Essential Christian Doctrine is universal: That we are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8)
Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian faith! Anything which adds to this truth is false.
During the reformation the perversion of the Gospel reached its climax and many thousands of believers were horrifically murdered and tortured on devices invented by the CC in order to stop them from obeying God's word.
History records the time of the CC's supreme power as the "Dark Ages"!
Protestants DO interpret things differently, but virtually all of the mainstream denominations agree on the essential Christian doctrine. The differences are, in fact, quite minor.
The idea that the CC is united in all ways is naive. Those priests brave enough to speak up about something are swiftly excommunicated.
The Bible clearly teaches how we are saved, how we are to act towards each other, and how we are to live. The CC actually tortured, murdered and mutilated people for just that!
@baldonebear I see no such fighting in the city I live in, which is home to many different denominations and ethnic groups.
In fact, the pastors of the various Alliance, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Reformed, Salvation Army, and other non-affiliated churches gather together once every month to pray together and cast a common vision for the city in which I live, which has many significant challenges.
So, indeed, we ARE united with a common faith and purpose in Jesus Christ!
In my city the same is true of the Catholics, the Lutherans, and other groups. We come together for joint prayer and to cast vision. That is the way it should be.
However, there are still severe doctrinal variances among the Protestant groups, and this does cause major divisions.
@baldonebear Of which doctrinal variances do you speak? In the message of salvation by faith we are united! In our understanding of the Trinity; the inerrancy of Scripture; that Jesus was fully God and fully man; That the Lord's supper and believer's baptism are ordinances given by God to the Church.
The ways in which these are administrated may differ slightly from one church to another, but these slight differences in no way invalidate the faith.
The difference reflect belief on the topic, and all are not slight.
I used to believe that...until I began an intense research for 2 years. As a former pastor and bible college instructor, research was part of my nature.
The trinity doctrine is not the same always. Pentecostals are divided between Trinitarian and oneness. Oneness believes you are not saved unless you are baptized in Jesus name, not the trinitarian formula, and speak in tongues.
There is also a variance in eschatology. You have the historical view, then you have the dispensational view. Dispensationalist vary too, as some believe in a Pre-trib rapture, other a mid or post. Each group believes they are correct.
Many believe differently about the Lord's supper. Some take the lead of Uldrich Zwingli and believe it to be symbolic, while others believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the elements. A big difference.
Jesus gives Peter the Keys and the ability to bind and loose. This is an old Rabbinic practice.
It represents authority.
This is the basis, and there is an unbroken line of successors.
The bible is not an encyclopedia. The NT, not including the Gospels, only covers roughly 40 years of time. There are many things that the scriptures, which are letters and documents with a purpose, do not tell us. That is why we rely on historical documents too.
@baldonebear Read the succeeeding scriptures,it will be clear that authority of keys were given to all those who believe in Jesus,not just to Peter.You are indoctrinated by the lies of catholicism,which leads you to eternal hell fire.
No, keys are not given to all believers...no where is that found.
I find it very interesting that to make your position work, Augustine had to be Satanic, and that the primary historical sources must some how be fantasy and forged.
See, that is the only way your warped position works. Yet, you can not, and have not, been able to prove that. Why? It is you, who lives in the fantasy.
I know you...up to your same garbage...unsubstantiated bull.
@baldonebear Read Mathew18:18,here authority of keys are given to all believers,not just to Peter.If God spoke through me,it will certainly happen,if it does not i accept that it was not from God,but remember,it will never negate any of the facts that i presented,because they are supported by scriptures and secular history of mankind.Concerning Agustine he massacred true christians-donatists and burned up their bibles.Was such an act commited by holy spirit?
@baldonebear unfortunately it's 'historic' only in your juvenile fantasy because they donot comply with other historic documents from that time,which means in the absence of credible evidence it's obvious that such documents are forged.
@baldonebear Historical documents are not divinely inspired, Scripture is!
"Tradition" is always the fall-back justification for The RCC when the Bible will not support their views.
If the RCC was the "gateway" to God on earth, then when they were at the height of earthly power, it should've been a time of great spiritual awakening and liberty.
Instead, they repressed Biblical truth and murdered, tortured, and mutilated anyone who dared defy them. They would do the same today, if they could!
Baptism too is a variance...some believe it to be merely a symbol and act of obedience, while others see it has a the real entrance into the kingdom by which one is born again (that is the historical view).
Some believe in speaking in tongues, while others claim that those groups are heretics and under the influence of demons.
The list goes on/
Unity is what we need, and it is good to see it taking place, but Protestant are not as united as you want to believe.
@baldonebear Baptism is symbolic, just like the sacrament of the Lord's supper. We are not saved when we do them, but they are acts of obedience nonetheless. This is the Biblical view, clearly seen in Scripture: first comes the conversion, THEN baptism! Again, with the Lord's supper, if we are literally eating the flesh of God and drinking his literal blood, we are, in fact crucifying Him over and over again!
The CC view on transubstantiation is not supported Biblically.
In Evangelical circles "religion" has become a dirty word. That's odd.
Religion is the Greek word "Threskeia", and it means awe struck in worship to God and discipline in worship. It is not a negative.
It is part of who we are.
"Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."
Sacred Tradition came before the NT...thus, it is in harmony with scripture, but at odds with the severe variances in Protestantisms, born and grown since the 16th century.
"The "infallible interpreter" is the Holy Spirit living inside every born again believer, not another human being."
Thus, the reason for the doctrinal variances. Everyone believe the HS guides their private interpretation.
@baldonebear "protestantism" was what the CC called them. Reformers, on the other hand, were always present even in the early church, as there were many false practices and cultures mixing their traditions with Chrisianity. This was the reason for many of Paul's letters.
The Holy Spirit does guide believers. But in all matters of belief and conduct we must defer to the Bible as our guide.
Personal revelation is essential for edification, but all things must be tested in light of Scripture.
@baldonebear The CC teaches that when the papacy is defining faith and morals for all believers, he is infallible, immune from error, can neither deceive nor be deceived.
This position is rejected by all evangelicals, as there is no Biblical support for this whatsoever. Rom3:23 says"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". This includes the Pope. In fact, nowhere does the Bible support "successors" to Peter.
If it were important, surely Jesus would've taught it clearly.
The word Peter petros, meaning “rock”, is masculine, the follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra. Many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
"The word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name"
"Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos"
The reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built The attempts that have been made to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock seem to be motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
@baldonebear Evangelicals believe that the "rock" upon which the church is built was not Peter, "for no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ" 1Cor.3:11. Would you choose Jesus or the Pope?
The Bible says Peter was an apostle for the Jews, Paul for the Gentiles(Gal.2:7)
Nowhere in Scripture is the idea of an all-powerful "pope" supported.
Mat.16 does not justify the pope or papal infallability.
Biblically, where is the evidence? Very thin indeed.
@baldonebear About Matt16:18, St. Augustine himself wrote "On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built."
The interpretation of this passage is the dividing line between Catholicism and Evangelicalism. On the one hand, it gives the "pope" supreme authority over all of Christianity. On the other hand, it reinforces what we already know, that Jesus is the cornerstone. John 14:6
Concerning Augustine...he was a bishop of the Church. He was in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
New Part 1
This post tells me you have not read Augustine. You have, however, cut and pasted from an anti-Catholic site.
Augustine has a both/and approach. Augustine clearly recognizes the meaning of Matth 16 and writes about it. He is giving another point of view that actually supports the first.
The Pope is not the unilateral dictator, thus your view is in error
If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found"
@baldonebear Agustine was satanic heretic and a liar.He ordered bibles to be burned so that people will not come to realize the truth that practice of intercession/veneration of saints is idolatry.Such a person should be drowned alive in see by tying to something heavy according to Lord Jesus Christ.Woe unto you heretics who follow this liar.
Augustine did no such acts. Again, your warped mind leads you down a path that can not be, and never has been, substantiated, save by your personal opinion.
Btw..we are closing in on the 39 days that you claimed God told you that WW3 would begin...I am glad you posted, as we will all be waiting for your concession post that you are a false prophet.
There is no such thing as an "infallible apostolate". Rom 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". To believe otherwise is to deny scripture.
The "infallible interpreter" is the Holy Spirit living inside every born again believer, not another human being. Putting faith in another persons "infallible" interpretation is folly. This is why Catholicism draws upon extra-biblical justification for their views, because many of their most sacred traditions are not supported!
The term mother of God is a heresy and a blasphemy unto God and degrading of blessed Mary,the woman whom God almighty choose to be the earthly mother of Jesus,because of her faith.
@182RG..I see.. Well I honestly don't believe that jesus ever expected his followers to organize in such a complex way that the catholic church is now. I understand why Martin Luther started the protestant revolution. Its much simpler in the protestant church and all are welcome to attend.
I hope it's simply a case of the priest inadvertantly giving you the wrong idea about you're being welcome, but of course I wasn't there. At my church, we welcome visitors and have a "visitor's" card and pencils in the pews in anyone wants to be contacted. And a few welcoming volunteers that will visit new faces after mass. I'm sorry you weren't made to feel welcome there.
@Gazdo01..because i sat in on a catholic mass one day. I went to try to take communion and the priest would not let me because I was not catholic. There were no visitors cards to fill out as are in protestant churches either, and I will never forget the look on that priests face and the grip he had on my hand shaking it as I walked out. You just had to be there to understand
The priest should have explained why he isn't allowed to give a non Catholic communion. It wasn't his decision to make. That "policy" goes back to ancient times. Here is an ancient document than might help you understand a bit. It's called the "Didache", or "Writings of the Apostles":
Chapters 9 & 14 touch on it. As you read, remember we believe the Eucharist is the actual body of blood of our Saviour; NOT a symbolism
@baldonebear. Ok, but the problem is that you christians don't go out and witness to anybody. In all of my years and the tens of thousands of people I have met and been around, not one person has ever approached me about anything spiritual.. Ever.. You can't possibly believe so passionately about jesus yet do nothing nor say nothing to anybody about him. It makes no sense.
@baldonebear.. Ok, let's put the scandal aside and look at things spiritually. Catholics believe in the same heaven and hell that protestants do.. Don't you care that the majority of people are going to hell? I mean most people in the world are not even Christian.. Not mention being catholic. Don't you feel the burden of going out and witnessing to people to get them into your church?
Yes, 100%. Evangelism is part of our mission as Christians.
I had an instructor in bible college who was a Star Trek fan. Now, I realize that this is corny, but he referred to Matt 28:19-20 as the Prime Directive.
What I like in my city, and with my church in particular, is the joint efforts between us and to 2 Protestant ministries to Evangelize our part of the city.
Very touching video even though I'm an atheist. The problem is that you can't just become catholic that easy. I already tried. The priest refused to allow me to participate in communion, and gave me the biggest shit-eating grin as I walked out. He didn't even care that I was a christian at the time. He just wanted to know if I was catholic or not.; which im not.. So your so called church is in dire need of change.. Especially with all of the scandal surrounding. The tens of thousands of priests
The Catholic church were instrumental at the end of the second world war in helping some of the most evil nazi scientists escape Germany and land in the USA, where with the help of their American handlers went on to form NASA. All verifiable fact. also interesting to learn that just a few years ago the AGE OF CONSENT in the Vatican City was just 12 years old. Thought priests were celibate?
@baldonebear Much of it came to light with the trial of Klaus Barbie who escaped through them. Unholy Trinity by Mark Aarons and John Loftus is worth a read as is The Vatican Connection by Richard Hammer. The Vatican provided support to the Nazis and fascists because the communists were the real threat to the churches survival. The Italian communists would have taxed the churches vast holdings( which by the way could feed every single hungry person on this planet)
1. Klaus Barbie? Really? Yes, there is an honest man.
2. It is interesting that the Vatican did such things only in the minds and texts of anti-Catholics.
3. Sorry, the Church's vast holdings (sic) would not feed every single hungry person. Btw, the CC provides the largest amount of humanitarian aide to the world as compared to Protestants. 4. Have you actually read Hammers book? Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen.
@baldonebear I'm not anti-catholic, i have friends who are of the catholic faith. I find it interesting however that you made a comparison to Protestants, why did you feel the need to do this? The tern "conspiracy theory" was formulated by "the establishment" to discredit and mock any free thinking soul. I initally posted because i thought the video unduly glorified the church. Are you denying the existence of the "ratlines" and the churches involvement during and after ww2?
@baldonebear Well we are in agreement and as i have stated like you have discovered an abundance of information from multiple sources, however let me ask you this. Do you know the difference between lawful and legal? Do you submit to the authority who implement legislation(man made law)? What does your bible have to say on man made law? Then sir, tell me what your bible says about hypocrisy?
1 Lawful is something indelible to you as a human being. Legal is man made law(legislation) based on corporate and contract law
2 I will not submit easily to legal authority because no other man has authority over me
3 I suggest submitting willingly to legal authority is at odds with your faith. When you submit to legal authority based on corporate or contract law you are considered by that authority as a PERSON(legal fiction) and by doing this giving up your Lawful rights
@gavt731 By doing this you are giving up your lawful rights as a human being and representing this fiction. So you are submitting to denying who you are 4 Hypocrisy, a pretence of being something you not really are.
It is not my intent to "sock it" to you sir. i wish you no ill will or wish to denigrate anything you have to say.
I manage a team of people. I am also part of a bigger team and have authority over me.
Now, I am not a dictator to my team, and I foster a "team" mentality. That is one of the reasons that I have had very little turnover.
However, as the leader I must make the hard decisions. While I do allow for disagreement, my team is expected to follow. If they refuse, they will be out of a job.
Therefore, while on my team, they must submit to my authority.
@baldonebear Yes, agreed the thesis is a personal position and that is my point,i recognizse the control systems(the church being just one) for what they are but while you have faith in these systems i dont think you can comprehend my thinking.A wise man said"a problem cannot be solved by the same level of consciousness that created it" we have the same problems again and again,war,poverty etc which says to me trying to solve life's problems through dogmatic religion, is futile
@baldonebear I maintain i will not submit easily to LEGAL authority. The legislators in my country are complicit in genocide and treason(UK) This goes against all that is Lawful and indeed the laws that you have in your faith as a Catholic
@baldonebear Thank you for your response, may i add, When we(humanity) truly know who we are there will be no place for GUILT or FEAR only Unconditional Love. One mans freedom fighter may be another mans terrorist, in the same vein, One mans conspiracy theorist may by another's pioneer of thought.
@baldonebear I am not a shepherd and you are not a sheep are you? People are not bad because they are catholic but the catholic institution and hierarchy is a corrupt criminal organisation. YOU sir could substantiate that yourself, if you wanted to.
@baldonebear and this is why we are not in agreement, you have faith in the systems that govern and control you, i have no faith in these systems. I will entertain your broad range of primary sources if they come, not from the corporate controlled media systems that are in place, but from free thinking human beings.You say a source i have given is a well known conspiracy theorist but i ask you what is a conspiracy theorist?
@gavt731 As i have said the term is a construct designed to deflect what the author has to say.I have many sources from which i gain knowledge(not necessarily wisdom,granted) but because they come from outwith the control system you will ascribe them as conspiracy theorists.You have faith in the bible, not just parts of it but all of it. You cannot substantiate the entire bible,but you believe it
@baldonebear No sir i do not, in this time of information technology sources are in abundance if you chose to seek them. More and more are waking up to this and beginning to think for themselves, outside of the control systems(organised religion being one) i believe you have a strong faith and conviction in your religion but you are in denial if you refuse to accept there is corruption at a grand scale within your churches establishment
@gavt731 <<<"The Italian communists would have taxed the churches vast holdings( which by the way could feed every single hungry person on this planet) "
Statements like that eliminate any credibility your might have had. We'll skip the fact that the Vatican has been a separate state since 1929, but "feed every single hungry person on the planet" is beyond absurd.
Washington Post: "Actually, selling the Vatican probably wouldn't generate enough cash to buy the whole world lunch."
From the same Washington Post article by David Walter:
"But as the Catholic League points out, "The Catholic Church operates more hospitals and feeds more of the poor than any private institution in the world." Could it do more by selling its headquarters?"
@182RG The Catholic ArchDiocese of Boston as well as New York both publish annual financial statements. On even a quick look at their figures, just these two divisions of the Catholic Church hold assets and income worth several billion dollars.
Yes, I know. The Vatican decided to publish its financial status several years ago primarily because of accusations such as yours.
"Several billion dollars" And you think that's enough to feed the planet's poor??? For comparison, do you know what Bill Gate's or Warren Buffet's net worth is? 59 & 62 billion respectively.
@182RG Tip of the iceberg, If you asked an educated person 100 years ago what single entity was the largest and wealthiest in the world,without question you would have been told the roman catholic church. It has for 1000 years been the dominant organisation on the planet during which time having owned, directly or indirectly the majority of wealth in europe. For 400 years they owned and controlled vast wealth of the americas and today their holdings of art and precious artefacts is unhearelded
@182RG If there was the collective will, the worlds poor could easily be fed and hey i hear you about bill gates and the like and think their personal wealth is obscene
Can you provide any credible source that the Vatican's net worth is "several $billion"?
According to "Inside the Vatican" by Thomas Reece:
"fixed assets ...the sum is lower than $1 billion, maybe even less than 1/4 billion dollars."
Estimates of malnurished people run about 1 billion, so even if the church has $10 billion, that's about $10 per person. Deduct administrative costs, and what do you think each would net? Enough for a couple Happy Meals?
@182RG Your missing the point. The world is run by corporate law. Corporate control systems that are in place are THE CAUSE of hunger and suffering in the world. I have not read "inside the vatican" however i note that Thomas Reece is a roman catholic jesuit priest and believe a truly independent asessment of assets is required
@182RG Slush fund accounts of major US politicians identified and seized at Vatican Bank (Rome). Connection established with Daniel Dal Bosco RICO indictment, which cites Giancarlo Bruno, Silvio Berlusconi & Ban Ki Moon. On Wednesday 5th January 2011, it emerged that US establishment-related slush fund accounts had been located in, and seized from, the Vatican Bank in Rome. The source of funds for these accounts in almost every instance was found to be the US Treasury.Tip of the iceberg
@182RG The total number of slush fund accounts so far identified at the Vatican Bank is said to be between 600 and 700. This number is likely to grow as international élite corruption investigations spread worldwide. The disclosures have split the Roman Catholic Legatus organisation down the middle. Elizabeth Windsor (Queen Elizabeth II of England) is in the know and is intimately involved in the swirling and fissiparous covert power plays.
@TheGhostFromPlanetX My intent was not to offend, however if i have please accept my apologies. I believe in truth and the whole truth, just telling it how it is.
To remain in a church that refused to change would be wrong. I think Martin Luther's intent was not to start a new church, but sadly, that occurred because the Church refused to change. I, myself, would remain in the Catholic Church, but as a gay person, I would not be welcomed. I would be banned in most cases from receiving Eucharist if my orientation was known. I don't think its wrong as long as you follow your conscience and what you believe is right.
@Maggiecoog technically the Catholic Church is supposed to carry 'support' groups for homosexuals or should at the very least offer consolation to you.
@Maggiecoog --celebate homosexuals may receive the eucharist, but not active homosexuals. Have you read what the Catechism says about the homosexual condition?
I agree with some points, but I think this video romanticizes the Roman Catholic Church too much. I would challenge you, if the apostolate was and is indeed infalliable, then there wouldn't be a Protestant Reformation in the first place. The Roman Catholic Church is not innocent of divisions that occurred starting with Martin Luther. Second, there are many Protestants that still retain the sacred and mystic...look at the Anglicans and Lutherans.
@Maggiecoog the difference is in the decision to start a new "church" or religion. To protest what we believe is not wrong, but the decision to leave the church and start a new church with different beliefs is wrong. Even St Francis remained Catholic while at the same time rebuilding the church...
The fact that you make this statement shows that you are arguing apples and oranges. It's not in what an individual Catholic does or does not believe that you get the 100%. It is teachings of the Catholic faith that are ALWAYS the same, without division, without change.
Moses was also a real person but never God allowed Jews to set him as an icon, but yet all the disciples did venerate Moses, and other prophets, and the Lord did rebuke them many times that He is the center of attention and not any other human.
Catholics are watering down the strength of the Bible by putting extra priorities behind Jesus or even along side of Jesus.
I feel sorry for you, The disciples were Jews weren't they? didn't Peter Venerate Moses and Elijah along with Jesus? as if Jesus is just as high as them? that's when the Father told Peter to be quiet and focus on Jesus alone.
Peter was about to build a church in the name of Moses and Elijah, and wow that's what Catholics are doing now, that's a disobeying of God. so many times Peter was not focusing on Jesus he failed, Catholics are just imitating the failures of Peter on and on.
"Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”
5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”
The subject was never addressed, thus your thesis has no foundation.
yes you do unfortunately, churches of saints Peter and Paul and the never ending names and some renames. I know its not your business to build such icons yourself but you are defending those who do it and you are denying it? wow!, you don't have to deny it I saw it and I see it daily, you have to know the Lord is never pleased with such visual works. The Lord want's his word to be magnified above all.
The Word of the Lord is magnified? why does this Vid promote Catholicity and promote church as a source by leaving the word out? isn't there any work of the Lord left to do but brag Catholicism, enlarge your names and your actions to promote Catholic name? why leaving the source behind?, Do people actually know who God is first and then to know who the Church is?
There is more scripture, read, sung, prayed and taught in the CC than in any Protestant community that I have witnessed, and I am a former Protestant pastor.
The Lord is magnified, even if your conjecture clogs up your ability to see or admit this.
even jehovas wittneses who are not Christians have all of what you said, the question is what's the fine print does everyone know it? what's under the cover? the sculptures and icons that people bow down to?
are you out of words?
Even if you are a pope when you defend yourself bring me the word of God, that's what I know. I can't talk to you in street language, we are dealing God matters here, life and death. not a sport league.
Jesus died because the intensity of claim and the fact he called himself The ONLY Son of God and that making himself equal with God, all saints died because of preaching this claim.
and here you watering down all the scriptures.."yes Jesus is god and Mary is mother of God. all this confusion people don't know where to set their eyes on, the Son or his Mother?, making the mother more of value than God. "mother of God, because the word Mother is a very high rank but not as God.
I can't belive you were a pastor, and can't properly understand theology.
Mother refers to one who has a Child.
So until now God is always a child?... and for how long?..is Mother Mary still taking care of God? please be clear, everyone is confused about theology. don't you know that Jesus alone has dominion forever and ever? how come he still has a Mother?
God alone humbled himself out of Love! coming into a flesh to be like us, Emanuel to save us. Mary cannot save.
If Mary is a Mother of God then she is able to Save God, because she begotten him.
Mary is not savior. She was down to earth humble who loved God with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength, and she loved her neighbor as herself. God will not bow down to anyone including Mary, God is God. She was blessed, but now we are blessed because of Love of the Father who sent his only begotten to save you and me from sin, now you put Mary on top where you cant reach. and you can't my friend.
@thelordz72 You should learn the truth....Mary is NOT the mother of a god, she is the mother of Jesus, who is god in the flesh....That is what the Catholic Faith teaches.
In a family there is Father Mother and Children. naturally Father and Mother are higher rank than children. and there is nothing greater rank than Father and Mother to be close in a family for the children. now God is everlasting, you have put a mother to him as if he did not exist before he was born. Jesus existed even before being born, because the Holy Spirit who begotten him is everlasting.
@thelordz72 Jesus,himself said so in Gospels,that he had np begining & existed in eternal past.Jesus said even before Abraham and Adam I was.God bless you for preaching the truth boldly.
everyone or most CC people believe that Mary can listen to prayers thus mean she can save. Jesus is Lord, The Lord has no use for a mother anymore, thats why he called Mary "WOMAN".
isn't it written that a man leaves his parents and join with his bride to be one flesh? Jesus has left His father to join with his bride (the Church) to be one flesh, and now its a bigger story Jesus is revealed as God, and God does not need a mother to support him anymore. please understand.
Listening to prayers means that she can save? Now you are making stuff up, as salvation comes only through the shed blood of Christ.
Looking at the Greek, and the usage of terms among the Jewish culture of that day.."women" was a way of saying "madam". It was a term of respect. That is factual.
Mary still was his earthly mother. You are creating a doctrine here that can not be proven from scripture, as you are Sola Scriptura.
@thelordz72 <<<you have to know the Lord is never pleased with such visual works.
The church builds the beautiful cathedrals and churches in part to glorify the Lord. The biblical example is the temple of Solomon - built per God's instruction.
Catholic churches may bear the names of saints, but they are dedicated to God.
question? Where in the bible does it say man can change God's law? The 4th commandment says REMEMBER the sabbath and KEEP it holy last day of the week (saturday) God blessed and sanctified the sabbath. man can not change God's law. around 538 ad constantine changed this law. Jesus came to fulfill the law not change it. Jesus also said he who claims to know him but doesn't keep his commandments has no truth in him.1John2:4 Jesus also said if 2 or more gather in my name there am I.why need a pope?
@Ibanez7400 wrote "around 538 ad constantine changed this law."
You're grossly mistaken. Notwithstanding Contantine died 337 AD, the bible speaks of gathering on Sunday, and ancient church fathers write of Sunday worship in explicit words in several different documents. Here's just one:
From the Didache {Teachings of the Apostles}, written less than 100 yrs after His death. "Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread..."
@Ibanez7400 Read Acts 15...and you will see how men changed the requirement of Moses to be circumcised. You ask a very easy question...Acts 16:4, Paul went from church to church to make sure they obeyed the decisions of the apostles and elders....circumcision became a thing of the past despite what Moses wrote...in the Bible...
@Ibanez7400 by the way you might want to read the Edict of Milan and Constattine wasnt alive in 538 that will bust your bubble with the trash constantine institued Sunday service
Why is it that anti-catholics love to post about "the Catholic Church this", "the Catholic Church that", posting every hour. Then a Catholic comes on, gives them authentic teaching or asks them to support the things that say and POOF!......no more anti posts......
Ah, yes. We are supposed to sit at their feet and soak up their wisdom without challenge. Sort of like they accuse Catholics of doing with the Church.......
IF the catholic church actually followed what was in the bible in the first place ( instead of all this crap about indulgence , purgotary etc) there would be no protestant reformation
You do realise none of this ( ie the prostant church spilting from the catholic church) if the catholic church wasnt so corrupt and tried to get away with the selling indulgence scam.
The protestants correctly exposed the corruption in the catholic church
You realize that the selling of indulgences was banned in the council of trent and the Church repented? And that Martin Luther was a bitter anti-semetic priest who caused the disunity of Christ's Church, which Jesus warned against doing. Any kingdom divided against itself will perish.
The Church is NOT wrong about indulgences. Indulgences are a traditional and biblically supported practice. What was wrong was the SELLING of indulgences.....i.e. charging people money for the grace that God gives freely. (con't)
You need to answer bbear's question first. If you don't understand what an indulgence is, and isn't, then there is no point in presenting the Scripture to you that supports this Catholic doctrine.
So....what is it that you believe you are referencing when you use the term "indulgence(s)"?
@badpanda84 (con't) This is not a teaching of the Church; it was an action on the part of some Church members during a certain period of time and it was abolished. Because of the wide=spread acceptance/practice of selling indulgences, the Church asked pardon for the way a teaching was put into practice, NOT pardon for the teaching.
@zzzak123 Better to have some disunity than to have a corrupt church -- if it wasnt for Martin Luther he catholic church would still be getting away with the selling indulgence scam
Yes, there WAS corruption that entered the Church. YOU do realize, however, that this does not negate the teachings of the Church, nor does it negate the fact that Christ established the Catholic Church (Matt 3:16). He knew corruption would enter the Church (Acts 20:28-31) (as it does into ALL human groups..even..gasp!..Protestantism), yet we are told to hold fast to the teachings of the Church anyway as these do not change and are infallible. (2Thess2:15)
"just like the pharaises of the day-- which Jesus mentioned many times"
The High Proesthood was corrupt at many times during the history of Judaism. Many were corrupt and evil men, and at one point, just before Christ, the office wnet to the highest bidder.
Did that diminish the office as God ordained? Did that diminish Judaism as God's ordained form of worship?
The answer is no. Also, Jesus was a practicing Jew.
Martin Luther did not dispute indulgences themselves, only the selling of them. That is what the issue was. It should also be noted that it was only for a short time, and not across the board, though that is not an excuse and it does not diminish that it was wrong.
Therefore, I ask that you do answer my questions in my first post.
@stevesilvia- where does the Bible claim the Catholic church was inspired by the holy spirit?
simple question?
I'm just trying to figure out which one( the Bible or the RCC) has authority, The Bible claims inspiration by the holy spirit, whats the Bible say about inspiration for the RCC?
@seanom23 did you know Paul,Peter,John the evangelist and other all other apostles all believers for past 2000 years were Evangelicals.Catholic heretic sect was invented by Roman state in the 4th century to consolidate their power by corrupting christianity and fusing it with pagan Rome idolatry.State changed names of old Roman pagan idols to christian names and continued to use them in prayer,mass(worship gathering),thus arose practice of intercession/veneration of saints & catholic heresy.
@alnimrod84 You couldn't be further from the truth, evangelicism is a new movement founded in the 18th and 19th centuries. Saint Paul, John, Peter ( the first pope) if you know your history were all catholic. God Bless you my brother in Christ!
@seanom23 Dear brother,i am not hear to argue.I have presented to you facts and reality.I challenge you to prove me wrong if you can on the basis of bible and secular history.If you cannot show the spine to leave catholic heresy.God bless you.
@seanom23 For your info-papal succession has zero evidence in secular history,since vatican docoments on papal succession have never been claimed to be credible by any secular historian.
@alnimrod84 >>>"For your info-papal succession has zero evidence in secular history,since vatican docoments on papal succession have never been claimed to be credible by any secular historian."
Can you name some credible historians who dispute the Vatican records?
We have the work of Irenaeus in Against Heresies Book III:3:1 naming the next 12 popes after Peter up to his time. Then with the records of various councils and those attending, there's a lot of evidence.
Essential Christian Doctrine is universal: That we are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8)
Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian faith! Anything which adds to this truth is false.
During the reformation the perversion of the Gospel reached its climax and many thousands of believers were horrifically murdered and tortured on devices invented by the CC in order to stop them from obeying God's word.
History records the time of the CC's supreme power as the "Dark Ages"!
Infidelrf 1 day ago
Protestants DO interpret things differently, but virtually all of the mainstream denominations agree on the essential Christian doctrine. The differences are, in fact, quite minor.
The idea that the CC is united in all ways is naive. Those priests brave enough to speak up about something are swiftly excommunicated.
The Bible clearly teaches how we are saved, how we are to act towards each other, and how we are to live. The CC actually tortured, murdered and mutilated people for just that!
Infidelrf 1 day ago
@Infidelrf
Part 1
As a former Prot pastor, I can tell you that the differences are not minor.
There are sever doctrinal variances. There is so much fighting among Protestants doctrinally that it makes one sick.
What I find interesting is your little history lesson. Where are your primary sources to support?
baldonebear 15 hours ago
@baldonebear I see no such fighting in the city I live in, which is home to many different denominations and ethnic groups.
In fact, the pastors of the various Alliance, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Reformed, Salvation Army, and other non-affiliated churches gather together once every month to pray together and cast a common vision for the city in which I live, which has many significant challenges.
So, indeed, we ARE united with a common faith and purpose in Jesus Christ!
Infidelrf 7 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Well, Ecumenical efforts are working then,
In my city the same is true of the Catholics, the Lutherans, and other groups. We come together for joint prayer and to cast vision. That is the way it should be.
However, there are still severe doctrinal variances among the Protestant groups, and this does cause major divisions.
baldonebear 7 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 2
Please answer my question on infallibility.
baldonebear 7 hours ago
@baldonebear Of which doctrinal variances do you speak? In the message of salvation by faith we are united! In our understanding of the Trinity; the inerrancy of Scripture; that Jesus was fully God and fully man; That the Lord's supper and believer's baptism are ordinances given by God to the Church.
The ways in which these are administrated may differ slightly from one church to another, but these slight differences in no way invalidate the faith.
We believe in Jesus, not religion!
Infidelrf 7 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 1
The difference reflect belief on the topic, and all are not slight.
I used to believe that...until I began an intense research for 2 years. As a former pastor and bible college instructor, research was part of my nature.
The trinity doctrine is not the same always. Pentecostals are divided between Trinitarian and oneness. Oneness believes you are not saved unless you are baptized in Jesus name, not the trinitarian formula, and speak in tongues.
baldonebear 7 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 2
There is also a variance in eschatology. You have the historical view, then you have the dispensational view. Dispensationalist vary too, as some believe in a Pre-trib rapture, other a mid or post. Each group believes they are correct.
Many believe differently about the Lord's supper. Some take the lead of Uldrich Zwingli and believe it to be symbolic, while others believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the elements. A big difference.
baldonebear 7 hours ago
@baldonebear Eschatology is not essential doctrine. There is room for debate within the "Church", without division.
The "Church" is every obedient follower of Jesus, regardless of denominational ties.
"Religion", in its modern context, has rightfully become a bad word. Relationship with Jesus and each other is more important than "religion".
Matt22:37-40 says it all: #1Love God. #2 Love others. Many think that they need to "do" something to be saved, when God is seeking relationship.
Infidelrf 6 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 3
Jesus gives Peter the Keys and the ability to bind and loose. This is an old Rabbinic practice.
It represents authority.
This is the basis, and there is an unbroken line of successors.
The bible is not an encyclopedia. The NT, not including the Gospels, only covers roughly 40 years of time. There are many things that the scriptures, which are letters and documents with a purpose, do not tell us. That is why we rely on historical documents too.
baldonebear 5 hours ago
@baldonebear Read the succeeeding scriptures,it will be clear that authority of keys were given to all those who believe in Jesus,not just to Peter.You are indoctrinated by the lies of catholicism,which leads you to eternal hell fire.
alnimrod84 3 hours ago
@alnimrod84
No, keys are not given to all believers...no where is that found.
I find it very interesting that to make your position work, Augustine had to be Satanic, and that the primary historical sources must some how be fantasy and forged.
See, that is the only way your warped position works. Yet, you can not, and have not, been able to prove that. Why? It is you, who lives in the fantasy.
I know you...up to your same garbage...unsubstantiated bull.
baldonebear 2 hours ago
@baldonebear Read Mathew18:18,here authority of keys are given to all believers,not just to Peter.If God spoke through me,it will certainly happen,if it does not i accept that it was not from God,but remember,it will never negate any of the facts that i presented,because they are supported by scriptures and secular history of mankind.Concerning Agustine he massacred true christians-donatists and burned up their bibles.Was such an act commited by holy spirit?
alnimrod84 1 hour ago
@baldonebear unfortunately it's 'historic' only in your juvenile fantasy because they donot comply with other historic documents from that time,which means in the absence of credible evidence it's obvious that such documents are forged.
alnimrod84 3 hours ago
@baldonebear Historical documents are not divinely inspired, Scripture is!
"Tradition" is always the fall-back justification for The RCC when the Bible will not support their views.
If the RCC was the "gateway" to God on earth, then when they were at the height of earthly power, it should've been a time of great spiritual awakening and liberty.
Instead, they repressed Biblical truth and murdered, tortured, and mutilated anyone who dared defy them. They would do the same today, if they could!
Infidelrf 1 hour ago
@Infidelrf
Part 3
Baptism too is a variance...some believe it to be merely a symbol and act of obedience, while others see it has a the real entrance into the kingdom by which one is born again (that is the historical view).
Some believe in speaking in tongues, while others claim that those groups are heretics and under the influence of demons.
The list goes on/
Unity is what we need, and it is good to see it taking place, but Protestant are not as united as you want to believe.
baldonebear 7 hours ago
@baldonebear Baptism is symbolic, just like the sacrament of the Lord's supper. We are not saved when we do them, but they are acts of obedience nonetheless. This is the Biblical view, clearly seen in Scripture: first comes the conversion, THEN baptism! Again, with the Lord's supper, if we are literally eating the flesh of God and drinking his literal blood, we are, in fact crucifying Him over and over again!
The CC view on transubstantiation is not supported Biblically.
Infidelrf 6 hours ago
@Infidelrf
I presented the different Protestant views, not Catholic.
Before I respond to your post...4th asking: What do you believe that we believe about infallibility?
Why do you avoid this?
baldonebear 5 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 4
3rd asking: please answer my question on infallibility.
baldonebear 7 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 5
"We believe in Jesus, not religion"
Well, I should hope so.
In Evangelical circles "religion" has become a dirty word. That's odd.
Religion is the Greek word "Threskeia", and it means awe struck in worship to God and discipline in worship. It is not a negative.
It is part of who we are.
"Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."
James 1:27
baldonebear 6 hours ago
@Infidelrf
part 2
I see much opinion from you, with zero support.
Sacred Tradition came before the NT...thus, it is in harmony with scripture, but at odds with the severe variances in Protestantisms, born and grown since the 16th century.
"The "infallible interpreter" is the Holy Spirit living inside every born again believer, not another human being."
Thus, the reason for the doctrinal variances. Everyone believe the HS guides their private interpretation.
baldonebear 15 hours ago
@baldonebear "protestantism" was what the CC called them. Reformers, on the other hand, were always present even in the early church, as there were many false practices and cultures mixing their traditions with Chrisianity. This was the reason for many of Paul's letters.
The Holy Spirit does guide believers. But in all matters of belief and conduct we must defer to the Bible as our guide.
Personal revelation is essential for edification, but all things must be tested in light of Scripture.
Infidelrf 5 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 2
In Matthew 16, Simon is given a role of leadership. Jesus gives him the title in Aramaic "Kepha" and on this Kepha he would build his Church.
Now, the Greek word for build has 2 meanings...to construct...and to establish or promote growth. It is the second usage which Jesus refers to.
Petros and Petra are the same in the Koine. Petros is the primary masculine word, Petra the fem.
This is supported in Protestantism too.
baldonebear 5 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 3
Here is a question that I ask you to answer honestly:
What do you believe, that Catholics believe about infallibility? Please be detailed.
baldonebear 15 hours ago
@baldonebear The CC teaches that when the papacy is defining faith and morals for all believers, he is infallible, immune from error, can neither deceive nor be deceived.
This position is rejected by all evangelicals, as there is no Biblical support for this whatsoever. Rom3:23 says"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". This includes the Pope. In fact, nowhere does the Bible support "successors" to Peter.
If it were important, surely Jesus would've taught it clearly.
Infidelrf 5 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 1
Thank you.
There is 100% biblical support, though the modern term infallible is not found.
But first, your quote of Rom 3 does not apply, as we are not talking about the Pope being impeccable, as no human is.
Infallible does not mean he is without sin or that he is perfect.
Second, everything the Pope says is not infallible, in fact, a infallible declaration has not been made in 62 years.
Btw, Evangelicalism is not that old, so that is not a good comparison.
baldonebear 5 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 4
DA Carson
Baptist Trinity Evang Sem
The word Peter petros, meaning “rock”, is masculine, the follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra. Many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary
baldonebear 5 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 5
Carson Part 2
Speaking of thr Aramaic word "Kepha"
"The word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name"
baldonebear 5 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 6
John A. Broadus
Baptist author
"Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos"
baldonebear 5 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 7
Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built The attempts that have been made to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock seem to be motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
baldonebear 4 hours ago
@baldonebear Evangelicals believe that the "rock" upon which the church is built was not Peter, "for no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ" 1Cor.3:11. Would you choose Jesus or the Pope?
The Bible says Peter was an apostle for the Jews, Paul for the Gentiles(Gal.2:7)
Nowhere in Scripture is the idea of an all-powerful "pope" supported.
Mat.16 does not justify the pope or papal infallability.
Biblically, where is the evidence? Very thin indeed.
Infidelrf 2 hours ago
@baldonebear About Matt16:18, St. Augustine himself wrote "On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built."
The interpretation of this passage is the dividing line between Catholicism and Evangelicalism. On the one hand, it gives the "pope" supreme authority over all of Christianity. On the other hand, it reinforces what we already know, that Jesus is the cornerstone. John 14:6
Infidelrf 5 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Concerning Augustine...he was a bishop of the Church. He was in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
New Part 1
This post tells me you have not read Augustine. You have, however, cut and pasted from an anti-Catholic site.
Augustine has a both/and approach. Augustine clearly recognizes the meaning of Matth 16 and writes about it. He is giving another point of view that actually supports the first.
The Pope is not the unilateral dictator, thus your view is in error
baldonebear 4 hours ago
@Infidelrf
Part 2
Augustine:
If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found"
This quote proves my point on Augustine.
baldonebear 4 hours ago
@baldonebear Agustine was satanic heretic and a liar.He ordered bibles to be burned so that people will not come to realize the truth that practice of intercession/veneration of saints is idolatry.Such a person should be drowned alive in see by tying to something heavy according to Lord Jesus Christ.Woe unto you heretics who follow this liar.
alnimrod84 3 hours ago
@alnimrod84
Part 2
Augustine did no such acts. Again, your warped mind leads you down a path that can not be, and never has been, substantiated, save by your personal opinion.
Btw..we are closing in on the 39 days that you claimed God told you that WW3 would begin...I am glad you posted, as we will all be waiting for your concession post that you are a false prophet.
baldonebear 2 hours ago
There is no such thing as an "infallible apostolate". Rom 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". To believe otherwise is to deny scripture.
The "infallible interpreter" is the Holy Spirit living inside every born again believer, not another human being. Putting faith in another persons "infallible" interpretation is folly. This is why Catholicism draws upon extra-biblical justification for their views, because many of their most sacred traditions are not supported!
Infidelrf 1 day ago
The term mother of God is a heresy and a blasphemy unto God and degrading of blessed Mary,the woman whom God almighty choose to be the earthly mother of Jesus,because of her faith.
alnimrod84 1 day ago
@182RG..I see.. Well I honestly don't believe that jesus ever expected his followers to organize in such a complex way that the catholic church is now. I understand why Martin Luther started the protestant revolution. Its much simpler in the protestant church and all are welcome to attend.
meisner73 1 week ago
@meisner73
I hope it's simply a case of the priest inadvertantly giving you the wrong idea about you're being welcome, but of course I wasn't there. At my church, we welcome visitors and have a "visitor's" card and pencils in the pews in anyone wants to be contacted. And a few welcoming volunteers that will visit new faces after mass. I'm sorry you weren't made to feel welcome there.
182RG 1 week ago
@meisner73
Cause evil wants to put burden on their shoulder to make it impossible for them to enter through the eye of a needle.
thelordz72 4 days ago
@Gazdo01..because i sat in on a catholic mass one day. I went to try to take communion and the priest would not let me because I was not catholic. There were no visitors cards to fill out as are in protestant churches either, and I will never forget the look on that priests face and the grip he had on my hand shaking it as I walked out. You just had to be there to understand
meisner73 1 week ago
@meisner73
The priest should have explained why he isn't allowed to give a non Catholic communion. It wasn't his decision to make. That "policy" goes back to ancient times. Here is an ancient document than might help you understand a bit. It's called the "Didache", or "Writings of the Apostles":
Chapters 9 & 14 touch on it. As you read, remember we believe the Eucharist is the actual body of blood of our Saviour; NOT a symbolism
earlychristianwritings(.)com/text/didache-roberts(.)html
182RG 1 week ago
At least with the protestant churches, the non-churched are welcome. Not so with the catholics.
meisner73 1 week ago
@meisner73 Friend, why do you say non-Catholics are not welcomed?
Gazdo01 1 week ago
@Archangel866..evil didn't prevent me from joining, the priest did. Maybe the priest is evil??
meisner73 1 week ago
@meisner73 --Im sure there are some priest who are working for the devil, ive seen many myself.
Archangel866 1 week ago
@baldonebear. Ok, but the problem is that you christians don't go out and witness to anybody. In all of my years and the tens of thousands of people I have met and been around, not one person has ever approached me about anything spiritual.. Ever.. You can't possibly believe so passionately about jesus yet do nothing nor say nothing to anybody about him. It makes no sense.
meisner73 1 week ago
@meisner73
That is a subjective perspective.
baldonebear 1 week ago
@meisner73
That is a subjective perspective.
baldonebear 1 week ago
@baldonebear.. Ok, let's put the scandal aside and look at things spiritually. Catholics believe in the same heaven and hell that protestants do.. Don't you care that the majority of people are going to hell? I mean most people in the world are not even Christian.. Not mention being catholic. Don't you feel the burden of going out and witnessing to people to get them into your church?
meisner73 1 week ago
@meisner73
Yes, 100%. Evangelism is part of our mission as Christians.
I had an instructor in bible college who was a Star Trek fan. Now, I realize that this is corny, but he referred to Matt 28:19-20 as the Prime Directive.
What I like in my city, and with my church in particular, is the joint efforts between us and to 2 Protestant ministries to Evangelize our part of the city.
baldonebear 1 week ago
Very touching video even though I'm an atheist. The problem is that you can't just become catholic that easy. I already tried. The priest refused to allow me to participate in communion, and gave me the biggest shit-eating grin as I walked out. He didn't even care that I was a christian at the time. He just wanted to know if I was catholic or not.; which im not.. So your so called church is in dire need of change.. Especially with all of the scandal surrounding. The tens of thousands of priests
meisner73 1 week ago
@meisner73
What took place with that priest is wrong. However, I do not know that many who actually ask if you are Catholic.
"Especially with all of the scandal surrounding. The tens of thousands of priests"
Are you suggesting that number of priests are in the scandal proper?
In the USA, there are roughly 39, 500 priests. Of that number, only 390 over a 50 year period have been accused. That is roughly 1%.
baldonebear 1 week ago
@meisner73 --Dont let evil prevent you from joining; It'll be worth it.
Archangel866 1 week ago in playlist Catholic truth
Catholics Catholics! Please check out and support my channel!
1Timothy313 1 week ago
The Catholic church were instrumental at the end of the second world war in helping some of the most evil nazi scientists escape Germany and land in the USA, where with the help of their American handlers went on to form NASA. All verifiable fact. also interesting to learn that just a few years ago the AGE OF CONSENT in the Vatican City was just 12 years old. Thought priests were celibate?
gavt731 2 weeks ago
@gavt731
"All verifiable fact"
A revisionist history
Please list the sources, with author and title, that verify.
baldonebear 2 weeks ago
@baldonebear Much of it came to light with the trial of Klaus Barbie who escaped through them. Unholy Trinity by Mark Aarons and John Loftus is worth a read as is The Vatican Connection by Richard Hammer. The Vatican provided support to the Nazis and fascists because the communists were the real threat to the churches survival. The Italian communists would have taxed the churches vast holdings( which by the way could feed every single hungry person on this planet)
gavt731 1 week ago
@gavt731
1. Klaus Barbie? Really? Yes, there is an honest man.
2. It is interesting that the Vatican did such things only in the minds and texts of anti-Catholics.
3. Sorry, the Church's vast holdings (sic) would not feed every single hungry person. Btw, the CC provides the largest amount of humanitarian aide to the world as compared to Protestants. 4. Have you actually read Hammers book? Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen.
baldonebear 1 week ago
@baldonebear I'm not anti-catholic, i have friends who are of the catholic faith. I find it interesting however that you made a comparison to Protestants, why did you feel the need to do this? The tern "conspiracy theory" was formulated by "the establishment" to discredit and mock any free thinking soul. I initally posted because i thought the video unduly glorified the church. Are you denying the existence of the "ratlines" and the churches involvement during and after ww2?
gavt731 1 week ago
@gavt731
Part 1
The only source that you gave was Hammer.
There is an abundance of information, and I do not deny there was corruption. It is in every denomination at one point.
Even Judaism had its corruption with the priests and High Priest. However, that did not cease to be God ordained simply because there was corruption.
baldonebear 1 week ago
@baldonebear Well we are in agreement and as i have stated like you have discovered an abundance of information from multiple sources, however let me ask you this. Do you know the difference between lawful and legal? Do you submit to the authority who implement legislation(man made law)? What does your bible have to say on man made law? Then sir, tell me what your bible says about hypocrisy?
gavt731 1 week ago
@gavt731
1. Lawful is something that is authorized. Legal is something that is based on the law.
2. Yes, I submit to the authority, as should you.
3. Man made law and the bible - It depends on context. It tells us to obey the law of the land.
4. Hypocrisy- it does not give a detailed explanation. Many verses describe who had it.
Now, please sock it to me...
baldonebear 1 week ago
@baldonebear
1 Lawful is something indelible to you as a human being. Legal is man made law(legislation) based on corporate and contract law
2 I will not submit easily to legal authority because no other man has authority over me
3 I suggest submitting willingly to legal authority is at odds with your faith. When you submit to legal authority based on corporate or contract law you are considered by that authority as a PERSON(legal fiction) and by doing this giving up your Lawful rights
gavt731 1 week ago
@gavt731 By doing this you are giving up your lawful rights as a human being and representing this fiction. So you are submitting to denying who you are 4 Hypocrisy, a pretence of being something you not really are.
It is not my intent to "sock it" to you sir. i wish you no ill will or wish to denigrate anything you have to say.
gavt731 1 week ago
@gavt731
Part 1.
My apology for not responding sooner.
The laws of the land are binding on you, even if you personally do not believe that anyone has authority over you.
Romans 13:1 shows this, thus, it is not at odds with faith. God, for a lack of a better term, ordained it.
Paul tells us to pray for those in authority in 1 Tim 2:1-3.
Therefore, your thesis is a personal position, not one from God.
baldonebear 1 week ago
@gavt731
Part 2
I manage a team of people. I am also part of a bigger team and have authority over me.
Now, I am not a dictator to my team, and I foster a "team" mentality. That is one of the reasons that I have had very little turnover.
However, as the leader I must make the hard decisions. While I do allow for disagreement, my team is expected to follow. If they refuse, they will be out of a job.
Therefore, while on my team, they must submit to my authority.
baldonebear 1 week ago
@baldonebear Yes, agreed the thesis is a personal position and that is my point,i recognizse the control systems(the church being just one) for what they are but while you have faith in these systems i dont think you can comprehend my thinking.A wise man said"a problem cannot be solved by the same level of consciousness that created it" we have the same problems again and again,war,poverty etc which says to me trying to solve life's problems through dogmatic religion, is futile
gavt731 1 week ago
@baldonebear I maintain i will not submit easily to LEGAL authority. The legislators in my country are complicit in genocide and treason(UK) This goes against all that is Lawful and indeed the laws that you have in your faith as a Catholic
gavt731 1 week ago
@gavt731
Ok, now that you have explained a bit more I understand the point.
baldonebear 1 week ago
@baldonebear Thank you for your response, may i add, When we(humanity) truly know who we are there will be no place for GUILT or FEAR only Unconditional Love. One mans freedom fighter may be another mans terrorist, in the same vein, One mans conspiracy theorist may by another's pioneer of thought.
gavt731 1 week ago
@gavt731
Part 2
I made the comparison for two reasons
1. Protestant have a tendency to ignore the vast amount of corruption within the different brands.
2. I am a former Protestant pastor, thus, I know what corruption looks like and the effects/affects that it has.
Concerning the ratlines, not at all, as it is factual.
The issue is the conspiracy theories, which they are regardless of what a so-called free thinker may dismiss as an invention.
Cont...
baldonebear 1 week ago
@gavt731
Part 3
Yes, there were Catholic Bishops who helped Nazi's escape...does that mean it was the Church doing so? Not at all.
Most Nazi's were Protestant, btw, if they had any affiliation at all.
You have only brought one source to the table to substantiate.
baldonebear 1 week ago
@baldonebear I am not a shepherd and you are not a sheep are you? People are not bad because they are catholic but the catholic institution and hierarchy is a corrupt criminal organisation. YOU sir could substantiate that yourself, if you wanted to.
gavt731 1 week ago
@gavt731
Part 2
I can not substantiate that the CC is a criminal organization with a broad range of primary sources.
You gave one source, a well know conspiracy theorists.
Antone can write a book. However, not every author has the sources to justify or substantiate their thesis...much like yourself.
baldonebear 1 week ago
@baldonebear and this is why we are not in agreement, you have faith in the systems that govern and control you, i have no faith in these systems. I will entertain your broad range of primary sources if they come, not from the corporate controlled media systems that are in place, but from free thinking human beings.You say a source i have given is a well known conspiracy theorist but i ask you what is a conspiracy theorist?
gavt731 1 week ago
@gavt731 As i have said the term is a construct designed to deflect what the author has to say.I have many sources from which i gain knowledge(not necessarily wisdom,granted) but because they come from outwith the control system you will ascribe them as conspiracy theorists.You have faith in the bible, not just parts of it but all of it. You cannot substantiate the entire bible,but you believe it
gavt731 1 week ago
@gavt731
Part 2
So, you admit that your only source is the book by Hammer?
baldonebear 1 week ago
@baldonebear No sir i do not, in this time of information technology sources are in abundance if you chose to seek them. More and more are waking up to this and beginning to think for themselves, outside of the control systems(organised religion being one) i believe you have a strong faith and conviction in your religion but you are in denial if you refuse to accept there is corruption at a grand scale within your churches establishment
gavt731 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gavt731 <<<"The Italian communists would have taxed the churches vast holdings( which by the way could feed every single hungry person on this planet) "
Statements like that eliminate any credibility your might have had. We'll skip the fact that the Vatican has been a separate state since 1929, but "feed every single hungry person on the planet" is beyond absurd.
Washington Post: "Actually, selling the Vatican probably wouldn't generate enough cash to buy the whole world lunch."
182RG 1 week ago
@gavt731
From the same Washington Post article by David Walter:
"But as the Catholic League points out, "The Catholic Church operates more hospitals and feeds more of the poor than any private institution in the world." Could it do more by selling its headquarters?"
182RG 1 week ago
@182RG The Catholic ArchDiocese of Boston as well as New York both publish annual financial statements. On even a quick look at their figures, just these two divisions of the Catholic Church hold assets and income worth several billion dollars.
gavt731 1 week ago
@gavt731
Yes, I know. The Vatican decided to publish its financial status several years ago primarily because of accusations such as yours.
"Several billion dollars" And you think that's enough to feed the planet's poor??? For comparison, do you know what Bill Gate's or Warren Buffet's net worth is? 59 & 62 billion respectively.
182RG 1 week ago
@182RG Tip of the iceberg, If you asked an educated person 100 years ago what single entity was the largest and wealthiest in the world,without question you would have been told the roman catholic church. It has for 1000 years been the dominant organisation on the planet during which time having owned, directly or indirectly the majority of wealth in europe. For 400 years they owned and controlled vast wealth of the americas and today their holdings of art and precious artefacts is unhearelded
gavt731 1 week ago
@182RG If there was the collective will, the worlds poor could easily be fed and hey i hear you about bill gates and the like and think their personal wealth is obscene
gavt731 1 week ago
@gavt731
Can you provide any credible source that the Vatican's net worth is "several $billion"?
According to "Inside the Vatican" by Thomas Reece:
"fixed assets ...the sum is lower than $1 billion, maybe even less than 1/4 billion dollars."
Estimates of malnurished people run about 1 billion, so even if the church has $10 billion, that's about $10 per person. Deduct administrative costs, and what do you think each would net? Enough for a couple Happy Meals?
182RG 1 week ago
@182RG Your missing the point. The world is run by corporate law. Corporate control systems that are in place are THE CAUSE of hunger and suffering in the world. I have not read "inside the vatican" however i note that Thomas Reece is a roman catholic jesuit priest and believe a truly independent asessment of assets is required
gavt731 1 week ago
@182RG Slush fund accounts of major US politicians identified and seized at Vatican Bank (Rome). Connection established with Daniel Dal Bosco RICO indictment, which cites Giancarlo Bruno, Silvio Berlusconi & Ban Ki Moon. On Wednesday 5th January 2011, it emerged that US establishment-related slush fund accounts had been located in, and seized from, the Vatican Bank in Rome. The source of funds for these accounts in almost every instance was found to be the US Treasury.Tip of the iceberg
gavt731 1 week ago
@182RG The total number of slush fund accounts so far identified at the Vatican Bank is said to be between 600 and 700. This number is likely to grow as international élite corruption investigations spread worldwide. The disclosures have split the Roman Catholic Legatus organisation down the middle. Elizabeth Windsor (Queen Elizabeth II of England) is in the know and is intimately involved in the swirling and fissiparous covert power plays.
gavt731 1 week ago
@gavt731 --You're so intelligent !!!!
TheGhostFromPlanetX 1 week ago in playlist Catholic truth
@TheGhostFromPlanetX My intent was not to offend, however if i have please accept my apologies. I believe in truth and the whole truth, just telling it how it is.
gavt731 1 week ago
To remain in a church that refused to change would be wrong. I think Martin Luther's intent was not to start a new church, but sadly, that occurred because the Church refused to change. I, myself, would remain in the Catholic Church, but as a gay person, I would not be welcomed. I would be banned in most cases from receiving Eucharist if my orientation was known. I don't think its wrong as long as you follow your conscience and what you believe is right.
Maggiecoog 2 weeks ago
@Maggiecoog technically the Catholic Church is supposed to carry 'support' groups for homosexuals or should at the very least offer consolation to you.
humanist707 2 weeks ago
@Maggiecoog --celebate homosexuals may receive the eucharist, but not active homosexuals. Have you read what the Catechism says about the homosexual condition?
Archangel866 2 weeks ago in playlist Catholic truth
I think you forgot the schism of the Orthodox Church in 1054 it was one of the greatest and before Protestant
Masterchief118118 2 weeks ago
I agree with some points, but I think this video romanticizes the Roman Catholic Church too much. I would challenge you, if the apostolate was and is indeed infalliable, then there wouldn't be a Protestant Reformation in the first place. The Roman Catholic Church is not innocent of divisions that occurred starting with Martin Luther. Second, there are many Protestants that still retain the sacred and mystic...look at the Anglicans and Lutherans.
Maggiecoog 2 weeks ago
@Maggiecoog the difference is in the decision to start a new "church" or religion. To protest what we believe is not wrong, but the decision to leave the church and start a new church with different beliefs is wrong. Even St Francis remained Catholic while at the same time rebuilding the church...
stevesilvia 2 weeks ago
@Maggiecoog Being infaillable doesn't mean perfect, or sinless, or omniscient.
Gazdo01 1 week ago
at 0:41 can you prove that all Catholics have same faith 100%? that's not true.
believing in Mary is outside the word of God.
thelordz72 2 weeks ago
@thelordz72
The fact that you make this statement shows that you are arguing apples and oranges. It's not in what an individual Catholic does or does not believe that you get the 100%. It is teachings of the Catholic faith that are ALWAYS the same, without division, without change.
hiswife2002 2 weeks ago
@thelordz72
The Catholic faith...doctrine, is the same.
What individual Catholics choose to believe or accept is another story.
"believing in Mary is outside the word of God."
Mary was a real person. Your statement does not make sense.
Please articulate this better; explain what you mean.
baldonebear 2 weeks ago
@baldonebear
Moses was also a real person but never God allowed Jews to set him as an icon, but yet all the disciples did venerate Moses, and other prophets, and the Lord did rebuke them many times that He is the center of attention and not any other human.
Catholics are watering down the strength of the Bible by putting extra priorities behind Jesus or even along side of Jesus.
thelordz72 2 weeks ago
@thelordz72
When did the disciples venerate Moses?
The Catholic Church waters down the strength of the bible? Extra or along side priorities?
my goodness...your conjecture is strong.
baldonebear 1 week ago
@baldonebear
I feel sorry for you, The disciples were Jews weren't they? didn't Peter Venerate Moses and Elijah along with Jesus? as if Jesus is just as high as them? that's when the Father told Peter to be quiet and focus on Jesus alone.
Peter was about to build a church in the name of Moses and Elijah, and wow that's what Catholics are doing now, that's a disobeying of God. so many times Peter was not focusing on Jesus he failed, Catholics are just imitating the failures of Peter on and on.
thelordz72 1 week ago
@thelordz72
Good for you. Keep feeling sorry for me, as I am sure that your conjecture comforts you.
Peter was not about to build a Church. He was about to build tents (Greek: skene); portable temples.
Peter was wanting to do this has he was awe struck, and it was out of respect.
You have no clue what the CC does or does not do based on your post.
Ask and learn
Educate yourself!
baldonebear 1 week ago
@baldonebear
Did the Father allow Peter to build any temple (portable/stationary)?
Yes? prove it.
No? Why do you still do it?
thelordz72 1 week ago
@thelordz72
Matt 17
"Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”
5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”
The subject was never addressed, thus your thesis has no foundation.
baldonebear 1 week ago
@thelordz72
Part 2
Why do we still do it????
We do not. Any idea that we do, or ever did, is purely your conjecture.
baldonebear 1 week ago
@baldonebear
yes you do unfortunately, churches of saints Peter and Paul and the never ending names and some renames. I know its not your business to build such icons yourself but you are defending those who do it and you are denying it? wow!, you don't have to deny it I saw it and I see it daily, you have to know the Lord is never pleased with such visual works. The Lord want's his word to be magnified above all.
thelordz72 5 days ago
@thelordz72
A church building named after someone is not the same as building a tabernacle to them. They do not dwell there.
The Lord's Word is magnified.
baldonebear 4 days ago
@baldonebear
The Word of the Lord is magnified? why does this Vid promote Catholicity and promote church as a source by leaving the word out? isn't there any work of the Lord left to do but brag Catholicism, enlarge your names and your actions to promote Catholic name? why leaving the source behind?, Do people actually know who God is first and then to know who the Church is?
Magnify the LORD, so people can come to church.
Magnify the Church so people can come to God.
Which of these is right?
thelordz72 4 days ago
@thelordz72
Where is the Word left out????
There is more scripture, read, sung, prayed and taught in the CC than in any Protestant community that I have witnessed, and I am a former Protestant pastor.
The Lord is magnified, even if your conjecture clogs up your ability to see or admit this.
baldonebear 4 days ago
@baldonebear
even jehovas wittneses who are not Christians have all of what you said, the question is what's the fine print does everyone know it? what's under the cover? the sculptures and icons that people bow down to?
are you out of words?
Even if you are a pope when you defend yourself bring me the word of God, that's what I know. I can't talk to you in street language, we are dealing God matters here, life and death. not a sport league.
thelordz72 4 days ago
@thelordz72
You have brought the word of God once...and you even had the semantics incorrect, so please do not give me that line.
Out of words? I do not know what you mean. I have been detailed in my answers.
Street language is what you have, my friend.
Your conjecture is so thick.
baldonebear 3 days ago
@thelordz72
Part 2
Where is your evidence to substantiate that the word of God is not magnified
That is the topic which you have broken away from.
baldonebear 3 days ago
@baldonebear
Jesus died because the intensity of claim and the fact he called himself The ONLY Son of God and that making himself equal with God, all saints died because of preaching this claim.
and here you watering down all the scriptures.."yes Jesus is god and Mary is mother of God. all this confusion people don't know where to set their eyes on, the Son or his Mother?, making the mother more of value than God. "mother of God, because the word Mother is a very high rank but not as God.
thelordz72 3 days ago
@thelordz72
Conjecture!!!!!
Who makes the mother more of value than God (sic)??
baldonebear 3 days ago
@baldonebear
Ignorance...
I can't belive you were a pastor, and can't properly understand theology.
Mother refers to one who has a Child.
So until now God is always a child?... and for how long?..is Mother Mary still taking care of God? please be clear, everyone is confused about theology. don't you know that Jesus alone has dominion forever and ever? how come he still has a Mother?
God alone humbled himself out of Love! coming into a flesh to be like us, Emanuel to save us. Mary cannot save.
thelordz72 2 days ago
If Mary is a Mother of God then she is able to Save God, because she begotten him.
Mary is not savior. She was down to earth humble who loved God with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength, and she loved her neighbor as herself. God will not bow down to anyone including Mary, God is God. She was blessed, but now we are blessed because of Love of the Father who sent his only begotten to save you and me from sin, now you put Mary on top where you cant reach. and you can't my friend.
thelordz72 2 days ago
@thelordz72 You should learn the truth....Mary is NOT the mother of a god, she is the mother of Jesus, who is god in the flesh....That is what the Catholic Faith teaches.
stevesilvia 2 days ago
@stevesilvia So why would not the prayer say,Holy Mother of Jesus,Instead of God? Seeing God is the Father.
Kasine4412 17 hours ago
@thelordz72
Slow down there...it is not ignorance or a lack of my understanding of theology. I am asking you to clarify what you mena.
You know you mean, but do not expect others to.
My question, which you did not answer, was who makes the mother more of value than God? This was your statement.
baldonebear 2 days ago
@baldonebear
In a family there is Father Mother and Children. naturally Father and Mother are higher rank than children. and there is nothing greater rank than Father and Mother to be close in a family for the children. now God is everlasting, you have put a mother to him as if he did not exist before he was born. Jesus existed even before being born, because the Holy Spirit who begotten him is everlasting.
thelordz72 2 days ago
@thelordz72 Jesus,himself said so in Gospels,that he had np begining & existed in eternal past.Jesus said even before Abraham and Adam I was.God bless you for preaching the truth boldly.
alnimrod84 1 day ago
@thelordz72
Part 2
It is interesting that the Early Church fathers do not share your point of view. Do you happen to have some special revelation that they did not?
baldonebear 1 day ago
@thelordz72 Part 2
No one believes that Mary saves...that is conjecture. Mary does not stop being his mother. Where do you get that from?
baldonebear 2 days ago
@baldonebear
everyone or most CC people believe that Mary can listen to prayers thus mean she can save. Jesus is Lord, The Lord has no use for a mother anymore, thats why he called Mary "WOMAN".
isn't it written that a man leaves his parents and join with his bride to be one flesh? Jesus has left His father to join with his bride (the Church) to be one flesh, and now its a bigger story Jesus is revealed as God, and God does not need a mother to support him anymore. please understand.
thelordz72 2 days ago
@thelordz72
Part 1
More conjecture!!
Listening to prayers means that she can save? Now you are making stuff up, as salvation comes only through the shed blood of Christ.
Looking at the Greek, and the usage of terms among the Jewish culture of that day.."women" was a way of saying "madam". It was a term of respect. That is factual.
Mary still was his earthly mother. You are creating a doctrine here that can not be proven from scripture, as you are Sola Scriptura.
baldonebear 1 day ago
@thelordz72 <<<you have to know the Lord is never pleased with such visual works.
The church builds the beautiful cathedrals and churches in part to glorify the Lord. The biblical example is the temple of Solomon - built per God's instruction.
Catholic churches may bear the names of saints, but they are dedicated to God.
182RG 4 days ago
question? Where in the bible does it say man can change God's law? The 4th commandment says REMEMBER the sabbath and KEEP it holy last day of the week (saturday) God blessed and sanctified the sabbath. man can not change God's law. around 538 ad constantine changed this law. Jesus came to fulfill the law not change it. Jesus also said he who claims to know him but doesn't keep his commandments has no truth in him.1John2:4 Jesus also said if 2 or more gather in my name there am I.why need a pope?
Ibanez7400 3 weeks ago
@Ibanez7400 wrote "around 538 ad constantine changed this law."
You're grossly mistaken. Notwithstanding Contantine died 337 AD, the bible speaks of gathering on Sunday, and ancient church fathers write of Sunday worship in explicit words in several different documents. Here's just one:
From the Didache {Teachings of the Apostles}, written less than 100 yrs after His death. "Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread..."
182RG 3 weeks ago
@Ibanez7400 Read Acts 15...and you will see how men changed the requirement of Moses to be circumcised. You ask a very easy question...Acts 16:4, Paul went from church to church to make sure they obeyed the decisions of the apostles and elders....circumcision became a thing of the past despite what Moses wrote...in the Bible...
bradleesargent 3 weeks ago
@Ibanez7400
Jesus fulfilled the Law.
The Apostle Paul...have you read his stuff? Read Galatians. That alone refutes your position.
Constantine did not make Church decisions. However, I see that you believe this lie.
baldonebear 3 weeks ago
@Ibanez7400 by the way you might want to read the Edict of Milan and Constattine wasnt alive in 538 that will bust your bubble with the trash constantine institued Sunday service
martlut 2 weeks ago
Why is it that anti-catholics love to post about "the Catholic Church this", "the Catholic Church that", posting every hour. Then a Catholic comes on, gives them authentic teaching or asks them to support the things that say and POOF!......no more anti posts......
hiswife2002 3 weeks ago
@hiswife2002 --Fundamentalist hate to be challenged.
Archangel866 3 weeks ago in playlist Catholic truth
@Archangel866
Ah, yes. We are supposed to sit at their feet and soak up their wisdom without challenge. Sort of like they accuse Catholics of doing with the Church.......
hiswife2002 3 weeks ago
Catholics are retarded and dangerous to society! You can't trust them...
chris17123 3 weeks ago
IF the catholic church actually followed what was in the bible in the first place ( instead of all this crap about indulgence , purgotary etc) there would be no protestant reformation
badpanda84 3 weeks ago
You do realise none of this ( ie the prostant church spilting from the catholic church) if the catholic church wasnt so corrupt and tried to get away with the selling indulgence scam.
The protestants correctly exposed the corruption in the catholic church
badpanda84 3 weeks ago
@badpanda84
You realize that the selling of indulgences was banned in the council of trent and the Church repented? And that Martin Luther was a bitter anti-semetic priest who caused the disunity of Christ's Church, which Jesus warned against doing. Any kingdom divided against itself will perish.
zzzak123 3 weeks ago
@zzzak123 "You realize that the selling of indulgences was banned in the council of trent and the Church repented"
Only after they were exposed -- just like the catholic church only "repents" when the public find out about child molesting priest.
Point is that if the church could be so wrong about something like indulgences -- how can you trust the popes at all
badpanda84 3 weeks ago
@badpanda84
The Church is NOT wrong about indulgences. Indulgences are a traditional and biblically supported practice. What was wrong was the SELLING of indulgences.....i.e. charging people money for the grace that God gives freely. (con't)
hiswife2002 3 weeks ago
@hiswife2002 OK then where about in the bible dose it even mention anything about induglences..
badpanda84 3 weeks ago
@badpanda84
Hello. Please explain what an indulgence is and how it is used?
baldonebear 3 weeks ago
@badpanda84
You need to answer bbear's question first. If you don't understand what an indulgence is, and isn't, then there is no point in presenting the Scripture to you that supports this Catholic doctrine.
So....what is it that you believe you are referencing when you use the term "indulgence(s)"?
hiswife2002 3 weeks ago
@badpanda84 (con't) This is not a teaching of the Church; it was an action on the part of some Church members during a certain period of time and it was abolished. Because of the wide=spread acceptance/practice of selling indulgences, the Church asked pardon for the way a teaching was put into practice, NOT pardon for the teaching.
hiswife2002 3 weeks ago
@zzzak123 Better to have some disunity than to have a corrupt church -- if it wasnt for Martin Luther he catholic church would still be getting away with the selling indulgence scam
badpanda84 3 weeks ago
@badpanda84
Sorry, but I sure don't think it's better to break Christ's body into pieces than to try and work to heal it.
hiswife2002 3 weeks ago
@badpanda84
Yes, there WAS corruption that entered the Church. YOU do realize, however, that this does not negate the teachings of the Church, nor does it negate the fact that Christ established the Catholic Church (Matt 3:16). He knew corruption would enter the Church (Acts 20:28-31) (as it does into ALL human groups..even..gasp!..Protestantism), yet we are told to hold fast to the teachings of the Church anyway as these do not change and are infallible. (2Thess2:15)
hiswife2002 3 weeks ago
@hiswife2002 "Yes, there WAS corruption that entered the Church. YOU do realize, however, that this does not negate the teachings of the Church"
Actually yes it dose -- because it means that the church is hypocritically -- just like the pharaises of the day-- which Jesus mentioned many times
badpanda84 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@badpanda84
Part 2
"just like the pharaises of the day-- which Jesus mentioned many times"
The High Proesthood was corrupt at many times during the history of Judaism. Many were corrupt and evil men, and at one point, just before Christ, the office wnet to the highest bidder.
Did that diminish the office as God ordained? Did that diminish Judaism as God's ordained form of worship?
The answer is no. Also, Jesus was a practicing Jew.
baldonebear 3 weeks ago
@badpanda84
Part 3
Martin Luther did not dispute indulgences themselves, only the selling of them. That is what the issue was. It should also be noted that it was only for a short time, and not across the board, though that is not an excuse and it does not diminish that it was wrong.
Therefore, I ask that you do answer my questions in my first post.
baldonebear 3 weeks ago
@badpanda84
So, then, your assertion is that any church that has hypocrites in it has false teachings?
hiswife2002 3 weeks ago
@hiswife2002 Jesus speaks alot about false teachers and how you can judge them by the fruit they produce.
IF the catholic church is corrupt then maybe its one of the false prophets that Jesus was talking about.
badpanda84 3 weeks ago
"...Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:21).
where does the Bible claim the Catholic church was inspired by the holy spirit?
Mattissaved 3 weeks ago
@Mattissaved Not sure what you are asking? Please clarify...
stevesilvia 3 weeks ago
@stevesilvia- where does the Bible claim the Catholic church was inspired by the holy spirit?
simple question?
I'm just trying to figure out which one( the Bible or the RCC) has authority, The Bible claims inspiration by the holy spirit, whats the Bible say about inspiration for the RCC?
Mattissaved 3 weeks ago
@Mattissaved do you not know Paul, Peter, John the evangelist etc were all catholic
seanom23 2 weeks ago
@seanom23 did you know Paul,Peter,John the evangelist and other all other apostles all believers for past 2000 years were Evangelicals.Catholic heretic sect was invented by Roman state in the 4th century to consolidate their power by corrupting christianity and fusing it with pagan Rome idolatry.State changed names of old Roman pagan idols to christian names and continued to use them in prayer,mass(worship gathering),thus arose practice of intercession/veneration of saints & catholic heresy.
alnimrod84 1 week ago
@alnimrod84 You couldn't be further from the truth, evangelicism is a new movement founded in the 18th and 19th centuries. Saint Paul, John, Peter ( the first pope) if you know your history were all catholic. God Bless you my brother in Christ!
seanom23 1 week ago
@seanom23 Dear brother,i am not hear to argue.I have presented to you facts and reality.I challenge you to prove me wrong if you can on the basis of bible and secular history.If you cannot show the spine to leave catholic heresy.God bless you.
alnimrod84 1 week ago
@seanom23 For your info-papal succession has zero evidence in secular history,since vatican docoments on papal succession have never been claimed to be credible by any secular historian.
alnimrod84 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alnimrod84 >>>"For your info-papal succession has zero evidence in secular history,since vatican docoments on papal succession have never been claimed to be credible by any secular historian."
Can you name some credible historians who dispute the Vatican records?
We have the work of Irenaeus in Against Heresies Book III:3:1 naming the next 12 popes after Peter up to his time. Then with the records of various councils and those attending, there's a lot of evidence.
182RG 1 week ago