Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Eisenhower
So, Christianity is different from Catholicism? Funny, I think not.

Christian scripture defines the saints as all christians both living and dead. The Catholic church defines saints as a select few that have passed on and that the church has deemed worthy. If the two are one and the same, then why do the definitions not match? I would note that this is not the only glaring difference. And though it be minor compared to many, it serves to beg the question. This is why we are to compare what teachers come preaching with what the apostles put down for us to know. So that we individually would have some basis upon which to judge whether someone was yanking our collective chain or not. It is incidentally, also why most groups claiming to be christian try to tie themselves as close to scripture outwardly as possible - so as to beg it's authority for anything they can make it seem to say.. That's what I like about black and white examples.. hard to run away from.

That's another one I forgot to mention before. If you think they are so "different," where exactly did the foundations of all other Christian denominations come from? Thin air?

Ah, I see, misusing the word again. Do you know the English language? Seriously. Prejudice is judging absent any knowledge. You'd be hard pressed to deny what I'm saying because its in your own teachings. I know, I've debated the stuff for years now. And praytell, what do other denominations have to do with what you do? I'm aware you're trying to use that as a rhetorical device to shift onus from your own problems to someone elses as though that buys you any credibility. Didn't work as a child when mom slapped you and you said 'well brother did it too' and it ain't gonna work as an adult either.

Whether you like it or not, for 1500 years, Catholicism was THE Church

Umm. For roughly 1500 years of History, Catholicism has tried to present itself as the church, A few hundred years after they started, The roman catholics popped up and decided to say they were "the church" and imposed themselves upon the world through fraud as the church and the rightful rulers of empire (the donation of constantine, isidorian and gratian decretals.. etc). From the time of Theodosius forward, anyone claiming Christianity that didn't follow the belief of the sect Theodosius called Catholic was subject to maltreatment, persecution and extermination. These are not secrets. Anyone that disagreed with Rome was systematically hunted down and destroyed.. Ala the Waldensians.

Rome wasn't "the church", it was "the aggressor" trying to suppress anything that threatened them by exposing what they were - Like Valla who nearly went before the inquisition for merely telling the truth. And like a famous bishop who dared quote history and was called a heretic for his long speach. I'm sure you are familiar with your own church history are you not.

And how come I've had to change very little of what I believe to go from being Baptist to being Catholic?

Little differences are major problems depending on the differences. This is called rhetoric being applied. Doesn't much match the real world where ex-catholics can come in here and say "What the heck is he talking about..."

I'll give you a hint: they're not as different as you think. Just because you claim to know the "real truth" about the Church doesn't mean you're correct.

Well, you see, that's why the apostles wrote things down for us - so we could all read their words and make such determinations.

Maybe your little secrets of "I know what the Church actually stands for" would work on some Catholic-in-name-only. It won't work on me, because I've been there. I was stooped in this brand of anti-Catholicism growing up.

Not little secrets, I'm sorry to say. What I'm discussing is pretty much common knowledge. And your attempt to duck and hide behind general statements is pretty standard for someone who can't engage on specifics.

Veneration is absolutely NOT equal to worship.

Read the qualifying definitives for Veneration and for worship - identical. I've actually posted them side by side in debate on this site in the Christian Chronicles threads to the absolute loathing of your fellow catholics. But as you are loathe to use dictionary terms correctly, I understand that we're supposed to close our eyes, rip the pages out of our dictionary and our bibles and take your word for it..

To venerate is to honor, NOT to worship.

You may wish to invest in a real dictionary. And then you may want to go correct the Archeologists with Doctorate degrees and beyond who are using it properly to denote worship of the gods of Egypt on (brace yourself) TV - Oh, woe is us, how could A&E or History Channel let such people get by with using such words with such regard for what they actually mean. The heavens will fall.

Catholics honor Mary because she was the vessel for God's work. She is not God, and nowhere do Catholics say she is. God is the only one deserving of our worship and adoration. I wish Protestants would drop this stupid argument.

Yep, been over this ground so many times I could probably go 10 years without tilling it again and your rhetoric is good fertilizer; but, not much more. I quoted the pope on another thread some time back asking Mary to secure his salvation for him in not those precise words but close enough. I think it's utterly fair to say that Mary couldn't do that if she wanted to. But, it's in the writings as far back as one can see. It's taught within the church, outside the church - on the radar and beneath it and your own pope lauds the notions. Assigning to Mary (and lets not forget the saint of dogbites and the like) things that only God or the Annointed one himself could do. Now, unless I get rousted out of my sleep again to come answer another of these tonight, I'm crawling back in bed lol.

181 posted on 05/26/2004 11:27:10 PM PDT by Havoc ("The line must be drawn here. This far and no further!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies ]


To: Havoc
The Catholic church defines saints as a select few that have passed on and that the church has deemed worthy.

Look up communion of saints - in the catechism - not from A&E or Websters please.

That's just for starters on your last post, Havoc.

Friend, you've been shown all this before, just post a link to proper place in the Neverending Story thread.

184 posted on 05/26/2004 11:38:20 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

To: Havoc
Here, I'll do this bit for you:

Paragraph 5. The Communion of Saints

946 After confessing "the holy catholic Church," the Apostles' Creed adds "the communion of saints." In a certain sense this article is a further explanation of the preceding: "What is the Church if not the assembly of all the saints?"479 The communion of saints is the Church.

185 posted on 05/26/2004 11:40:57 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

To: Havoc

"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 (John 5:24). "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:27-28). Jesus also promises never to cast out or lose anyone that His Father gives Him (John 6:37, 39). The promises of Jesus to all believers are clear and are guaranteed by His divine power and attributes. Having received eternal life, the sheep will follow the Shepherd who will keep them and protect them. Jesus promises they will never be judged for their sins, will not experience spiritual death, shall not perish and will never be cast out or lost. How can Christians say they trust Jesus and not believe His promises?

God the Father has caused His children to be born again to a living hope. They are now protected by His power and will obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and reserved for them in heaven (1 Pet. 1:3-5). This inheritance has been securely guaranteed by the sealing of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:11-14). The Father, who calls believers into fellowship with His Son, is faithful and will confirm them until the end (1 Cor. 1:8,9). He promises to glorify those He justifies (Rom 8:30). God’s children have this assurance: "He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 1:6). On that spectacular day, all believers will be revealed with Him in glory (Col. 3:4). Everyone who has trusted Christ can have the same confidence as Paul who wrote: "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim. 1:12).

Believers also have the assurance that God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). The amazing gifts God gives to repentant sinners include eternal life (Rom. 6:23), the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:45) and the righteousness of Jesus (Rom. 5:17). Those who have received these gifts will never again be separated from God and never come into judgment for their sins. Opponents of assurance will say that people can give back the gifts or throw them away. But where is the Scriptural support for this? God has credited the gift of righteousness to the believer’s account. Does man have access to God’s books to change His accounting?

The Lord knows those who are His and everyone who names the name of Christ must depart from iniquity (2 Tim. 2:19). But what does God do with any of His children who persist in sinning? He chastens them, as a loving Father, so they will not be condemned along with the world (1 Cor. 11:32). God’s chastening has a purifying effect on those who do not judge themselves. His discipline will continue until there is repentance or until He calls them home. Those who fall away or fall into habitual sin without God’s chastening were never His children (Heb. 12:6-9).

The Roman Catholic Catechism (CCC) teaches that Catholics lose their salvation when mortal sins are committed (CCC, para. 1035). Catholics must do works of penance and merit enough grace to regain their salvation (CCC, para. 1456, 2027). Needless to say, Catholics can never be sure about their eternal destiny because, whenever man is involved in attaining and/or preserving his salvation, there can never be assurance. However, when man forsakes all efforts to save himself and believes the objective truth of the Gospel, he will be more certain of living eternally in heaven than one more day on earth. There is no way a mortal man can do maintenance on an eternal gift from God. Paul wrote, "For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all" (Rom. 4:16).

John wrote his first epistle to those "who believe on the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know [Gk. oida] you have eternal life (1 John 5:13). The Greek word "oida" refers to a positive, absolute knowledge. True believers can rejoice in their salvation with absolute certainty and peace. The question for professing Christians is not "Will God will keep His promises?" but "Have I been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone?" This means forsaking all other attempts at salvation through sacraments, good works, indulgences, purgatory, the sacrifice of the Mass, obeying the Law and the intercession of Mary.


188 posted on 05/27/2004 12:00:56 AM PDT by wolfman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

To: Havoc

More red herrings? None of the points raised make any logical sense


217 posted on 05/27/2004 1:16:53 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

To: Havoc; Eisenhower
Christian scripture defines the saints as all christians both living and dead

Ok, fine, we'll call them heroes of the faith. Hero of the faith Ignatius, Heroine of the faith Mary etc.

Happy?
263 posted on 05/27/2004 9:46:04 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

To: Havoc
If the two are one and the same, then why do the definitions not match

Because that's your definition and incorrect. Scriptures call on God's saints.
264 posted on 05/27/2004 9:47:11 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

To: Havoc; Eisenhower
Eisenhower:
That's another one I forgot to mention before. If you think they are so "different," where exactly did the foundations of all other Christian denominations come from? Thin air?

Havoc:
Ah, I see, misusing the word again. Do you know the English language? Seriously. Prejudice is judging absent any knowledge. You'd be hard pressed to deny what I'm saying because its in your own teachings. I know, I've debated the stuff for years now. And praytell, what do other denominations have to do with what you do? I'm aware you're trying to use that as a rhetorical device to shift onus from your own problems to someone elses as though that buys you any credibility. Didn't work as a child when mom slapped you and you said 'well brother did it too' and it ain't gonna work as an adult either

Question answered? NO!!
266 posted on 05/27/2004 9:48:59 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

To: Havoc
For roughly 1500 years of History, Catholicism has tried to present itself as the church, A few hundred years after they started, The roman catholics popped up and decided to say they were "the church" and imposed themselves upon the world through fraud as the church and the rightful rulers of empire (the donation of constantine, isidorian and gratian decretals.. etc). From the time of Theodosius forward, anyone claiming Christianity that didn't follow the belief of the sect Theodosius called Catholic was subject to maltreatment, persecution and extermination.

Well the term "Roman Catholics" was coined by Protestants. The Church is THE Christian church. to say that The roman catholics popped up and decided to say they were "the church" is incredibly laughable. It's like saying that the American revolutionaries were involved in taking over Britain from the Celts.

BTW: history lesson: Many of the early Christian Emperors were ARIAN not orthodox.
267 posted on 05/27/2004 9:52:28 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

To: Havoc
Rome wasn't "the church", it was "the aggressor" trying to suppress anything that threatened them by exposing what they were - Like Valla who nearly went before the inquisition for merely telling the truth. And like a famous bishop who dared quote history and was called a heretic for his long speach. I'm sure you are familiar with your own church history are you not.

Coo, so for 1500 there were no Christians. All the scriptures from those times are tainted. So, the Bible is not Christian either, by that twisted logic.
269 posted on 05/27/2004 9:53:48 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

To: Havoc; Eisenhower
Well, you see, that's why the apostles wrote things down for us - so we could all read their words and make such determinations.

Aha, but those writings ofthe Apostles were handed down through the church which according to Havoc was not Christian, so hence those writings were false, tainted (hmmm.. sounds likeIslamic propaganda). So, the true, true works were the Gnostic works, eh?
270 posted on 05/27/2004 9:55:17 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

To: Eisenhower
Not little secrets, I'm sorry to say. What I'm discussing is pretty much common knowledge

Actually, what he's discussing is 2 + 2 = 546,135.
271 posted on 05/27/2004 9:56:21 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

To: Havoc; Eisenhower
. But as you are loathe to use dictionary terms correctly,

Say, weren't you the one that said Remember "Vicar of Christ". That title came from the Roman Emperors. In place of Christ = antichrist.
in here?
273 posted on 05/27/2004 9:59:06 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

To: Havoc
I quoted the pope on another thread some time back asking Mary to secure his salvation for him in not those precise words but close enough

You mean you said this

Post #70:
When the pope puts his soul in Mary's hands and beseaches her to secure for him his salvation. That's blasphemy. It makes a point. This is not the type of thing that made it into Mel's movie. So I think it goes overboard to say it's "too catholic". I was actually bracing myself to see that sort of thing show up. I'm glad it did not or I'd have asked for my money back.

Post #186
"To you mother of the human family and of nations we confidently entrust the whole of humanity with it's hopes and fears. Do not let it lack the light of true wisdom. Guide it's steps in the ways of peace. Enable all to meet Christ. Sustain us oh virgin mary on our journey of faith and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation" - Pope John Paul II - "Prayer for the Marian year"

Post #199 by presidio:

It really disgusts me that you would delibrately misquote the Pope to make your pathetic anti-Catholicism work. I had know idea that your obsession was this pronounced. The actual prayer actually goes like this:

Enable all to meet Christ, the Way and the Truth and the Life. Sustain us, O Virgin Mary, on our journey of faith and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation. O clement, O loving, O sweet Mother of God and our Mother, Mary!

You left the bolded part out because it destroys the point you were trying to make. That part of the prayer is the Pope's appeal to the Blessed Mother to help us know Christ better. As you may or may not know. The part you omitted is, of course, a direct referrence to John 14:6

"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

I am all to happy to expose you for the cheap charlatan that you are. You tellingly did not provide a link. The Pope's prayer, in its entirety, is here. You will be a much healthier person when you give up your irrational crusade against the RCC and focus on the things that are truely important.

As I have pointed out several times, it might sound like blasphemy with the omitted line. That's why you omitted it, of course.

And that's when Havoc post #265:
You can call him blasphemous titles all you will and in your opinion state that he is holy while he blasphemes. Your message betrays you. I have no authority save that given me by Christ. My authority is not what counts. Your authority doesn't count. The authority of the Word of God is what counts and it stands in testimony against you.

Havoc (#1054): Can't refute the scriptures, so as the pharisees with christ, you attempt to refute me with personal attacks and slurs.

Havoc (#1094): Need a hammer and nails? Trees are a dime a dozen.

Havoc (#1102): Hey, I didn't claim to Be Jesus. The problem for you is, what if I were? Look at the topic of this thread. Not one of you had the sense to even question if I might be right.

Havoc (#1104): I have no reason to backpedal. None whatsoever.



278 posted on 05/27/2004 10:13:09 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson