatius it had been written down and it was passed down in writing. THAT was the tradition that Paul was speaking of.
In Paul's day, yes, but not in Ignatius' day. By then the four Gospels had been in writing for many years and were possessed by most churches. No other 'handed down tradition' was accepted by the early church.
why do you? I have shown you what the early Greek fathers said about the Rock. Why do you deny it? We accept the certain teaching of the early church as it is found in the Gospels and the epistles. They are the only source of guaranteed truth.
But they were not taught by the Apostles. And they were not the descendants of the Apostles. They were men who like we do turn to the Scriptures and interpret them for themselves. THEY were sola scriptura.
Yes, the Apostolic church taught directly by the Apostles. But by the time of Ignatius that had died out long before. Ignatius was Ignatius speaking, NOT the church.
He was not the Apostolic church which was what Paul was referring to.
M
Are you?
Ever since you have appeared on this thread, your posting has been ridicule and contempt so not worthy of answer
All of these questions have been answered numerous times. They are not new. They are not clever. And they are certainly not valid criticisms when first raised, and answered let alone the lack of value in answering them again, because it will be replaced with the next red herring, as people like you always do.
I just tackled yet another one on another thread "because catholics do not believe you are saved by grace" , and I pointed out the myth - but only because the poster was respectful.
If you post offensively, do not expect any to answer. As I have no intention on this. But I should be wary of Ken, much as he may present it so, he knows nothing of catholicism except the myths, he has seemingly never read the catechism and that is why he left. The enemy of your enemy is certainly not your friend.
If you would care to address us with some respect, maybe we might consider answering.
Since you know we do not hold Mary as a God, we are not going to answer any post that supposes it so.
We hold scripture in utmost reverence. But perhaps you would like to reflect on the question "where in the bible does it say it has to be in the bible to be true?" And also the fact that the faith of the early church was passed down by tradition , paradosis. The first canon , Marcions declared heretical! The one you accept was established by a catholic council and Luther gives credit for that. So scripture may be the word of God , it is not the only truth.
Ever since you have appeared on this thread, your posting has been ridicule and contempt so not worthy of answer
All of these questions have been answered numerous times. They are not new. They are not clever. And they are certainly not valid criticisms when first raised, and answered let alone the lack of value in answering them again, because it will be replaced with the next red herring, as people like you always do.
I just tackled yet another one on another thread "because catholics do not believe you are saved by grace" , and I pointed out the myth - but only because the poster was respectful.
If you post offensively, do not expect any to answer. As I have no intention on this. But I should be wary of Ken, much as he may present it so, he knows nothing of catholicism except the myths, he has seemingly never read the catechism and that is why he left. The enemy of your enemy is certainly not your friend.
If you would care to address us with some respect, maybe we might consider answering.
Since you know we do not hold Mary as a God, we are not going to answer any post that supposes it so.
We hold scripture in utmost reverence. But perhaps you would like to reflect on the question "where in the bible does it say it has to be in the bible to be true?" And also the fact that the faith of the early church was passed down by tradition , paradosis. The first canon , Marcions declared heretical! The one you accept was established by a catholic council and Luther gives credit for that. So scripture may be the word of God , it is not the only truth.
Last edited:
So you think the Encyclopaedia Britannica is ridiculous, to say nothing of Abbe Guette? It figures. Everyone is wrong but you LOL
True as you have seen LOL
IT IS NOT THE SAME. The Eastern church never genuinely accepted the authority of the Pope.
the Celtic church? The Russian church? The Eastern Orthodox church? The other Orthodox churches? Need I go on?
A bit late after 700 AD. The early fathers did not see Rome as having the keys.
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven...(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).
Inconvenient these early fathers, aren't they?
well it would be. THEY DID NOT KNOW ABOUT ANY PAPACY. It did not exist in their time. They were not prophets.
Lets see what a Roman Catholic historian says about it shall we?
Dollinger taught Church history as a Roman Catholic for 47 years in the 19th century and was one of the greatest and most influential historians in the Church of his day. He sums up the Eastern and Western understanding of Matthew 16 in the patristic period:
I wonder if Dollinger KNEW he was a cuckoo? And did the early fathers know that they were? Dollinger should have known. Anyone who is in the Roman Catholic church is cuckoo.
well the majority of the early fathers seemingly split fine hairs with the Greek (and they were Greek speaking) for they too believed that the Rock (petra) was the statement and confession of Peter, and that the foundation of the church was Jesus Christ.
And no wonder. Let us think for a moment of the situation. Jesus took His disciples to Caesarea Philippi because He wanted to broach one important question, WHO WAS HE? He led His disciples question by question, and then said, 'who do YOU say that I am?' There was no doubt a pregnant pause before Peter (who else?) blurted out, 'YOU ARE THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.'
Such a statement had never been made on earth before. That a man on earth was the Living God. The disciples would have held their breath. Would He confirm it or not? It was also the moment for which Jesus had Himself waited. At last His disciples were beginning to understand. Surely He had to say SOMETHING. Are we really to believe that to the disciples who had heard the most astounding revelation of all time HE MADE NO ANSWER concerning the matter but simply turned all the attention on Peter, ignoring the anticipation of the disciples? It is absurd.
Of course He made answer. 'You are petros, and on THIS PETRA (this truth that you have proclaimed ABOUT ME), I will build My congregation. The context DEMANDS this explanation. The other Gospel writers saw this and omitted reference to Peter that all the glory might be on Christ. It was Jesus way of accepting what Peter had said and making clear to the disciples that what Peter had said was TRUE.
It is inconceivable that having led His disciples up to this amazing revelation and realising how astounded they must be, He should ignore them and turn all His attention on Peter. It was the words of Jesus that had to be rammed home, not the future of Peter.
The Papacy was not organized until the second half of the 8th century. It broke away from the Eastern Church under Pippin III (in the Ency. Brit., 13th Ed., vol. 21, page 636; and see also The Papacy, by Abbe Guette."
True as you have seen LOL
IT IS NOT THE SAME. The Eastern church never genuinely accepted the authority of the Pope.
the Celtic church? The Russian church? The Eastern Orthodox church? The other Orthodox churches? Need I go on?
A bit late after 700 AD. The early fathers did not see Rome as having the keys.
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven...(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).
Inconvenient these early fathers, aren't they?
well it would be. THEY DID NOT KNOW ABOUT ANY PAPACY. It did not exist in their time. They were not prophets.
Lets see what a Roman Catholic historian says about it shall we?
Dollinger taught Church history as a Roman Catholic for 47 years in the 19th century and was one of the greatest and most influential historians in the Church of his day. He sums up the Eastern and Western understanding of Matthew 16 in the patristic period:
In the first three centuries, St. Irenaeus is the only writer who connects the superiority of the Roman Church with doctrine; but he places this superiority, rightly understood, only in its antiquity, its double apostolical origin, and in the circumstance of the pure tradition being guarded and maintained there through the constant concourse of the faithful from all countries. Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, know nothing of special Papal prerogative, or of any higher or supreme right of deciding in matter of doctrine. In the writings of the Greek doctors, Eusebius, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, the two Gregories, and St. Epiphanius, there is not one word of any prerogatives of the Roman bishop. The most copious of the Greek Fathers, St. Chrysostom, is wholly silent on the subject, and so are the two Cyrils; equally silent are the Latins, Hilary, Pacian, Zeno, Lucifer, Sulpicius, and St. Ambrose.
St. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all the other Fathers put together. Yet, from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence, in one letter, can be quoted, where he says that the principality of the Apostolic Chair has always been in Rome—which could, of course, be said then with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable...that in these seventy–five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the Church, but of the Papal Chair, as one of them, he says not a word.
We have a copious literature on the Christian sects and heresies of the first six centuries—Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, St. Augustine, and, later, Leontius and Timotheus—have left us accounts of them to the number of eighty, but not a single one is reproached with rejecting the Pope’s authority in matters of faith.
All this is intelligible enough, if we look at the patristic interpretation of the words of Christ to St. Peter. Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt. xvi.18, John xxi.17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess—Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas—has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation–stones of the Church (Apoc. xxi.14). The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as—what is obvious to any one at first sight—they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74).
St. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all the other Fathers put together. Yet, from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence, in one letter, can be quoted, where he says that the principality of the Apostolic Chair has always been in Rome—which could, of course, be said then with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable...that in these seventy–five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the Church, but of the Papal Chair, as one of them, he says not a word.
We have a copious literature on the Christian sects and heresies of the first six centuries—Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, St. Augustine, and, later, Leontius and Timotheus—have left us accounts of them to the number of eighty, but not a single one is reproached with rejecting the Pope’s authority in matters of faith.
All this is intelligible enough, if we look at the patristic interpretation of the words of Christ to St. Peter. Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt. xvi.18, John xxi.17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess—Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas—has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation–stones of the Church (Apoc. xxi.14). The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as—what is obvious to any one at first sight—they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74).
I wonder if Dollinger KNEW he was a cuckoo? And did the early fathers know that they were? Dollinger should have known. Anyone who is in the Roman Catholic church is cuckoo.
well the majority of the early fathers seemingly split fine hairs with the Greek (and they were Greek speaking) for they too believed that the Rock (petra) was the statement and confession of Peter, and that the foundation of the church was Jesus Christ.
And no wonder. Let us think for a moment of the situation. Jesus took His disciples to Caesarea Philippi because He wanted to broach one important question, WHO WAS HE? He led His disciples question by question, and then said, 'who do YOU say that I am?' There was no doubt a pregnant pause before Peter (who else?) blurted out, 'YOU ARE THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.'
Such a statement had never been made on earth before. That a man on earth was the Living God. The disciples would have held their breath. Would He confirm it or not? It was also the moment for which Jesus had Himself waited. At last His disciples were beginning to understand. Surely He had to say SOMETHING. Are we really to believe that to the disciples who had heard the most astounding revelation of all time HE MADE NO ANSWER concerning the matter but simply turned all the attention on Peter, ignoring the anticipation of the disciples? It is absurd.
Of course He made answer. 'You are petros, and on THIS PETRA (this truth that you have proclaimed ABOUT ME), I will build My congregation. The context DEMANDS this explanation. The other Gospel writers saw this and omitted reference to Peter that all the glory might be on Christ. It was Jesus way of accepting what Peter had said and making clear to the disciples that what Peter had said was TRUE.
It is inconceivable that having led His disciples up to this amazing revelation and realising how astounded they must be, He should ignore them and turn all His attention on Peter. It was the words of Jesus that had to be rammed home, not the future of Peter.
Last edited:
M
You notice. The only bit of my post - aimed at you not he - so why is he answering?
The only bit that valiant does not quote or copy is this.
The view of the eastern church of the time canon3. constaninople, 382!
Basically the view of the same people that ratified the new testament and the nicene creed.
They think..
[TABLE="class: cms_table, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 64%, align: center"]
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour AFTER THE BISHOP OF ROME!; because Constantinople is New Rome
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
He does not echo it, because it is rather embarassing for valiant world, because it admits primacy of Rome
. But heh, let him say 2+2=5. the world is a more colourful place because of just such.
Just ignore...
The only bit that valiant does not quote or copy is this.
The view of the eastern church of the time canon3. constaninople, 382!
Basically the view of the same people that ratified the new testament and the nicene creed.
They think..
[TABLE="class: cms_table, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 64%, align: center"]
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour AFTER THE BISHOP OF ROME!; because Constantinople is New Rome
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
He does not echo it, because it is rather embarassing for valiant world, because it admits primacy of Rome
. But heh, let him say 2+2=5. the world is a more colourful place because of just such.
Just ignore...
Mikeuk how can you say The church exhorts study of scripture and in study of scripture when the Catholic Church ignores what the Holy Spirit says in the Scriptures?
Clearly in the Scriptures the Holy Spirit said Mary was a sinner, but yet the Catholic Church teaches Mary was without sin.
So the question here is who is lying? We all know its impossible for God to lie! Therefore its the Catholics who are lying.
The reason i keep asking this is because the Doctrine of Mary being sinless is the foundation of the Catholic Church! The Catholic Church has built their foundation on Mary and not on Jesus Christ.
This is why the Catholics have given so much power to Mary. Mary is their god and foundation, not Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is why the Catholics do not like it when i quote from the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures because the Holy Spirit shines a light on their lies.
You can hate all you want mikeuk that i quote from the Scriptures, but the Truth in the Scriptures will be your downfall.
Clearly in the Scriptures the Holy Spirit said Mary was a sinner, but yet the Catholic Church teaches Mary was without sin.
So the question here is who is lying? We all know its impossible for God to lie! Therefore its the Catholics who are lying.
The reason i keep asking this is because the Doctrine of Mary being sinless is the foundation of the Catholic Church! The Catholic Church has built their foundation on Mary and not on Jesus Christ.
This is why the Catholics have given so much power to Mary. Mary is their god and foundation, not Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is why the Catholics do not like it when i quote from the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures because the Holy Spirit shines a light on their lies.
You can hate all you want mikeuk that i quote from the Scriptures, but the Truth in the Scriptures will be your downfall.
Colossians 2:8
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
What you have mikeuk is the traditions of men not the traditions of God. You try to deceive us through your traditions of men.
"not the silly proof texting" So you are calling the Scriptures silly mikeuk?
The Scriptures are a stumbling block to you mikeuk because your eyes are blinded and you walk in darkness.
Traditions are to be according to Jesus Christ and the Truth from Him and not fairy tales from the Catholics who walk in darkness.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
What you have mikeuk is the traditions of men not the traditions of God. You try to deceive us through your traditions of men.
"not the silly proof texting" So you are calling the Scriptures silly mikeuk?
The Scriptures are a stumbling block to you mikeuk because your eyes are blinded and you walk in darkness.
Traditions are to be according to Jesus Christ and the Truth from Him and not fairy tales from the Catholics who walk in darkness.
Only first in HONOUR not first in authority.
And the Bishop of Constantinople was looking for honour himself, that's why he said it
But this is happened far too late to have any significance.
Jesus said, do not seek for honour. seek to be the lowest.
Just echoed it lol. It got left out by accident. It says nothing about the primacy of Rome with regard to authority. It just agrees that the Roman church was the biggest church being in the largest city.
And the Bishop of Constantinople was looking for honour himself, that's why he said it
But this is happened far too late to have any significance.
Jesus said, do not seek for honour. seek to be the lowest.
Just echoed it lol. It got left out by accident. It says nothing about the primacy of Rome with regard to authority. It just agrees that the Roman church was the biggest church being in the largest city.
Last edited:
you mean like this?
The Creed of pope Pius IV, an official creed of the Roman Catholic Church says, "I profess that in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice (that is, a sacrifice which satisfies the justice of God and so offsets the penalty for sin) for the living and for the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation."
The Council of Trent declared: "The sacrifice (in the Mass) is identical with the sacrifice of the Cross, inasmuch as Jesus Christ is a priest and victim both. The only difference lies in the manner of the offering, which is bloody upon the cross and bloodless on our altars"; and, in Canon I stated: "Whosoever shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and consequently Christ entire, but shall affirm that he is present therein only in a sign and figure, or by his power, let him be accursed.,,
The Creed of pope Pius IV, an official creed of the Roman Catholic Church says, "I profess that in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice (that is, a sacrifice which satisfies the justice of God and so offsets the penalty for sin) for the living and for the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation."
The Council of Trent declared: "The sacrifice (in the Mass) is identical with the sacrifice of the Cross, inasmuch as Jesus Christ is a priest and victim both. The only difference lies in the manner of the offering, which is bloody upon the cross and bloodless on our altars"; and, in Canon I stated: "Whosoever shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and consequently Christ entire, but shall affirm that he is present therein only in a sign and figure, or by his power, let him be accursed.,,