Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

Rapture Ready ^ | Stephen Meehan

[WVKayaker]

... My conclusions are, First, more needs to be done to acquaint Protestants of what is, and is not, a Catholic belief. Second better selection and formation of priests.

Hahahahaaaaaaa!

WE already know about the cult called Roman Catholicism. It was formed in the bosom of Christ, as part of those "called out" and quickly became a group of "followers of men". It became a cult when it stated that it's own interpretations of Scripture is the ONLY acceptable way to look at it. Then, they added idolatry and necromancy over the years until today, they worship (excuse me, VENERATE: *Synonyms adore, deify, glorify, revere, reverence, worship*) the bones of dead people assumed to have a special status/relationship with God. Yet, most of what they tout relies on their leaders issuing dictates telling them to CONFORM or be ex-communicated from their "house of cards" (saints trading cards are widely available...).

Just a quick search reveals a site :"Consecration TO mary" (deliberately small mary because it is a false idol!). On that site, you can read a typiall Roman Catholic attitude. Mary first and Jesus, "oh yeah, we must include Him..."

“Be Not Afraid” By making this consecration* to Mary, you are placing yourself completely and totally in her hands. You are giving her permission to form you, discipline you, and mold you into a true follower of Christ. Do not be afraid, though, because she loves you. She will always take care of you, and knows better than anybody how to do so. It is always good to remember her words to St. Juan Diego in Mexico, "Hear and let it penetrate into your heart, my dear little son: let nothing discourage you, nothing depress you: let nothing alter your heart or your countenance. Also do not fear any illness or vexation, anxiety or pain. Am I not here who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not your fountain of life? Are you not in the folds of my mantle, in the crossing of my arms? Is there anything else that you need?

*consecration- noun ... 1. the act of consecrating; dedication to the service and worship of a deity. -dictionary.com

[ex-snook]

Wow - how did the Catholic Church last for 2000 yrs and still going? They must be doing something right. I’ll give you a hint, Jesus promised to be with them.

[WVKayaker]

Wow - how did the Catholic Church last for 2000 yrs and still going?

Someone who has been around much longer has been very successful...

[aMorePerfectUnion]

ETERNAL PLACEMARKER for Steelfish’s ‘Official List of Sacred Pauline Traditions” with proof it is the same list.

***NOTE: This list has been requested numerous times. Nothing has ever been posted as proof that such a list ever existed. I am awaiting Steelfish to post ANYTHING to back up what he repeatedly claimed.***

Patiently waiting... perhaps eternally.

[BipolarBob]

They must be doing something right.

Graven images (statues), unwarranted veneration of dead people, pedophilia, collusion to hide said pedophilia, selling of indulgences, burning heretics, house arrest of Galileo for his "crazy" theory of heliocentricity and recently embracing the Climate Change cartel (which will lead to a One World Government). So, if you call that doing something "right", you must be proud of them.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Wow - how did the Catholic Church last for 2000 yrs and still going? They must be doing something right. I’ll give you a hint, Jesus promised to be with them.”

WOW! Hinduism has been around for 5,000 years. They must be doing something really, really right! I’ll give you a hint, they make you look like pikers.”

You may want to rethink your standard of truth.

[ex-snook]

Check out Devine Mercy.

[BipolarBob]

"Check out Devine Mercy."

I did. It kept coming back as Divine mercy, though. When I clicked on that it looked like one of them cultist Marian worship things, so I left pronto! That's a dirty trick to pull. You may like Ouija boards also, but I stay clear of them.

[WVKayaker]

Check out Devine Mercy."

Andy?

[Steelfish]

BOATBUMS writes: “Do you imagine that the dozens of Catholic priests, bishops, popes and lay people don’t also have their own personal interpretations of God’s word?”

Perhaps BOATBUMS knows the hearts, minds, and souls of Catholic clergy. But the whole idea of being Catholic is adherence to the Credo and the Catholic Catechism. We recite as our belief the Credo at every Catholic Mass.

Of course there will be different levels of emphasis since humans from the early Apostles onwards never acted like robots. But make no mistake Catholics are defined by their formal Catechistic beliefs.

Catholic Church Fathers (those early theologians) spent the better part of some 300 years sorting out hundreds of written texts and fragments before they assembled the canonical texts. This was a full ELEVEN CENTURIES before the heresy of Protestantism washed ashore and itself fell on fallow ground that it sprouted thousands of sects of hybrid varieties from the likes of Billy Graham’s vapid interpretation of scripture to the deadly Jim Jones and comical Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Many of them like wild mushrooms have withered away.

Moreover, as stated before, the Catholic intellectual tradition, to cite only Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict after whom colleges and universities have been named, encourages the pursuit of truth on God’s Word against a world of heretics. Catholicism hasn’t gone down the hellhole of Protestantism where every Jack and Jill is allowed to crack open the pages of the Bible and supply us “their” own definitive interpretation of God’s Word.

This is what ELSIE wants us to accept. And so did David Koresh who wanted us to accept “his” brand of scripture. These are the types of scriptural mudslides albeit honestly held that must of necessity flow from a denial of Petrine authority.

COMMERCECOMET in his reproof to EX-SNOOK confuses “personal testimonies” from accounts of long, hard, intellectual inquiry, scholarship, and resourced material that underpin the belief of a theologian who converts from one faith to another. This is what EX-SNOOK was agreeing with.

These are not cases of your neighbor Uncle Harry or a Joel Osteen telling us why “he” believes the way “he” does. As to how “he” interprets scripture.
Just look over your shoulders and see the usual coterie of FReepers on this thread who never tire of throwing up a Hungarian goulash of disparate scriptural quotations while demanding interpretations unhinged from sacred tradition, ritual and practice.

When reference response citations are made, such as to eminent Protestant theologians who after extensive study and teaching have converted to Catholicism, they are dismissed out of hand without so much a seven an effort to read their reasons. The same goes when reference is made to scriptural foundation for Catholic doctrine and traditions.

Is this “intransigence”?

Yet DEPROGRAMLIBERALISM writes: “Intransigence is blindly choosing one to the exclusion of the other. You have more faith in mere men than in the Scriptures. So sad..”

Maybe DEPROGRAMLIBERALISM needs to undo the canonical texts because after all the early Church fathers displayed a remarkable intransigence in insisting that only the books they CHOSE, ASSEMBLED, and INTERPRETED them they way they did using the sacred oral tradition as a verifier source is the true Word of God.

Intransigent?

This again exposes the sheer hollowness of the heresy of Protestantism and its contradictory nature that led born-again Wheaton-educated Bible scholar Dr. David Anders who having deliberately set out to prove Catholicism wrong ended up converting to Catholicism then discovered that Protestantism is nothing but a “confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic.”

This is a polite way of saying that after all is said and done Protestantism is a mass of sheer rot. And he is not alone. There are scores of such Protestant converts to Catholicism, as there are from every other religion under the sun, who have converted to Catholicism including Israel Zolli, a former Chief Rabbi at Rome.

aMOREPERFECTUNION keeps insisting that Catholics post a list of these “sacred traditions” of the Catholic Church. He forgets that the very canon of the Bible is a consequence of the sacred tradition of the Catholic Church.

The Bible itself does not say what the canon is. Hence we need to rely on sacred tradition that tells us what the canon is. BEFORE the Bible for 300 years there was the sacred tradition of the Catholic Church.

And yet aMOREPERFECTUNION seeks to doubt the validity of this canon forgetting it is inextricably intertwined with the Bible itself. He is unwilling to seek dogmas and doctrine of the Catholic Church as reflected through sacred tradition as reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 74-95, 113. The Catholic sacraments, its liturgy, its practices are all supported by scripture and traditions.

Instead, he insists on a sophomoric “list” of sacred traditions like a neon display of the Ten Commandments. He amplifies his own absurdity with a cartoonish display of “Where’s the Beef”?

One wonders what he’s been having for dinner compared to what the long line of Catholic saints, martyrs, theologians, and an illustrious A-Z list of Catholic converts have fed upon for some 2000 years.

Try asking what these converts listed in the link below have been feeding on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism

Perhaps, aMOREPERFECTUNION should insist from St. Paul as to what these sacred oral traditions he was referring to when he demanded:

“Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” (1 Corinthians 11:2, or
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

Maybe you should have shown St. Paul your “Where’s the Beef?” cartoon.

BLUEDRAGON picks up quotes form Francis J. Beckwith, the former head of the 4300 Evangelical scholars of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) that ridicules Catholicism without noting that these were made after left the Catholic and before he rejoined the Church. We may as well bring up quotes from atheists, agnostics before they converted to Catholicism and even from St. Paul before he became an “apostle” of God.

DANIEL1212 can’t seem to understand the paradox of the cross. Catholics come upon the visible Crucifix in every Catholic Church. Christ the Savior of the World shorn of his glory, a crown of thorns on his head, appearing powerless as being nailed to a cross, appearing destitute and humiliated by being stripped of his garments, and helpless to the point His thirst is quenched with vinegar. We trace this paradox of the cross in our Good Friday “Way of the Cross.” Even better I’d suggest you pick up a deep thinking read such as “Journey of a Soul,” by St. John of the Cross.

To ROAMER_1 and EDITOR_SURVEYOR insists that the standard of truth is whether it satisfied the teachings of the Torah. Torah comes from the Hebrew word for “law” and refers to the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy—also known as the Pentateuch. The word Torah is used also to refer to the scroll of parchment on which the Pentateuch is written.

The scroll is considered a sacred liturgical object in synagogues and is often richly decorated and given other marks of respect. In Orthodox Judaism, the Torah also can refer to the entirety of the law, both in written form (Scripture and other sacred writings) and in oral Tradition.

When we as Catholics refer to the Old Testament, we are referring to all forty-six books of the Bible written before Christ, including the first five that the Jews call the Torah. As Catholic we also believe in the New Testament books assembled under Petrine authority.

The last verse of the Catholic Catechism is also an essential part of who we are.
“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

Sorry you Torah-only or exclusively Sola-Scriptura folks we must part company.

We Catholics concur with Rev. Richard John Neuhaus who was America’s pre-eminent Lutheran theologian. He knew his Bible-text and history like no other Protestant having taught and written extensively on the subject all his life. He would have no need for any of that “meta-Christianity” nonsense about past, present, and future tenses of how God’s Word is narrated.

When Rev. Neuhaus converted to Catholicism he said, “I have long believed that the Roman Catholic Church is the fullest expression of the church of Christ through time.”

ELSIE, you might like to take note. Swimming across from the shallow end to the deep end of the theological pool doesn’t mean you have to drown. Others have made the journey. So that we can say to you and others:

Welcome home. AMEN.

[BlueDragon]

BLUEDRAGON picks up quotes form Francis J. Beckwith, the former head of the 4300 Evangelical scholars of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) that ridicules Catholicism without noting that these were made after left the Catholic and before he rejoined the Church.

That is not at all true.

The quotes came from an interview/article with Beckwith discussing why he reverted back to the [Roman] Catholicism of his youth, as the link provided explained...

The quotes, particularly this small portion;

"...Catholics would do well to plumb these works, since in them Protestant evangelicals often provide the biblical and philosophical scaffolding that influenced the Church Fathers that developed the catholic creeds as well as the Church’s understanding of the Bible as God’s Word. "

blow your your own positions to smithereens, regardless if there are many so-called 'Protestant' who do not themselves much investigate the history of Christianity other than the initial, biblical origins.

Notice that the Protestant evangelicals he was speaking of were explaining from biblical foundation (and how that intersecting with philosophy) the how and why's of the development of early centuries Christian creeds.

In this, those creeds came about not due to singular claim of authority for any one group, or else a bishop who made claims as for his own authority to unilaterally define what the faith passed from Christ and the Apostles was, but instead there was reliance upon the Scriptures being foremost & highest authority (rather than any particular ekklesia, or else portion of greater ekklesia, as part of earliest Church traditions.

Your own statements (and overall positions, to a large extent) therefor are false.

[boatbums]

BOATBUMS writes: “Do you imagine that the dozens of Catholic priests, bishops, popes and lay people don’t also have their own personal interpretations of God’s word?” Perhaps BOATBUMS knows the hearts, minds, and souls of Catholic clergy. But the whole idea of being Catholic is adherence to the Credo and the Catholic Catechism. We recite as our belief the Credo at every Catholic Mass. Of course there will be different levels of emphasis since humans from the early Apostles onwards never acted like robots. But make no mistake Catholics are defined by their formal Catechistic beliefs.

Perhaps YOU imagine you know the hearts and minds and souls of every Catholic that you will foolishly stand by your contention when all around us are examples of why that ISN'T true? Right now, on the Free Republic Religion Forum, Introductory post: The “Bergoglio-Denzinger” on Francis’ ecumenism of blood, there is a roaring fire of disagreement between FRoman Catholics over whether or not formal membership in the Roman Catholic church is necessary for salvation. That sure sounds like one of those "formal Catechistic beliefs" to me. Or is that just one of those "different levels of emphasis"?

I don't know why you continue to argue the thoroughly refuted nonsense that your church created the Bible. That assertion flies in the face of Almighty God and should cause you to pause and think about what you are really implying here. I don't think you "get it" that Divinely-inspired Scripture doesn't require men - of any stripe - to decide which is or isn't from God. God speaks - directly or through His Prophets - and we must obey what He tells us. I'm surprised that, in all your claims to be intimately acquainted with ECFs, that you haven't grasped this very truth they believed from the start. The early believers accepted the Scriptures of the Old Testament (the 39 REAL books) and also the writings of the Apostles and their disciples because they recognized the truth being given through the Holy Spirit. The word has power, it speaks to the hearts of those tuned to hear the voice of the Shepherd. You can learn something from a man who is widely recognized as the greatest English-speaking orthodox theologian of the early twentieth century, and perhaps of the whole century, Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921). Please take a moment to read The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament. You just might learn something.

Continue to cling to the myth that RC converts are oh-so-much smarter than anyone else, but know this, God will require from each of us an accounting of how we responded to the light He has given us. It won't be based on whom we followed or whom impressed us the most by their smooth words or appeal to our snobbish, elitist intellectualism. Chances are, they may not even make it themselves. God knows those that are His.

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:9-13)

[Springfield Reformer]

I don't know why you continue to argue the thoroughly refuted nonsense that your church created the Bible.

From Mein Kampf, Chapter 6, on War Propaganda:

It is not the purpose of propaganda to create a series of alterations in sentiment with a view to pleasing these blasé gentry. Its chief function is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.

Quoted from here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

Just sayin ...

Peace,

SR

[Elsie]

ELSIE, you might like to take note.

I have!

Noted the stuff floating in the water and have decided to stay outta da pool!

[Elsie]

Hooray!

Someone else has found the playbook!

[metmom]

I...I...I...I.... This is why there is so much error. Some can’t grasp One Church or One Pope...but they are fine with 100 Million Popes.

But salvation isn't about one church or one pope.

It's about ONE Savior.

[bonfire]

Amen!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Instead, he insists on a sophomoric “list” of sacred traditions like a neon display of the Ten Commandments. He amplifies his own absurdity with a cartoonish display of “Where’s the Beef”?”

Indeed! Your claim of sacred traditions from Paul is not only sphmoric, but false.

You’ve posted no list of the traditions from Paul. I’ve given you FIVE tries. You either couldn’t find that list or you know it is a false truth claim.

Five Guys delivers more beef per bun than your five posts. Heck, you’ve not delivered a bun. Your posts are great at wrappers that are empty.

All you have to do is post it. Support your claim.

WHERE’S THE BEEF?

[Iscool]

aMOREPERFECTUNION keeps insisting that Catholics post a list of these “sacred traditions” of the Catholic Church. He forgets that the very canon of the Bible is a consequence of the sacred tradition of the Catholic Church.

So the bible is incomplete...Why not get the rest of those traditions in the bible so we can see what they are...

The Catholic sacraments, its liturgy, its practices are all supported by scripture and traditions.

The scriptures that you claim your religion wrote condemn your religion and its tradition...There is no support for your false religion from the scriptures...

Perhaps, aMOREPERFECTUNION should insist from St. Paul as to what these sacred oral traditions he was referring to when he demanded:

“Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” (1 Corinthians 11:2, or
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

Why should anyone ask Paul since he is not here to answer...You (being obviously a Catholic spokesman) have access to these unwritten traditions...Where are they??? Post 'em or forever be known as a shyster, or worse, a used car salesman...

We Catholics concur with Rev. Richard John Neuhaus who was America’s pre-eminent Lutheran theologian. He knew his Bible-text and history like no other Protestant having taught and written extensively on the subject all his life. He would have no need for any of that “meta-Christianity” nonsense about past, present, and future tenses of how God’s Word is narrated.

Oh, you mean like this:

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Another intellectual who doesn't believe God...'But he was a great Catholic'...Good, you keep him...

[DeprogramLiberalism]

>>>You’ve posted no list of the traditions from Paul. I’ve given you FIVE tries. You either couldn’t find that list or you know it is a false truth claim.<<<

>>>Why should anyone ask Paul since he is not here to answer...You (being obviously a Catholic spokesman) have access to these unwritten traditions...Where are they??? Post 'em or forever be known as a shyster, or worse, a used car salesman...<<<

Hey! Will you guys quit buttin' in line - I was here first! I am still waitin' for the official RC church explanations for the four doctrinal contradictions between James, and Moses, Peter and Paul.

And I am still waitin' for an explanation why the greatest philosophical discussion in history on how God relates to His creation (the book of Job) does not in forty two wordy Old Testament chapters address the RC doctrine that God can supposedly see the future as absolute, and that Augustine's eternal-now-god was actually a capitulation to the Gnostic's "secret knowledge".

And I am still waitin' for an explanation of how the RC church can see itself as the bride of Christ, when the Bible exclusively describes the Church as masculine and the son of the New Jerusalem.

I put in a lot more work into my positions than y-all did. So you guys jus' butt out, and line up behind me - ya hear?

[wink]