POPE HIT THE MARK: AT ROOT OF CATHOLIC PROBLEMS IS LACK OF BIBLICAL SPIRITUALITY

SpiritDaily.com ^ | 10-05 | Spirit Daily

[Salvation]

POPE HIT THE MARK: AT ROOT OF CATHOLIC PROBLEMS IS LACK OF BIBLICAL SPIRITUALITY

He could not have hit it more squarely on the head. Pope Benedict XVI, toiling quietly, with little of the visibility enjoyed by his predecessor, nonetheless was giving hints that he is doing what he always has, what he is used to doing, what he did for a quarter of a century as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: working behind the scenes to hold the world's most important institution together, and he is starting where it must start, where it needs to start, where so many of the problems reside: with the Bible.

A few weeks ago, in a major pronouncement (albeit one underreported in by the Christian media), he said, "Assiduous reading of sacred Scripture accompanied by prayer makes that intimate dialogue possible in which, through reading, one hears God speaking, and through prayer, one responds with a confident opening of the heart. If this practice is promoted with efficacy, I am convinced that it will produce a new spiritual springtime in the Church" [our italics].

Above all, he was saying, we must remember Scripture.

Added the Pope, in speaking about Europe, "many Christian things occur, but there is also a great fatigue, and we are so concerned with structural questions that the zest and the joy of faith are missing."

As he prepared for Youth Day last August, Benedict XVI loudly rejected the idea of Christianity as a religion of rules and prohibitions and said he hoped to use his trip to spur "a wave of new faith" -- the type of faith that brings results, displays miracles, and springs forth from the Bible."

Let us add that the root of crisis in the Church is how little the Bible is heeded and how much worldliness has infiltrated. Too often, we compromise with society and its trends (its politics, its fashions) because we want to be "with it." We also confuse the word "religious" with "spiritual."

Religion is supposed to lead to spirituality. Frequently, it does not. It is the best way to obtain spirituality -- the narrowest gate -- but too often it leads only leads to religiosity (and a reverence for the codes of man instead of those of God). 

The remedy is the book it is all based on. The Church is in desperate need of biblical spirituality. Biblical spirituality is living a life modeled after those set forth as historical examples. It is feeling the grace that flows from the pages. We have plenty of theology. We have enough canon laws. What we need now is familiarity with that remarkable book and the knowing that it is of true supernatural origin.

Reading the Bible on a regular basis allows us to feel the actual move of the Holy Spirit -- to reach God through our hearts instead of through our self-important thoughts.

The Pope's words mimic those of saints like Therese the Little Flower -- who once said that "above all it's the Gospels that occupy my mind when I'm at prayer; my poor soul has so many needs, and yet this is the one thing needful. I'm always finding fresh lights there, hidden and enthralling meanings."

What happened at our seminaries? The Bible was pushed away as ancient literature (and even mythology) and Catholics have now seen the result. Show us a skeptic (one who does not believe in healing or exorcism or prophecy), and we'll show you someone who does not read Scripture.

We have become too secularized and too busy reading complex theology -- the ideas of others about the Bible, or about the ideas of previous theologians about the Bible -- instead of the Bible itself. We formulate complex ideas to impress others.

In other words, we get so wrapped up in the words of man that we forget the Word of God -- which encourages us to exercise spiritual gifts and to believe in the simple movement of Him everywhere (including in current events). When we read Scripture, we understand more about current events than if we read the newspaper.

A Church that is not prophetic, that is not Bible-based, is not a Christian one. It is the very foundation for our precious sacraments!

Call it "aridity" : there is a great spiritual vacancy in the intellectualized Western Church and from the vacancy has erupted scandal.

Unlike other written works, the Bible is alive and of endless fascination for those who come to know its actual power. It informs every day. It relates to different things at different times. It pertains to every circumstance. As Saint Therese said, it has a hidden nature that can be enthralling.

And it tells us what Christians are supposed to do: pray with a living faith, cast out demons, heal, spread the Word, love, give. During the disaster of Katrina the worldly institutions fell while the spiritual ones -- the churches, the charities -- picked up the pieces.

It is in the Bible that we find the richness of wisdom. It is in the Bible that we feel the Holy Spirit.

God will speak to you there.

Need an answer? Remarkably and often miraculously, it's in the testaments. 

[resources: the Catholic Bible]

[jo kus]

So when Muslims deny the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ and call him only a prophet they do not grieve the Holy spirit?

Again, we are dealing with ignorant people in most cases. God will judge everyone based on their knowledge and freedom of action to follow the truth. If a person is raised in an anti-Catholic background and continuously deals with such a slavery of the mind, God will judge that person based on his ignorance of the truth. It is possible that this person can still be saved. The typical Muslim probably has not received the full Gospel message so as to reject it formally. A fuller teaching or witness would be required to overcome the prejudice that they have against Christianity, ingrained from their childhood.

Thus, all depends on their knowledge of the truth. If they are fully aware that Jesus Christ is God and see the preponderance of evidence, have the freedom to choose Christianity (recall, some people live in fear of converting over there), but yet refuse, they will be judged accordingly. God will certainly know their hearts and will take into account their willingness to follow or not. Man must have freedom of religion, and in places where he doesn't, it is more difficult to expect such conversions.

Regards

[jo kus]

Jesus did this despite the RCC. Christianity has excisted outside and inside the RCC for 1500 years protected by Christ, many times from the RCC.

Jesus established a visible Church, not an invisible one. In Matthew 18, Jesus tells His disciples to "tell it to the Church" if a brother sins and refuses to repent. Where is that "invisible" Church that you speak of? Naturally, when Jesus gives the Apostles the power to forgive sins in John's Gospel, people are meant to go to THEM, not an invisible, unknown group. Thus, it is only the Apostolic Churches that continue to remain substantially Christ's visible Church on earth. Despite your opinion, Christ worked through this visible Church to pass on the traditions, both oral and written, to the Christian communities. How can the word be preached without a Church to preach it? Jesus calls us to Him through the Church, not despite it!

Christianity has excisted outside and inside the RCC for 1500 years protected by Christ, many times from the RCC

Any "Christianity" outside of the Catholic Church that honored the Bishop of Rome with primacy of position was not considered part of the Church. Your thinking is anachronistic. Consider reading how the orthodox Church Fathers, both in the East and the West, considered those heretics who you today call Christian. The Catholic Church was and is the fullness of the faith. Those who willingly separate themselves from this fullness were considered outside, even in Scriptures - Paul himself tells us this in Galatians - that anyone teaching another Gospel, let him be cast out of the Church. Referring to my last posts regarding the Salvation of those outside the visible Church, individual people living inside of heretical sects MAY have been saved, but those wolves in the sheepfold were certainly not. There is only one faith and one Body.

Just because Luther made a visible seperation from the RCC does not mean he left any Christianity behind. He got out of that vehicle and got in the one that was always there.

I would like to see your Scriptural proof that a person can teach a gospel other than that given by the Apostles. Where is your precedent? What "vehicle" was he "entering"??? It was one he invented, not from God.

There have been churches with apostolic succession out side the RCC since pentecost. There is a group in india that still have a strong Christian identity through the apostle Thomas.

They continue to follow the Apostolic faith and are "separated" from Rome in the early years because of politics. India and Rome are quite distant apart. They did not "leave" the Church. Many, now that times have changed, have re-established this link to Peter. Some continue to exist, such as the Coptics. Yet, they do not possess the fullness of the faith, nor do Protestants (to an even lesser degree). There is one complete truth. Not many truths. Yet, these men, despite some errors, continue to walk with Christ. But this does not give anyone the RIGHT to choose parts and pieces of God's revelation to follow and ignore the rest. God will judge each one of us on how we accepted His Word.

I encourage all Catholics who happen to be christians to work towards the reforms that B16 seems to be suggesting in reading the scriptures for themselves.

ALL Catholics ARE Christians. A person is a Christian when he is baptized. He becomes a child of God, an adopted son. All sin is washed away. He (or his parents by proxy if an infant) has accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior. All Catholics are "saved" at that moment (though we use different terminology - we are justified or made righteous as a result of God's Spirit during Baptism). And when the Pope suggests reading the Scriptures, he is not telling anyone to make up their own theologies in contradistinction of the Church. "Knowledge of the Gospels is knowledge of Christ", said St. Jerome. By reading the Scriptures with the Church, we come to the knowledge of the truth.

Your church is not the guardian of truth.

You wouldn't have a point of reference of what to believe if it wasn't for the Catholic Church. If all you had were ALL the religious writings from the past without a guardian of the truth, how would you discern which were spurious and which were true? The Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of Thomas? They have different points of view on who Christ was. Which would be the correct one? You take way too much for granted when you cast aside the role of the Church in protecting the truth as passed down from the Apostles. Even Martin Luther admitted as much.

Regards

[Rhadaghast]

Sorry: You continue to accept only the catholic interpretation of the word Church. Church simply means called out, those that are saved. You cannot even call yourself saved due to your own catechism. You hope for salvation. I have salvation. Their is no Christianity without salvation.

Any person that is saved is part of the church the body of Christ. apostles were not the only ones granted the ability to forgive sins, read first John 1:9.

As to your other points. all and completely based on catholic dogma and interpretation.
It is not another gospel to exclude the RCC.

it is another gospel to exclude any function of Christ from salvation.

Christ established a church. The RCC assume he was talking about it.

I believe it is nearly and completely blasphemous to equate the body of Christ as only residing in the RCC.

Apostolic succession is not supported by Paul, he is the exception. The RCC assume Paul was given this succession with out proof.

Lastly

The RCC needs to be consistent with it's pronouncements. Either I am unsavable because I refuse the RCC or I am not. Anathema is the word used in the council of Trent.

Just because the RCC recognized the scriptures for what they were did not give the scripture any more authority. The recognition of scripture is an office of the Holy Spirit given to all believers that will allow Him to show them. The principles that are given to recognize scripture are clear and consistent. They were followed by the RCC, but that does not mean that the RCC gave the scripture anything.

I will address some of the other scripture concerns latter. They exist and are consistent. The protestants do follow a consistent exegesis. Your refusal to examine them or recognize them makes them no less accurate.

[magisterium]

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence, in a 1500 year continuum, that the teachings of post-Luther Protestantism were embraced by a remnant before 1517.

Since I cannot prove a negative, I won't even attempt it.

[Rytwyng]

Ah, an anti-Catholic with a sense of humor."

We demand.... a shrubbery!

[jo kus]

You have an interesting way of twisting my words and the teachings of the Church. I will try to explain what the Church teaches

Church simply means called out, those that are saved

Perhaps in your Protestant twisting of the word, but the Greek word for Church, "ekklesia", according to the Greek Lexicon, means:

1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

3) The whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

4) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

Nowhere does it refer to those "called out" or "already saved". Thus, if we intend on speaking the same language used by the Scripture, you will have to change your meaning of "church". Note definition #2 - HOPING FOR SALVATION. Why is hope mentioned in the NT if salvation is assured to all?

You hope for salvation. I have salvation.

Unless you are writing this post from heaven, you aren't saved by MY definition. Nor are you "saved" in the full sense of the word from the Scripture. It is clear if you were to read 1 Cor 10 and Hebrews 3 that NO ONE should presume that their eternal destiny is already arranged. It is clear from Scriptures that we CAN lose our faith and fall away, disinheriting ourselves from heaven. Our definition of "saved" refers to eternal salvation. It sounds like you are talking about the Catholic concept of Justification. We are justified initially upon Baptism. If we continue in Christ, we will continue to be justified (righteous in God's eyes). With perseverance and grace from God, we know we will enter heaven. But NO ONE can say that they are absolutely certain they are going to heaven while they walk this earth. That is presumption that is frowned on in the Gospels over and over.

Your quote on 1 John 1:9 tells me that we must confess our sins. TO WHOM??? JOHN HIMSELF tells us to the Apostles in his Gospel...Do you see what I mean about your reading of the Scripture? You take it out of context, and that is why you have a difficult time accepting the Catholic Church.

it is another gospel to exclude any function of Christ from salvation.

Of course it is. But who says that the Catholic Church excludes Jesus from Salvation? Do I need to list quotes from the Catechism to prove you wrong again? Why the false dichotomy? The Church doesn't teach that it offers salvation WITHOUT Christ! Like I said before, if we are "brothers", you should learn more about what I believe. It is publically accessible to all. Read it and see for yourself what the Church teaches, not what your pastor tells you so as to keep you on his list of benefactors.

Christ established a church. The RCC assume he was talking about it.

So did the early Church Fathers. There was only ONE orthodox Church for the first millenium, and it had Peter's successor as its visible spiritual leader. HE was given the keys, the responsibility to Christ to feed His sheep. This was well known and accepted by all. Can you point me to another Christian Church that possesses this "key", this responsibility to feed the Sheep? Only in the Catholic Church does one find the FULLNESS of the truth. Other communities can be vehicles of God's grace, but they lack parts that Christ gave His Church, namely, the responsibility to feed the sheep.

Apostolic succession is not supported by Paul, he is the exception. The RCC assume Paul was given this succession with out proof.

You haven't read the Pastorals, have you? It is clear that Paul is telling Timothy to continue the teachings that Timothy was given, to hold onto them, and so forth. What more proof do you desire that Apostolic Succession exists? It is clearly noted in the very first writings of Christians outside of the Scriptures, such as 1 Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, and Justin the Martyr.

Anathema is the word used in the council of Trent.

Again, you need to find out what Rome means by the word "anathema". It doesn't cast anyone into hell, and it only applies to those who are willfully preaching the matter with full knowledge they are contradicting the Church. Thus, some Protestant who is blissfully ignorant of the Catholic stance on the matter is not "anathema-ed". People are excommunicated from the Church of Christ - by their own actions, just as Paul states in 1 Cor 5...

The recognition of scripture is an office of the Holy Spirit given to all believers that will allow Him to show them. The principles that are given to recognize scripture are clear and consistent.

That's funny. Then why was their disagreement BEFORE the canon was implemented in the late 300's? If the Spirit is infusing everyone on the face of the earth with this knowledge, there wouldn't have been a need for someone to authoritatively rule on its content. However, the Spirit doesn't work that way, but works through His Church, ordinarily. I would like to hear your "clear and consistent" principles that tell me that Scripture is self-authenticating. It is OBVIOUSLY NOT...

Your refusal to examine them or recognize them makes them no less accurate.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I refuse to examine them. I have examined them and found them wanting. Does that make me unsaved, then? What is ironic about this is how open the Catholic Church is to the invincible ignorant, while your community of believers appear to be very inclusive and restrictive - you try to lock the doors of the kingdom, but you don't have the key. According to you, I might not even be Christian. I have never made that presumption of you, even though you are not Catholic. Are you seeing the difference here?

Regards

[lyontamer]

Sola-Scriptura is not what the Holy Father said.

[Rocketman]

I was never a fan of Monty Python -- and actually you responded to someone elses post In which I had bentioned the anti-pope vatican II pope site

So when he responded with "I didn't expect the spanish inquisition" I found it cryptic and assumed he had left out a word or two.

I'm not particularly anti-catholic if we were to say that I would have to be labled anti-prtestant and anti reformation anti- pentecostal and anti-charismatic etc.

Where the prophets in the OT Testament anti-jewish? they charged Israel with their sins and in some cases executed the judgements of God. No they were seeking repentance and a change of heart.

Yet according to the words of Christ they were salain and brutalized when their words were rejected.

So likewise John the baptist comes preaching sin righteousness and the Judgement and he is rejected and slain.

Christ them comes and begins with the same words of John condemning the preisthood and religious system of his day for having altered the law of mosses to suit themselves

There is a case that can be made that there is no difference between what the pharissees the high priests and the levites did was any different that say protestant churches that claim to believe Sola Scriptura but in fact they do not instead each denomination has carved out its own turf of verses in the bible they beleive while ignoring or denying the rest. See the Israelites had a high priest that was set in by Moses and was in an unbroken lineage until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. But the question is where in the law is he given the power to alter the law? Instead we find in the Law as well as the book of revelation curses to them than alter the law. So when Protestant Popes like Luther John Calvin and Menno Simons come and alter things to suit themselves exalt themselves and build a church around themselves how is that different. Altering the word of God is altering word of God.

It is listed as a sin unto death in the Law and in Revelation.

If I decry the sins of the charismatic movement (Which I do)like the prosperity gospel in while people give money to churches and ministers in order to become financially rich -- becasue the Christ clearly teaches love not the world or the riches thereof etc. Does that make me anti-charimatic?

When I correct my child do I hate that child, some parents may, but many love their children and want to see them do well. My children have at times thought I was doing bad things to them by correcting them or laying tdown the law as to what they can or can't do. And at those times I would talk with them so that they would better understand my motives -- and then they more readily accepted the correction and rules.

All that is not to say that there are not people that Hate Catholics because I know that to absolutely be true Just like people hate Jews etc.

I'll give you one more example and let this go. In the bible school I went to in the late 1970's it was taught that the gift of prophecy was only to be used for edification exortation and comfort -- rebuke or correction was banned in this school and actually in a whole segment of charistmatic churches. This actually stemmed from something that happned in the 1950's with a group of sin laden evagelists that had no affiliation with this school of the denomiations they were affiliated with -- these men were so corrupt and sinful in every way and their sins became known and poeple staterted not foing to their tent revivals so they invented out whole cloth a doctrine called "Touch not Gods annointed" based on a scripture in the OT in the OT it mean don't physically touch harm or slaw my prophets or messengers. They rewrote it to do not talk bad about my preachers and do not mention their sins whether they be true or false.

What this did was create an atmoshphere for sin to breed and error to breed because we can't talk about this.

In the 70's it jumped a fire break and came under the idea "we can't judge each other" yet in the NT in the greek the word jusge is used and synanyms over 100 times as things we are charged to do.

Whether we care to admit it of not the church at large protestant and catholic suffers from much of the same things cathoic priest have been casue in sin protestant preachers are caught in the same sins the casue is the same corrupt people are coming up through a system that at one time judged and rooted out corrupt people but no more instead they have become preachers and leaders in the church and the corruption increases

In church history this is noted by the apostillic fathers and peoplke that are deemed as saints -- so how is it that if these things happened in the OT at christ life in the days of the apostolic fathers the early saints between the 2nd and forth century that we can boldly claim my church is perfect and upright and has no sin? Every protestant denominaton does this eyeing one another as heretics or "Somewhat deceived." Catholics virw all protestants the same and truthfully all protestants view catholics the same way.

And each views themselves as lilly white and having all truth. As did the Jews in the days of the prophets and in the days of Christ.

We are clearly told again and again that there is a deciever in the world -- and I would put forth that this is the evidence of his work.

In the Old Testament in the prophets Isreal is repeatedly called a whore -- not because Isreal invented prostitution of set up an internation set of whore houses but because they had atlered God commantments and had brought in other Gods and customs (traditions) that had not been given to them in the begining.

So we look in revelation 17 and see the great whore catholics say the anti-christ and great whore is martin Luther and the protduct of the reformation proestants say the pope is the antichrist and the great whore is the catholic church.

It is important to note that both agree the great whore is the church and also both agree that the anti-christ is someone out from the church.

Revelation 17 1 Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Now I want to point out something here that has escaped most people that teach on escatology (The end times) That in verse 5 The Great Whore is a "mother" and she has daughters. And if you back up toverse 4 she has a cup filled with fornication and abominstions and if you back up to verse two you see that all have been made to drink and have been made drunk on her abominations

What I see is mother and daughters shared sins shared fornications and shared abominations and in verse 6 shared blood of saints they killed

So the fate of her is the same as her daughters. Both catholics and protests call the great whore the church but who can admit their sin and unrightousness -- neither both have altered the Gospel both have tortured explantions as to how they are allowed to do what the bible says you can't do both have traditions adopted form greek philosphy and other religions.

An I with out sin no. Have I partaken of the cup yes I was brought up with doctrines and teachings that are not form the word of God -- It is a tough path to try to remove centuries of doctrines -- and no its not sola sciptura though that is a pillar, but it is Sola Dictum Dei. Of as Christ said it the word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Father. Christ lived by and was dependant upon Sola Dictum Dei, the prophets lived by and were dependant upon Sola Dictum Dei and Moses himself was also so dependant -- the protestants except for pentecostals and chrarismatics have reverted to the phariseeism of man ordering about Sola Scriptura to suit themselves denying any spiritual quality or divine light or personal revelation is necessary to understand the things of God so they have in factcreated teachings and doctrines out of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

But this behavior is not exclussive to protestants carnal men assumed seat of power in the early church and what they taught was carried on into to the churches doctrinal gene pool out of which future generations drew. Forinstance in the catholic encyclopedia it says terullian is the Father of the Latin Church having read his writings I have a good idea why that has been said and would agree. But the term 'The Father of' holds great meaning because tertullian is not in the Papel lineage. It mwans that Tertullain geve birth to what became the latin or Roamn catholic Church so that before him there were not the things that he created and institutionalized and without him these things well not may have ever come into being.

Specifically Tertullian in His commentary of the Gospel of John book 1 tells us that prior to his day an order of professional "Levites" had been brought into the church to step the tide of followers that no longer read scripture and prayed and that these men that had been brought in were to pray read time bible and teach and make sacrifices and offerings for the people (Note that the meaning of this is that this was not done at the time of Peter and the Apostles for they are not mentioned nor are their immediate predicessors) But Tertullian continues that the "Levites" were also failing becasue they themselves were corrupted -- so he proposes establishing a high priesthood over the "Levites" to keep them in line and within a generation that was done. That order today are known as the cardinals.

Now in tertullian's words I can see even more meaning Levites in the OT had the service of not the temple alone but the altar so by Tertullian using the word Levites he signified that the church at that time had brought in a replica of the horned altar in the Jewish temple -- Peter and the apostles knew of no such altar in the church in their days. And Tertullian tells us that they began making sacrifices and offerings at that time -- those sacrifices were in relation to that altar just as teh tradition has been carred on for the last 1800 years I would respectfully suggest to you that is the origin of the mass and that Peter and the Apostles knew nothing of that either.

Now if we go to protestant chruches we see that same altar and we see vestiges of the Levites

If we go to the old testement when Moses went up to the mount of God we see the isrealites having no leadership in arron or guidance ask that visual representations of God be brought to them that they might worship -- and we know when Moses returned (as when Christ returns)all those idoltrous things were destroyed

In another place the corrupt king Solomon kingdom is split into two (East and west catholic church protestand and catholic) both are taken by corrupt kinds but one says my people will go to jerusalem and do their offering and will not return and I will have nothing -- so he errects two golden calms one in dan and one in beresheba and tell the people these are your gods worship and do your service here.

And the people that were raised knowing God in David and Solomon submitted having logic that ran something like this: our annointed king of God his words must be annointed and true -- he has greater wisdom so his words must be true.

But infact we know his words were false and this is underscored by the fact that he had been prophesied to -- Sola Dictum Dei, that he would receive the 10 tribes and he began in chast obediance of God but then he turned and damned all generations of Israel after him for the idolitry and traditions that he introduced. 300 years later Another king arose Josiah who also receive the sola dictum dei and he destroyed the altars the groves and all the other stuff.

And yet we deny protestant and catholic alike that anything like that has or could happen to us.

The ultimate question them comes why then what we read in the Gospels and the epistles is so vastly different from us and our experiance?

Why do we have priests and levites altars and stone buildings that are palatial palaces when Peter and the Apostles knew nothing of these things? If a pperson is truely christ's dsciple they will follow and heed hisw words. If a person were truely peters disciple they would follow and heed there words so in like manner protestants and catholics alike -- myself included have shown that they are not christs disciples peters or pauls but disciples of their own churches and denominations teaching following and obeys their respective denominatons wisdom.

The problem is my pastor did not die for my sins my church did not shed its blood for me. And my denominattion can not grant me a place in heaven

And further the sacrifices and offerings my pastor chruch and denomination make to absolve my sins in place of the death of Christ are an abomination unto God.

Nothing can be set up by men to replace Christ's death on the Cross.

Now I understand that if I give you this sola scriptura that you will say that's my interpretation or my words but if God speaks to you this as sola dictum dei you need to bow before God and say yes Lord

Christ said the kingdome cometh not by observation but by revelation.

The kingdom comes by one enlightened person at a time, not by the outward observation of scripture alone. In revelation

[P-Marlowe]

Sola-Scriptura is not what the Holy Father said.

No, but it's what he meant.

When I was growing up all my Catholic friends were astonished that protestants were allowed to read the bible without getting permission from the Bishop. Bible reading was apparently closely monitored back then, lest someone fall into heresy.

It seems that times have changed. It also appears that the Cardinals may have elected a Reformer to lead the Catholic Church into the 21st Century. If that be the case, then Long Live the Pope.

[pro610]

***Nothing can be set up by men to replace Christ,s death on the cross"***
This statement stands alone,
Thank you for posting it.

[magisterium]

Catholics never needed to have "permission" from their bishop to read the Bible. Most definitely not within the lifetime of anyone still breathing. This sounds suspiciously like a Boettner-style canard made to sound like a personal anecdote. IF there is truth to it, perhaps you misconstrue the *possible* insistence on the bishp's part that prior permission be obtained by him before one went to read, say, the KJV. Catholics do regard that particular translation with wariness, since it has agenda-driven translation issues and is missing seven books and parts of several others.

[P-Marlowe]

This sounds suspiciously like a Boettner-style canard made to sound like a personal anecdote.

On my honor it is true. This occurred sometime in the 1960's. I think it may have been before Vatican II, in fact I'm sure of it because I remember going to some Latin Masses back then and I think the Latin masses were done away with back then.

Now maybe my Catholic friends misunderstood whether they were allowed to read the Bible, but I distinctly remember being shocked that they needed to obtain permission before they were allowed to read it.

Now if you think it is a "Boettner style cannard" then my opinion of the credibility of "Bottner style cannards" has risen dramatically. In that case I would have to assume that a "Bottner style cannard" is as trustworthy as I am.

[redgolum]

So it was in God's plan that death be in the world from the start?

[Diva]

Rocketman, darlin I don't think I have ever received a post quite this long. Did you know your response was over four pages? Because you have been kind enough to have taken so much time I feel I at least owe you some response. My only hesitation is time, I have very little right now as I must write a rather detailed report for Monday and I have some family difficulties at present--life intercedes.

One thing I want to correct in your post is the statement that the Catholic Church says. (I quote from your post)

So we look in revelation 17 and see the great whore catholics say the anti-christ and great whore is martin Luther and the product of the reformation proestants say the pope is the antichrist and the great whore is the catholic church.

You will have to point to the official Catholic Church document where the Catholic Church says Martin Luther or any Protestant is the anti-Christ.

For many centuries ...long before the Protestant Reformation, the general interpretation within the Church has been that St. John is referring to the Roman Empire and to Caesar. The most obvious reason for this interpretation is because Revelation is an example of a popular form of writing from that period, a form St. John would have been very familiar with called Apocalyptic writing. It was very popular with the Jews in the First Century. It is a way of writing about current events, or events just previous to the time of writing, and to place these events into the form of a future prediction, or a vision of the future.

You will be hard pressed to find any official statement from a Pope, Cardinal, or Doctor of the Church stating that the Church considers Martin Luther to be the anti-Christ St. John is writing about. And, by the way, the word "official" has a definite meaning within the Church, it does not refer to just the private correspondence or off-hand statements of anyone including a Pope. That's enough for now and indeed probably will be the last for me as you need to get a better handle on what the Catholic Church actually teaches and not what you think or what some other individual outside the Catholic Church thinks it teaches. I suggest you access the Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org/cathen/ and the official Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I don't know if you are a fan of Boettner or Dave Hunt but, if you are getting your information from either of these fools it is very poor scholarship. However, if these are your own interpretations then you have a much bigger problem.

God bless and thanks again for taking the time to show me your view of the Bible and Christianity.

[Rocketman]

I have no idea who Boettner or Dave Hunt are and I gnerally do not quote protestant sources on things pertaining to the catholic chruch because of extreme bias the source materials I uses are the writings of the apostolic fathers, saints quotes or writings the catholic online encyclopedia that is a big one and various catholic websites. And at times scripture from the bible. I read I meditate and compare and when I write I try to listen to the complaints and objections and try to show my sources correct my misconceptions and explain my poorly written thoughts so they can be better understood. (Not that I get steady complaints and objections) I think I get more than a fair shake because I try to stay away fro biases personal conceits and the typical rumor mongering diatribe that passes for the fundamentalist view of Catholics

Are catholics Christians. Yes As much as any other Church or Group is.

Many in this forum say no. They say these things becasue they were taught them. They did not come up with this on their own. One has to understand some of thiese things as "traditions" and in grained "religious prejudice" In many cases I have found people simply parrot the things they were told and that is not exclussive to one church or another -- it is rare in this day that people of any sort really seek God with all their heart soul mind and strength, that they read the word of God out of a love and desire to know more about God. It is easy just to go to Chruch and warm a pew it does not take much insight or effort but to tune your soul and spirit that you might hear from God and come into a state of spirituality that takes effort drive and going beyond the norm.

Pope Benedict encouraging reading the bible to bring individuals into a state of spirituality and restoring the church and arguing passionetlly on its benefits can only be view as a good thing. His advise in this article is good for all beleivers.

On Luther being the anti-Christ I will hunt down the websites I found it on I found it on atleast three websites so and it was in a historic context so I felt confident that that was a prevailing thought.

I will post the sites later when I find them

[jo kus]

So it was in God's plan that death be in the world from the start?

God allows evil to exist to allow an even greater good to come out of it. "Oh happy fault of yours, Adam, that brought our Savior into the world!"

Brother in Christ

[Diva]

The Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Anglican Westminster Confessions all state that the office of the pope is the anti-Christ, I guess you could say they believe it is the "office" of the anti-Christ. These are official beliefs of at least these three Protestant sects conversely you will not find in our Creed, Dogma, or teachings of the Magisterium that Luther,or any of the Reformers is the anti-Christ. Finding a web-site by a Catholic that states Martin Luther is the anti-Christ is going to be an opinion not official doctrine.

[Rytwyng]

Catholics never needed to have "permission" from their bishop to read the Bible

In centuries past, they did. In fact it was a death penalty offense to possess a non-registered Bible in several European countries.

[magisterium]

Documentation/source for that? I have no doubt that more than a jaundiced eye was directed at reading Protestant Bibles, especially in lands where Catholics were a minority or had to coexist in countries with one or two other large Protestant bodies. But *death penalty*, yet! Whatever...

The Catholic Church considers itself the guardian of Scripture. By way of analogy, it considers itself the copyright holder, so to speak. As such, the Church feels perfectly within its rights to govern how Catholics approach Scripture. But it has never banned the reading of a Catholic text.

Much is made in certain circles about "chained Bibles" in the Middle Ages, but, if anything, they give evidence to the Catholic effort to make the Bible available for public use. Chained Bibles were chained at the lecturn in churches before the invention of the printing press *precisely* so that they could be available to read, much like a phone book is often cabled to the phone booth. This was to make it available, by way of preventing its theft, at a time when Bibles were hand-printed and, therefore, relatively rare and expensive. Anti-Catholic screeds are off and running with the "chained Bible" bit, but totally leave out the context. This assertion of yours is also not likely to have proper context, even granting that it is somehow grounded in a mixed-up half-truth.

[Rocketman]

Diva,

Here is a quote that is on several catholic websites variations name him as the anti-christ

Many Catholics may wonder how come the Holy Mass and priests could be abolished... but this already happened partially at the coming of Muhammad when there were 800 Christian bishops in Africa, among them St. Augustine, and in a few years there were reduced to just 5!... the "remnant" always mentioned by Isaiah. And when Martin Luther came, in a few years millions of Christians were left without sacrifice, altar, and priests... So, this is what it will happened at the coming of the Antichrist during the Abomination of Desolation, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will be abolished, and consequently there will be no need for altars nor priests to celebrate it... and, of course, a "remnant" will be left!.

First site http://biblia.com/jesusbible/daniel2.htm

second site http://www.religion-cults.com/antichrist/end.htm

For many Protestants this "Abomination" means very little, because they already do not have the "perpetual sacrifice", nor "sanctuary", nor "altar", nor "priests"... The Orthodox already do not have the "prince of hosts", nor "the city".

Many Catholics may wonder how come the Holy Mass and priests could be abolished... but this already happened partially at the coming of Muhammad when there were 800 Christian bishops in Africa, among them St. Augustine, and in a few years there were reduced to just 5!... the "remnant" always mentions by Isaiah. And when Martin Luther came, in a few years millions of Christians were left without sacrifice, altar, and priests... So, this is what it will happened at the coming of the Antichrist during the Abomination of Desolation, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will be abolished, and consequently there will be no need for altars nor priests to celebrate it... and, of course, a "remnant" will be left!.

http://www.religion-cults.com/metanoia/m11.htm

Here a catholic website "Catholic Daily that in a round about way is calling vatican II and all the popes taht stand by it the anti-chirst http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002Nov/nov25ed.htm

I found this but there was no link -- I found two version of the catholic encyclopedia on line and was not able to naviagte either wnough to say this is no or not.

QUOTE NOT MINE FROM A WEBPAGE: Catholic Encyclopedia states that Pope called Martin Luther ANTI-CHRIST, Martin Luther said POPE is the ANTI-CHRIST!!

For the moment this is the best I can do I was searching for something else when I came upon the sites saying Luther was the antichrist and the Keywords Luther and AntiChrist on Google and Yahoo are not too good to use.