Catholics

[RomanumCatholicam]

Whats your view, I believe that they are right.:crossrc:

[Albion]

Whats your view, I believe that they are right.:crossrc:

In my view, they are not. Thanks for asking.

The Forum Specific Rules are as follows:

1) Fundamentalists (as defined above), as well as all members of the Congregational Forums can post fellowship threads here. Only Fundamentalist (as defined above) members are allowed to post debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own denomination and other denominations as long as they are within our rules.

2) Non-Fundamentalist (as defined above) members can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Fundamentalist doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Fundamentalist members. Any debate posts by Non-Fundamentalist members will be deleted. In other words, only Fundamentalist members can debate here.

[BigNorsk]

Jesus constantly pointed to "it is written" as proof. I accept his standard.

Marv

[Hentenza]

Whats your view, I believe that they are right.:crossrc:

No, the RC is not right since several of the doctrines are not scriptural.

[Horizonol]

No, the RC is not right since several of the doctrines are not scriptural.

That's an illogical statement. That assumes there is scriptural support for the belief that for a doctrine to be true, it must be supported by scripture- which their is not.

Furthermore, even if the bible did support that idea, it would be using circular logical to justify itself.

[Hentenza]

That's an illogical statement. That assumes there is scriptural support for the belief that for a doctrine to be true, it must be supported by scripture- which their is not.

Furthermore, even if the bible did support that idea, it would be using circular logical to justify itself.

No, that is not an illogical statement but a statement of fact. It is only illogical to you because you believe in the RC's clear un-biblical traditions, salvation by faith PLUS works, and another host of man made un-biblical doctrines.

BTW- If you want to debate this issue open a thread in the "Debate a fundamentalist" forum located above the main fundamentalist forum. You are not allowed to debate in the main forum.

[Horizonol]

No, that is not an illogical statement but a statement of fact. It is only illogical to you because you believe in the RC's clear un-biblical traditions, salvation by faith PLUS works, and another host of man made un-biblical doctrines.

Where does the bible say only believe doctrines that are derived from itself?

For that matter, where does the bible even define what books are scriptural or not?

[Hentenza]

Where does the bible say only believe doctrines that are derived from itself?

For that matter, where does the bible even define what books are scriptural or not?

Horizonol,

I am going to ask you one last time before I report you. If you want to debate this issue open a thread in the "Debate a fundamentalist" forum located above the main fundamentalist forum. You are not allowed to debate in the main forum.

[Horizonol]

Horizonol,

I am going to ask you one last time before I report you. If you want to debate this issue open a thread in the "Debate a fundamentalist" forum located above the main fundamentalist forum. You are not allowed to debate in the main forum.

I was asking you a question, since you made an assertion. If you are unable to answer, that's fine.

[Hentenza]

I was asking you a question, since you made an assertion. If you are unable to answer, that's fine.

I am able to answer you in the correct forum. My answer to you will be debatable based on your position. So either open a thread in the right forum or stop attempting to debate me here.

[twistedsketch]

That's an illogical statement. That assumes there is scriptural support for the belief that for a doctrine to be true, it must be supported by scripture- which their is not.

Furthermore, even if the bible did support that idea, it would be using circular logical to justify itself.

Silly Protestants. Circular logic is only OK when New Advent does it.

[Horizonol]

Silly Protestants. Circular logic is only OK when New Advent does it.

What does that have to do with anything?

[Horizonol]

I am able to answer you in the correct forum. My answer to you will be debatable based on your position. So either open a thread in the right forum or stop attempting to debate me here.

I asked the moderators to move our posts. Hopefully they will, otherwise I'll start one.

Cya there.

[Hentenza]

I asked the moderators to move our posts. Hopefully they will, otherwise I'll start one.

Cya there.

I saw it and added my agreement. Thanks.

[Albion]

This is exactly what should happen whenever this kind of violation occurs--answer the question but don't be baited into a debate. Go immediately to explaining to the person that this is not the place, and if that doesn't work, turn to the moderators.

[twistedsketch]

What does that have to do with anything?
Catholics are no one to call out circular logic when they use it themselves and gloss over it with "It's not circular logic because it's Catholic."

[arunma]

Whats your view, I believe that they are right.:crossrc:

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches enough incorrect doctrine that it cannot be rightly called a Christian church. Though I believe that some people who call themselves Catholics might be saved, I don't believe that Catholicism is Christianity.

That's an illogical statement. That assumes there is scriptural support for the belief that for a doctrine to be true, it must be supported by scripture- which their is not.

Furthermore, even if the bible did support that idea, it would be using circular logical to justify itself.

All Christians, including Protestants, believe things that aren't specifically taught in the Bible. Indeed the Reformed church accepts the existence of general revelation (i.e. knowledge of God revealed through the creation). But general revelation cannot contradict special revelation (Biblical revelation from God). Catholicism specifically contradicts many Biblical doctrines through it's effective worship of the Lord's mother, its denial of the sufficience of Christ's redemptive work through the cross, and its acknowledgment of truth in false, non-Christian religions. The problem isn't that Catholics believe things not taught in the Bible, it is that the Catholic Church invents doctrine contrary to the Bible.

[kobuk]

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches enough incorrect doctrine that it cannot be rightly called a Christian church.

Well said arunma

Imperial Rome became PAPAL Rome on October 28, 312 A.D., when Constantine exchanged the eagle for the cross. Before the battle of the Milvian Bridge outside Rome in 312 A.D., Constantine claimed to have seen a cross in the sky with this inscription: IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IN THIS SIGN CONQUER. He immediately had the Roman eagle replaced by the cross on his battle standards.

http://www.reformation.org/ihs2.jpg

Imperial Rome was a very bloodthirsty Emperor worshipping cult loaded with paganism. It's goal was to always seek it's own glory. All those who opposed this cult were either enslaved or genocided or held at bay by constructing walls or by paying bribes.

[Horizonol]

The problem isn't that Catholics believe things not taught in the Bible, it is that the Catholic Church invents doctrine contrary to the Bible.

In order for you to make this statement, you would have to assume you knew with certainty that your interpretation of the bible on those key areas was correct.

Now, any protestant will admit to me that they can't interpret the bible infallibly. So I have to ask, and this is a seriously question to you, how do you know your interpretation on those key areas, that leads you to believe the Church teaches against the correct interpretations, is correct?

[twistedsketch]

In order for you to make this statement, you would have to assume you knew with certainty that your interpretation of the bible on those key areas was correct.

Now, any protestant will admit to me that they can't interpret the bible infallibly. So I have to ask, and this is a seriously question to you, how do you know your interpretation on those key areas, that leads you to believe the Church teaches against the correct interpretations, is correct?
That will depend on the individual teaching, and the passages involved. Some passages are very cut-and-dry, others not so much. When a Catholic or anyone else goes against a cut-and-dry passage for the sake of tradition or anything else, I'm probably not going to believe him.

[Horizonol]

That will depend on the individual teaching, and the passages involved. Some passages are very cut-and-dry, others not so much. When a Catholic or anyone else goes against a cut-and-dry passage for the sake of tradition or anything else, I'm probably not going to believe him.

How do you determine that the passage is cut and dry and it just doesn't appear that way to you because of previous opinion into how to read it?

[twistedsketch]

Context and content.

[Horizonol]

Context and content.

Ok, let's look at your first word: how do you determine the context?

[twistedsketch]

Look at when the book was written, who it was written to, the theme of the book, and whatnot. Then look at what is being discussed before and after the passage in question.

[Horizonol]

Look at when the book was written, who it was written to, the theme of the book, and whatnot. Then look at what is being discussed before and after the passage in question.

Then you can come to an infallible interpretation?

[twistedsketch]

Then you can come to an infallible interpretation?
I can come up with a less outlandish interpretation than Rome can in some instances. When people try and reinterpret Scripture in order to save or bolster a tradition, they can come up with some wacky stuff.

[kobuk]

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/

http://www.tractsforfree.com/VaticanAssassins.pdf

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7978718758076053201

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9006631918236602056

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3300620210554455746

Much of my family on my dad's side is in bondage to RC-ism. So i've understood for quite awhile how regular decent people naively get trapped by this religion. Basicly, they are never told the truth about the past fruits of this religion. And it's current total hijacking since the previous century by the Jesuits.

I've studied RC-ism enough to know that this religion is the greatest factor in blocking the true gospel message from being heard in our world. Their Inquizition today are done by proxy dictators.

[eastcoast_bsc]

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/

http://www.tractsforfree.com/VaticanAssassins.pdf

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7978718758076053201

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9006631918236602056

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3300620210554455746

Much of my family on my dad's side is in bondage to RC-ism. So i've understood for quite awhile how regular decent people naively get trapped by this religion. Basicly, they are never told the truth about the past fruits of this religion. And it's current total hijacking since the previous century by the Jesuits.

I've studied RC-ism enough to know that this religion is the greatest factor in blocking the true gospel message from being heard in our world. Their Inquizition today are done by proxy dictators.



I just perused a few of your links. They are pure insanity and lies designed for those with diminished capabilities. Seriously , can anyone read and believe any of those links ? They probally a few notches below the Enquirer.
If you believe that by reading any of the links that you provided, indicates that you have studied Roman Catholicism, jeesh you just set your self up as a walking stereotype.

[FreeinChrist]

I moved this from the main Fundamentalist forum to this one.

[Hentenza]

Then you can come to an infallible interpretation?

Are the RC bible interpretations infallible?

[kobuk]

I just perused a few of your links. They are pure insanity and lies designed for those with diminished capabilities. Seriously , can anyone read and believe any of those links ? They probally a few notches below the Enquirer.
If you believe that by reading any of the links that you provided, indicates that you have studied Roman Catholicism, jeesh you just set your self up as a walking stereotype.
For Revelation 17-16 to come to pass, there must first be a "falling away" or great Apostacy. These are those who have no discernment.

Prof. Eric Jon Phelps is a very widely respected authority on the Jesuits. So what if you are not among those of us who have studied the vast documentation that went into his work. Suit yourself. Nobody is trying to force you to believe anything. Just don't make a big stink about it ok? Not everyone believes your views. We don't make a big stink over that.

To each their own freedom to pick and choose at the buffet line we Fundamentalist offer here.

You are in our debate area. This is not a place for you to just take shots without offering something to put onto the discussion table. Place your bets or skidaddle.

Are you RC? We welcome all RC's who are honestly going to trade words with us. Maybe we could talk about the Concordant signed between the Nazis and the Pope. Or the genocide in Croatia.

[arunma]

Horizonal, I notice that you seem to be implicitly employing the following logic: Protestant Christianity is incorrect, therefore Catholic doctrine is true. Poking holes in Protestant doctrine does not demostrate that Catholicism accurately reflects Biblical teaching. The fact is that it is very easy to name many Catholic doctrines which disagree with the Bible. Poking holes in Protestantism does nothing to support your cause. Many fundamentalists here (though not including myself) do not even call themselves Protestants.

[BigNorsk]

Catholic theology even pokes holes in Catholic theology.

For instance prayers for the dead. Catholic theology turns to 2 Maccabees for support of that.

However the incident in 2 Maccabees involves idolatry, a mortal sin in Catholic theology. So if you accept 2 Maccabees as scripture, then you should pray for those who died in mortal sin.

Under Catholic theology what good would that do? Nothing I can find. So unless you want to support the idea that those that die in mortal sin can be saved after death (stand back, here comes the universalists) you would have to admit that either 2 Maccabees is in error or the Roman Catholic church is in error.

I would think the Roman Catholic church would put aside its hatred of Protestants and chose instead to follow Jerome in his determination that 2 Maccabees is not scripture. In the strange twists of history, once he translated the Apocryphal books, even though they were not scripture, that assured their eventual acceptance as scripture by the Roman Catholic church. When the Council of Trent proclaimed what was scripture, they looked no further than Jerome's Vulgate and declared everything in it to be scripture though by a very divided vote where not even a majority favored the position.

Marv

[Rhamiel]

I've studied RC-ism enough to know that this religion is the greatest factor in blocking the true gospel message from being heard in our world. Their Inquizition today are done by proxy dictators.

what gospel truth is the Catholic Church blocking, that Jesus died for our sins? That He is both fully God and fully Man? that through Jesus sins can be forgiven? that is the gospel message right? That God has offered us His friendship? well these things are preached in the Cathollic Church
and what "proxy dictators" a lot of nations have tried to kick us out, Cuba, China set up a puppet bishop forcing the true catholic church underground, Saudi Arabia, N.Korea.

[Albion]

what gospel truth is the Catholic Church blocking, that Jesus died for our sins? That He is both fully God and fully Man? that through Jesus sins can be forgiven? that is the gospel message right? That God has offered us His friendship? well these things are preached in the Cathollic Church

Without knowing what he had in mind, I immediately think of items that are NOT common to most Christians such as your list (above) consisted of. Such doctrines as: Papal Infallibility, Purgatory and the Treasury of Merit, Indulgences, Works Righteousness, Solemn Benediction of the reserved host, saint "worship,"and considering the Mass a continuation of the same Sacrifice of the Cross. All of those may reasonably be considered blocks to the basic message of the Gospel that it is by Christ and not anything of ourselves that we are saved.

[kobuk]

what gospel truth is the Catholic Church blocking, that Jesus died for our sins? That He is both fully God and fully Man? that through Jesus sins can be forgiven? that is the gospel message right? That God has offered us His friendship? well these things are preached in the Cathollic Church
and what "proxy dictators" a lot of nations have tried to kick us out, Cuba, China set up a puppet bishop forcing the true catholic church underground, Saudi Arabia, N.Korea.RC-ism has the Council of Trent as it's opinion towards true Christians. In it, true Christians have been cursed as "heretics". In the top Jesuit opinion towards true Christians, in their "4th Vow, they go all the way and say kill all "heretics" in our world.

Now, if you want to talk specific doctrines we are in disagreement on -- fine. Only let's respect my right to an opinion on what the real situation is in our world. RC-ism's "top leadership" is Jesuit. They were created to destroy anyone or anything that does not submit to the "temporal power" in their scheme for total world control. They state openly in their decrees that they have the right to rule over all kings and every other top leader of any Nation.

It goes all the way to RC-ism's "top leaders" asuming the role of Yahshua as their role here on earth. They go on and on and on to assume power. Amounting to extreme blaspheme. But it's understandable why. This is the fallen Roman Empire using religion to achieve what they could not do before October 28, 312 A.D., when Constantine exchanged the eagle for the cross as their political symbol. Politics and religion joined with the fallen Roman Empire is modern day RC-ism's basic roots.

Still however, i very much welcome legitimate truthseekers who are RC's at the moment, who are inspired to begin searching for honest answers here in our Fundamentalist Congregation Areas. Our Question or Debate areas are for you. Welcome!

[Rhamiel]

In the top Jesuit opinion towards true Christians, in their "4th Vow, they go all the way and say kill all "heretics" in our world.

that is a myth, the jesuits are about education and and comfronting heresy, not killing people, we have our albino monks for that... just kidding
also the jesuits do not seek high office, there are not many jesuit bishops, only a few in alaska (hardly a politicly important region) and there has never been a jesuit pope, that you very much for the warm welcome, it feels heartfelt, you can have your opinion but it is not backed up with fact

[kobuk]

that is a myth, the jesuits are about education and and comfronting heresy, not killing people, we have our albino monks for that... just kidding
also the jesuits do not seek high office, there are not many jesuit bishops, only a few in alaska (hardly a politicly important region) and there has never been a jesuit pope, that you very much for the warm welcome, it feels heartfelt, you can have your opinion but it is not backed up with fact

Thanks for thanking me for the warm welcome. That aside now, let's be men and deal with what's we have both put on the table for discussion.

What i put on the table is backed up with a lot of fact and eye witness testimony, from former high level Jesuits and very high level RC Clergymen. The other side of the debate always seems to ignore the fact that thousands of eye witnesses exist who have obeyed Yahshua's command to come out of RC-ism. These liberated people like former RC Priest Richard Bennett, often have websites that minister to present and former RC's.

To say my position is not backed up by fact is to just ignore the huge mountain of facts i've presented. As a friend concerned about your eternal destiny, i can ask you to climb that mountain and explore only of your own free will.

Why is it that i know for absolute certain that my basic findings about RC-ism are correct? Because i've taken that climb and resided on the mountain for decades. I realize that you need time to learn.

[Rhamiel]

A lot of those eye witnesses are crooks, from Maria Monk to Alberto Rivera the anti-catholic "eye witnesses" have been shown to not only have wholes in their stories but to be very immoral. a little about Rivera from wikipedia, not the most reliable source but better than Jack Chick
According to the Cornerstone article[1] (http://web.archive.org/web/20051202084221/http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?228): Rivera had a 'history of legal entanglements' including fraud, credit card theft, and writing bad checks. Warrants had been issued for his arrest in New Jersey and Florida, and he was wanted by the Spanish police for 'swindles and cheats'; while in the USA in 1967, he claimed to be collecting money for a Spanish college which never received this money. The details of his claims changed — in 1964 he said he had left the Catholic Church in July 1952, but later put the date at March 20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_20), 1967 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967); despite this, he was still promoting Catholicism in a newspaper interview of August that same year. Although supposedly placed in the sanitorium in 1965 and held there for three months, he gave the date of his release as September 1967, leaving a period of over a year unaccounted for.
The document exhibited by Rivera to prove his status as a Catholic priest was fraudulently obtained and the Catholic Church denies his claims of having been a Jesuit priest or a bishop. He had only one sister in London; she was not called Maria, was not a nun, and did not live in a convent. In an employment form dated 1963 he claimed marriage to Carmen Lydia Torres, and the couple had two children in the USA when his own account had him a celibate priest in Spain.


The Jesuit oath you are refering to, I have read several fake ones that refer to "killing heretics" also does not sound like something a catholic would say, lets assume some messed up catholic wrote an oath about killing protestants, it would be immoral and not sanctioned by the Church, but most importantly for our purposes here on debate a fundamentalist, it would not sound like that. Read through catholic prayers, oaths, catechism, rituals or whatever nothing looks like those fake jesuit oaths. The wording is always off, it looks like it was done by the masons, it has that feel to it, some phrases were even taken cart blanch from masonic oaths

[Rhamiel]

Is that all the fudamentalists have agianst the Catholic Church? a fake jesuit oath, a lot of bitter ex-catholics and a few con men? wow I am sorry but this is not a debate, this is a joke.

[Albion]

Is that all the fudamentalists have agianst the Catholic Church? a fake jesuit oath, a lot of bitter ex-catholics and a few con men? wow I am sorry but this is not a debate, this is a joke.

Certainly not. But you can't say everything on a single thread.

We also oppose the Roman Church's --

belief in Works Righteousness,

Hagiolatry and Mariolatry,

belief that Christ is resacrified during the Mass and that he is literally, carnally on the altar in place of the bread and wine (Transubstantiation),

in a place like Hell that almost everyone has to pass through (except for those bound for Hell itself)--Purgatory,

in a man, the bishop of Rome, being considered infallible and the ruler of the worldwide Church of Christ,

in relic veneration,

in indulgences and the Treasury of Merit,

in "Tradition" being considered the equal of the Word of God,

in "the development of doctrine," i.e. creation of new doctrines as time moves along,

in the Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and she as Co-Redeemer of the World and dispenser of all graces,

and all other such unscriptural dogmas.

Thanks for asking.

[arunma]

Is that all the fudamentalists have agianst the Catholic Church? a fake jesuit oath, a lot of bitter ex-catholics and a few con men? wow I am sorry but this is not a debate, this is a joke.

I think that Albion has summed up the primary objections that most Bible-believing Christians have to the Catholic Church.