I am as we speak posing a very challenging question for the Catholics on that forum. I have heard how they believe Mary was sinless and I asked about this I showed scripture saying how no one is without sin and they agree that we are to test our beliefs with scripture so I asked them to prove their belief of Mary being sinless with the word of God other wise I can only see it as a man made belief, now if they cannot provide such scripture then that is one truth that may even open their own eyes
I want to understand the Catholic faith so....
- Thread starter Blain
- 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.
- Status
There is no Scripture to uphold their man made traditions, which they elevate above the Word of God. Jesus did not elevate Mary in any way at all, but they do in many ways, and in fact, they cannot even rightfully call themselves Catholic if they do not accept the ex cathedra dogmas, both of which concern Mary, neither of which has any Scriptural backing whatsoever. Have you not read any of the posts on this? If you had, you would know this already.
If a document on ones belief (like I posted in 177) is not clear, when compared to Scripture then we are all living in a La La world where there are no absolutes, but just a dreamy, foggy, ephemereal, " let's all get along because it doesn't matter what you believe" type world of Ecumenical slop, and the martyrs who spilt their blood over their biblical convictons were all mistaken.
Besides the obvious straw men, which have been already pointed out you completely ignored my questions about soteriology which I began in post #6 concerning how you are saved.
The RCC says that you are saved by rites and rituals, which includes masses said for dead souls in purgatory. (Are the souls dead? Hard to say what tortured ghosts should be called!) The RCC also puts justification after sanctification, meaning a Catholic can never know in this life if they are saved.
So if you want an example, I will give you one. My grandmother was French, and lived near enough the front line in WWI to hear the guns going off all day and all night. (Northern France). There was almost no food at that time. Ma Grandmère said the priests during that time actually went door to door demanding money for masses for the dead. They said that the loved ones of these people were being tortured in purgatory, and the children could starve. My grandmother totally turned away from God, watching daily as the priests did this to the people, who were already living in fear of dying from being shelled, or having to flee for their lives.
So why didn't the Vatican sell its golden doors and feed the Catholic children during that war? Why was this ugly and despicable practice allowed to continue?
From this century, another example. My uncle was a devote Catholic, totally relying on the church for his salvation. When he died, the priest lauded his dedication to the church, including his prayer ministry of praying for priests, since no one was going into the priesthood anymore. But the order of service for his mass (of the dead??) was rewritten by a close Lutheran friend of the family, and my uncle's son, who was Baptist. When they came to the part about prayers for my dead uncle, it was missing. So the priest added it back and was railing about my uncle's "unconfessed" sins that were going to keep him in purgatory longer, if we didn't pray for him. Not a soul made a peep, and we continued with the service, which only had scripture from the true canon, and a lot of lovely Protestant hymns.
So even within the Catholic church that day, the gospel ended up being preached and the lies about purgatory were rebuked.
So show me in the Bible where this horrific nightmare of bondage to priests for salvation, bondage to sacraments to become saved, and bondage to works is found. AND NEVER knowing if you are saved till after you die. It doesn't get more unbiblical than that!
The RCC says that you are saved by rites and rituals, which includes masses said for dead souls in purgatory. (Are the souls dead? Hard to say what tortured ghosts should be called!) The RCC also puts justification after sanctification, meaning a Catholic can never know in this life if they are saved.
So if you want an example, I will give you one. My grandmother was French, and lived near enough the front line in WWI to hear the guns going off all day and all night. (Northern France). There was almost no food at that time. Ma Grandmère said the priests during that time actually went door to door demanding money for masses for the dead. They said that the loved ones of these people were being tortured in purgatory, and the children could starve. My grandmother totally turned away from God, watching daily as the priests did this to the people, who were already living in fear of dying from being shelled, or having to flee for their lives.
So why didn't the Vatican sell its golden doors and feed the Catholic children during that war? Why was this ugly and despicable practice allowed to continue?
From this century, another example. My uncle was a devote Catholic, totally relying on the church for his salvation. When he died, the priest lauded his dedication to the church, including his prayer ministry of praying for priests, since no one was going into the priesthood anymore. But the order of service for his mass (of the dead??) was rewritten by a close Lutheran friend of the family, and my uncle's son, who was Baptist. When they came to the part about prayers for my dead uncle, it was missing. So the priest added it back and was railing about my uncle's "unconfessed" sins that were going to keep him in purgatory longer, if we didn't pray for him. Not a soul made a peep, and we continued with the service, which only had scripture from the true canon, and a lot of lovely Protestant hymns.
So even within the Catholic church that day, the gospel ended up being preached and the lies about purgatory were rebuked.
So show me in the Bible where this horrific nightmare of bondage to priests for salvation, bondage to sacraments to become saved, and bondage to works is found. AND NEVER knowing if you are saved till after you die. It doesn't get more unbiblical than that!
This is a beauty which anathematizes most of us...and we are the attackers?
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.
Many of our Christian beliefs are not solid with scripture either we lean so much on our own interpretations and views of scriptures and doctrines as I am sure you have seen all over the bdf,. yes even I can see that the Catholic faith does things that are not biblical that are not the truth but in all honest we Christians are not innocent in this either. Even if say the Catholics are complete heresy and pagan they are still wanted by God very badly so if God's light and love and heart can shine through me on there then perhaps it was God who lead me to them
I would never deny your last sentence.
Whatever Scripture we understand, it will be our interpretation. The thing is hopefully our interpretation will accord with the Truth of Scripture. What worries me is when I see our sword becoming a blunt edge through this ecumenical mish mash of today.
Whatever Scripture we understand, it will be our interpretation. The thing is hopefully our interpretation will accord with the Truth of Scripture. What worries me is when I see our sword becoming a blunt edge through this ecumenical mish mash of today.
Last edited:
There are many sources, I have looked into it a number of times over the course of years, so to name just one now would be impossible, but if you look to Catholicism itself, how they define it, ex cathedra means when the pope speaks "infallibly," which they have also defined, and to speak such he is in effect proclaiming dogma/doctrine that his followers are obliged to accept, because they essentially claim he cannot be wrong in making such a proclamation.
Ex cathedra is a Latin phrase which means "from the chair." It refers to binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world. http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-does-the-term-ex-cathedra-mean-and-where-did-the-catholic-church-come-up-with-it
or
Ex Cathedra, literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesia Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/ex-cathedra
Care to read up on infallibility?
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Infallibility
This site teaches fairly thoroughly on Roman Catholic errors:
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-doctrine.htm
Ex cathedra is a Latin phrase which means "from the chair." It refers to binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world. http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-does-the-term-ex-cathedra-mean-and-where-did-the-catholic-church-come-up-with-it
or
Ex Cathedra, literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesia Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/ex-cathedra
Care to read up on infallibility?
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Infallibility
This site teaches fairly thoroughly on Roman Catholic errors:
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-doctrine.htm
Actually He did not. He spoke to them as 'YOU', which means not a church but those assembled at His appearing. The church is not a 'thing'. It is all the people who truly believe in Jesus Christ for salvation regardless of denomination..
NO
if by that you mean who had settled rituals the answer is NO. There were of course those who truly believed and accepted justification by faith alone, full faith in The Scriptures, and response to Apostolic teaching (as no found in the New Testament), and were thus true Christians,but they had no separate priesthood, no identical ritual, and no acknowledgement of any head of the church other than Christ.
In your terms NO
If by apostate you mean the Roman Catholic church formed in 8th century AD then He was certainly not with that church, although having dealings with those minority in it who truly believed.
NO
if by that you mean who had settled rituals the answer is NO. There were of course those who truly believed and accepted justification by faith alone, full faith in The Scriptures, and response to Apostolic teaching (as no found in the New Testament), and were thus true Christians,but they had no separate priesthood, no identical ritual, and no acknowledgement of any head of the church other than Christ.
In your terms NO
If by apostate you mean the Roman Catholic church formed in 8th century AD then He was certainly not with that church, although having dealings with those minority in it who truly believed.
A
Oh, I know they have doctrine. It would probably take a year to read it all. They just don't require a knowledge of it or acceptance of it, even for those set up to teach the people about what Catholicism is. Big difference.
I was never taught canon. Well, I was taught there was a canon but not what it was or who decided it. Neither were the priest and nuns.
I was taught disobeying the sixth commandment (Catholic version), meant I needed to brush my teeth in the morning and before I went to bed, and to take a bath every other night, making sure Saturday night was one of those nights. (Apparently, God was offended by BO.) How was I taught that? Don't you know the sixth commandment? It's "Thou shalt not be impure."
I was also taught transubstantiation. I believed it for years. Really shocked me when my 12th grade CCD instructor, (a young, hip priest) said it's not true. As a believer, I agreed. As a Catholic? My toes still tingle just thinking he taught Catholics that doctrine doesn't even matter.
I was raised believing I should eat fish on Friday nights. And then that changed, and absolutely no one explained why, except it was time to change that. It WAS doctrine. It really was one of those decrees that was supposed to be infallible. (Forgot the word. Really rusty on my Catholic training anymore.)
So, yupper. They've got lots and lots of doctrine, some of it changes, and yet most Catholics don't know it. It is possible for both to be true. Even the guy who keeps the records of doctrine at the Vatican is a homosexual, so "doctrine" really isn't all that important all the way up the ladder.
I was never taught canon. Well, I was taught there was a canon but not what it was or who decided it. Neither were the priest and nuns.
I was taught disobeying the sixth commandment (Catholic version), meant I needed to brush my teeth in the morning and before I went to bed, and to take a bath every other night, making sure Saturday night was one of those nights. (Apparently, God was offended by BO.) How was I taught that? Don't you know the sixth commandment? It's "Thou shalt not be impure."
I was also taught transubstantiation. I believed it for years. Really shocked me when my 12th grade CCD instructor, (a young, hip priest) said it's not true. As a believer, I agreed. As a Catholic? My toes still tingle just thinking he taught Catholics that doctrine doesn't even matter.
I was raised believing I should eat fish on Friday nights. And then that changed, and absolutely no one explained why, except it was time to change that. It WAS doctrine. It really was one of those decrees that was supposed to be infallible. (Forgot the word. Really rusty on my Catholic training anymore.)
So, yupper. They've got lots and lots of doctrine, some of it changes, and yet most Catholics don't know it. It is possible for both to be true. Even the guy who keeps the records of doctrine at the Vatican is a homosexual, so "doctrine" really isn't all that important all the way up the ladder.
A
Problem. Right here on your thread an argument about "the sinners prayer" came along. That's not in the Bible either. Does that mean people who don't believe that aren't saved?
Is there any proof for or against Mary sinning through scripture? (And, yes, personally, I think it's just basic common sense that she sinned, but I can't prove that scriptural either.)
Is there any proof for or against Mary sinning through scripture? (And, yes, personally, I think it's just basic common sense that she sinned, but I can't prove that scriptural either.)
A
This is much like what you're doing to Catholics on here. (And I'm making it personal, not because I believe this, but you see what you're doing to others.)
"Anyone stupid enough to believe in End Times theology in anyway is not saved. So kindly believe what I think or you're deceived."
(And just to belabor the point, I don't believe that at all.)
Does that really show the love of Christ at all? Did that convince you you're wrong? Would you have read pages and pages of that crap and that attitude? I would hope not.
So why do it to others? THAT's the attack! You're not the only one attacking. Actually you're attitude is less haughty than many on here. But it is an attack, and it's certainly not love.
That's why I asked if anyone has ever been saved by arrogance. Maybe it does work. Maybe I'm missing something. How would I know? I was saved through a rock opera. I just strongly suspect more were saved by a rock opera than the kind of haughty arrogance I've seen on this thread.
Strange part is Blain isn't even Catholic but people have shown him plenty of reasons why he can't get at any truth about Catholics on this site.
"Anyone stupid enough to believe in End Times theology in anyway is not saved. So kindly believe what I think or you're deceived."
(And just to belabor the point, I don't believe that at all.)
Does that really show the love of Christ at all? Did that convince you you're wrong? Would you have read pages and pages of that crap and that attitude? I would hope not.
So why do it to others? THAT's the attack! You're not the only one attacking. Actually you're attitude is less haughty than many on here. But it is an attack, and it's certainly not love.
That's why I asked if anyone has ever been saved by arrogance. Maybe it does work. Maybe I'm missing something. How would I know? I was saved through a rock opera. I just strongly suspect more were saved by a rock opera than the kind of haughty arrogance I've seen on this thread.
Strange part is Blain isn't even Catholic but people have shown him plenty of reasons why he can't get at any truth about Catholics on this site.
All I am saying is that while Many Christians talk about all the false things about Catholics we are not exactly innocent about that either. Let me ask you this, would rather me blindly believe all the things said about the Catholics and believe what I would believe based on what others say or would rather I seek the truth of the matter and either find out they are not as bad as everyone says or maybe have to learn the hard way all of it is true?
Can you blame me for wanting to see if it's true for myself?
Can you blame me for wanting to see if it's true for myself?
You are a liar. You cannot name ONE person in the first two centuries who believed in the assumption and immaculate conception and sinlessness of Mary. Nor can you name one person n those centuries who belonged to a church which had sacerdotal priests. There were of course some heretics who believed that works were a necessary part of salvation.
If you mean the Roman Catholic church we rightly accuse it of being a false church with false views and false claims, that is not to deny that there are a small minority of true Christians in the Roman Catholic church.
How difficult it is for us humble people before such great arrogance. You are just like your church.
. Peter, Paul and John, among others.
Certainly the firm belief of the church for the first four centuries.
An irrelevance.
The clear teaching of Jesus Christ, Paul etc
Taught by Jesus in Matt 24 and Paul in 1 Thess 4.
LOL has no one told you what wine is? LOL
Paul, Peter and John Papias, Polycarp and Clement and so on
Don't be stupid. We are ALL Catholics (members of the universal church). Bu what they were NOT was Roman Catholics.
Only a Roman Catholic would think like that. What has what Christ said to do with it. But if He had said that there were Roman Catholics in the first two hundred years of church history He WOULD have lied,
No you just ignore Him when He is not convenient.
. That is a blatant lie. You cannot name a single person in the first two centuries who attended an observance of the bread and wine presided over by a sacerdotal priest. That was later heresy.
Incidentally massa means feast. But that is not Roman Catholic mass which is a perversion.
No one believed in the real presence in the RC sense in the first two centuries. WE ALL believe in the real presence in the sense that Christ is really present with us when we observe the Lord's Supper. We can all say 'this is My body; this is My blood' knowing what He meant. IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIS REAL BODY FOR HE WAS STILL LIVING IN IT.
But you CAN'T do it. All you can do is PRETEND they agreed with you when church history demonstrates that they did NOT.
Don't be more stupid than your comments make you out to be. Anyone who claims that they know what the vast majority of believers believed in first three centuries is a nincompoop to put it mildly.
LOL who are you going to follow, the gnostic Clement of Alexandria or the even more gnostic Origen? To anyone who knows genuine church history you are just ridiculous
Do you really think that we have written records of what all pagans an heretics believed? You must be NUTS. As to early Islam it is shrouded in darkness.
And that is precisely what we find.
well I can see you are VERY SIMPLE LOL
If you mean the Roman Catholic church we rightly accuse it of being a false church with false views and false claims, that is not to deny that there are a small minority of true Christians in the Roman Catholic church.
How difficult it is for us humble people before such great arrogance. You are just like your church.
. Peter, Paul and John, among others.
Certainly the firm belief of the church for the first four centuries.
An irrelevance.
The clear teaching of Jesus Christ, Paul etc
Taught by Jesus in Matt 24 and Paul in 1 Thess 4.
LOL has no one told you what wine is? LOL
Paul, Peter and John Papias, Polycarp and Clement and so on
Don't be stupid. We are ALL Catholics (members of the universal church). Bu what they were NOT was Roman Catholics.
Only a Roman Catholic would think like that. What has what Christ said to do with it. But if He had said that there were Roman Catholics in the first two hundred years of church history He WOULD have lied,
No you just ignore Him when He is not convenient.
. That is a blatant lie. You cannot name a single person in the first two centuries who attended an observance of the bread and wine presided over by a sacerdotal priest. That was later heresy.
Incidentally massa means feast. But that is not Roman Catholic mass which is a perversion.
No one believed in the real presence in the RC sense in the first two centuries. WE ALL believe in the real presence in the sense that Christ is really present with us when we observe the Lord's Supper. We can all say 'this is My body; this is My blood' knowing what He meant. IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIS REAL BODY FOR HE WAS STILL LIVING IN IT.
But you CAN'T do it. All you can do is PRETEND they agreed with you when church history demonstrates that they did NOT.
Don't be more stupid than your comments make you out to be. Anyone who claims that they know what the vast majority of believers believed in first three centuries is a nincompoop to put it mildly.
LOL who are you going to follow, the gnostic Clement of Alexandria or the even more gnostic Origen? To anyone who knows genuine church history you are just ridiculous
Do you really think that we have written records of what all pagans an heretics believed? You must be NUTS. As to early Islam it is shrouded in darkness.
And that is precisely what we find.
well I can see you are VERY SIMPLE LOL
Last edited:
- Status