Popeless Catholics
- Thread starter AllenW
- 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.
Here's post no. 72:
Originally Posted by phil36 View Post
Hi Bladerunner,
I have read what the church of Rome's official teaching is. I went to the source: Council of Trent, Vatican 1; Vatican II. I have also read pre-reformation history.
I have never said that I agree with their theology, if that's what you think!
Dave Hunt Holds the view that Revelation 17 refers to the RC commune, however, many don't.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
You're telling Bladerunner that you know the official teaching of the Catholic church because you went to the source, it being
the Council of Trent (1,500's)
Vatican I (1800's) and
Vatican II (1965)
I thought I should tell you that as the official teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic Church, one must use the CCC or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I thought I had written the complete name at the beginning of my post - sorry if I didn't.
The CCC was put together by Pope John Paul and was issued in 1992.
It was purposefully put together so that ALL may teach the same beliefs held by the RCC.
THIS is what one should refer to when asking about a teaching of the church or magisterium.
If you're studying history, all can be studied - but the church has changed some beliefs.
For instance, remarried couples were not even ALLOWED into a church.
Today, remarried couples may receive communion if certain criteria is met.
Fran
Originally Posted by phil36 View Post
Hi Bladerunner,
I have read what the church of Rome's official teaching is. I went to the source: Council of Trent, Vatican 1; Vatican II. I have also read pre-reformation history.
I have never said that I agree with their theology, if that's what you think!
Dave Hunt Holds the view that Revelation 17 refers to the RC commune, however, many don't.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
You're telling Bladerunner that you know the official teaching of the Catholic church because you went to the source, it being
the Council of Trent (1,500's)
Vatican I (1800's) and
Vatican II (1965)
I thought I should tell you that as the official teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic Church, one must use the CCC or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I thought I had written the complete name at the beginning of my post - sorry if I didn't.
The CCC was put together by Pope John Paul and was issued in 1992.
It was purposefully put together so that ALL may teach the same beliefs held by the RCC.
THIS is what one should refer to when asking about a teaching of the church or magisterium.
If you're studying history, all can be studied - but the church has changed some beliefs.
For instance, remarried couples were not even ALLOWED into a church.
Today, remarried couples may receive communion if certain criteria is met.
Fran
Can I just say that I know what you mean and I agree; however, it's a good idea to know what different denominations believe if you have any hope of speaking to other Christians or if you're going to witness.
I was shocked when I first set out on this road to hear of some beliefs. It's not good to be shocked - better to know beforehand!
So, yes, I'd like to know about the Episcopal church, for instance. It would be nice to know about it from persons that actually know what the Episcopal church teaches.
There are many here who know nothing of what the RCC really teaches.
There are Catholics who don't know what Protestants believe.
If you don't know the other side, it seems more frightful.
My two cents...
Fran
I was shocked when I first set out on this road to hear of some beliefs. It's not good to be shocked - better to know beforehand!
So, yes, I'd like to know about the Episcopal church, for instance. It would be nice to know about it from persons that actually know what the Episcopal church teaches.
There are many here who know nothing of what the RCC really teaches.
There are Catholics who don't know what Protestants believe.
If you don't know the other side, it seems more frightful.
My two cents...
Fran
Church of Christ (Member)
Baptists (random occasions)
Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints (attended at the request of door knockers - for multiple services)
Episcopal (several times - BUT admittedly not for a service, so I don't think it really counts)
I suspect that Episcopal, Anglican, ... would be much, much closer than Methodist, Baptist, Adventists, Assembly of God, Jehovah's Witnesses.
I have had many conversations with Jehovah's Witness...and I can't imagine them being very Catholic-like.
When people knock on my door wanting to discuss the Bible I invite them in.
The feel, set up, the order - its different.
I have been to a lot more church buildings than I have services at those buildings. None of them, except the RCC, have the tabernacle structure, candle lighting area, statues. They don't have "confessionals", "holy water", priests (for we are a holy priesthood - not just a few select men).
But, for example, the preacher in a lot of churches is not an elder, but holds some kind of unscriptural authority.
I believe that the way we partake of communion is more Catholic that scriptural.
The Bible doesn't say anything about a priest/preacher being needed for marriage.
The Bible, outside of prophecy...possibly, doesn't say anything about Jesus being 33 when He went to the cross.
Baptists (random occasions)
Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints (attended at the request of door knockers - for multiple services)
Episcopal (several times - BUT admittedly not for a service, so I don't think it really counts)
I suspect that Episcopal, Anglican, ... would be much, much closer than Methodist, Baptist, Adventists, Assembly of God, Jehovah's Witnesses.
I have had many conversations with Jehovah's Witness...and I can't imagine them being very Catholic-like.
When people knock on my door wanting to discuss the Bible I invite them in.
The feel, set up, the order - its different.
I have been to a lot more church buildings than I have services at those buildings. None of them, except the RCC, have the tabernacle structure, candle lighting area, statues. They don't have "confessionals", "holy water", priests (for we are a holy priesthood - not just a few select men).
But, for example, the preacher in a lot of churches is not an elder, but holds some kind of unscriptural authority.
I believe that the way we partake of communion is more Catholic that scriptural.
The Bible doesn't say anything about a priest/preacher being needed for marriage.
The Bible, outside of prophecy...possibly, doesn't say anything about Jesus being 33 when He went to the cross.
About Unscriptural authority of preachers:
This is not always the preachers fault. I believe that far too often elders look to the preacher for spiritual guidance.
I personally believe that we would be more scriptural if the elders gave the sermons (and we didn't have a paid preacher - better to have multiple paid elders that preach). And we should encourage more discussion/speaking (reasonably organized, of course) from the members.
This is not always the preachers fault. I believe that far too often elders look to the preacher for spiritual guidance.
I personally believe that we would be more scriptural if the elders gave the sermons (and we didn't have a paid preacher - better to have multiple paid elders that preach). And we should encourage more discussion/speaking (reasonably organized, of course) from the members.
Hi Allen
I don't think Jesus and the N.T. Writers meant the bible to be so complex. I think they meant it to be simple.
When you read it, it sounds so simple. Then you speak to different persons and get different views, and I wonder if
maybe it's not a good idea to have a couple of really strong churches that can correctly translate the concepts put forth
in the written word of God.
So basically, we have three different approaches:
1. A really strong church, for instance the RCC, that believes only IT can properly translate scripture and teach from it, and include Tradition, which is added to scripture.
2. Then we have SOLA SCRIPTURA. Different churches that depend on the bible totally for their doctrine and beliefs, BUT, each church will tell you something different and it becomes confusing as to who is right.
3. We also have SOLO SCRIPTURA. These people don't belong to ANY church. They stay home and ready and tell you that they depend on the Holy Spirit and they come up with their own set of beliefs.
So you ask them, if the Holy Spirit is teaching you and not man, then how come they all believe something different - and they'll have no reply.
This is what I was talking about. Maybe the strong church idea is the best? I'm not sure.
Maybe God should speak to us individually, but the Body of Christ would not hold together for long if this were the case.
Fran
I don't think Jesus and the N.T. Writers meant the bible to be so complex. I think they meant it to be simple.
When you read it, it sounds so simple. Then you speak to different persons and get different views, and I wonder if
maybe it's not a good idea to have a couple of really strong churches that can correctly translate the concepts put forth
in the written word of God.
So basically, we have three different approaches:
1. A really strong church, for instance the RCC, that believes only IT can properly translate scripture and teach from it, and include Tradition, which is added to scripture.
2. Then we have SOLA SCRIPTURA. Different churches that depend on the bible totally for their doctrine and beliefs, BUT, each church will tell you something different and it becomes confusing as to who is right.
3. We also have SOLO SCRIPTURA. These people don't belong to ANY church. They stay home and ready and tell you that they depend on the Holy Spirit and they come up with their own set of beliefs.
So you ask them, if the Holy Spirit is teaching you and not man, then how come they all believe something different - and they'll have no reply.
This is what I was talking about. Maybe the strong church idea is the best? I'm not sure.
Maybe God should speak to us individually, but the Body of Christ would not hold together for long if this were the case.
Fran
Again I would suggest reading the book by David Hunt,,"The Woman Rides the Beast". It will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about the RCC and even more than you could guess especially on the so-called doctrine of the RCC.
There is little doubt in my mind that in the New One World Government, The RCC will be the "Woman who rides the Beast" and will take with her to HELL, hundreds of millions of people who (now) believe in her and billions of others that will come to believe in her.
Last edited:
D
Actually, the RCC has one thing going for it. Nothing is required to believe in, if you are Catholic. Although transubstantiation is taught as doctrine, my CCD teacher in high school (also a priest in that church) taught against transubstantiation. And, although the ruling body of the RCC finally got together and agreed that Mary was NOT a goddess, the last sermon I ever heard in mass (and the reason I left that church) was about the goddess Mary, Queen of the Universe. So, you don't have to believe anything to be a Catholic. I've got family members who are atheists, one who believes God is the universe, and quite a few other out-there beliefs, yet they're all still Catholic.
D
I was chosen to be the witness for both my brother and father's divorces, to turn them into annulments, so they could be members of the RCC. (My brother because he was marrying a Catholic woman, so had to join that church after leaving for decades, and my dad so he could get communion.) The requirements for receiving communion again in the RCC is $3000 for an annulment with whatever excuse can be used. (According to the priest, my brother was never married before, because his first marriage was in a Lutheran Church. Don't worry though, the priest was happy to tell me my niece and nephew weren't bastards. I bit my tongue so I wouldn't tell him what I was thinking about that asinine remark. And for Dad and his second wife? Incapable. I'd love to see that one covered in the Bible, but honestly the only thing you need to get communion again after divorcing is $3000 and a family member willing to talk to the priest without saying what she's really thinking.)