Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic Church & Jesus Christ-Why No One Should Be A Catholic
Apostolic Messianic Fellowship ^ | August 30, 2005 | Why No One Should Be A Catholic

Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool

Catholic Church & Jesus Christ By Pastor G. Reckart International Copyright All Rights Reserved August 30, 2005

Why No One Should Be A Catholic

The first thing a Catholic learns when they open their Bible is they cannot buy their way out of hell fire.

When a Catholic looks in the Bible they will not find purgatory. They will not find priests taking money to say a Mass to get souls out of the fires of hell. The Catholic church is popular because many do not want much out of religion and the Catholic church offers them the little they want. Yet many do want more of God and to obtain it they must leave the Catholic church. In the past 30 years it is estimated over 150 million Catholics have left the Catholic church seeking more of God from other religions. Catholicism remains popular because a Catholic can sin all the way to purgatory and someone can buy their way out of hell fire right into heaven. Over 150 million Catholics read the Bible and could not find purgatory and giving priests money to say a Mass to get souls out of the flames of hell fire. If a Catholic will open their Bible and search they will not find these either. No where in the New Testament is there a priest who takes money to say a Mass to get souls out of hell. Maybe God has been dealing with you showing you the Catholic church is not right? Now is the time to accept God's will and leave.

One of the good things about Catholics is their desire to help people. So if a loved one dies and they did not live a holy life it is understood they must go to Purgatory and suffer in hell fire until a priest can get them released to go to heaven. Catholics are very loving and ready to give large sums of money to help these poor souls. They really believe that by buying a Mass for these dead souls in Purgatory they will be released from hell fire to go to heaven. This is great love for people no doubt about that. But, all this love and all this money will never save a soul who has died lost and is in hell fire torment. The Catholic church has used the love and affection of its members to make billions of dollars in profit saying a Mass for loved ones. This has been fraud for many centuries. The Catholic church developed this money scheme to milk loving Catholics who cared for a deceased loved one. According to Catholicism, its members can pay money to the priests and empty purgatory hell fire of all Catholics. This is not true and it has not been true for 1600 years. Why do good and honest people put up with this scheme from the Catholic church? They do so because they are scared of the Catholic church and its priests. Those Catholics who look into the Bible will not find Purgatory, priest collecting money to say a Mass, or the Catholic church. This is why a person should not be a Catholic.

Thousands of Catholics each year are leaving the church of Rome. Why? They are leaving because they no longer believe the Catholic church is the true Church of the Bible. They discover the Catholic church is filled with falsehood, lies, and deceptions. They learn it has no biblical authority for its religious rituals and the majority of its teachings are perversions of scripture. When they look for the Catholic church in the New Testament of the Bible they cannot find it at all. When they look for the rituals practiced they cannot find them. When they search for a pope or priest performing the Mass they cannot find one. When they look for Jesus Christ to be a Catholic they are shocked he was not a Catholic and never attended a Catholic church. When a Catholic takes a good look in the Bible he/she will learn they have been in a false religion all along and brainwashed to believe they were in the true one and only. True Christianity is not Catholic. Christianity existed 295 years before the Catholic church was founded.

Catholics are right to leave the Catholic church. After all they must save their souls and if the Catholic church does not have the true Gospel message of salvation that will save sinners THEY SHOULD ESCAPE and quick! Of course the priest will try numerous tricks to keep Catholics in the church.

No one can be a true Christian and a Catholic at the same time.

The second thing a Catholic learns is that Jesus was not the founder of the Catholic Church.

When a Catholic opens their Bible they will never find Jesus in or near a Catholic church. When they open their Bible they will learn that Jesus was not a Catholic and was not the founder of the Catholic religion. They learn the word "Catholic" is not in the Bible. They then learn the Catholic church took up the name "Catholic" from Latin which means "universal." The Catholic church claims it is "universal" or world wide. It claims it is the oldest and ONLY WORLD WIDE RELIGION OF CHRISTIANITY STARTED BY JESUS CHRIST. When Catholics discover this is false, that Jesus started a Jewish religion, they soon learn the Catholic church is not Jewish at all but is Gentile owned, Gentile operated, and a Gentile controlled business enterprise whose product is paganized religion. When Catholics open their eyes and see that the Catholic church has adopted many pagan and heathen celebrations and practices and adapted these to Christian teachings, they know they have to leave. No, they know they have to run! It is right here, they know Jesus Christ was not the founder of the Catholic church. Because Jesus would not start a Church and then allow the gates of hell to conquer it by adopting pagan religious practices. No, Jesus would keep his Church pure and free from all evil and sin. The Catholic church is not such a Church. Jesus was not the founder of the Catholic church and Catholics learn they must leave it immediately.

The third thing a Catholic learns, is they do not receive Jesus Christ as Savior when the Eucharist wafer is placed on their tongue.

When a Catholic opens their Bible they will not find the small wafer as pictured on the left. They will not find anyone sticking out their tongue to have the wafer placed there by a Catholic priest. Catholics are taught that when they go forward at the end of the Mass, they do so to receive the flesh of Jesus. The devout Catholic presents him/her self before the priest, open their mouth, stick out their tongue, and he deposits the flesh of Jesus in the form of this wafer. The Catholic is now told he has eternal life because he has eaten the flesh of Jesus. Salvation in the Catholic church is totally and completely in the Mass. They do not preach Acts 2:38 and the necessity of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, and through Christ alone. According to the Catholic religion, a person must attend Mass, believe the pope is the vicar of God, accept the Catholic church as the one and only true Church, and then receive the Eucharist on the tongue to be saved. But when a Catholic searches the Bible for the Mass and the Eucharist wafer they cannot find them. They discover the Catholic church has never followed the Biblical Lord's Supper (Communion or Passover). In fact they will learn the Catholic church does not follow the New Testament at all in the Communion observance of the Lord's flesh and blood.

The Catholic church departed from the ancient practice of Jerusalem and the Eastern churches of Asia in observing the Lord's Passover on the evening of the 14th of Nisan. The church of Rome has tried to destroy this ancient Passover observance since 325AD and the Council of Nicaea. At issue here is if the Church Jesus founded observed an annual celebration of his death on the annual Jewish Passover as he commanded (do this in remembrance of me--which includes the Cup, the unleavened bread, and washing of feet). Any Catholic who studies history will learn the early Christians did indeed celebrate the Lord's Passover on an annual basis on the same day the Jews observed their Passover. This practice was brought to Asia not only by the Apostle Paul, but the Apostle John and the Evangelist Philip.

The Asian Christian Churches followed the ancient custom of Jerusalem, celebrating the annual day of the death of Jesus on the Jew's Passover evening. This is certified by no less then such great men of God as Polycarp and Polycrates both of Ephesus. The whole of the Asian Churches held the eve of the 14th of Nisan as the annual celebration of the Lord's Passion on the same day the Jews observed their annual Passover. All the Asian Churches held a conference and refused to change to practice Easter and sent a letter to Victor Bishop of Rome, who then wrote letters to all the Bishops of the world to excommunicate them from the Christian Church (although he had no such power). The response of Polycrates (190AD) is documented history. The Catholic church at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD, formerly adopted the practice of observing the Easter resurrection of Jesus AND NOT HIS DEATH! Jesus instituted the memorial of his death in the new Passover and sealed this as an annual celebration. He sealed the memorial of his resurrection in New Testament baptism.

Out of the Council of Nicaea came the Catholic law not to observe the Lord's Passover on the day, evening, and time he instituted it. The Bishops at the Council switched over to celebrate the Easter resurrection and held this as an annual day. Easter is now an annual day while the Lord's Communion was moved inside newly adopted pagan mystery Mass. The Mass is held many times a day contrary to what Jesus instituted for the Communion Passover. When a Catholic sees this, they know Rome and the Council of Nicaea falsified the command of Jesus to observe the annual Passover held in honor of his death as the Passover Lamb. A Catholic has every right to leave the Catholic church and go back to what Jesus instituted and he did not institute the Mass. Jesus was not the founder of the Catholic church or its Mass.

So, the Eastern Asian Churches continued the Jerusalem practice of the Lord's Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. The Western and African churches controlled by Rome began to observe the resurrection which they called Easter (Easter is the spring pagan goddess Eostre). Those who celebrate Easter are observing a pagan holiday manufactured by the papacy.

It is here that Catholics learn the Catholic church adopted a pagan name for the resurrection of Jesus. This is shocking to Catholics when they see it. It is shocking to Catholics to learn that no Church in the Bible ever observed the day of the resurrection on an annual basis: but instead observed it on the occasion of each and every baptism of a convert. But the Churches did observe the Lord's Passover on the same day the Jews celebrated their Passover.

When Catholics learn the Councils were not holy meetings of the True Apostolic Church, they want out and leave. Over 500 million people world-wide have rejected the claims of the Catholic church. When a Catholic has Bible study and learns what the true Church really believed and practiced, they see the real Church Jesus established. They will eagerly accept the Lord's Communion and observe it because it is the Thanksforgiving Feast of the Lord's Passover. They are willing to give up the paganism of Easter. It is right here that the Catholic learns the bread and wine are only symbols and do not turn into the real flesh and blood of Jesus. When they learn they cannot receive Christ as Savior by sticking out their tongue, they will leave the Catholic church. When they come to the truth that the Catholic Eucharist is a falsehood they will never stick out their tongue again to receive it. Catholic priests, monks, archbishops, cardinals, and popes will shudder of this, but no one in the Bible received Jesus Christ as Savior by sticking out their tongue and receiving a wafer that is said to be the real flesh of Jesus. When a Catholic gets a firm grip on the Word of God and understands the true Passover of the Lord Jesus they will never return to a Catholic church ever again.

The fourth thing a Catholic learns is the Mass is not found in the Bible any where.

When a Catholic opens the Bible they will not find the Mass. They will not find a crucifix used by the New Testament Church. They will not find a Catholic style altar at all. All Catholics know the center of the Catholic religion is the Mass. It is the ritual artificial re-crucifixion of Jesus by a priest as he takes the cup of wine and presents it to a crucifix of Jesus on the cross and recites a prayer in Latin. Concluding his prayer the wine magically is turned into the blood of Jesus. He then gulps this down and does not share a drop with the members attending. Where did this practice originate that only priests can drink from the Cup? Paul did not teach this to the Corinthians! Next the priest picks up the IHS wafer and holds it high before the crucifix as he mumbles another prayer in Latin. Usually there is music and a song immediately after the consecration that turns the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus. This is to embellish the moment of the occasion and give it a sense of holiness. The priest then summons the faithful to come forward and receive Christ as Savior. Believing they are receiving Christ as Savior they flock to the front and stick out their tongue to receive Jesus.

But when a Catholic looks into the Bible for this mystery ritual Mass they will not find it. They learn the Mass is nothing but a borrowed pagan ritual from the temple of Jove. They learn there is no Mass found anywhere in the New Testament. They cannot find a single person sticking out their tongue to receive Christ as their Savior. They cannot find a Latin Mass. They cannot find a priest drinking the cup of wine all to himself. These things are not in the Bible any where. The New Testament records everything about the Christian Church. And the Catholic Mass is not found there. One Catholic woman said: "when I tried to find the Mass in the Bible and it was not there, I knew in my heart I had been deceived."

What is the Mass? It is an artificial sacrifice. It is a mock sacrifice. It is the priest recrucifying Jesus in the emblems of the Eucharist and the Cup. Where in the Bible are we to think that observing the Lord's Communion or Passover memorial we are recrucifying Jesus on the Cross? It is not there! When a Catholic looks in the Bible for a priest to hold in his hands the Eucharist wafer and turn it into the flesh of Jesus, he/she will not find it. When they look in the Bible for a place where a priest blesses the cup and turns it into the blood of Jesus he/she cannot find it. This is shocking! Why is the Catholic church doing something that is not in the Bible . Why are they performing a ritual that no Apostle or Minister of the Christian Church did? Why is the central religious ritual of the Catholic church completely missing from the Bible? It is not there. The Catholic who learns this discovers also that the daily multiple Mass observance to recrucify the Lord Jesus is not in the Bible. Yes, the Mass is a recrucification of Jesus every time the priest holds it. There must be fresh flesh and fresh blood of Jesus in the Catholic church several times a day or the Catholic church has no Mass. How many times a day in all the Catholic churches throughout the world is Christ recrucified every day? In the Bible those who crucify to themselves Christ afresh are accursed. There is not one Mass to be found any where in the Bible. Just because the Catholic church points to Jesus observing the Jewish Passover does not make it a Mass. Jesus observed the Passover and then instituted his own annual Passover. He did not institute the ritual of the Mass as the Catholic church practices today. And what of washing feet which Jesus did and commanded of his Apostles. Why, in over 1,700 years has the Catholic church NEVER PRACTICED WASHING OF FEET at the Communion as Jesus established? It does not because the Mass is not a true representation of the annual Passover Memorial Jesus instituted. At no time did Jesus hint or indicate his Memorial was to be a daily ritual. When Catholics learn this, they know in their heart of hearts this is not the true Church.

What is the fifth thing a Catholic learns is there is no confession booth in the Bible.

They discover the confession booth is all a fraud and a sham. They cannot find it any where in the Bible either. The Catholic church just made up religious stuff and got people to believe it. People who never read the Bible to check if what they are doing is even in there. When a Catholic searches the Bible for the confession booth and cannot find it they know going to a priest to confess their sins was nothing but the way the Catholic church learns everything sinful that is taking place in a person's life or home. They learn the priest has used the confessional to extract sex stories out of young girls and boys. Many altar boys were homosexualized using the confession booth as a tool of contact and seduction by the priest. What is so shocking about this instrument of the church is that no where are Christians told they must go to a New Testament Minister or Preacher to confess their sins to receive forgiveness. When the Catholic learns they can go straight to God in their own prayer, at home, in the car, at work, or at a place of worship: they have no need for a confessional ever again. And, how is it that a sinful priest can tell a sinner to say five hail-Marys and put some money in the poor box and this is the penance for their stealing, lying, adultery, fornication, gambling, homosexuality, lesbianism, drug use, and other sins? How can a priest guilty of most of the same sins who has not confessed himself to some other sinful priest, going to be able to grant indulgences and pardons? When a Catholic really thinks about this, they know they were members of a church that was not the Christian Church of the Bible. They know they must read their Bible and find a Church that matches the Church of the Bible.

The sixth thing a Catholic learns is there is no Pope in the Bible and Peter was not the first Pope.

A Catholic who opens the Bible will discover there is no pope. Yes, they learn the claim Peter was the first pope is false. They will not find a pope in the Bible, and what's more they will not find the pope's fish hat or his fancy gold worn by Peter. No, they will discover the Pontiff title is another religious title stolen from the high priest of the temple of Jove. They learn Peter never was a pope and never was the recognized leader of the Christian Church. Indeed, he was given the keys to the Kingdom in Matthew 16:19 but these when used on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), in Samaria (Acts 8), and in Caesarea (Acts 10), afterward ceasing to be needed. He opened up the Kingdom gates of the Church to the whole world. He was not given the keys as a signal he held the position of Pope. Once the gates to the Kingdom were opened no man could shut them. No where in the Bible did Peter pass these keys on to a successor.

Who was the man who presided over the New Testament Church? Was it Peter? No! It was Jacob (James) the firstborn son of Mary by Joseph after Jesus was born. This half-brother of the Lord arose and took over the leadership of the Church and we find him in that position in Acts 15. Peter never was the head of the Christian Church so he could not have been the first pope of a fictitious Catholic church. How come, if Jesus is the founder of the Catholic church he is not the first pope? Most Catholics never seem to get out of the Catholic box far enough to ask themselves some important questions. The invention of a Gentile pope to run the Catholic church was in the fourth century.

All the pre-Nicene books were rewritten in such a way to create a legacy of supposed Western or Latin Roman pontiffs who ruled the entire Christian Church world. The title of Pontiff comes from Latin paganism. The title Pontiff is not in the Bible any where (it is another Catholic falsehood).

There are men mentioned in the history of the Catholic church as popes who may have never existed. They can be proven to exist only in the post Nicene books written to reinforce Rome's claim to legitimate power and control over the Christian Church. The falsehood of the donation letter supposedly written by Constantine is an example of forgery and fraud within the Catholic church.

The whole idea, theory, and development of a succession of Latin pontiff popes from Peter to the present pope is all a massive fraud. There is no pope in the Bible and there never was a pope over the true Christian Church. Jesus reigns as King over the Church and his Ministers act as his ambassadors throughout the nations. This you will find in the Bible. You will not find a religious system with nuns, monks, archbishops, cardinals, prelates, and popes. A Catholic will not find a religious hierarchy of ascending ranks from laity to the pope as is found in the Catholic church. When a Catholic learns there is no pope in the Bible, they know once more they had been deceived by religious trickery and mental seduction. They know the Catholic church is not the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Take a look on the left at an ancient image of the fish god Dagon found in Mesopotamia. Look at his fish hat and that of the pope above. Any Catholic can see the Catholic church has adopted Dagan idolatry in hats to embellish their popes and priests and make them look religious to the world. The popes of Rome need to jerk that fish hat off, throw it down, stomp on it, and take it out and burn it. The pope should issue a Papal Bull it is never to be worn again by any pope or priest. Will they do it? No they will not do it and this is the reason the Catholic must run from the Catholic church and never look back. The Catholic church is not going to correct any of this falsehood, rituals, or heresies. It is a paganized Christian religion that has entrenched itself in many nations by bloodshed, threats, violence, and deception.

The seventh thing a Catholic learns is the 12 Apostles and New Testament Saints were not Catholic.

When a Catholic opens their Bible and tries to find the 12 Apostles and the Saints attending a Catholic church they will not find it. They learn from Bible study that all the New Testament Apostles and Saints were not Catholic. They learn the Catholic church surrounds themselves with images and idols of the Apostles and New Testament Saints to deceive members that the 12 Apostles and Saints were Catholic. It makes members think if these were all Catholic then they should be Catholic also. When they look at the images of the Apostles, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus, they are led to believe these chose the Catholic church because it is God's church. They never stop to think these images are put around a Catholic church to make people think it is the Church of God when it is not. Idols and images around a Catholic church is one of the biggest deceptions of the priests of Rome. It is an important tool used by the Catholic church to deceive the minds of members. The members are forced to think in a box. They never consider these were never Catholics. But when they open the Bible and see these were not Catholic their eyes come open and they see the Catholic church is not the Church of the Bible.

A Catholic who studies will learn there are no nuns, monks, priests, or popes in the Bible. They learn Mary was not worshiped. They learn she held no special position other then the Mother of the Messieh. They learn the Catholic church invented a white religion that is racist and portrays Mary, Joseph, Jesus as white people when they were black or brown. They learn that Rome deceives not only with false doctrine but with pictures, idols, and icons. They learn that the veneration, worship, and prayers to saints is not in the Bible. They learn the Catholic church did not give the world the Bible. The Bible existed before there was a Catholic church. They learn the Catholic church makes use of these so-called saints to embellish its pomp, rituals, church decor with images, and to make people think all these were Catholic.

None of the Saints of the New Testament Church were Catholic. None of them had ever been in a Catholic church. None were sprinkle baptized in the trinity. None ever doused themselves with holy water. None of them ever went to confession. Never prayed on the rosary. None attend a Mass. None celebrated Easter. In fact, when a Catholic looks in the Bible for adoration and veneration of saints he/she cannot find the practice of it any where. One of the claims of the Catholic church to Catholics is this: "You can believe the Catholic church is the true Church because it produced all the saints and such holy men and women as St Francis of Assisi, St Teresa of Avila, St. John Vianney, St Therese of Lizieux." Rome claims these and other holy saints produced by the Catholic church proves it is the true Church. But where is the adoration and veneration of saints in the Bible? Where in the Bible is there the making of idols and images of saints to stand around the church, in the foyer, outside the church, and in every nook and cranny? Idols and images are condemned in the Bible.

Where in the Bible did Christians make medallions to hang from one's neck as a luck charm or a fetish to ward off sickness, disease, or some other bad omen? There is none. The whole use of these so-called saints is to make Catholics think no other religion claiming to be Christian has such people in its ranks. The Catholic church uses these saints and their lives as a means to teach Catholic doctrine and compliance to the rules and codes. If a person rebels against the Catholic church they might lose the prayers of a saint on their behalf or the behalf of another loved one. So, to keep close to God a Catholic prays to these idols and gives money to their favorite saint-fan-club. When a Catholic learns there is no such practices found in the Bible they know they were deceived again. They know they must leave the Catholic church quickly because it is not the Church Jesus founded.

The eighth thing a Catholic learns is that Mary was never a Catholic.

When a Catholic opens their Bible they will not find Mary attending a Catholic Church. They will not find her as a Nun. They will not find a perpetual virgin. If Mary is not a Catholic there is no Catholic church. When a Catholic opens the Bible and learns Mary was not a Catholic and not the mother of God, they know they must leave the Catholic church.

Mary was the mother of the seed of David in which God was incarnated upon birth (1Tim 3:16). There is no greater deception and lie of the Catholic church then that Mary was a Catholic. Mary never attended a Catholic church in her life. She never heard of one in her life. She never saw or met a Catholic nun, monk, priest, or pope in her life. She never attended a Mass in her life. She was never sprinkle baptized by a priest of the Catholic church. She never prayed on a rosary. She never crossed herself with the sign of the Cross. She never doused herself with holy water. She never went to a confession booth. She never received penance from a Catholic priest.

Mary was not a Catholic. She was Jewish and a member of the Christian Jewish Church. This Christian Jewish Church was not Catholic. The Jewish Church did not develop into the Catholic church. The Catholic church is a complete Gentile creation of men established many centuries after Mary's death.

Mary was a Jewish woman of the tribe of Judah and the mother of Jesus the Messieh of Israel. She was mother of the seed of David, the man-child, and she was the unrecognized queen of Israel. She did not birth a God into the world.

Such teachings that she is God's mother makes Catholicism a laughing stock. How can the created birth the uncreated? Impossible you say! Agreed. Where was Mary when God created the heavens and the earth? She was not living yet. Where was Mary when God created Adam and Eve? She did not exist. To say Mary was the mother of God cannot be found any where in the Bible. When a Catholic looks for this verification and cannot find it, they know this is one more reason to leave the Catholic church. They ask themselves: if Mary was not a Catholic why should I be?

The Catholic church goes above honor of Mary, they make her a co-mediator with Christ. The Catholic church claims a Catholic can pray to Mary who will talk to her son who will talk to his Father and favor is granted because Mary is the mother of the Father's Son. Catholics are led to believe Mary can get the Father to do for them what they ask because God the Father would never deny the Mother of his Son. Is this procedure of praying to Mary any where in the Bible? It is not found there.

What is the theory behind this? In ancient times a person might be afraid to go directly to a king because they did not know how their situation might turn out. So, they sought a way to influence the king and who better to do this than his mother. So, a person might get the mother to mention something to the king and thereby soften up his attitude and or provoke him to do something good for a person his mother knows. After all, it is reasoned what king would not want to show honor and respect to his mother's wishes. So, a Catholic believes if they ask Mary, she will ask the Son and the Son will ask the Father and the Father will not deny the mother of his Son.

When a Catholic learns this is not in the Bible any where they know the Catholic church is not the true Church founded by Jesus. When they learn Mary was not a go-between to Jesus and to God the Father for others, this causes Catholics to see all this Maryology as nothing but a big religious sham. They should take this treasured Lady down from her place among idols throughout the world. They should stop praying to her because this is not in the Bible. They should stop teaching lies and falsehoods about Mary. Have they no respect for her? They should remove her from their churches because she was Jewish and not Catholic. When a Catholic learns that Mary was not a Catholic they have discovered the last thing they need to know that proves the Catholic church is not the Church Jesus founded.

As the light of Truth comes into the life of a Catholic they will see the Catholic church as an impostor. They will then take a second look at its sins, evils, and scandals. They will know from its birth in Nicaea in 325AD until today 2005 it is an evil religion that has cheated millions of true Bible salvation by its falsehood. The Catholic church has killed more people to establish and enforce the Catholic religion then any other religion in the world. Thousands have been murdered. Hundreds have been burned at the stake. More hundreds have been tortured. There are thousands of killed babies whom nuns birthed and the fathers were priests. Homosexuality is so out of control in the Catholic church among the priests, monks, and popes. If ever there was a church the gates of hell have prevailed against, it is the Catholic church. Catholic apologist claim these are just scars of sinners upon Christ and they are wounds to his body that Catholics and the world should overlook. No, we cannot overlook something so evil, when we know it is not the true Church of Jesus Christ. The Catholic church will continue to be the most shameful religious group in the world. When a Catholic comes to see the shame of the Catholic church they will know it is not the true Church Jesus founded.

So, why should a Catholic leave the Catholic church and find the true Church of the Bible?

Because as members of the Catholic church they are in a false church. As a member in the Catholic church they are forced to believe the Catholic church does not have to be found in the Bible. They are forced to believe in many things they cannot find in the Bible.

If a Catholic does not leave the Catholic church they are not baptized properly as found in the Bible. They are not saved by faith as found in the Bible. If they remain Catholic their soul will be lost. If they remain a Catholic after they are shown the Catholic church is not in the Bible they will go to hell.

A Catholic must ask themselves: "If Jesus and the Apostles were not in the Catholic church why should I be a member?"

A Catholic must believe Jesus was the founder of a Jewish Christian Church and Peter preached how to be saved in Acts 2:38.

A Catholic must ask him/her self this question: "If Peter was the first Pope how come the Catholic church does not follow him and baptized in the name of Jesus Christ as Peter preached in Acts 2:38?

Catholics are not dumb people. They do not want their soul to be lost. My final advice to all our Catholic friends is: "don't let anyone fool you or convince you to stay in the Catholic church."

Closing prayer:

Lord Jesus I pray for all the good people in the Catholic church. I pray our Lord that you would open their eyes to see you were not a Catholic and they should not be either. As they open their Bible Lord Jesus and begin to seek for the true Church, guide them, love them, and lead them as our Good Shepherd. Lord I pray now you will bring them into the one fold of the True Church of Jesus Christ. Amen!

Pastor G. Reckart

Return to Studies Page Read Mary Was Not A Catholic

Booklet Print Version PDF Format


TOPICS: Apologetics; History; Ministry/Outreach; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,001-2,0202,021-2,0402,041-2,060 ... 2,361-2,378 next last
To: Salvation
But do you know the secret Catholic code and the secret handshake? LOL!

Yeah, but I'm not giving it out here!!!

Duelling scriptures. A flat, soulless two dimensional copy of Christianity. Justify away, folks.

2,021 posted on 03/20/2007 3:40:27 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (When you believe in nothing, then everything is acceptable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2016 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; nanetteclaret
Why do you credit Simon Magus so mightily?

Because Irenaeus called him the Father of all heresies, the Father of a counterfeit Christianity that emerged there in Rome during the reign of Claudius and Nero. And by the end of the first century 50 different religious cults had emerged from him. All of these cults were infiltrating the Church with their magical heresies, rituals, icons, and pagan practices.

The church fathers from Justin Martyr, to Irenaeus to Tertullian, to Origen, to Hippolytus to Eusebius spent more paper on Simon Magus and his sojourn in Rome than on anyone else. And we have this from Eusebius about the Simonians in his day:

11.". . . he [Simon Magus] feigned and counterfeited faith in Christ, even going so far as to receive baptism. 12. And what is surprising, the same thing is done even to this day by those who follow his [Simon Magus's] most impure heresy. For they, after the manner of their forefather, slipping into the Church, like a pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict those into whom they are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in themselves. The most of these have been expelled as soon as they have been caught in their wickedness, as Simon himself, when detected by Peter, received the merited punishment. . . .

6."We have understood that Simon was the author of all heresy. From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy have feigned the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is celebrated among all on account of its purity of life. But they nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they seemed to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures and images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him; and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and libations." [Eccl Hist, Book II, Ch 1, Sect 11,12... Ch 13, Sect 6]

Those pagan practices from the disciples of Simon Magus eventually found a home in the Church of Rome just as his bones found their resting place in that pagan graveyard beneath the Basilica of St Peter.

2,022 posted on 03/20/2007 3:52:00 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2013 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
I left because of this: "You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify." Cardinal Gibbons (for many years head of the Catholic Church in America), The Faith of Our Fathers (92d ed., rev.; Baltimore: John Murphy Company), p.89. At some point, you have to decide if the scriptures matter.

Let's take them in context. Putting these words out here without their context is somewhat misleading. The Church, as we have just seen, is the only Divinely constituted teacher of Revelation.

Now, the Scripture is the great depository of the Word of God. Therefore, the Church is the divinely appointed Custodian and Interpreter of the Bible. For, her office of infallible Guide were superfluous if each individual could interpret the Bible for himself..

That God never intended the Bible to be the Christian's rule of faith, independently of the living authority of the Church, will be the subject of this chapter..

No nation ever had a greater veneration for the Bible than the Jewish people. The Holy Scripture was their pride and their glory. It was their national song in time of peace; it was their meditation and solace in time of tribulation and exile. And yet the Jews never dreamed of settling their religious controversies by a private appeal to the Word of God..

Whenever any religious dispute arose among the people it was decided by the High Priest and the Sanhedrim, which was a council consisting of seventy-two civil and ecclesiastical judges. The sentence of the High Priest and of his associate judges was to be obeyed under penalty of death. "If thou perceive," says the Book of Deuteronomy, "that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment, ...thou shalt come to the Priests of the Levitical race and to the judge, ...and they shall show thee the truth of the judgment. ...And thou shalt follow their sentence; neither shalt thou decline to the right hand, nor to the left. ...But he that will...refuse to obey the commandment of the Priest, ...that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel."[Deut. xvii. 8, et seq.].

From this clear sentence you perceive that God does not refer the Jews for the settlement of their controversies to the letter of the law, but to the living authority of the ecclesiastical tribunal which He had expressly established for that purpose..

Hence, the Priests were required to be intimately acquainted with the Sacred Scripture, because they were the depositaries of God's law, and were its expounders to the people. "The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they (the people) shall seek the law at his mouth, because he is the angel (or messenger) of the Lord of hosts."[Mal. ii. 7.].

And, in fact, very few of the children of Israel, except the Priests, were in possession of the Divine Books. The holy manuscript was rare and precious. And what provision did God make that all the people might have an opportunity of hearing the Scriptures? Did He command the sacred volume to be multiplied? No; but He ordered the Priests and the Levites to be distributed through the different tribes, that they might always be at hand to instruct the people in the knowledge of the law. The Jews were even forbidden to read certain portions of the Scripture till they had reached the age of thirty years..

Does our Savior reverse this state of things when He comes on earth? Does He tell the Jews to be their own guides in the study of the Scriptures? By no means; but He commands them to obey their constituted teachers, no matter how disedifying might be their private lives. "Then said Jesus to the multitudes and to His disciples: The Scribes and Pharisees sit upon the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do."[Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.].

It is true our Lord said on one occasion: "Search the Scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting, and the same are they that give testimony to Me."[John v. 39.] This passage is triumphantly quoted as an argument in favor of private interpretation. But it proves nothing of the kind. Many learned commentators, ancient and modern, express the verb in the indicative mood: "Ye search the Scriptures." At all events, our Savior speaks here only of the Old Testament because the New Testament was not yet written. He addresses not the multitude, but the Pharisees, who were the teachers of the law, and reproaches them for not admitting His Divinity. "You have," He says, "the Scriptures in your hands; why then do you not recognize Me as the Messiah, since they give testimony that I am the Son of God?" He refers them to the Scriptures for a proof of His Divinity, not as to a source from which they were to derive all knowledge in regard to the truths of revelation..

Besides, He did not rest of the proof of His Divinity upon the sole testimony of Scripture. For He showed it..

First--By the testimony of John the Baptist (v. 33), who had said, "Behold the Lamb of God; behold Him who taketh away the sins of the world." See also John I. 34..

Second--By the miracles which He wrought (v. 36)..

Third--By the testimony of the Father (v. 37), when He said: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him." Matt. iii. 16; Luke ix. 35..

Fourth--By the Scriptures of the Old Testament; as if He were to say, "If you are unwilling to receive these three proofs, though they are most cogent, at least you cannot reject the testimony of the Scriptures, of which you boast so much.".

Finally, in this very passage our Lord is explaining the sense of Holy Writ; therefore, its true meaning is not left to the private interpretation of every chance reader. It is, therefore, a grave perversion of the sacred text to adduce these words in vindication of private interpretation of the Scriptures..

But when our Redeemer abolished the Old Law and established His Church, did He intend that His Gospel should be disseminated by the circulation of the Bible, or by the living voice of His disciples? This is a vital question. I answer most emphatically, that it was by preaching alone that He intended to convert the nations, and by preaching alone they were converted. No nation has ever yet been converted by the agency of Bible Associations..

Jesus Himself never wrote a line of Scripture. He never once commanded His Apostles to write a word,[Note: Except when He directed St. John to write the Apocalypse, I. 11.] or even to circulate the Scriptures already existing. When He sends them on their Apostolic errand, He says: "Go teach all nations,"[Matt. xxviii. 19.] "Preach the Gospel to every creature."[Mark xvi. 15.] "He that heareth you heareth Me."[Luke x. 16.] And we find the Apostles acting in strict accordance with these instructions..

Of the twelve Apostles, the seventy-two disciples, and early followers of our Lord only eight have left us any of their sacred writings. And the Gospels and Epistles were addressed to particular persons or particular churches. They were written on the occasion of some emergency, just as Bishops issue Pastoral letters to correct abuses which may spring up in the Church, or to lay down some rules of conduct for the faithful. The Apostles are never reported to have circulated a single volume of the Holy Scripture, but "they going forth, preached everywhere, the Lord cooperating with them."[Mark xvi. 20.].

Thus we see that in the Old and the New Dispensation the people were to be guided by a living authority, and not by their private interpretation of the Scriptures..

Indeed, until the religious revolution of the sixteenth century, it was a thing unheard of from the beginning of the world, that people should be governed by the dead letter of the law either in civil or ecclesiastical affairs. How are your civil affairs regulated in this State, for instance? Certainly not in accordance with your personal interpretation of the laws of Virginia, but in accordance with decisions which are rendered by the constituted judges of the State..

Now what the civil code is to the citizen, the Scripture is to the Christian. The Word of God, as well as the civil law, must have an interpreter, by whose decision we are obliged to abide..

We often hear the shibboleth: "The Bible, and the Bible only, must be your guide." Why, then, do you go to the useless expense of building fine churches and Sabbath-schools? What is the use of your preaching sermons and catechizing the young, if the Bible at home is a sufficient guide for your people? The fact is, you reverend gentlemen contradict in practice what you so vehemently advance in theory. Do not tell me that the Bible is all-sufficient; or, if you believe it is self-sufficient, cease your instructions. Stand not between the people and the Scriptures..

I will address myself now in a friendly spirit to a non-Catholic, and will proceed to show him that he cannot consistently accept the silent Book of Scripture as his sufficient guide..

A copy of the sacred volume is handed to you by your minister, who says: "Take this book; you will find it all-sufficient for your salvation." But here a serious difficulty awaits you at the very threshold of your investigations. What assurance have you that the book he hands you is the inspired Word of God; for every part of the Bible is far from possessing intrinsic evidences of inspiration? It may, for ought you know, contain more than the Word of God, or it may not contain all the Word of God. We must not suppose that the Bible was always, as it is now, a compact book, bound in a neat form. It was for several centuries in scattered fragments, spread over different parts of Christendom. Meanwhile, many spurious books, under the name of Scripture, were circulated among the faithful. There was, for instance, the spurious Gospel of St. Peter; there was also the Gospel of St. James and of St. Matthias..

The Catholic Church, in the plenitude of her authority, in the third Council of Carthage, (A.D. 397,) separated the chaff from the wheat, and declared what Books were Canonical, and what were apocryphal. Even to this day the Christian sects do not agree among themselves as to what books are to be accepted as genuine. Some Christians of continental Europe do not recognize the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke because these Evangelists were not among the Apostles. Luther used to call the Epistle of St. James a letter of straw..

But even when you are assured that the Bible contains the Word of God, and nothing but the Word of God, how do you know that the translation is faithful? The Books of Scripture were originally written in Hebrew and Greek, and you have only the translation. Before you are certain that the translation is faithful you must study the Hebrew and Greek languages, and then compare the translation with the original. How few are capable of this gigantic undertaking!.

Indeed, when you accept the Bible as the Word of God, you are obliged to receive it on the authority of the Catholic Church, who was the sole Guardian of the Scriptures for fifteen hundred years..

But after having ascertained to your satisfaction that the translation is faithful, still the Scriptures can never serve as a complete Rule of Faith and a complete guide to heaven independently of an authorized, living interpreter..

A competent guide, such as our Lord intended for us, must have three characteristics. It must be within the reach of everyone; it must be clear and intelligible; it must be able to satisfy us on all questions relating to faith and morals..

First--A complete guide of salvation must be within the reach of every inquirer after truth; for, God "wishes all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth;"[I. Tim. ii. 4.] and therefore He must have placed within the reach of everyone the means of arriving at the truth. Now, it is clear that the Scriptures could not at any period have been accessible to everyone..

They could not have been accessible to the primitive Christians, because they were not all written for a long time after the establishment of Christianity. The Christian religion was founded in the year 33. St. Matthew's Gospel, the first part of the New Testament ever written, did not appear till eight years after. The Church was established about twenty years when St. Luke wrote his Gospel. And St. John's Gospel did not come to light till toward the end of the first century. For many years after the Gospels and Epistles were written the knowledge of them was confined to the churches to which they were addressed. It was not till the close of the fourth century that the Church framed her Canon of Scripture and declared the Bible, as we now possess it, to be the genuine Word of God. And this was the golden age of Christianity! The most perfect Christians lived and died and went to heaven before the most important parts of the Scripture were written. And what would have become of them if the Bible alone had been their guide?.

The art of printing was not invented till the fifteenth century (1440). How utterly impossible it was to supply everyone with a copy of the Scriptures from the fourth to the fifteenth century! During that long period Bibles had to be copied with the pen. There were but a few hundred of them in the Christian world, and these were in the hands of the clergy and the learned. "According to the Protestant system, the art of printing would have been much more necessary to the Apostles than the gift of tongues. It was well for Luther that he did not come into the world until a century after the immortal invention of Guttenberg. A hundred years earlier his idea of directing two hundred and fifty million men to read the Bible would have been received with shouts of laughter, and would inevitably have caused his removal from the pulpit of Wittenberg to a hospital for the insane."[Martinet, Religion in Society, Vol. II, c. 10.].

And even at the present day, with all the aid of steam printing presses, with all the Bible Associations extending through this country and England, and supported at enormous expense, it taxes all their energies to supply every missionary country with Bibles printed in the languages of the tribes and peoples for whom they are intended..

But even if the Bible were at all times accessible to everyone, how many millions exist in every age and country, not excepting our own age of boasted enlightenment, who are not accessible to the Bible because they are incapable of reading the Word of God! Hence, the doctrine of private interpretation would render many men's salvation not only difficult, but impossible..

Second--A competent religious guide must be clear and intelligible to all, so that everyone may fully understand the true meaning of the instructions it contains. Is the Bible a book intelligible to all? Far from it; it is full of obscurities and difficulties not only for the illiterate, but even for the learned. St. Peter himself informs us that in the Epistles of St. Paul there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."[II. Pet. iii. 16.] And consequently he tells us elsewhere "that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation."[Ibid. I. 20.].

We read in the Acts of the Apostles that a certain man was riding in his chariot, reading the Book of Isaiah, and being asked by St. Philip whether he understood the meaning of the prophecy he replied: "How can I understand unless some man show me?"[Acts viii. 31.] admitting, by these modest words, that he did not pretend of himself to interpret the Scriptures..

The Fathers of the Church, though many of them spent their whole lives in the study of the Scriptures, are unanimous in pronouncing the Bible a book full of knotty difficulties. And yet we find in our days pedants, with a mere smattering of Biblical knowledge, who see no obscurity at all in the Word of God, and who presume to expound it from Genesis to Revelation. "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.".

Does not the conduct of the Reformers conclusively show the utter folly of interpreting the Scriptures by private judgment? As soon as they rejected the oracle of the Church, and set up their own private judgment as the highest standard of authority, they could hardly agree among themselves on the meaning of a single important text. The Bible became in their hands a complete Babel. The sons of Noe attempted in their pride to ascend to heaven by building the tower of Babel, and their scheme ended in the confusion and multiplication of tongues. The children of the Reformation endeavored in their conceit to lead men to heaven by the private interpretation of the Bible, and their efforts led to the confusion and the multiplication of religions. Let me give you one example out of a thousand. These words of the Gospel, "This is My Body," were understood only in one sense before the Reformation. The new lights of the sixteenth century gave no fewer than eighty different meanings to these four simple words, and since their time the number of interpretations has increased to over a hundred..

No one will deny that in our days there exists a vast multitude of sects, which are daily multiplying. No one will deny[Except, perhaps, Rev. H. W. Beecher, who thinks that God is glorified by the variety of sects.] that this multiplying of creeds is a crying scandal, and a great stumbling-block in the way of the conversion of heathen nations. No one can deny that these divisions in the Christian family are traceable to the assumption of the right of private judgment. Every new-fledged divine, with a superficial education, imagines that he has received a call from heaven to inaugurate a new religion, and he is ambitious of handing down his fame to posterity by stamping his name on a new sect. And every one of these champions of modern creeds appeals to the unchanging Bible in support of his ever-changing doctrines..

Thus, one body of Christians will prove from the Bible that there is but one Person in God, while the rest will prove from the same source that a Trinity of Persons is a clear article of Divine Revelation. One will prove from the Holy Book that Jesus Christ is not God. Others will appeal to the same text to attest His Divinity. One denomination will assert on the authority of Scripture that infant baptism is not necessary for salvation, while others will hold that it is. Some Christians, with Bible in hand, will teach that there are no sacraments. Others will say that there are only two. Some will declare that the inspired Word does not preach the eternity of punishments. Others will say that the Bible distinctly vindicates that dogma. Do not clergymen appear every day in the pulpit, and on the authority of the Book of Revelation point out to us with painful accuracy the year and the day on which this world is to come to an end? And when their prophecy fails of execution they coolly put off our destruction to another time..

Very recently several hundred Mormon women presented a petition to the government at Washington protesting against any interference with their abominable polygamy and they insist that their cherished system is sustained by the Word of God..

Such is the legitimate fruit of private revelation! Our civil government is run not by private judgment, but by the constituted authorities. No one in his senses would allow our laws to be interpreted, and war to be declared by sensational journals, or by any private individuals. Why not apply the same principle to the interpretation of the Bible and the government of the Church?.

Would it not be extremely hazardous to make a long voyage in a ship in which the officers and crew are fiercely contending among themselves about the manner of explaining the compass and of steering their course? How much more dangerous is it to trust to contending captains in the journey to heaven! Nothing short of an infallible authority should satisfy you when it is a question of steering your course to eternity. On this vital point there should be no conflict of opinion among those that guide you. There should be no conjecture. But there must be always someone at the helm whose voice gives assurance amid the fiercest storms that all is well..

Third--A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heave, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify..

The Catholic Church correctly teaches that our Lord and His Apostles inculcated certain important duties of religion which are not recorded by the inspired writers.[See John xxi. 25; II. Thess. ii. 14.] For instance, most Christians pray to the Holy Ghost, a practice which is nowhere found in the Bible..

We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation..

God forbid that any of my readers should be tempted to conclude from what I have said that the Catholic Church is opposed to the reading of the Scriptures, or that she is the enemy of the Bible. The Catholic Church the enemy of the Bible! Good God! What monstrous ingratitude! What base calumny is contained in that assertion! As well might you accuse the Virgin Mother of trying to crush the Infant Savior at her breast as to accuse the Church, our Mother, of attempting to crush out of existence the Word of God. As well might you charge the patriotic statesman with attempting to destroy the constitution of his country, while he strove to protect it from being mutilated by unprincipled demagogues..

For fifteen centuries the Church was the sole guardian and depository of the Bible, and if she really feared that sacred Book, who was to prevent her, during that long period, from tearing it in shreds and scattering it to the winds? She could have thrown it into the sea, as the unnatural mother would have thrown away her offspring and who would have been the wiser?.

What has become of those millions of once famous books written in past ages? They have nearly all perished. But amid this wreck of ancient literature, the Bible stands almost a solitary monument like the Pyramids of Egypt amid the surrounding wastes. That venerable Volume has survived the wars and revolutions and the barbaric invasions of fifteen centuries. Who rescued it from destruction? The Catholic Church. Without her fostering care the New Testament would probably be as little known as "the Book of the days of the kings of Israel."[III. Kings. xiv. 19.].

Little do we imagine, in our age of steam printing, how much labor it cost the Church to preserve and perpetuate the Sacred Scriptures. Learned monks, who are now abused in their graves by thoughtless men, were constantly employed in copying with the pen the Holy Bible. When one monk died at his post another took his place, watching like a faithful sentinel over the treasure of God's Word..

Let me give you a few plain facts to show the pains which the Church has taken to perpetuate the Scriptures..

The Canon of the Bible, as we have seen, was framed in the fourth century. In that same century Pope Damasus commanded a new and complete translation of the Scriptures to be made into the Latin language, which was then the living tongue not only of Rome and Italy, but of the civilized world..

If the Popes were afraid that the Bible should see the light, this was a singular way of manifesting their fear..

The task of preparing a new edition of the Scriptures was assigned to St. Jerome, the most learned Hebrew scholar of his time. This new translation was disseminated throughout Christendom, and on that account was called the Vulgate, or popular edition..

In the sixth and seventh centuries the modern languages of Europe began to spring up like so many shoots from the parent Latin stock. The Scriptures, also, soon found their way into these languages. The Venerable Bede, who lived in England in the eighth century, and whose name is profoundly reverenced in that country, translated the Sacred Scriptures into Saxon, which was then the language of England. He died while dictating the last verses of St. John's Gospel..

Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, in a funeral discourse on Queen Anne, consort of Richard II, pronounced in 1394, praises her for her diligence in reading the four Gospels. The Head of the Church of England could not condemn in others what he commended in the queen..

Sir Thomas More affirms that, before the days of Wycliffe, there was an English version of the Scriptures, "by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read."[Dialog. 3, 14.].

If partial restrictions began to be placed on the circulation of the Bible in England in the fifteenth century, these restrictions were occasioned by the conduct of Wycliffe and his followers, who not only issued a new translation, on which they engrafted their novelties of doctrine, but also sought to explain the sacred text in a sense foreign to the received interpretation of tradition..

While laboring to diffuse the Word of God it is the duty, as well as the right of the Church, as the guardian of faith, to see that the faithful are not misled by unsound editions..

Printing was invented in the fifteenth century, and almost a hundred years later came the Reformation. It is often triumphantly said, and I suppose there are some who, even at the present day, are ignorant enough to believe the assertion, that the first edition of the Bible ever published after the invention of printing was the edition of Martin Luther. The fact is, that before Luther put his pen to paper, no fewer than fifty-six editions of the Scriptures had appeared on the continent of Europe, not to speak of those printed in Great Britain. Of those editions, twenty-one were published in German, one in Spanish, four in French, twenty-one in Italian, five in Flemish and four in Bohemian..

Coming down to our own times, if you open an English Catholic Bible you will find in the preface a letter of Pope Pius VI, in which he strongly recommends the pious reading of the Holy Scriptures. A Pope's letter is the most weighty authority in the Church. You will also find in Haydock's Bible the letters of the Bishops of the United States, in which they express the hope that this splendid edition would have a wide circulation among their flocks..

These facts ought, I think, to convince every candid mind that the Church, far from being opposed to the reading of the Scriptures, does all she can to encourage their perusal..

A gentleman of North Carolina lately informed me that the first time he entered a Catholic bookstore he was surprised at witnessing on the shelves an imposing array of Bibles for sale. Up to that moment he had believed the unfounded charge that Catholics were forbidden to read the Scriptures. He has since embraced the Catholic faith..

And perhaps I may be permitted here to record my personal experiences during a long course of study. I speak of myself, not because my case is exceptional, but, on the contrary, because my example will serve to illustrate the system pursued toward ecclesiastical students in all colleges throughout the Catholic world in reference to the Holy Scriptures..

In our course of Humanities we listened every day to the reading of the Bible. When we were advanced to the higher branches of Philosophy and Theology the study of the Sacred Scriptures formed an important part of our education. We read, besides, every day a chapter of the New Testament, not standing or sitting, but on our knees, and then reverently kissed the inspired page. We listened at our meals each day to selections from the Bible, and we always carried about with us a copy of the New Testament..

So familiar, indeed, were the students with the sacred Volume that many of them, on listening to a few verses, could tell from what portion of the Scriptures you were reading. The only dread we were taught to have of the Scriptures was that of reading them without fear and reverence..

And after his ordination every Priest is obliged in conscience to devote upwards of an hour each day to the perusal of the Word of God. I am not aware that clergymen of other denominations are bound by the same duty..

What is good for the clergy must be good, also, for the laity. Be assured that if you become a Catholic you will never be forbidden to read the Bible. It is our earnest wish that every word of the Gospel may be imprinted on your memory and on your heart..

Sorry about the length; when I read this again after many years, it did my heart and soul very good. Perhaps it might do some good for others. If the moderator wishes, then we can trim this or simply post the link.

2,023 posted on 03/20/2007 4:05:04 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (When you believe in nothing, then everything is acceptable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2004 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
How can you say that it's a myth? Do you claim that St. Andrew's crucifixion story is a myth too?

Just about every cross in your Cross Reference guide at post #1992 has an embellished story attached to it. Do you think an apostle was crucified on each one of them? Who was crucified on that Maltese Cross? and on that Swastika Cross? Every religious sect and order in the Christian era had to have a unique cross and a story to go along with it, thus all those cross bred insignias.

I trust though, that your fears about the Catholic Church creating a Satanic symbol have been allayed.

Of all the crosses portrayed there, only the broken cross and the upside down cross are ever really claimed by occultic religious groups. The upside down cross in these groups means a reversal of the effects of the Crucifixion, the undoing of the work of the Cross, turning the Christian world upside down. It is more than likely an esoteric insignia of Simon Magus and the cults that emerged from him engaging in this apostate work, within and without the church.

2,024 posted on 03/20/2007 4:49:18 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1998 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; MarkBsnr

BTW Did you notice on your Cross Reference guide at post #1992 that the Upside Down Cross of Simon Magus is part of that Triple Cross ensign used by the Vatican. Add two cross bars to the Upside Down Cross and you have that sacred Papal Cross. Interesting.


2,025 posted on 03/20/2007 5:18:22 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2024 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Ping-Pong
So who do you think the dragon represents in Revelation?

It's not a matter of "think". Scripture tells us.

And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world. He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Revelation of John 12:9)

I feel the important part of that scripture is what defines the "rest of her seed". In a nutshell, if the dragon wants a piece of you, then you are likely doing what Jesus wants you to do.

To addres a question you put to Ping-Pong, the woman is the Church of God. A cursory study of "playing the harlot" in the Bible will show you that Israel got busted a number of times for "playing the harlot". The woman, therefore, will be those who comprise the church that keep the Commandments of God and the Testimony of Jesus without accepting heresies or apostasies from other religions.

II Corinthians 11

1 I would that you were bearing with me a little in foolishness; but indeed bear with me.
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy. For I have espoused you to one Man, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, so your thoughts should be corrupted from the simplicity due to Christ.
2,026 posted on 03/20/2007 5:40:01 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2009 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

There is no way I am reading all that. Summarize and ping me again. I have studied this particular point of doctrine ad nauseum. The Cardinal is right, the scriptures enforce the Sabbath and Rome changed it. Period.


2,027 posted on 03/20/2007 5:43:25 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2023 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
The Catholic Church correctly teaches that our Lord and His Apostles inculcated certain important duties of religion which are not recorded by the inspired writers.[See John xxi. 25; II. Thess. ii. 14.] For instance, most Christians pray to the Holy Ghost, a practice which is nowhere found in the Bible..

I'd say this fella is too educated to make an honest mistake like this...Therefore it has to be a 'dishonest' accusation for the purpose of keeping the people in the pews ignorant about Protestant Christianity...

But the comical part is the accusation of praying to the Holy Spirit isn't biblical while at the same time he teaches that it's a good thing to build an idol of Mary and pray to her...Which of course IS in the bible and you're instructed NOT TO DO IT...

We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith

Well it appears that Jerome, who is so highly esteemed by this fella disagrees with this guy completely...

2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

That pretty much clears that up...

because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance,

More propoganda for your church members...

and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation..

This fella is a deceiver...

1Jo 5:13 These things I write to you that you may know that you have eternal life: you who believe in the name of the Son of God

Jerome wrote this...This WAS the position of YOUR church at one time...

I can't believe you guys would accept anything this guy has to say as truth...

2,028 posted on 03/20/2007 5:58:11 AM PDT by Iscool (There will be NO peace on earth, NOR good will toward men UNTIL there is Glory to God in the Highest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2023 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret
*St. Clement was a friend of St. Paul, as mentioned in Philippians 4:3:" “And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.” Clement went to Rome with Paul and was ordained a Bishop by Peter. According to Tertullian, Linus became Bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred, then Cletus became Bishop of Rome. When Cletus died in about 91 AD, Clement was made Bishop of Rome. He was, therefore, the fourth Pope.

But what does this prove??? How do we know this is the same Clement Paul referred to???

All we really know is that your church claims to have some letters, or copies of letters said to have been written centuries ago by 'your church fathers'...There's no proof that these letters weren't written much later by who knows who...

There are two sets of the same letters by Ignatius...One talks about the Catholic church and one doesn't...Curious, eh???

***You will also note that St. Cyprian says the “primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.”

**You will note that St. Irenaeus wrote - in AD 190 - concerning “the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles.” So, from earliest Christianity, the Church at Rome was seen to have primacy.

You guys would be in a heap of hurt if it was proven that Peter was never in Rome...Irenaeus here seems to put Peter and Paul as equals...And since supposedly Peter and Paul were both in Rome, and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentile church, why was not Paul in the apostolic succession...He should have been the 2nd pope...And John the 3rd...What's up with that???

2,029 posted on 03/20/2007 6:22:36 AM PDT by Iscool (There will be NO peace on earth, NOR good will toward men UNTIL there is Glory to God in the Highest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2000 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret; Uncle Chip; Diego1618
“Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-2, c. AD 80

"You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2, AD 107


One of the problems with using an Apologist site is that you can use unverifiable, or, worse yet, totally fraudulent information.

If you read any of the translations of St. Clements' Letter To The Corinthians you will note it is unsigned and makes no claim whatsoever to "Primacy". The letter in question, even if authentic, proves nothing.

The Ignatius leters are even more problematic with most, if not all, being proven forgeries.

I don't believe it is necessary to critique your response any further. It has already proven to be unreliable.

2,030 posted on 03/20/2007 1:11:02 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2000 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
To addres a question you put to Ping-Pong, the woman is the Church of God. A cursory study of "playing the harlot" in the Bible will show you that Israel got busted a number of times for "playing the harlot". The woman, therefore, will be those who comprise the church that keep the Commandments of God and the Testimony of Jesus without accepting heresies or apostasies from other religions.

I agree with you. Along that same line is:

Rev.17:5

"MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" is religion - all the false religions of the world.

2,031 posted on 03/20/2007 1:59:03 PM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2026 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Which John are you speaking about here? John the Evangelist or John who wrote Revelation? Or are they one and the same?

[Revelation 1:9]I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

John was never called an evangelist in scripture....never an Apostle for that matter, but we know he was an Apostle. He was the one who wrote Revelation. He was also the first cousin of Jesus as his mother, Salome, was Mary's sister. This is why the responsibility of Mary's care was given to him. Jesus was in an estranged relationship with his brother's of the flesh....and to John, she was aunt Mary.

2,032 posted on 03/20/2007 2:19:33 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2007 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
**How are you so sure that these folks in India were not transplanted Israelites? ** This is the first time I have heard this? I bet you have some kind of a source and I just haven't looked for it yet.

Yup....it's called the Bible! [Amos 9:9] For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.

And...a recent news item... Israelites in India ....from another respected source.

2,033 posted on 03/20/2007 2:36:45 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2008 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
So are you saying that the woman in Revelation (Israel, btw), but many Catholics think it depicts the Blessed Virgin Mary.) fled to America?

Yes. The 10 lost tribes (house of Israel) migrated over the Caucausus Mountains, settled Europe, then England and eventually to America (also the other Christian nations). I believe that is why we are founded on God, help other nations and hold such a closeness with our brother Judah, (the House of Judah) and the Nation of Israel.

I believe the "woman wailing in childbirth" are the birthpangs of a new age. Those pangs are getting closer and closer as we near the time of the end.

2,034 posted on 03/20/2007 2:45:50 PM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2010 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Where are these two verses in Revelation? I don't remember reading or studying this in my recent Revelation bible study.

[Revelation 2:9]I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

[Revelation 3:9]Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

The folks who said they were Jews....and were not, were widely known in the first century as "The Samaritans". These folks were the brothers, fathers and ancestors of Simon Magus. Josephus says in "Antiquities IX, Chapter XIV, Paragraph 3" And when they see the Jews in prosperity, they pretend that they are changed, and allied to them, and call them kinsmen, as though they were derived from Joseph, and had by that means an original alliance with them; but when they see them falling into a low condition, they say they are no way related to them, and that the Jews have no right to expect any kindness or marks of kindred from them, but they declare that they are sojourners, that come from other countries. But of these we shall have a more seasonable opportunity to discourse hereafter.

Josephus make this statement a few more times in his works, so it is quite obvious who the Apostle John was speaking of in Revelation when he talks about those who say they are Jews and are not!

2,035 posted on 03/20/2007 2:54:05 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2017 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
So do you celebrate the Sabbath or Sunday?

I honor the seventh day of the week (sunset Friday/sunset Saturday) as the Holy Sabbath of the Lord. [Leviticus 23:3]

If all Christians were to believe in sola Scriptura -- wouldn't we all being going to church on the Sabbath -- Saturday?

I don't believe in Sola Scriptura.....but to answer your question, yes!

2,036 posted on 03/20/2007 3:57:00 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2018 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

If you went to parochial school, you should have studied the Catechism. Both the old Baltimore Catechism series and the new Catechism are based on Scripture - for each point of Catechism teaching, there is a Scripture verse, or verses, backing it up. Either you weren't paying attention the first time, you have completely forgotten, or you are purposefully, willfully, and conveniently disregarding this little fact in order to justify your leaving the Church. You will need to come up with another reason, because I don't buy your assertion that you just happened to discover the Church's teachings are "mere fiction and superstition." You are presenting yourself as a Protestant who is ignorant of Catholic teaching, but you know that teaching very well and are CHOOSING to argue against it. Your arguments are bogus, sir!


2,037 posted on 03/20/2007 4:22:53 PM PDT by nanetteclaret (?Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine, there's always laughter and good red wine." Hilaire Belloc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2003 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

I could use the same argument on you and challenge you to prove the Scriptures are valid. We believe the Scriptures are valid because we trust - in my case the Catholic Church, because it was the entity which decided, at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, the First Council of Carthage in 397 AD, and the Second Council of Carthage in 419 AD, which books and letters being circulated would be included in the Canon. Who tells you which books are sacred and do you trust that the authors are who you think they are?


2,038 posted on 03/20/2007 4:41:42 PM PDT by nanetteclaret (?Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine, there's always laughter and good red wine." Hilaire Belloc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2029 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

Like I said, you don't have a dog in this hunt.


2,039 posted on 03/20/2007 4:44:18 PM PDT by nanetteclaret (?Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine, there's always laughter and good red wine." Hilaire Belloc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2030 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
If you read any of the translations of St. Clements' Letter To The Corinthians you will note it is unsigned and makes no claim whatsoever to "Primacy".

Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, A.D.95: "The high priest has been given his own special services, the priests have been assigned their own place, and the Levites have their special ministrations enjoined on them. The layman is bound by the ordinances of the laity.

Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 110, To the Ephesians: "Your REVEREND presbytery is tuned to the Bishop as strings to a lyre...Let us be careful not to resist the Bishop, that through our submission to the Bishop we may belong to God...We should regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself."

To the Magnesians: "I advise you to always act in godly concord with the Bishop, presiding as the counterpart of God, and the presbyters as the counterpart of the council of the Apostles...As the Lord did nothing without the Father, either by Himself or by means of the Apostles, so you must do nothing without the Bishop and the presbyters."

To the Trallians: "...respect the Bishop as the counterpart of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of the Apostles: without those no church is recognized."

To the Smyrneans: "Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the Bishop...it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love-feast independently of the Bishop. But whatever he approves, that is also well pleasing to God."

Tertullian, A.D. 200: "The supreme priest (that is the Bishop) has the right of conferring baptism: after him the presbyters and deacons, but only with the Bishop's authority. Otherwise the laity also have the right...how much more is the discipline of reverence and humility incumbent upon laymen (since it also befits their superiors)...It would be idle for us to suppose that what is forbidden to PRIESTS is allowed to the laity. The distinction between the order of clergy and the people has been established by the authority of the Church."

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage A.D. 250: "If Christ Jesus our Lord and God is Himself the High Priest of God the Father, and first offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and commanded this to be done in remembrance of Himself, then assuredly the priest acts truly in Christ's place when he reproduces what Christ did, and he then offers a true and complete sacrifice to God the Father, if he begins to offer as he sees Christ Himself has offered.

And so we see how, little by little the Early Church Fathers took Christian churches from being a proliferation of little localized extended families, and made them instead into a worldwide hierarchical religious corporation. It is evident too how this first error made it inevitable that more errors would soon follow. This wrong teaching about the very nature of the leadership and government of the church gave Christian leaders, in the form of Priests and Bishops, such authority that whatever else they ended up teaching was accepted virtually automatically as being from the Lord. And this was the Apostasy of the Early Church......and it continues.

You are correct. During Clement's time there was no claim to primacy....but I would say we were getting real close by the time Cyprian came on the scene. By Nicea....it was a slam dunk!

2,040 posted on 03/20/2007 5:31:16 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2030 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,001-2,0202,021-2,0402,041-2,060 ... 2,361-2,378 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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