Roman Catholicism is an unscriptural cult

[Anguille]

No.

Only certain types of "godless unions" then.

I get you, crockmale.

 

[glockmail]

Only certain types of "godless unions" then.

I get you, crockmale.

I don't see how two atheists getting married at a JP are going to affect societal norms.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I don't see how two atheists getting married at a JP are going to affect societal norms.

Really? Then please explain how 2 gay individuals, most of whom I've met are pretty decent people, getting married is going to bring down society worse than a couple of atheists getting married? It sounds like your own prejudice and fear is what is making you want to stop someone else from having a decent life.

Glock, you are one twisted individual.

 

[glockmail]

Really? Then please explain how 2 gay individuals, most of whom I've met are pretty decent people, getting married is going to bring down society worse than a couple of atheists getting married? It sounds like your own prejudice and fear is what is making you want to stop someone else from having a decent life.

Glock, you are one twisted individual.

The best situation for a kid growing up is a mom and dad. Anything else is less than ideal. Gay parents are cheating the kids out of a full childhood for their own selfish, abnormal interests.

I don't give two shits if you think my opinion is twisted, because a vast majority of Americans think the same way that I do.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The best situation is a mom and dad? Tell that to children like Caylee Anthony, or those kids that were locked up in dog cages in Florida a couple of years back. Gender doesn't really make much of a difference, what matters is do the adults involved actually care about the kids, or are they just in things for themselves? I lived with a gay female couple for a couple of years while stationed in Norfolk VA, and they had a daughter who was hetero, yet knew her mom and her mom's lover were gay. She didn't have any problems.

As far as not giving 2 shits if I think you're twisted because a vast majority of Americans think like you do? Remember this m'man.......Hitler was admired by Germany.

 

[glockmail]

The best situation is a mom and dad? Tell that to children like Caylee Anthony, or those kids that were locked up in dog cages in Florida a couple of years back. Gender doesn't really make much of a difference, what matters is do the adults involved actually care about the kids, or are they just in things for themselves? I lived with a gay female couple for a couple of years while stationed in Norfolk VA, and they had a daughter who was hetero, yet knew her mom and her mom's lover were gay. She didn't have any problems.

As far as not giving 2 shits if I think you're twisted because a vast majority of Americans think like you do? Remember this m'man.......Hitler was admired by Germany.

You're grabbing shit from your ass comparing me to Hitler, but please continue as it shows how weak your position is.

Same with comparing criminally sick heteros with law-abiding gays.

 

[sethdingas]

Roman Catholics and homosexuals are two birds from the ame flock with different coloured feathers- they both live lifestyles and do things that are blatantly contrary to the Word of God. No one can proclaim his/herself a Christian and live a lifestyle or follow traditions and make up rituals that are contrary to the Word of God. Catholics pray to men whom they nominate and make into "saints" though the Bible says not to do so. Its a form of idolatry. Catholics also have a imaginary entity/place called "purgatory". Once a person is dead, they're dead, the Bible speaks of no such place called purgatory. Catholics believe in the concept of papal infallability, which is outright heresy, the Bible makes no mention of such, its was made up by Catholics.

Wow. You know your stuff Mr. Fundamentalist. Let me tell you what I know: Catholicism was the first Christian church on Earth. It comes as a shock to me that someone so well versed in the Bible wouldn't know this. It is clearly explained in the Gospel of Matthew. It's funny how so many denominations put their sole Faith in the Bible alone. Sure it is the Word of God, we know that, but is Jesus' life really only portrayed in a book? Do you presuppose that the scope of divinely revealed, infallible truth is confined to Scripture alone?

"Catholicism is not a "religion of the book." Rather, it is the religion of the "Word" of God (CCC 108). The Catholic Church teaches that both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God (Dei Verbum 10). The gospel (the good news) of Jesus Christ is the source of all saving truth and moral discipline, and as such it must be conveyed to all generations. Therefore, Jesus commanded His apostles to preach the gospel."
In the apostolic preaching, the gospel was handed on in two ways. The first way was orally: "By the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received, whether from the lips of Christ, from His way of life and His works, or by . . . the prompting of the Holy Spirit." The second way was in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing" (CCC 76).

This means that Scripture itself is tradition and it is part of the greater category of Tradition (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15). Both means of transmitting the deposit of faith, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. They both flow from the same divine source, and share a common goal; to make present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ (CCC 80). I like the way Mark Shea put it in his recent book By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition. He describes the relationship between Scripture and Tradition as one, but not the same: "They were the hydrogen and oxygen that fused to form living water. They were the words and the tune of a single song. They were two sides of the same apostolic coin" (p. 120). The English word "tradition" comes from the Latin "tradere," meaning "to hand on." When the Church refers to Tradition she is speaking of the "handing down" of the sacred deposit of faith."

Point oneroven.

As for you believing that we as Catholics pray to saints, that is completely contrary to any teaching of the Catholic church to date. We do not pray to saints, rather, we ask them to pray for us. Think of it like this: If you wanted something done by a superior of yours (boss, parent, etc. ) wouldn't you want the strength of others helping you get it done. Asking the saints to pray for us is not a sin or against anything written in the Bible. It is completely arrogant of you to make such accusations when you apparently do not know the Catholic Faith.

Point two: proven.

You question purgatory? I have your answer. Be sure to brush up on your research!

"The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:

"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983).

Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful."

Point three: proven.

papal infallibility, stupid fundamentalists! "The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). "

Point four: proven.

I suggest that before you accuse a religion of being un-Christian or false, know that religion inside and out. By posting such idiocy you have made yourself look absolutely stupid. Be sure to read the Bible before you attack His church because you have the Bible and 2000 years ready to defend it.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Wow. You know your stuff Mr. Fundamentalist. Let me tell you what I know: Catholicism was the first Christian church on Earth. It comes as a shock to me that someone so well versed in the Bible wouldn't know this.

Pure Catholic fantasy retardology, the Catholicism was *NOT* the first Christian church. It comes as a shock to the Bass that someone so well versed in the Bible would say something as blatantly tupid and false like this.

It is clearly explained in the Gospel of Matthew. It's funny how so many denominations put their sole Faith in the Bible alone. Sure it is the Word of God, we know that, but is Jesus' life really only portrayed in a book? Do you presuppose that the scope of divinely revealed, infallible truth is confined to Scripture alone?

Yes, the Bible is the only truth the sole Word of God, made up creeds and doctrines by men are not.

"Catholicism is not a "religion of the book." Rather, it is the religion of the "Word" of God (CCC 108). The Catholic Church teaches that both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God (Dei Verbum 10). The gospel (the good news) of Jesus Christ is the source of all saving truth and moral discipline, and as such it must be conveyed to all generations. Therefore, Jesus commanded His apostles to preach the gospel."
In the apostolic preaching, the gospel was handed on in two ways. The first way was orally: "By the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received, whether from the lips of Christ, from His way of life and His works, or by . . . the prompting of the Holy Spirit." The second way was in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing" (CCC 76).

So much so funny that everything you posted came straight from the Catholics and not the Bible, a case of the blind leading the blind.

This means that Scripture itself is tradition and it is part of the greater category of Tradition (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15).

The scriptures are the divine Words of God and none of the teachings passed down are those of men but are those of God in accordance with the Word of God.

As for you believing that we as Catholics pray to saints, that is completely contrary to any teaching of the Catholic church to date. We do not pray to saints, rather, we ask them to pray for us. Think of it like this: If you wanted something done by a superior of yours (boss, parent, etc. ) wouldn't you want the strength of others helping you get it done. Asking the saints to pray for us is not a sin or against anything written in the Bible. It is completely arrogant of you to make such accusations when you apparently do not know the Catholic Faith.

Jesus said

John 14:13-14

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.


This negates any use of asking saints for anything and in no place in the scriptures does anyone asks sainst to do anything nor does the Bible give anyone any authority as to whom is and whom isn't venerated as saints. The Bass doesn't need to know the "Catholic faith" he knows only what is written in the scriptures.

You question purgatory? I have your answer. Be sure to brush up on your research!

"The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:

"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983).

Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful."

Point three: proven.

Point three unproven since you have provided no scriptures, ie, book, chapter and verse to back up any concept of purgatory.

papal infallibility, stupid fundamentalists! "The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). "

No, stupid catholics misunderstanding the scriptures and taking it out of context to assert their falsehoods and authority to impose it. Look at the verses that preceded Matthew 18:18:

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.


Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Mat 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Mat 18:22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

In this passage Jesus is laying down guidelines for the church on how to deal with a wayward church member. Restated, the procedure Jesus establishes is this:

If a brother in Christ has sinned against you, first take the matter to him in private. If he listens to you and repents, the matter has been settled and nothing more need be done.

If he will not listen to your private admonition, then take two or three witnesses and council him again to repent of his sin.
If he refuses to repent, then take the matter before the church body for resolution.

If he still refuses to repent of his sin before the church, then he is to be treated as an unbeliever, no longer part of the church. The church in diligently following scripture has fulfilled it's duty in trying to rehabilitate the lost brother.

Through this process, and at any level along the way, a man who truly repents on each occasion could be forgiven 70 times 7 times (symbolic for without limit).

If this procedure is followed, according to the word of God as set down in scripture, then God himself will affirm the decision made by the church with respect to this lost brother, that is to re-accept him or disfellowship him, because Jesus Himself is indeed present when two or three are gathered in His name.


In context this entire passage in Matthew is dealing with a specific situation, that of trying to recover and rehabilitate a lost brother, and the actions that must be taken if he refuses to listen to sound admonition from the church members.

So now I ask you, when seen in context, does Matthew 18:18 give the Roman Catholic Church (or any church for that matter) absolute authority to proclaim anything they wish, without any limit what-so-ever, and declare it as infallibly binding it on all Christendom, and do so the name of God?

 

[Diuretic]

Charles which was the first Christian Church? I seem to remember being told that Christ selected Shimon who was to be called Peter, as the rock (petros) upon which/whom His church would be built. I was also told that Peter was the first Pope and that all Popes since have been his organisational descendants. It would seem to me then that if those claims are true that the first Christian Church was Peter's which became the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Charles which was the first Christian Church? I seem to remember being told that Christ selected Shimon who was to be called Peter, as the rock (petros) upon which/whom His church would be built. I was also told that Peter was the first Pope and that all Popes since have been his organisational descendants. It would seem to me then that if those claims are true that the first Christian Church was Peter's which became the Roman Catholic Church.

Nonsense, Peter was no pope and the scriptures say no such thing, neither does the scriptures mention anything about any organizational descendants called popes.

 

[Diuretic]

Nonsense, Peter was no pope and the scriptures say no such thing, neither does the scriptures mention anything about any organizational descendants called popes.

Matthew Ch: 16

Matthew Chapter 16, Verse 18: The Primacy of Peter

Perhaps a most pivotal passage of the Bible which divides Roman Catholic Christians from Protestant and Pentecostal Christians is the scripture where Christ singles out Peter from the rest of the Apostles for special consideration and authority. That Bible passage is in the Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 16, verse 18.

 

[editec]

As much as this Roman Catholic bashing distresses me, Bass is right on one point...

the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH was NOT the first Christian Church.

In fact, there were many Christian communities in existence long before the bishopry of ROME was established.

Many of them did NOT buy into the interpretations of the scriptures exactly as the RC catholic bishops did in later years.

Basically there were terrible fights among early Christians about who owned and controlled the Christian franchise.

 

[Dr Grump]

Christianity started out as a cult. Now it's mainstream. Ditto Mormons. In 200 years time so will Scientology. To me, all religions are cults

 

[Care4all]

As much as this Roman Catholic bashing distresses me, Bass is right on one point...

the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH was NOT the first Christian Church.

In fact, there were many Christian communities in existence long before the bishopry of ROME was established.

Many of them did NOT buy into the interpretations of the scriptures exactly as the RC catholic bishops did in later years.

Basically there were terrible fights among early Christians about who owned and controlled the Christian franchise.

Didn't all the Christian Bishops from all the known Christian regions on earth, come together in Niacea to gather the Sacred Scripture together, to compile the Bible?

I've always wondered if some Christian communities were left out of this...?

I guess you are saying that they were left out, and NOT a part of this gathering?

Care

 

[ABikerSailor]

Didn't all the Christian Bishops from all the known Christian regions on earth, come together in Niacea to gather the Sacred Scripture together, to compile the Bible?

I've always wondered if some Christian communities were left out of this...?

I guess you are saying that they were left out, and NOT a part of this gathering?

Care

You know Care, you are on to something there. After Rome sacked Jerusalem, they took some of their beliefs with them. Upon arriving back in Rome, they formed the Catholic church. By the way, interesting fact......the crown of the High Priest from the Second Temple is located in the Vatican. The Jews have been asking for it back, but Rome still won't budge. However, lately, they have done the research on it, and now have another, I got to see it when a Rabbi came up to Amarillo.

Now, after that, they were looking for ways to use religion to keep control of the people (hey, after all it's kinda lucrative), and came up with the Niecene council. What they did there was decide which books would and would not be included in the standardized version of the Bible. They left out most of Jesus's primary teachings (the Gnostic Gospels), disregarded the sects of Christianity that were over in Ethiopia (they considered them inferior), as well as managed to bastardize most of the teachings of the rest of the books by leaving out important information. Remember the story of Daniel and the Lions Den? What they left out was why he was thrown in there in the first place, and abbreviated the story.

So.....in short.....did some sects get left out intentionally? The answer is a resounding YES!

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Bass searches the scriptures the truth and not the words and traditions that proceeds from the lips of men.

So........you're a member of Fred Phelps' church? It shows.

 

[glockmail]

As much as this Roman Catholic bashing distresses me, Bass is right on one point...

the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH was NOT the first Christian Church.....

Gee, and here I was thinking that Peter, an Apostle, was the Rock that the Catholic Church was built on. Wait, isn't his tomb below his Basilica?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Gee, and here I was thinking that Peter, an Apostle, was the Rock that the Catholic Church was built on. Wait, isn't his tomb below his Basilica?

Yet another skewing of the truth by the Catholic Church. Dude....when are you going to finally open your eyes?

 

[MichaelCollins]

Laughing my ass off at the original poster...

Taking the high ground with his harry potter bible book... .

Utterly hilarious.


Christianity was invented 300 years after the death of the jesus figure ... of whom no one knows anything about.

It was invented by Constantine.... would have died out...but he saw the power of controlling peasants with fairytales...

Bushteam's War on terror fairytale is just the latest in the line.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Laughing my ass off at the original poster...

Taking the high ground with his harry potter bible book... .

Utterly hilarious.


Christianity was invented 300 years after the death of the jesus figure ... of whom no one knows anything about.

It was invented by Constantine.... would have died out...but he saw the power of controlling peasants with fairytales...

Bushteam's War on terror fairytale is just the latest in the line.

Ya know....I'm gonna agree with some of what you say and piss off a lot of people in the process......(bonus in my book)......

Taking the high ground with a Harry Potter book? Yep...after the Niecine council, it became a book of half-truths and myths. Nothing like controlling the masses with religion like you said.

However......

There is evidence of a church (news story was carried on CNN), that was discovered. It's date is approx. 100 years after the Crucifixion, it was DEFINITELY a Christian church, and they even found a coin with the likeness and name of Jesus upon it. I kinda doubt that Constantine was the one that created Christianity. Matter of fact, I view that just like I do all the rest of Rome........

Nothing but a bunch of rip-off artists........