Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

Rapture Ready ^ | Stephen Meehan

[Old Yeller]

For years, growing up as a Roman Catholic, we were taught that we were members of the one true church. It was impressed upon us regularly by the parish priest during Mass while giving his homily; by the nuns all throughout my Catholic parochial school years of second through seventh grade.

It was impressed upon us during our preparation to receive for the first time the sacraments of Penance, Communion and Confirmation. And while attending CCD classes all the way through high school. (CCD is the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, an association established at Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religious education, normally designed for children.)

It was an established fact that we understood and we never questioned the validity of it. And to be honest, it was a matter of pride, that we were privileged enough to be members of the correct church, while all others had belonged to something else that didn’t quite measure up to the status of the Roman Catholic Church.

After all, how could it be possible that Roman Catholicism is not the one true church?

Look at what Rome has to offer: It has the priests, the nuns; the bishops; the cardinals; and of course, the Pope. They have the Sacraments; the statues; the holy water; the incense; the Stations of the Cross; the Eucharist - in which Chris supposedly physically manifests Himself into the wafer after the consecration by the priest during the Mass; the Marian apparitions—which appear mainly to Roman Catholics.

And they have the Vatican, where the Vicar of Christ (who they believe is Christ’s representative on earth), governs the faithful and makes infallible proclamations and doctrine. How can this not be the one true church? No other organization on the face of the earth comes close to offering to its flock what Rome provides for its faithful.

But, of course, to be true, one must adhere to what has been established as truth and not teach or practice what is contrary to the truth. We read in Scripture a few passages that declare what is truth and what is not. Jesus proclaimed in John 14:6:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.”

[ealgeone]

Just change the name and see how part of this prayer to Mary sounds......catholics would be well advised to ditch the false teachings on Mary.

It is true that in the past I have miserably fallen into sin,| because I had not recourse to thee.| I know that, with thy help, I shall conquer.| I know too, that thou wilt assist me, if I recommend myself to thee;| but I fear dear Allah/Zeus/Satan | that in time of danger, I may neglect to call on thee,| and thus lose my soul.| This grace, then, I ask of thee, and this I beg, with all the fervor of my soul,| that in all the attacks of hell I may ever have recourse to thee.| O Allah/Zeus/Satan, help me.| O Allah/Zeus/Satan, never suffer me to lose my God.

[Elsie]

any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,

Well; Catholics sure say that Mary is in Heaven; and I think they have images and/or scuptures of what they think her image might be like; so...

Houston Rome, we have a problem...

[terycarl]

When catholics are honest about their idolatry then they will have a chance at becoming an intellectually honest person saved.

When you were a practicing Catholic (you are still a Catholic) did you EVER practice idolatry....did you ever pray TO a statue??...did you EVER ask a piece of concrete to grant you an answer to a prayer....did you EVER pay homage to a marble carving????/........me neither

[terycarl]

Therefore, since He did not do that for the rest of us, then God doesn't love the rest of us.

did God guide you to become a billionaire....did God give you the talent to become a movie star.....did God give you the assets to be a beauty queen????....if not, does that mean that God doesn't love you??? sheesh.

[terycarl]

You are; for you KNOW that when we post Scripture the RM tells us to include chapter and verse.

That's why I kind of paraphrase rather than directly quote....saves time and everyone knows what I mean.

[terycarl]

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

Just out of curiosity....unless the person who wrote that interviewed Mary as to what had happened that day.....how did he come up with that direct quote???

[terycarl]

Means "rock" in Aramaic. The apostle Simon was called Cephas by Jesus because he was to be the rock upon which the Christian church was to be built. In most versions of the New Testament Cephas is translated into Greek Πετρος (Petros) (in English Peter).

there

[terycarl]

Wasn’t Joan of arc burned for witchcraft?

Yeah, by protestants....they did a lot of that!

[ClearCase_guy]

Joan of Arc was burned by the English around 1430.

Martin Luther nailed his theses to the door in 1517.
Henry VIII created the Church of England around 1530.

Joan’s death cannot be said to be Protestant. It’s something all Christians in the West get to share.

[terycarl]

A Catholic woman I knew who was a worshipper of Mary asked her "priest" if God was female. Said "Priest" said "You can think of God as female if you want".

So?...does God have a sex?....if so, why??...God creates, God does not procreate...Is God really a bearded old man sitting on a throne as often pictured???....if not, what does God look like....is God a young man....young woman, oldster?? what...it is irrelevant and the priest was correct.

[terycarl]

Therein lies the problem. Catholics don't really believe that God hears them and answers them Himself.

You have made some really asinine statements concerning Catholic belief which you, yourself admittedly didn't understand....but this one is beyond the pale....Catholics believed and talked to God for sixteen centuries before there was even 1 protestant.......good grief.

[terycarl]

There was not a single thing said nor even a single time that someone could construe an idea that anyone on the FR Religion Forum hates, or even dislikes Mary... Amen.

Oh please...reread this thread....there are at least 6 posts derogative of Mary

[CommerceComet]

Joan’s death cannot be said to be Protestant. It’s something all Christians in the West get to share.

And even more directly, the French Protestant Church didn't form until the mid-1500s. You know, not too long before the Catholics invited the Huguenots to be guests-of-honor at the treachery known as the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

I do agree with your point, however, that this history gets shared by both major forks of the Western Church. It is part of our shared heritage.

[terycarl]

Joan of Arc was burned by the English around 1430. Martin Luther nailed his theses to the door in 1517. Henry VIII created the Church of England around 1530. Joan’s death cannot be said to be Protestant. It’s something all Christians in the West get to share.

Yeah, but it was a protestant wannabee........maybe

[CommerceComet]

Oh please...reread this thread....there are at least 6 posts derogative of Mary

Since you took the time to identify the posts, why don't you let others know which ones they are so we can see if it really constitutes denigration of Mary or not? At least some of your colleagues seem awfully thin-skinned on this matter.

[Kartographer]

One is judged by their fruits.

[Kartographer]

Did I not identify myself as clearly as you?

"I haven't identified myself other than saying I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ and a firm believer in his birth, death, resurrection and saving grace,"

[Steelfish]

Once again we are treated to an outstanding example of shallow Bible Christianity. This is a necessary concomitant of the curse of Protestantism that has unleashed a mudslide of beliefs in which allows for a draw on the congregations of Joel Osteen, Billy Graham, David Koresh, the Moonies, and the rest of the rot including every self-ordained neighborhood pastor.

This superficial thinking that comes from an absence of serious theological study is evident in metmom saying that because Mary was chosen the Mother of God....”therefore God doesn’t love the rest of us,” as much!

“therefore”? Seriously? Are we here in kindergarten logic? This is the kind of foolish reasoning that would get one kicked out of class in elementary introduction to either logic or theology.

Maybe you need to remove all of Exodus out of the books in the Bible with God’s favor clearly shown again and again. But then again more directly,
in the King James version of Luke 1:28 we have this:

“And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, you that are highly favored, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women.” or the Douay-Rheims Bible version: “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”

The evil of Protestantism has spawned the likes of John Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gene Robinson and the like, along with heretical nonsense such as the Jesus Seminar. For decades men (and women) like Spong and Borg made quite a name for themselves by rejecting the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, His atoning death and resurrection, every miracle recorded in the New Testament, and so on. These are all different variants of Protestant theology among the 30,000 other contradictory versions. You get to crack open the pages of the Bible assembled under infallible Petrine authority under Pope Damasus at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) and have the audacity to offer “your” own definitive interpretation of the word of God.

But don’t tell this to Protestants. Their heresy begins in 1517, some eleven centuries after the adoption of the canonical texts, and followed by saints, martyrs, and stigmatists in accordance with the written and unwritten Word of Christ as reflected in sacred tradition, custom, and ritual.

Apparently, they, along with the early Church Fathers were all mistaken in their understandings of the word of God.

Over and over again, what we keep getting here is sophomoric interpretations on a cascade of scriptural citations let loose by followers of a heresy without any of the coherence of the great theologians of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman or Benedict.

Challenging Bible Christians to the soaring heights of theological discourse is perhaps not fair. But surely it must come as a surprise when they cannot even assimilate the scholarly work of their own leading Protestant scholars who wrote, taught, and preached and were educated in Evangelical colleges, and then converted to Catholicism.

Its hard to beat the candid assessments of Dr. David A. Anders who was born, raised, and educated as an Evangelical.

“By the time I finished my Ph.D., I had completely revised my understanding of the Catholic Church. I saw that her sacramental doctrine, her view of salvation, her veneration of Mary and the saints, and her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture, in the oldest traditions, and in the plain teaching of Christ and the apostles.

I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged.”

Maybe Elise, metmom etc all need to spend some serious study time before embarrassing themselves with the commentary they offer. In a sense they are no different than Al Sharptons, and Rev. Jeremiah Wrights who might also pluck a few scriptural quotations to support their scriptural interpretations.

[WVKayaker]

Once again we are treated to an outstanding example of shallow Bible Christianity. This is a necessary concomitant of the curse of Protestantism that has unleashed a mudslide of beliefs in which allows for a draw on the congregations of Joel Osteen, Billy Graham, David Koresh, the Moonies, and the rest of the rot including every self-ordained neighborhood pastor.

Once again, we see a tragic example of a Roman Catholic cultist giving up on an actual refutation, and start attacking others by associations. Nowhere in any of the posts have we seen anybody promoting any persons, but I do see an attack against Billy Graham, by listing him along with some allegedly Protest groups.

What makes it tragic, is that nowhere in the lengthy post to which I respond, does the author make any coherent argument for his position. Instead, he repeats canards and slogans designed to do nothing more than impugn the integrity and knowledge base of some very smart people who are willing to post the Scriptures which refute Roman "traditions" and reveal the error-filled messages of the largest cult in history, based in Rome.

Maybe Elise, metmom etc all need to spend some serious study time before embarrassing themselves with the commentary they offer. In a sense they are no different than Al Sharptons, and Rev. Jeremiah Wrights who might also pluck a few scriptural quotations to support their scriptural interpretations. -SF

Nothing more than repeated attempts to dscredit the messengers. Nothing to refute the message.

SOS-DD from the Roman cultists!

[Springfield Reformer]

SF, my post was directed at metmom, because I understood the point she was trying to illustrate. I pinged you only because of courtesy.

Furthermore, as your somewhat lengthy response ends up saying nothing to refute the proposition that calling Mary “Queen of Heaven” is blasphemous, I will consider this conversation at an end for now.

Peace,

SR