PING to an excellent post by daniel1212.
I ping you to think deeply about what you've been fed.
Posted on 11/27/2017 8:37:19 AM PST by Salvation
I have to say that top image is a horrible picture, regardless of its intent.
Amen
Actually as your premise is false so is your conclusion, for instead, it is Catholicism which has corrupted the original "code" of the original "programmer," and under the guise of His authority has introduced additional code of a virus which seeks to hijack the instructions, resulting in a operating system with distinctives not found written in the original system . And it wasn't the Russians but the Romans.
Thanks be to God, the latter were unable to actually write the programming for the Original OS, which if they did would be quite different (Mary and the in most every epistle, and normatively celibate priests offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sins and spiritual food as their unique active function, praying to saints, baptizing infants, teach souls go to Purgatory in order to become good enough to be with God, with leadership possessing ensured veracity, versus subject to testing by Scripture as supreme, etc.)
Nonetheless in order to misuse its authority she preserved the Original Code, thus a few she calls sheep have found the Original Programmer, yet she effectively made their own uninspired words superior in authority to the Original Coding, as did other groups known for their competing revelation and particular elitism, though they also invoke the authority of the Original, which they abuse.
Some noble souls have been working on a restoration according to the Original Programing, with such success that many have come to know the Original Programmer, personally realizing a new Operating System as a result, though the the old OS yet resides in the same unit, though marked for permanent deletion, with person yet having a choice on which OS he want to boot from, with the New OS dealing with problems resulting from the old code as he chooses the New OS, which motivates him to do so.
Yet beyond the mere human instrumentality for bad code there exists a malicious hacker who seeks total dominance (though for now typically seeks to remain anonymous but is exposed by the Original Programing), and who is ultimately behind the viruses (and adware) of Catholicism and the like, and who much hinders the work of restoration by lovers of Truth, which must still deal with the remnants of bad code, searching the Original Source for corruption, and be willing to deal with it.
What this has to do with the Bereans is quite irrelevant. My own examination of scripture has lead me personally to agree with the Gospel as presented to me by the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ Jesus, the tenants of which I have found to be reliable and trustworthy.
I do not know what kind of Bible you are reading, but it must have a lot more NT material written to the NT church.
Which church, as manifested in Scripture ( (Acts through Revelation, which shows how the NT church believed the gospels),
1. Was not based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office (papal or conciliar in union with the pope) as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) criteria, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
And thus a faithful RC is not to seek to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences. For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium, by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.)
For since Catholicism's claim of ensured magisterial veracity is the basis for a faithful Catholics assurance of doctrine, we see statements such as:
"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter.." [as the premise is false, so is the conclusion] — Providentissimus Deus
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - Vehementer Nos, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. — Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII
“Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275)
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — "Most Rev.erend" Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,”
2. Never presumed that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and recipients of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation meant that such possessed ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, as Catholicism presumes, with Catholics arguing that promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation mean that their church possesses ensured infallibility.
Instead of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office, while the Old Testament magisterial office certainly had authority, with dissent being a capital offense, (Dt. 17:8-13) yet the church began with an itinerant Preacher and preachers who were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses (Mt. 23:2 cf. Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8;
But the NT church began with dissenters (Christ, and apostles and prophets) who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) For the church began (Christ, and apostles and prophets) in Scriptural dissent from the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in the seat of Moses
3. Did not believe that whatever the historical magisterium formally declared was the word of God, as in oral tradition, was necessarily the case and equal to Scripture, but which Catholicism presumes.
Instead, while the formal word of God/the Lord was sometimes first spoken, yet it is manifest that writing is God's means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23; Matthew 4:4; John 20:31; Luke 24:44-45; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:19; 20:12,15) And that, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is abundantly evidenced. And which noble souls ascertained the veracity of oral preaching by. (Acts 17:11)
Also, note that Sola Scriptura preachers can enjoin obedience to oral preaching, presuming it is Scriptural, while apostolic preaching could be wholly inspired of God and include new revelation, which even Rome does not claim when speaking the words of her presumed "infallible" promulgations.
4. Never promised or taught ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was essential for preservation of truth, including writings to be discerned and established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent as the stewards of Scripture means that such possessed ensured infallibility.
Instead, the church began with common people having correctly discerned both men and writings as being of God (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and again, even in dissent from those who sat in the sat of Moses. (Jn. 7:45-49)
5. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
6. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside to be with God (due to removal of "original sin" and by "infused" charity) effected by the act of sprinkling (RC "baptism") even morally incognizant souls (infants), and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
Instead, while nothing unclean shall enter God's Holy City, (Rv. 21:27) believers are already washed, sanctified and justified (1Co. 6:11) by effectual faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood, (Rem. 3;25 — 5:1; Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5) and are already accepted in the Beloved on His account, and made to spiritually sit with Christ in Heaven, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and by Him have direct access to God in the holy of holies in prayer. (Heb. 10:19) And who, if they die in faith will go to be with the Lord at death. (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
And with the only suffering after this life being that of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's revelation and disapproval) at the judgment seat of Christ, which one is saved despite the loss of, and which does not occur until the Lord's return and believers resurrection. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) And which resurrection being the only transformative the believer looks forward to after this life (Rm. 8:23; 2Co. 5:1-4; Phil 3:20,21; 1Jn. 3:2) — not purgatory, which suffering commences at death in order to enable souls to enter Heaven.
7. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints,” who directly go to Heaven at death, while the rest go to purgatory.
8. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself.
For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
9. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome and the first of a line of supreme infallible heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church. Besides what Scripture reveals, see history section here.
10. Never manifestly saw apostolic successors being voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)
Furthermore, Rome's so-called apostolic successors fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12)
11. Never had any pastors distinctively titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into the "real" flesh and blood of Christ and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word, (2Tim. 4:2) which alone is said to spiritually nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6; cf. Mt. 4:4) and which builds them up. (Acts 20:32)
12. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace around which all else revolved, “the source and summit of the Christian faith,” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” as being a sacrifice for sins through the intercession of a special class of sacerdotal "priests," (see above) offering the "real" but unbloody flesh and blood of Christ (under the appearance of bread and wine, until these begin to decay, but which are said to no longer exist after the words consecration), which is to be physically consumed in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). See here by God's grace.
In contrast, Scripture teaches one receives spiritual life by believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and thus one desires the milk of the word, (1Pt. 2:2) and then receives the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) and built up by the word of God, and letting it dwell in them richly. (Col. 3:16) By which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) with doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once (besides mention of the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:14) in the life of the church, being that in which the focus is on the church as the body of Christ showing unity with Christ and each other, recognizing others as blood-bought members of that Body by that communal meal, thus effectually remembering and showing/declaring the Lord sacrificial death for the church which He (God) purchased with His own sinless shed blood. (Acts 2:28; cf. 1)t. 2:22-24)
13. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or presumed that all pastors were to be distinctively called “father.” (However, rather than excluding al these titles, I think Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
14. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
15. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was. Instead, the Spirit commends truth-loving souls who searched the OT Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of apostolic preaching. (Acts 17:11)
15. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
17. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.
18. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, despite prayer being a most fundamental and common practice, with the Holy Spirit recording approx. 200 prayers in Scripture, nor were we instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven"), even though there were plenty of angels to prayer to, and ascended OT saints after the Lord's resurrection. Moreover, Scripture only manifestly testifies that God alone is able and privileged to hear and respond from Heaven to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to there from earth, mental or vocal, while two-way communication between created beings required both to somehow be in the same location, and was not that of hearing prayer in Heaven (which the offering of prayer in memorial before judgment in Rv. 5:8 and 8:4 does not teach)
19. Never knelled before a statue. praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, even with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them. Which would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine by playing word games they avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
20. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving: Gn. 2:24; cf. Ruth 3:9) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven (despite lack of evidence) and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as,
• an omnipotent (by grace) or almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.
Historical testimony to the progressive deformation of the church. Including falsified history
Development of the distinctive Catholic priesthood Including compelled clerical celibacy
Long read ... but brilliant!
PING to an excellent post by daniel1212.
I ping you to think deeply about what you've been fed.
I had to look thru a bunch of lambs before I found it.
YES! Actually a quite brilliant illustration of exactly my point.
By stringing together nonsensical out of context snippets you have cobbled together a mere caricature of the most beautiful One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ Jesus
Why not quit pretending what you have is better and come home to the real thing. The doors are wide open and like the prodigal He is anxiously watching for your return.
1. You refuted not a single point. Noted.
2. Your post demonstrates a knee jerk reaction against facts and a lack of seeking truth.
3. You worked in your mantra, which is just an assertion.
4. I would never turn my back on the Savior and eternal life to join you on The Roman Hamster Wheel of Perpetual Guilt & Works.
You are vaccinated against truth FRiend. You simply don’t see through your Rome Colored glasses.
Still, salvation is available to you today. You would have to turn to Him alone, forsaking all merit, works, and self-righteousness.
“Today is the day of salvation.”
My Apologies for not pinging you to my reply
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3608266/posts?page=367#367
I had that on an old 45 single. No idea whatever happened to it.
His point is that the Mass is the fulfillment of Scripture.
His problem, though, is that the mass isn't the fulfillment of Scripture, Jesus is.
All of Scripture points towards Jesus.
It does NOT point to religious ceremony.
.
Go back to 1John 1.
I think he of all people knew what he was preaching. (particularly verse 9)
Transgressions of Torah must be confessed to be forgiven. Do you think Yeshua’s forgiveness of sins extends to willful sins not confessed?
I think John was onto something!
.
What those who label Catholicism a cult do not seem to understand is that even if one considers Catholicism to be unscriptural and greatly mistaken on many important doctrinal issues (certainly this writer does), it is simply misplaced and erroneous
The term "cultic" would be more accurate, and this article presumes there is no argument about what "cult" means, but i think it reasonable to define is based upon some psychological traits as well as one or more key doctrinal ones. And it seems MHGinTN is only referring to a particular characteristic of those in a cult, that of devotional blindness, and a failure to match up with an long list does not absolve a group from that characterization. As to examining these identifying traits:
(1) Cults, generally speaking, are small splinter groups with a fairly recent origin. Most American-based cults, for example, have to a greater or lesser degree splintered off from other Christian groups, and emerged in the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two-thousand-year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered.
The problem here is akin to identifying a facist government only if it appeared suddenly, versus developing over time into one. If we can disallow a church from being something negative since it developed slowly, then we can disallow it from being so its later reformation developed slowly, which would work against the author later on.
Of course, if sudden formal establishment means such is wrong versus what eons-old historical continuity under its authoritative leadership teaches, then the sect of the Nazarene was wrong, and all souls should have submitted wholly to those who sat in the seat of Moses, rather than following itinerant preachers, whom the former rejected, who established their Truth clams upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
As for what Rome developed into, I have already described part of the contrast btwn the NT church and Catholicism with its distinctives. We simply do not see RCC distinctives in Acts or the rest of the inspired record of the NT church that follows. And what did develop was cultic. Next:
(2) Cults are usually formed, molded, and controlled by a single individual or small group. The Catholic church, by contrast, has been molded by an incalculable number of people throughout its long history. Catholicism is governed by creeds, councils, and the ongoing magisterium. Actually what was "molded" was cultic, that of one supreme head uniquely (as one person in that office) possessing ensured infallibility, who has has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered," (CCC 882) who "hath government, authority, and power of binding and loosing from the Incarnate Word Himself; and, according to all holy synods, sacred canons and decrees, in all things and through all things, in respect of all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world." (Defloratio ex Epistola ad Petrum illustrem; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html) And who is effectively autocratic:" We read that the Roman Pontiff has pronounced judgments on the prelates of all the churches; we do not read that anybody has pronounced sentence on him"..The reason for which is stated thus: "there is no authority greater than that of the Apostolic See" — Post Epistolam, xxvi., ad omnes Episc. Hispan., n. 4 That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it. That he himself may be judged by no one. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair. - Dictatus papae [1075]; http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp As for not being controlled by a single head, what it really means is that no one has the power to rule except by submission to that autocratic head, and if if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. So if the Mormons are not cultic than neither is Rome. (3) Cults typically exercise rigid control over their members and demand unquestioning submission, with disobedience punished by shunning and/or excommunication. While Catholicism has exercised a triumphalism and an unhealthy control over its members in times past, this is far less true today, especially since the Second Vatican Council. Contemporary Catholicism’s broad diversity as illustrated in Part One of this series certainly proves this point. This is a primary distinctive, and so it now seems Rome was a cult, or cultic, at least based on this primary distinctive, but no longer is, but it is argued as not being a cult due to lack of sudden development, but neither did it cease from being a cult, or cultic suddenly either. Moreover, if obedience to the pope in some centuries can require extermination of all she deems" heretics," and the "right to admonish or warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws and also, if needful to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction," (Catholic Encyclopedia Jurisdiction) but be interpreted as wrong in another, then Rome could once again reaffirm her historical meaning of her doctrine. Thus Rome at least was and can become a cult, or cultic. (4) An appropriate description of a cult is “a religious group originating as a heretical sect and maintaining fervent commitment to heresy.”10 Regardless of one’s criticism of Catholicism, even if it is heretical at certain points, it does not fit this description. It does not originate in heresy, and, as was mentioned before, it possesses a structural orthodoxy that other cults simply do not have (see comparison chart). Wrong. Its very novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, under which she autocratically claims supreme authority to declare souls heretics, is itself cultic. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. And the page lacks the comparison chart, but the fact is that Rome is headed by a supreme autocratic authority, from which office all authority flows, without which she has no valid leadership, even if the modern leadership is not raising bloody armies, etc. (5) Cults (when defined as heretical sects) are classified as such because of their outright denial or rejection of essential Christian doctrine. Historically, this has principally been a denial of the nature of God (the Trinity), the nature of the incarnate Christ (divine-human), and of the absolute necessity of divine grace in salvation (the Pelagian controversy).11 While Protestants have accused Catholicism of having an illegitimate authority and of confusing the gospel (two serious charges to be examined later), Catholicism does affirm the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and that salvation is ultimately a gift of God’s grace (a rejection of Pelagianism).12 I challenge anyone to name a recognized cult that affirms the Trinity or the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (see comparison chart). The fallacy here is of defining essential Christian doctrine as simply consisting of confessing assent to these beliefs, for not only does this not mean this is what the members must believe (which many do not), but one can believe all this list and yet believe that they will be finally saved by actually becoming good enough to be with God via Purgatory, "by grace, and that "by God's grace" prayers to Mary, departed "saints" and angels can get them out sooner, and ever come to the place of brokeness, contrite heart repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save them solely on His account, with their hearts being purified by faith. (Psalm 34:18; Acts 10:43-=47; 15:7-9)m When the apostles preached the gospel of salvation, it was not a mere correct profession of the nature of God that they required, but a convicted broken heart that would truly believe in salvation by grace, on Christ's account being made accepted in the Beloved, (Eph. 1:6) with obedience thus following, which God does recompose, under grace. (Jn. 10:27,28; Heb. 5:9; 10:35) A cultic gospel makes you what? (6) Cults frequently have a low view of the Bible, replacing or supplementing it with their own so-called “sacred writings.” In fact, cults often argue that the Bible has been, to some extent, corrupted and therefore their writings are needed to restore the truth. While Catholicism’s acceptance of noncanonical writings (the Apocrypha) and placing of apostolic tradition on par with Scripture are fundamental problems to the Protestant, Catholics nevertheless retain a high view of the Bible (inspired and infallible) and see it as their central source of revelation. Retaining a high view of the Bible (inspired and infallible) and supposedly seeing it as their central source of revelation does not negate the fact that she supplements and actually even can effectively subject it her own so-called “sacred revelation” (under the premise of "authentic" interpretation), with her magisterium effectively being supreme over both. Which is cultic. (7) Cults usually have some kind of authoritarian, totalistic leader or prophet. While some feel that the pope fits this category, in reality the pope governs the church with heavy dependence upon the bishops (college of cardinals), and within the restrictions of the official teaching of the church. Protestants clearly disagree with the authority and exalted titles given the pope, but he still does not fit the category of a cult leader. Nonsense, even if the present pope does not, a complaint about him is that he does not. The historical dependance upon the pope is what during the confusion of the Avignon Papacy (1309-76) " the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side." ((Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology. Totalitarian an cults leader also have heavy dependence upon those under them (Jim Jones included), so thus does not exclude such from being cult leaders, and the official teaching of the church can be interpreted to be what Vatican 2 says or what sedevacantist say. The power is there, and while a so-called " heretical pope" could theoretically be ignored, but cannot be deposed without his consent. And despite real opposition, the pope worked to see his office declared to possess ensured (conditional) infallibility, and thereby make belief in the Assumption binding, despite the objections of his own scholars. And how and when has the likes of this been repealed? Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html (8) A frequent characteristic of cults is their emphasis on a “remnant identity” — that is, they claim to be God’s exclusive agent or people who restore “authentic Christianity,” which has been corrupted or lost. Usually this type of restorationism has an accompanying anticreedal and antihistorical mindset. While Catholicism has at times been guilty of an unfortunate exclusivity13 (some Protestant churches have also), they emphatically deny restorationism, and strongly emphasize the continuity of God’s church throughout history Meanwhile the fact is that by claiming to be the historical apostolic faith while being in manifest contrast to the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed, then Rome is essentially preaching false restorationism. The reality is that "a remnant shall be saved," (Rm. 9:27) and declesion happens which requires restoration. Simply because a group can claim historical continuity in form does not mean that they represent true faith in its entirety, and that appeal to reform from those it rejects is wrong, or else the NT church was which preached and practiced restorationism, and was accused of being antihistorical. And certain men which came down from Judæa taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. (Acts 15:1-2) And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: (Acts 15:15-16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17) Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. (Galatians 4:10-11) (9) Those who classify Roman Catholicism as a cult (an inauthentic and invalid expression of Christianity) usually also give the Eastern Orthodox church the same classification. What they do not realize, however, is that if both of these religious bodies are non-Christian, then there was no authentic Christian church during most of the medieval period. Actually Catholics and EOs mutually exclude each other from being the one true church , with both uniquely claiming this title. However, the only one true church is the church that was purchased with the sinless blood of Christ, the general "household of faith," for it alone always and only consists 100% of believers (there are even a few RCs in it). Thus it cannot refer to any one particular visible organic church/denomination, which inevitably become amalgams of wheat and tares, with both expressing their faith in such. But is the body of Christ which His one true church and bride and has prevailed against the gates of Hell, which Catholicism and liberal Protestantism have largely become, but with the body of Christ consisting of all who have been born again by personal repentant faith in the Lord Jesus to save them on His account, and who thus overall follow Him. (10) Even with the serious problems evident in Roman Catholic theology from a Protestant point of view, Catholic doctrine overall does not fit the pattern of the recognized cult groups (see comparison chart). Catholicism affirms most of what the cults deny and possesses an orthodox foundation which all cult groups lack. Again the appeal is to profession of some basic truths which one may assent to and yet never have had his/her day of salvation by faith in the gospel of Christ. A cultic cup of tea only needs a minute amount of poison, or lack an antidote to mean death. I am on another forum which requires assent to the Nicense Creed in order to post in "Christian" only threads, and it abounds with liberals, and also have culttic types.
The better thing is Christ and HE is the real deal and those who have found Him are already home.
Engaging in a religious organization is not what salvation is all about.
We can go directly to Jesus without having to jump through Roman Catholic hoops.
I bet your a whole lot of fun to have a drink with.
Meaning you have nothing of substance against what substantially refutes you and resort to mere cultic bombast, and absurd amateurish psychological appeal, and blasphemy. Quite an accomplishment in two paragraphs. Such fruit sure makes what you promote seem appealing.
Wow, that turned ugly fast.
I don’t know about a drink but daniel1212 is the best and most knowledgeable writer on these threads. You may agree with what he writes but you ca learn from it.
I watch you guys day in and day out and often late into the night tie yourselves into knots trying to prove what is, isn’t and what isn’t, is.
If it was for a good reason fine but it almost always serves to divide the body of Christ. Christ longed for us to be one Church, not my church, not your church but His Church. When we are united in prayer we are brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus but when we argue about what often amounts to ratifying us in our own particular sins we diminish ourselves and Christ’s One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We probably agree on much much more than we disagree on but trivial things have put us at odds.
I apologize for saying Daniel would be no fun to have a drink with, we would probably close the place.
When the apostles saw someone driving out demons in His name Christ said “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”
“Christ longed for us to be one Church, not my church, not your church
This is a peculiar comment from you. You never cease to talk all about your church on this thread.
I think the translation of your comment is likely:
“Christ longed for us to be one Roman Catholic Church, not non- Roman churches.”
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.