Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
I do think it is humorous that you say these supposed "Protestant" prophets are "gently" pointing people to join the Catholic religion. Yet, I seriously doubt you would believe in them if they said the opposite. Something like, "The only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus Christ. No church can save you."?
G’nite.
“Believe in them if you want...I’m not convinced. I’ll stick with what Holy Scripture says.
I do think it is humorous that you say these supposed “Protestant” prophets are “gently” pointing people to join the Catholic religion. Yet, I seriously doubt you would believe in them if they said the opposite. Something like, “The only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus Christ. No church can save you.”?
~ ~ ~
Thanks for your kind reply. Oops, no personal, so I’ll say if only a Catholic could convince a brother in Christ. Been
reading the messages from Heaven, Protestant and Catholic
almost 14 years.
Absolutely, the divine events prophesied are closer. MO, I think the number 13 is important. Next year maybe.
It’s interesting, Our Lord is more direct in the Catholic messages because the Remnant is Roman Catholic and He can spell it out but it’s so sweet, He speaks more using Scripture type words to our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, as example, “My Bride” because of your draw to the Bible. Don’t get me wrong, there is much Scripture reference in the Catholic messages.
Remember Catholic things, the pinnacle, the Holy Eucharist, Mary will help you if you ask her in prayer and Confession to priest, just think about those three things.
Unlikely any of your church fathers knew any of the Apostles except for Polycarp...
And since Polycarp never spoke of anything Catholic, we can call him our church father...
Besides, Paul warned us of deceptors and perverters of scripture in his midst while he was preaching and teaching...
John 6:54-55 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Well I'm good to go then...Because I eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood, spiritually...But tell me, how do you get into Jesus by eating his flesh???
Now you're gettin' it...
Rom 15:25 But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
Rom 15:26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
Even a little bit of bible study will clear up years of Catholic misinformation...
So it s WIDE gate that the massive Catholic religion is looking for to enter thru to its final destination...
“Yea, blame everything on Luther! Lutherans believe in “consubstantiation” which reflects the views of Irenaeus or Justin Martyr.”
~ ~ ~
The non- Catholic FR folks replying here keep referring to Martin Luther’s heresy of Faith Alone, that’s why, but, there are other “revolters.”
Thanks for mentioning two of the very first Catholics. Doesn’t help sell Protestantism boatbums.
Lutheran “consubstantiation” amounts to zip. Lutherans
have no power to confect the Holy Eucharist. It remains
bread and wine so it doesn’t matter if they declare
something else takes place...their new term.
I checked the source for the long writing. The author
is William Webster, a fallen away Catholic who converted to
Evangelicalism. It didn’t read like true history. Catholic
names and early councils but the in between is Protestant.
Since Protestants don’t believe OUR LORD’S words, they don’t have to try to distance the time of belief in the Real Presence. Paul, the Apostle believed, read 1 Corinthians 11:27.
IF any Protestants read the Protestant excerpts and messages I’ve posted they would read Jesus speaking of unity of oneness of belief and of the “full Truth.” He is that loving. Our Lord is actually preparing the world to accept the true faith.
“So it s WIDE gate that the massive Catholic religion is looking for to enter thru to its final destination”...
~ ~ ~
The numbers of Roman Catholics are “massive” because it
is the true faith but the “narrow gate” is reference to
the teachings of Roman Catholicism, the same as passed down from the Apostles.
I pray the faith will be everyone’s “destination” after
they experience the Great Warning. God can change hearts
and minds.
Read the exchange again. It was not another freeper that I said lied. If you follow the thread back the comment I said was a lie was made by some “seer” the poster was quoting and in fact posted a link to what the “seer” had said. Please don’t accuse me of doing something I didn’t do.
Well, let’s look at history from the perspective of a well renowned Catholic historian. He claims the whole Pope thing is based on forgeries. The guy was Catholic and taught Catholic history for something like 47 years.
In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors. That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians. The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers...and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokeful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116).
Do a study on the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals and you will find that it’s pretty much common knowledge that they were based on forgeries. Here’s another segment from Donllinger.
In theology, from the beginning of the fourteenth century, the spurious passages of St. Cyril and forged canons of Councils maintained their ground, being guaranteed against all suspicion by the authority of St. Thomas. Since the work of Trionfo in 1320, up to 1450, it is remarkable that no single new work appeared in the interests of the Papal system. But then the contest between the Council of Basle and Pope Eugenius IV evoked the work of Cardinal Torquemada, besides some others of less importance. Torquemada’s argument, which was held up to the time of Bellarmine to be the most conslusive apology of the Papal system, rests entirely on fabrications later than the pseudo-Isidore, and chiefly on the spurious passages of St. Cyril. To ignore the authority of St. Thomas is, according to the Cardinal, bad enough, but to slight the testimony of St. Cyril is intolerable. The Pope is infallible; all authority of other bishops is borrowed or derived frorn his. Decisions of Councils without his assent are null and void. These fundamental principles of Torquemada are proved by spurious passages of Anacletus, Clement, the Council of Chalcedon, St. Cyril, and a mass of forged or adulterated testimonies. In the times of Leo X and Clement III, the Cardinals Thomas of Vio, or Cajetan, and Jacobazzi, followed closely in his footsteps. Melchior Canus built firmly on the authority of Cyril, attested by St. Thomas, and so did Bellarmine and the Jesuits who followed him. Those who wish to get a bird’s–eye view of the extent to which the genuine tradition of Church authority was still overlaid and obliterated by the rubbish of later inventions and forgeries about 1563, when the Loci of Canus appeared, must read the fifth book of his work. It is indeed still worse fifty years later in this part of Bellarmine’s work. The difference is that Canus was honest in his belief, which cannot be said of Bellarmine.
The Dominicans, Nicolai, Le Quien, Quetif, and Echard, were the first to avow openly that their master St. Thomas, had been deceived by an imposter, and had in turn misled the whole tribe of theologians and canonists who followed him. On the one hand, the Jesuits, including even such a scholar as Labbe, while giving up the pseudo–Isidorian decretals, manifested their resolve to still cling to St. Cyril. In Italy, as late as 1713, Professor Andruzzi of Bologna cited the most important of the interpolations of St. Cyril as a conclusive argument in his controversial treatise against the patriarch Dositheus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 233-234).
Read also writings by Dr. Aristeides Papadakis who is a Professor of Byzantine history at the University of Maryland and an Orthodox historian. For those who are interested in truth it doesn’t take long to know that the entire concept of a pope is unscriptural and based on forgeries and as Dollinger put it, “gross errors”.
>>Peter is buried under the high altar at St. Peter’s Basilica.<<
• There is actually very little proof that Peter was even in Rome. Read Paul’s letter to the Romans in Romans 16: 1-15. He mentions everyone of note but nothing about or to Peter. Not only that but in Romans Paul is giving instructions in the faith if Peter was already the Bishop of Rome. If Catholics are right Peter would have been Paul’s superior. Yet Paul never mentions him in his letter to the church at Rome and gives them instructions in the faith. If Peter had been in Rome as it’s Bishop there certainly would have been mention and there would have been no need to “go over his bosses head” and give instruction in the faith.
There is no record in the Bible or elsewhere, of Peter issuing instructions to the diocese of Rome. What an amazing oversight by a supposedly infallible commander-in-chief! In addition to that, Paul wrote to Timothy from Rome.
2 Timothy 4:9-12 - "Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus."
Where was Peter the supposed Bishop of Rome? Again in 2 Timothy Paul is giving instructions to Timothy. If Peter was the Supreme Pontiff of Rome why is Paul writing from Rome with no mention of Peter?
Then there is Irenaeus.
Irenaeus: "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus, was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth (SOURCE: Iraeneus Against Heresies, Volume I, Book III, Para 3)
Did you notice that it was Paul who made mention of Linus, not Peter? With no indication of Peter ever being in Rome, nor any indication that Peter in fact was the head of the Apostles there can be no legitimate claim that Peter was the first Pope or that the RC was built on Peter.
And then one more embarrassment for the RCC. In the 1950s Roman Catholic archaeologists discovered a tomb in Jerusalem containing an ossuary—a bone box used in first-century Jewish burials—that bore the engraved name “Simon Bar Jona” (a name by which the apostle Peter is known in the Gospels).
The truth is that even the Catholic Church can’t prove that Peter was ever in Rome other than when he was taken their as a prisoner and their whole premise of the pope in the first place is based on forgeries.
If you want to go "deep in history" we could have a long conversation. Starting with scripture. The Papacy is founded on fallacy, forgeries, and error.
Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Yes, a saint on earth. True believers are called saints.
The Catholic church has corrupted the meaning of the term as it is used in Scripture. *Saint* does not mean *sinless one*; it means *holy one*.
*Holy* doesn't mean sinless either, it means to be set apart or consecrated for God's use.And no, not pride either. I am continually amazed at the Catholics attitude about people taking God at His word.. They constantly accuse others of pride for simply believing what God has said about those who believe in Him and trust in His promises. That's only what faith is; believing the promises of God and the spiritual reality that God says exists.
So when God says we are forgiven, it is exercising faith to accept that as true and act on it.
When God says we are sealed until the day of redemption with the Holy Spirit and seated with Him in the heavenly places, it's not pride to accept that as true, it's faith - simply accepting and acknowledging that God is not a liar and this is the reality that exists that we can't see but He tells us about.
If we refuse to accept what He's told us about under the pretense of it being pride, it's really only false humility and puts one in the position of saying that he knows better than God what's really going on and calling God a liar.
How do you morph comprehensive "source" to comprehensive "application?" No credible mean that I know of.
Further, "most" is not "all" as in your parenthetical remark, and even that is not a credible claim.
Had the exact content of Scripture not been so murky, the Church would not have made such efforts to stamp out the heretical variants.
In summation, your "interpretation" makes the unjustifiable leap of conflating "profitable," and "thouroughly furnished," with "exclusionary."
Had Paul intended this verse to mean "exclusive," he would have said so, for surely there can be no more important message than what you claim if it were indeed the truth.
No, it is Scriptural, unless you hold to the view that only what is expressly set down in Scripture or formally defined is admissible, excluding what may “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” by precept and principle.
That is exactly what I am saying: for Protestants! Moreover, the multiplicity of Protestant factions makes the "necessity" of deductions as credible as "religious tolorance" behind the Iron Curtain. I.e. an utter farce.
The truth of what I've written here makes answering the rest of your paean a moot point.
If the method Protestants use Scripture to contrive accusations against Catholics is not legalistic, I don't know what is...as apparently you don't, given your list of Catholic practices.
We formally recognize the error of "scrupulosity." Do you?
Why on earth do you keep dragging Luther into it?
Can Catholics not get it through their minds that non-Catholics do NOT follow men as they have been conditioned to? Just because two people agree on something, does NOT mean that one is following the other. It simply means that two people have considered the passage and come to the same conclusions from it.
The theology of faith alone is not something Luther dreamed up anyway. It’s clearly and plainly stated in Scripture in Ephesians 2 and many other places. Even Jesus stated that believing was what was necessary and told people that their faith saved them.
Why on earth do you keep dragging Luther into it?
Can Catholics not get it through their minds that non-Catholics do NOT follow men as they have been conditioned to? Just because two people agree on something, does NOT mean that one is following the other. It simply means that two people have considered the passage and come to the same conclusions from it.
The theology of faith alone is not something Luther dreamed up anyway. It’s clearly and plainly stated in Scripture in Ephesians 2 and many other places. Even Jesus stated that believing was what was necessary and told people that their faith saved them.
So now that you've been called on your claim, you're going to start qualifying your statements....
Then to take that literally, must mean that Jesus said that He is made out of bread dough, a living, breathing man shaped batch of dough.
Disputing a statement is not refuting a statement.
We will stop bringing up the variation of Protestant interpretations when it stops being true.
One can hardly entertain the charge of “intellectual dishonesty” for stating irrefutable facts, and not making allowance for the portion of the soup that happens to be “fly.”
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.