Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hmmm. This would be denying that these churches were not open and welcoming to all, which was the hallmark of all early Christian churches. They were catholic...open and welcoming to all, and hence they became known as the Catholic Church. At Christ's instruction, these churches/congregations were started throughout the land.None of the churches mentioned in the Bible are Catholic.
obviously not for long. I think he was possessed. Check out the things he said (Facts About Luther).. Also, the dude's name was TetzelMy point is that Martin Luther was a Catholic priest who opposed the sale of indulgences--but...Martin Luther was not the only priest who opposed the sale of indulgences. In fact, the Church is on record, shortly before Martin Luther was born, and again about twenty years later, saying indulgences were not to be sold. In opposing Friar Tetzler's sale of indulgences (along with other priests who opposed this), Martin Luther was upholding Catholic Church teaching on indulgences.
You are both cults. The Protestants cleaned it up somewhat but look how they've fallen.
This video says it all as to what I and other Traditional Catholics believe (know)
The Church is for the edification of the saints. People are to be welcomed AFTER they show fruit of repentancethese churches were not open and welcoming to all, which was the hallmark of all early Christian churches
I know the origin of YOUR church. "Can an evil tree bring forth good fruit?"At least I know what evangelicals teach. Most Protestants don't have a clue what Catholicism is.. but act like they know it inside and out. How dishonest can u get?
They had nothing to do with Catholicism. There was no such thing. Of course they were open and welcomed new members. They had no Pope, nor was Mary handing out rosaries and telling them to pray to her.Hmmm. This would be denying that these churches were not open and welcoming to all, which was the hallmark of all early Christian churches. They were catholic...open and welcoming to all, and hence they became known as the Catholic Church. At Christ's instruction, these churches/congregations were started throughout the land.
A follower of Joseph Smith, hmm.They had nothing to do with Catholicism. There was no such thing. Of course they were open and welcomed new members. They had no Pope, nor was Mary handing out rosaries and telling them to pray to her.
Do you believe that when Christ returns he will set up His Kingdom in Rome? At the Vatican? Will Christ become the last Pope you'll ever need?
Jesus, along with the resurrected saints, will land on the Mount of Olives. They will enter Jerusalem where they will rule for a THOUSAND YEARS.A follower of Joseph Smith, hmm.
The keys Christ passed on to Peter have been passed to the next keeper of the keys (i.e. Popes) until the King (Christ) returns. Why would Jesus take on a role as servant to himself? Also, for those not aware, scripture speaks of a Holy City, a New Jerusalem. This New Jerusalem is not necessarily a place, but the reality of Christ's rule over his people.
A truly desperate allegation which goes beyond ignorance.Simon Magus whom you unwittingly follow
Wrong on so many levels.A follower of Joseph Smith, hmm.
The keys Christ passed on to Peter have been passed to the next keeper of the keys (i.e. Popes) until the King (Christ) returns. Why would Jesus take on a role as servant to himself? Also, for those not aware, scripture speaks of a Holy City, a New Jerusalem. This New Jerusalem is not necessarily a place, but the reality of Christ's rule over his people.
There is no such thing as a "New Rome". I don't know how you develop the deep fear that Jesus would return and rule from Rome. No one else thinks this. John speaks of a New Heaven and a New Earth, a New Holy City (New Jerusalem).It would have been called the New Rome, if you are correct.
By the way, because this is a discussion forum I ignore videos because I cannot have a discussion with a video. Apparently, you cannot even sum up your own accusation.You believe there is an unbroken chain from Christ to your Simon (Peter). But all of you Catholic plug your ears and refuse to look into the "Peter" you follow.
You see no fear in me. I know exactly where Christ is coming back to us, and the Vatican isn't it. I am fully confident in scripture. It is you who are trying to make Catholicism biblically relevant.There is no such thing as a "New Rome". I don't know how you develop the deep fear that Jesus would return and rule from Rome. No one else thinks this. John speaks of a New Heaven and a New Earth, a New Holy City (New Jerusalem).
There is no such thing as a "New Rome". I don't know how you develop the deep fear that Jesus would return and rule from Rome. No one else thinks this. John speaks of a New Heaven and a New Earth, a New Holy City (New Jerusalem).
