You Will Know Them By Their Fruits.

My understanding is you will know people by the results of their actions. Meaning, people could say anything they want, but in the end their actions demonstrate their words, more specifically, the results of their actions, whether good or bad. Godspeed.

My understanding is you will know people by the results of their actions. Meaning, people could say anything they want, but in the end their actions demonstrate their words, more specifically, the results of their actions, whether good or bad. Godspeed.

lenna said:
well she is right. I am very familiar with Catholicism as my father was Catholic before accepting Christ. And believe me, he tried very hard to be a good Catholic, including going on his knees up rough stone stairs trying to get an answer to prayer.

now I see you are Catholic which is why I say the above. I had a few best friends who were also Catholic and my SIL was Catholic. So, no triggers here. I'm not Protestant. I am a Christian and do not identify with the political and geographical pursuits of either side, for example King Henry the viii being excommunicated by the pope who would not grant him an annulment. So then the reformation was launched and Catholicism became less popular. I am sure that was what God intended, mind you He used it to some extent, but that's God for you. Able to turn things around for the good.

Henry also greatly benefited with regards to filling his coffers with Cromwell as his chief minister, ordering 800 monasteries to be disbanded with their lands and gold/treasures, taken for the crown. Interestingly, Henry never became a Protestant himself, having been indoctrinated into Catholicism and suffering from the usual superstitions



actually, you are calling others false who disagree with YOUR faith. I guess you missed that though?

you were being evasive about the fact you are Catholic. let's be honest and if you want to employ the use of the word 'triggered', then extend it to your particular beliefs and the fact you are so quick to defend them. Fine. defend them. but you know very well that those who are not Catholic do not believe in some of the most 'sacred' things that you do.
Click to expand...

Bbrdrd said:

No, they weren't. It wasn't until Augustine went against the Donatists and delegitamized them by arguing for that transmission that anyone made such a claim.

There wasn't even a professional clergy until the mid-late 3rd century and the bishoprate of Rome only gained power when Paul of Samosota was deposed in Antioch and the lawsuit ruled that the official owners of the church were the ones in communion with the capital city and Jerusalem.

Only someone who gets their history entirely as a watered down version of the Catholic church can believe the tripe they sell about "holy tradition".
Click to expand...

A process of guarding the deposit of Faith not iNVENTING a different one.


Seems like easy responses to those two post.
You might need someone to help you respond to so many post that oppose your views.

There is a very big difference between the Catholic Eucharist (or Mass) and the Christian observance of the Lord's Supper. Kindly go the the Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia and study the matter. The Mass is a LITERAL sacrifice. Christ is RE-SACRIFICED at the Mass.

supper that thats an outward display of an Inward change.

Same Sacrifice. It's an eternal reality.

sth, we can't make sense of your post - it just doesn't make sense...please explain further, if you want???

sth, we can't make sense of your post - it just doesn't make sense...please explain further, if you want???

If It Was done truly from the heart then It would be spiritual but first a person would have to humble themselves and repent and I just don’t see how they would be able to drop pride and think well,I can’t judge the people that don’t believe In the beautiful sacraments because I cant see If they are sincere thinking because they honor the sacraments that they are better than those that don’t do those works.

If It Was done truly from the heart then It would be spiritual

but first a person would have to humble themselves and repent and I just don’t see how they would be able to drop pride and think,well,I can’t judge the people that don’t believe In the beautiful sacraments.

If you are talking about this post below,I see what you mean,after reading It now It sounded like complete gibberish.I will rewrite It hopefully more understandable.




God knows our hearts. That's central when we receive a Sacrament. True that. If we confess a sin but have no intention to stop doing it..how can it be forgiven?.If we confess out of fear of hell that's good but childlike love. If we are sorry because we know our sin offends God that's a matured heart.


I do agree.
But this is a bit confusing. Protestants view the Catholic Church as the Harlot. The tool of antichrist etc. Some of that spills over onto Catholics.

Compare that to;

The Catholic Church teaches that Protestants are separated brethren. Authentic Christians among whom the Holy Spirit moves.
Just sayin'

The Bibles says that Christ's sacrifice was ONE SACRIFICE for sins forever. The Catholic Church has changed that to a daily sacrifice by a human priest at an altar with a bloodless sacrifice. That is a travesty of the one sacrifice for sins forever.

But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God (Hebrews 10:12).

Do you understand the significance of "sat down on the right hand of God"? As long as the Old Covenant was in force, and the temple was still in place, the High Priest could never sit down in the temple. His work was never finished, and he was not given a chair to sit down within the Holy Place. In contrast, it is because Christ FINISHED the work of redemption with ONE SACRIFICE for sins for ever, that He sat down at the right hand of God. The Catholic Church has violated this truth by its sacrificial and sacerdotal system of the Mass.

well she is right. I am very familiar with Catholicism as my father was Catholic before accepting Christ. And believe me, he tried very hard to be a good Catholic, including going on his knees up rough stone stairs trying to get an answer to prayer.

now I see you are Catholic which is why I say the above. I had a few best friends who were also Catholic and my SIL was Catholic. So, no triggers here. I'm not Protestant. I am a Christian and do not identify with the political and geographical pursuits of either side, for example King Henry the viii being excommunicated by the pope who would not grant him an annulment. So then the reformation was launched and Catholicism became less popular. I am sure that was what God intended, mind you He used it to some extent, but that's God for you. Able to turn things around for the good.

Henry also greatly benefited with regards to filling his coffers with Cromwell as his chief minister, ordering 800 monasteries to be disbanded with their lands and gold/treasures, taken for the crown. Interestingly, Henry never became a Protestant himself, having been indoctrinated into Catholicism and suffering from the usual superstitions



actually, you are calling others false who disagree with YOUR faith. I guess you missed that though?

you were being evasive about the fact you are Catholic. let's be honest and if you want to employ the use of the word 'triggered', then extend it to your particular beliefs and the fact you are so quick to defend them. Fine. defend them. but you know very well that those who are not Catholic do not believe in some of the most 'sacred' things that you do.

There is no papacy in the gospels and as I said we can look through the history of the church to see how the papacy developed beginning with a loose episcopacy led by Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria and later Constantinople followed by a church led by the emperor as the unofficial head with Rome's primary claim of authority being Paul rather than Peter until Leo I created the papacy and argued for the lineage of Peter.

We can trace the distinctives of Catholicism through history to see how they developed over time. We can pinpoint originators of doctrine, such as how papal infallibility didn't even become a claim until the 17th century. Prior to that councils superceded papal decrees.

We can see markers in the history of the papacy of its expansion, especially under Gregory VI and VII and Pius IX. The Scriptural justifications are thin coverings for very human developments of the papacy.

The Bibles says that Christ's sacrifice was ONE SACRIFICE for sins forever. The Catholic Church has changed that to a daily sacrifice by a human priest at an altar with a bloodless sacrifice. That is a travesty of the one sacrifice for sins forever.

Lenna, I only know a few Catholics who walked on their knees as a devotion. It's not pride or status that motivates them. Not that it doesn't happen I suppose.

What does it matter if I'm Catholic if I'm talking about and using Scriptures? Do

That all sounds bias and full of misperceptions. That happens because the critic didn't bother to plumb the depth of the subject. So they fill in the spaces with their bias. I wouldn't mind a scripturally based discussion on these matters.

Lenna, I only know a few Catholics who walked on their knees as a devotion. It's not pride or status that motivates them. Not that it doesn't happen I suppose.

What does it matter if I'm Catholic if I'm talking about and using Scriptures? Do

That all sounds bias and full of misperceptions. That happens because the critic didn't bother to plumb the depth of the subject. So they fill in the spaces with their bias. I wouldn't mind a scripturally based discussion on these matters.