Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[notuptome]

LOL I totally understand the difference between sanctified and made perfect as in without sin. But how does "kecharitomene" imply sanctification and not perfection and sinlessness?

I will quote, and please actually look at it:

"'Kecharitomene' is a perfect passive participle of "charitoo" [charitoo (verb) comes from the same Greek root of “charis” - which means “grace” and charitoó means to fill or endow with grace] or in other words: "Hail, one who has always been full of grace."
"Kecharitomene" is the perfect passive participle tense of the verb meaning "to fill with grace," Because it is in the perfect participle tense, it means that Mary was already filled with grace and there is no room for sin in her before the Annunciation, the implication being that she was the immaculate!"

You think that you can understand Greek better than scholars? This is not something that Catholics made up. This is factual, and I don't think that anyone who speaks Greek would agree with you in what you just said. I am not going to debate so much with you on this, because it is a waste of my time and yours. But if you are actually interested in learning about the Catholic teachings on Mary, and how it is ROOTED in Scripture, go to this webpage: http://prophecyfilm.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-bible-proves-teachings-of-catholic.html#virgin-mary

Thank you and God Bless!

So you are just here to pontificate. You have no interest in learning as you consider yourself to be more knowledgeable than the common folks.

So when does sanctification have it completion? When is salvation completed? How does the RCC teach assurance of salvation? Can someone in the RCC have assurance of salvation?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[JesusIsAll]

There was this PBS series I recorded, "Wolf Hall." It's primarily about Thomas Cromwell, but it has the Thomas More story in it. More tortures people, branded as heretics, which you won't find in that movie "A Man for All Seasons." In "Wolf Hall," More tortures this poor man so badly, he has to be carried in a chair to be burned at the stake. Not taking any drama as being historically correct, there is this found of More, on Wiki, and so much for a "Man for All Seasons." One must ask what sort of religion fosters all the Satanic, heinous crimes committed by Catholicism, down the ages, who can do such things, but the very evil. It seems More likely less deserved even the mercy of only having his head, parted from his body, when he would torture and burn others.

Stories of a similar nature were current even in More's lifetime and he denied them forcefully. He admitted that he did imprison heretics in his house – 'theyr sure kepynge' – he called it – but he utterly rejected claims of torture and whipping... 'so helpe me God.'

However, in More's "Apology," published in 1533, he writes that he only applied corporal punishment to two heretics ['so helpe me God.']: a child who was caned in front of his family for heresy regarding the Eucharist and a "feeble-minded" man who was whipped for disrupting prayers. During More's chancellorship six people were burned at the stake for heresy; they were Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney, Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbery, Thomas Dusgate, and James Bainham. Moynahan has argued that More was influential in the burning of Tyndale as More's agents had long pursued him, even though this took place over a year after his own death. Burning at the stake had long been a standard punishment for heresy—about thirty burnings had taken place in the century before More's elevation to Chancellor, and burning continued to be used by both Catholics and Protestants during the religious upheaval of the following decades. Ackroyd notes that More explicitly "approved of Burning". After the case of John Tewkesbury, a London leather-seller found guilty by the Bishop of London, John Stokesley, of harbouring banned books and sentenced to burning for refusing to recant, More declared: he "burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy."

"Man for All Seasons?" Yeah. Uh huh. Needs to be re-released as "Monster for All Seasons."

 

[valiant]

There was this PBS series I recorded, "Wolf Hall." It's primarily about Thomas Cromwell, but it has the Thomas More story in it. More tortures people, branded as heretics, which you won't find in that movie "A Man for All Seasons." In "Wolf Hall," More tortures this poor man so badly, he has to be carried in a chair to be burned at the stake. Not taking any drama as being historically correct, there is this found of More, on Wiki, and so much for a "Man for All Seasons." One must ask what sort of religion fosters all the Satanic, heinous crimes committed by Catholicism, down the ages, who can do such things, but the very evil. It seems More likely less deserved even the mercy of only having his head, parted from his body, when he would torture and burn others.

Stories of a similar nature were current even in More's lifetime and he denied them forcefully. He admitted that he did imprison heretics in his house – 'theyr sure kepynge' – he called it – but he utterly rejected claims of torture and whipping... 'so helpe me God.'

However, in More's "Apology," published in 1533, he writes that he only applied corporal punishment to two heretics ['so helpe me God.']: a child who was caned in front of his family for heresy regarding the Eucharist and a "feeble-minded" man who was whipped for disrupting prayers. During More's chancellorship six people were burned at the stake for heresy; they were Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney, Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbery, Thomas Dusgate, and James Bainham. Moynahan has argued that More was influential in the burning of Tyndale as More's agents had long pursued him, even though this took place over a year after his own death. Burning at the stake had long been a standard punishment for heresy—about thirty burnings had taken place in the century before More's elevation to Chancellor, and burning continued to be used by both Catholics and Protestants during the religious upheaval of the following decades. Ackroyd notes that More explicitly "approved of Burning". After the case of John Tewkesbury, a London leather-seller found guilty by the Bishop of London, John Stokesley, of harbouring banned books and sentenced to burning for refusing to recant, More declared: he "burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy."

"Man for All Seasons?" Yeah. Uh huh. Needs to be re-released as "Monster for All Seasons."

Well he had to qualify as a Roman Catholic saint somehow. And after the sainted monsters of the previous seven hundred years it took some doing.

 

[JesusIsAll]

Well he had to qualify as a Roman Catholic saint somehow. And after the sainted monsters of the previous seven hundred years it took some doing.

It does seem More had a pretty low torture-murder count, to be made a saint of the Roman cult.

 

[mwc68]

So you are just here to pontificate. You have no interest in learning as you consider yourself to be more knowledgeable than the common folks.

So when does sanctification have it completion? When is salvation completed? How does the RCC teach assurance of salvation? Can someone in the RCC have assurance of salvation?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Nobody can learn anything from you except how to call people heretics when you have no idea what they or Catholicism is about

 

[mwc68]

So you are just here to pontificate. You have no interest in learning as you consider yourself to be more knowledgeable than the common folks.

So when does sanctification have it completion? When is salvation completed? How does the RCC teach assurance of salvation? Can someone in the RCC have assurance of salvation?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

The bible tells me I have assurance of Salvation as long as I remain in him. Not like your heretical OSAS, which is nowhere in the bible

 

[notuptome]

The bible tells me I have assurance of Salvation as long as I remain in him. Not like your heretical OSAS, which is nowhere in the bible

Really? If God does the saving and He does who can snatch me from the hand of God?

How do you remain in Him? How do you get in Him in the first place?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[mwc68]

Really? If God does the saving and He does who can snatch me from the hand of God?

How do you remain in Him? How do you get in Him in the first place?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

For starters come out of your heresy

 

[mwc68]

A lot of you seem to forget that the bible is a catholic book. If not for catholicism, you would not have the book you worship above God

 

[notuptome]

Nobody can learn anything from you except how to call people heretics when you have no idea what they or Catholicism is about

Well I know a few catholics. Half the family tree is full of them. Most are catholic in name only and attend for weddings, funerals, and holidays. They have found it the men at least to be an empty religion.

You catholics will not address the questions of how to be saved because you don't have a firm answer. How much grace must be infused through the sacraments before one is saved? How can on be certain they have received sufficient sacraments to be saved?

I mean really saved going right into heaven. Not spending untold eons in purgatory burning for all the little lies told or the fudging on the taxes.

If you happened upon a man who was about to die and he asked you to help him avoid hell what would tell him? Perhaps he only has minutes to live and there is no one else around. How would tell him to be saved and enter into eternal life with Christ? Or would you just avoid him and let him perish?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

For starters come out of your heresy

Yeah that's helpful.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

A lot of you seem to forget that the bible is a catholic book. If not for catholicism, you would not have the book you worship above God

Not in the market for red herrings, thanks anyway.

You do know that the bible was written by Jewish men not catholics?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[mwc68]

Not in the market for red herrings, thanks anyway.

You do know that the bible was written by Jewish men not catholics?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

why yes i do know that, and the council of Nicea(spelling?), a Catholic council, gave us the current bible. Now that bible has seven books that were taken out. I think its so funny to hear people say they have read the whole bible and then they tell me its the KJV. Sorry, that's not the whole bible. Some doctrine is based on these books and leads me to believe that the protestants are the cafeteria types. Take out what you dont like and make up the rest, ie OSAS which is nowhere in the bible. Ya'll have turned this into a doctrine that ,imo, is a doctrine of demons

 

[valiant]

A lot of you seem to forget that the bible is a catholic book. If not for catholicism, you would not have the book you worship above God

No the Bible was written before there was a Catholic church, and 700 years before there was a Roman Catholic church. It was finalised in 1st century AD. Peter recognised Paul's letters as Scripture, which demonstrates that they had been gathered as such before 70 AD. Paul called Luke's Gospel Scripture. (1 Tim 5.18 with Luke 10.7). So the Gospels were also apparently seen as Scripture immediately and 'worshiped above God' by the Apostles. Thus we needed neither the Catholic church nor the traditionists..

As for your jibe it is unworthy of you. By it you condemn the Apostles, and incidentally Mary who also saw it as Scripture.

 

[valiant]

why yes i do know that, and the council of Nicea(spelling?), a Catholic council, gave us the current bible. Now that bible has seven books that were taken out. I think its so funny to hear people say they have read the whole bible and then they tell me its the KJV. Sorry, that's not the whole bible. Some doctrine is based on these books and leads me to believe that the protestants are the cafeteria types.

As you will realise our problem is that we listen to Jesus rather than the Pope. It was Jesus who excluded the seven books from the Jewish canon. Who are we to argue with Him?

The Council of Nicea did not give us the current Bible. Even your basic historical facts are wrong.


In fact of course GOD gave us the current Bible, having shown us through Jesus that we had to leave out the apocrypha. Jesus confirmed the OT canon. The church treated the first three Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters and Peter's letters as Scripture before 70 AD (see above post). John's Gospel and letters followed soon afterwards.

All the council did was AGREE their apostolic authorship. The doubts were in the later church, not the early church. The early church KNEW who had written what.

 

[Jeff_56]

no, it's not unworthy of him. he's completely deceived and God has given him over to believe his own delusions along with and in the heresy. he loves his parish, like the scribes and pharisees loved the approval of man, and like them when they refused to follow jesus, he refuses to follow jesus too.

 

[valiant]

Take out what you dont like and make up the rest, ie OSAS which is nowhere in the bible. Ya'll have turned this into a doctrine that ,imo, is a doctrine of demons

well you know all about the doctrine of demons. Your church invented them. As for eternal security it was JESUS Who taught us that. It is in fact everywhere in the Bible. From beginning to end the Bible emphasises the sovereignty of God in salvation. He did not leave it to chance.

'And this is the will of Him Who sent Me, that of ALL whom He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise them up at the last day.' (John 6.39). He made it pretty clear really.

 

[notuptome]

why yes i do know that, and the council of Nicea(spelling?), a Catholic council, gave us the current bible. Now that bible has seven books that were taken out. I think its so funny to hear people say they have read the whole bible and then they tell me its the KJV. Sorry, that's not the whole bible. Some doctrine is based on these books and leads me to believe that the protestants are the cafeteria types. Take out what you dont like and make up the rest, ie OSAS which is nowhere in the bible. Ya'll have turned this into a doctrine that ,imo, is a doctrine of demons

Whatever you are still avoiding the question. How do you help someone who is dying with only minutes to live to be saved and inherit eternal life? How much grace must be infused to assure salvation? You cannot just tell the man to eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood for there is no time.

When the rubber hits the road you have nothing. You are all hat and no cattle. Clouds with no rain.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[MikeHenderson]

John 5:23-24
[SUP]24 [/SUP] "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

If we believe in God and hear the Words of Jesus Christ we have Eternal life. Eternal means forever never ending. As long as you continue to believe in Jesus Christ as His Words you will continue to have Salvation.

How can one change their mind that Jesus Christ is God? How can one suddenly realize that Jesus Christ is not God? Once you have lost the Faith that Jesus Christ is God and you no longer believe in His Words you will lose your Salvation.

Now the problem is once you have done this you can never receive Salvation again!

Hebrews 6:3-6
[SUP]3 [/SUP] And this we shall do, if God permits.
[SUP]4 [/SUP] For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
[SUP]5 [/SUP] and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
[SUP]6 [/SUP] and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.

Once you have lost your Salvation God will never allow you to receive it again. Its gone for good, its gone forever!

Therefore mwc68 if you HAVE lost your Salvation you are doomed to spend Eternity in the Lake of Fire. You can never receive it again after you have thrown it away!

Even if you lost it be accident you can never receive it again!

 

[MikeHenderson]

Mwc68 how can you say the Bible is a Roman Catholic Book?

Romans 3:9-12
[SUP]9 [/SUP]for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
[SUP]10 [/SUP] as it is written, " THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
[SUP]12 [/SUP] ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

Romans 3:23
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

If you ARE saying the Bible is from the Roman Catholic Church then why is the Bible saying Mary was a sinner? Truly if the Bible was from the Roman Catholic Church then the Bible would have said Mary was sinless. But since the Bible clearly states that Mary was a sinner proves the Bible is NOT a Roman Catholic Book!


The Bible is from the Holy Spirit and was written by the Holy Spirit!

Mwc68 if you truly believe the Bible is from the Roman Catholic Church why then do you ignore the Truth in it from the Holy Spirit to teach lies from the Roman Catholic Church? The very fact that your Church teaches Mary was sinless proves the Bible came from God and not from the Roman Catholic Church.