Catholicism and christianity

[Hoddie]

21 hours ago, Ezra said:

That's Hoddie (bricklayer) not "Hoodie".  And that's also fantasy promoted by Hoddie.  Ask John Wycliffe.

Incorrect Erza!   If you were to call a Hod Carrier (Hoddie) a bricklayer out on a job-site, one might get a shovel up-side the head!    Theres a huge differnce!

 

Peace

[Hoddie]

22 hours ago, woundeddog said:

RCC doctrine says you cant go to heaven unless you are Baptized--- that is trusting in a work rather than Jesus-- so I say no-- Roman Catholic Doctrine is not Biblical Christianity

The Roman Catholic Church? How about the Maronite Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, and Chaldean Catholics?

Anyhoo woundeddog, your are partly correct, but not fully. I"ll summarize it for ya in two sentences. Here they are....The Catholic Church's teaching to get to heaven is.....

To come to God and be saved, you need to repent, have faith, and be baptized. If you commit mortal sin, you need to repent, have faith, and go to confession.

That’s it. That’s all there is to it. And we can show each of these things from the Bible.

I am not saying that there are not Born Again Catholics but the "Church" doctrine is not Christian

Thank you woundeddog for your fallible (open for error) opinion of Catholic Church doctrine.

　

Peace

[B3L13v3R]

21 hours ago, Ezra said:

Ask John Wycliffe.

 

From a few portions of "Foxes Book of Martyrs"

An Account of the Life and Persecutions of John Wickliffe (1324-1385)

...Wickliffe was afterward elected to the chair of the divinity professor: and now fully convinced of the errors of the Romish Church, and the vileness of its monastic agents, he determined to expose them. In public lectures he lashed their vices and opposed their follies. He unfolded a variety of abuses covered by the darkness of superstition.

...Wickliffe's observant mind penetrated into the constitution and policy of Rome, and he returned more strongly than ever determined to expose its avarice and ambition.
Having recovered his former situation, he inveighed, in his lectures, against the pope--his usurpation--his infallibility--his pride--his avarice-- and his tyranny. He was the first who termed the pope Antichrist. From the pope, he would turn to the pomp, the luxury, and trappings of the bishops, and compared them with the simplicity of primitive bishops. Their superstitions and deceptions were topics that he urged with energy of mind and logical precision.

...In the year 1378, a contest arose between two popes, Urban VI and Clement VII which was the lawful pope, and true vicegerent of God. This was a favorable period for the exertion of Wicliffe's talents: he soon produced a tract against popery, which was eagerly read by all sorts of people.
About the end of the year, Wickliffe was seized with a violent disorder, which it was feared might prove fatal. The begging friars, accompanied by four of the most eminent citizens of Oxford, gained admittance to his bed chamber, and begged of him to retract, for his soul's sake, the unjust things he had asserted of their order. Wickliffe, surprised at the solemn message, raised himself in his bed, and with a stern countenance replied, "I shall not die, but live to declare the evil deeds of the friars."
When Wickliffe recovered, he set about a most important work, the translation of the Bible into English.

...Wickliffe returning within short space, either from his banishment, or from some other place where he was secretly kept, repaired to his parish of Lutterworth, where he was parson; and there, quietly departing this mortal life, slept in peace in the Lord, in the end of the year 1384, upon Silvester's day.

...Wickliffe had some cause to give them thanks, that they would at least spare him until he was dead, and also give him so long respite after his death, forty-one years to rest in his sepulchre before they ungraved him, and turned him from earth to ashes; which ashes they also took and threw into the river.
(Deemed a "heretic" by Rome, confirmed a few years later by pope Martin V. in 1428. Wycliffe was dug up and his remains burned by those in Roman Catholic authority.)

...But these and all others must know that, as there is no counsel against the Lord, so there is no keeping down of verity, (truth) but it will spring up and come out of dust and ashes, as appeared right well in this man; for though they dug up his body, burned his bones, and drowned his ashes, yet the Word of God and the truth of his doctrine, with the fruit and success thereof, they could not burn.

[Hoddie]

22 hours ago, Willa said:

Hoodie said  "Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing."  

Thats right! And history agrees. Not sure what church it is you are a member, but can you show any historical documentation from it prior to the sixteenth century? I can show historical documentation of the Catholic Church for the past two thousand plus years! The early church fathers seems to have had habit of writing most everything down.

The problem is that they added the traditions of men and false doctrine like salvation by indulgences, and refused to go back to the foundation of Scripture. Had the Roman church reformed herself of the false doctrine there would have been no need for a reformation. Instead she went on to add 500 years more of false garbage. Had you stuck to the things we can agree upon included on page one I would have had much more respect for the Roman church. By the way, I thought the the Greek church split over "and the Son" in the creed, believing only the Father sent the Holy Spirit. But I could be wrong.

Yes, in all the above!

I don't see any married bishops in the Catholic church, which then must be in disobedience to Scripture and not be the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Oh boy..... You are so far off base I'm not sure if I even want to try. Mainly because of your uneducated confusion in Catholicism thinking of clerical celibacy as a dogma or doctrine. If you'd like the know the truth and not some Fundamentalist battle cry of "Catholic inventions" I suggest going to Catholic.com and type in Celibacy and the Priesthood.

The bible seems first to be gathered in the near east, and Turkey, then in the greco-roman world as well as Egypt.

Seems too? So your not sure?

Not all of the early church fathers were considered to be "Catholic" but they remained quite parochial at first. Each church had scrolls or letters and Gospels which they considered to be sacred. Some regarded the Pentuatech as the correct OT and some regarded the Hebrew texts which were used in the Synagogue at the time of Jesus. Some left out the Book of Hebrews or 2,3 Peter, Jude, and 2,3,4 John and even the Revelation. Some included the Didache, The Egyptian and Etheopian churches still include apocryphal new testament writings not accepted by the Roman, Greek, Russian or Asian churches. But we are thankful that the Holy Spirit has preserved the Bible for us, especially the Byzantine text.

Can you tell me when and by whos authority was it that defined which books made it into the New Testament and which didn't?

Sometimes the Roman church seems to quite out of touch with the Person and work of the Holy Spirit, raising the pope, their church and Mary to near equal standing as mediators between us and God. They continue to make gravens images which they bow down to and pray before.

Again, you are so far off base with this hog-wash it would seem someone is 'quite out of touch' with the true teachings of the Catholic Church.

This is quite distasteful to many of us.

I'm not surprised, for most fallacies usually are. (distasteful)

Sticking with comments on page one, yes I believe there are true believers in the RC church. I have had good fellowship with several. But when the false beliefs are then promulgated I have to throw a temper tantrum. There is a time to put one's foot down and say enough is enough.

And sometimes that foot can end up on ones mouth.

　

Peace

　

p.s. I'm not a gang-banger!

[Ezra]

2 hours ago, Hoddie said:

Incorrect Erza!   If you were to call a Hod Carrier (Hoddie) a bricklayer out on a job-site, one might get a shovel up-side the head!    Theres a huge differnce!

I stand corrected. Now you should stand corrected on the errors of Rome.

[RustyAngeL]

On 11/19/2016 at 4:32 PM, Yowm said:

 And which of the 7 local Churches in Revelation was the Roman Church?

The Protestant movement was simply a movement attempting to  get back to Scripture, something the Middle Age 'catholic' church had left. Our whole life should be centered on a continual conforming to scripture whether it is protestant or non protestant. You see many movements today, some are moving  away from Scripture (like Rome did) and some (an increasing minority) are looking to Scripture as their final authority and revelation. I choose the latter.

Sorry Hoddie, The Church is not the Catholic Church, it is the body of believers in Jesus, not a physical building.  

[Hoddie]

3 hours ago, Ezra said:

I stand corrected.

Very good

Now you should stand corrected on the errors of Rome.

Why should I, or want to, stand corrected for the errors of Rome, Italy?

Now if you are talking of the Catholic Church, there are no errors with the Church's teachings on faith and morals. This is because Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

　

Peace

[Hoddie]

4 hours ago, Yowm said:

Each person will face judgment on his own and will not be able to say 'my church said' or 'but the pope said' or 'my denomination taught' but each will have to give an account of himself between God and His Word.

This is all very nice Yowm, not that I agree with it in its entirety, but it still dosen't answer the question. So let me put it to you in more of a personal manner. Say you were at a bible study with a group of people from all differnt Protestant/non-denominational sects, some you know, and some you have just met. At this bible study, you had a total disagreement on the interpretation of a certain bible passage with one of people in the study group. In the course of this disagreement, you both claim to be taught the truth of this passage by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Which of you would have the truth of the Holy Spirit, and which of you two does not? You would agree that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to teach an untruth, correct? So who would be in error, you or this other person? I look forward to your rebuttle.

If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.

(Joh 12:47-48)

With all due respect Yowm, this is what I call Cafeteria Christianty. To get the full meaning of those verses you must include verses 44-46 and verses 49-50.

John 12:44-50:  44 "And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. 45 And he who sees me sees him who sent me. 46 I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. 47 If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden me."

In Jesus’ last public discourse before his death and resurrection (according to John’s gospel), he confronted his audience with a stark choice: accept him and his message as the true light which comes from God or receive the consequences of disbelief and rejection, namely judgment and eternal darkness. Why does Jesus speak of himself as the light of the world? In the scriptures light is associated with God's truth and life. Psalm 27 exclaims, The Lord is my light and my salvation.

Just as natural light exposes the darkness and reveals what is hidden, so God's word enables those with eyes of faith to perceive the hidden truths of God's kingdom. Natural light also brings warmth and enables seed to sprout and living things to grow. Jesus' words produce life — the very life of God — within those who receive it with faith. To reject Jesus' words is to reject the Word of God and to bring condemnation upon oneself. Jesus made it clear that he did not come to condemn, but rather to bring life and freedom to those who would accept him.

St.Augustine, the fifth century bishop of Hippo, summed up our predicament in his great prayer:

"God our Father, we find it difficult to come to you, because our knowledge of you is imperfect. In our ignorance we have imagined you to be our enemy; we have wrongly thought that you take pleasure in punishing our sins; and we have foolishly conceived you to be a tyrant over human life. But since Jesus came among us, he has shown that you are loving, and that our resentment against you was groundless."

　

Peace

[Ezra]

52 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

Now if you are talking of the Catholic Church, there are no errors with the Church's teachings on faith and morals. This is because Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

More delusion.

[woundeddog]

My Grandfather once told me that the best way to deal with a pet peeve is to stop feeding it and it will go away and find somewhere else to live~~~~~~~~ just sayin