The C0uncil 0f Trent

[Willa]

6 hours ago, inchrist said:

Well God isnt human that allows for a marriage to be backslidden from his part.

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? ¹⁵ If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,¹⁶ and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? ¹⁷ Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Without works in your marriage with God it is dead

Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready.

How does a wife make hereelf ready, if not by being good servant

I am not the bride--the church is the bride.  I am an adopted child with the Holy Spirit in my heart crying Abba, Daddy, proving that I am His child.  I totally disagree with with the Catholic church doctrine, and we will have to agree to disagree.  All of the above has been covered in my previous posts.  The enlightenment of the Holy Spirit is required to understand spiritual things.  Pray for understanding.  I will not respond to you any more.

[Willa]

4 hours ago, inchrist said:

No you havnt, you wouldnt be making such basic mistakes on this matter.

I am not the bride--the church is the bride.  I am an adopted child with the Holy Spirit in my heart crying Abba, Daddy, proving that I am His child.  I totally disagree with with the Catholic church doctrine, and we will have to agree to disagree.  All of the above has been covered in my previous posts.  The enlightenment of the Holy Spirit is required to understand spiritual things.  Pray for understanding.  I will not respond to you any more.

[OakWood]

21 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

I don't think anyone can assume that a Catholic cleric would ever want to leave the church he grew up in, i.e., Luther's argument was with the papal abuse of indulgences, not Catholicism.

Yes it was, and I believe it broke his heart to be forced to leave the Catholic Church but he was given no choice so he formed his own Church movement and removed not only the herecy of indulgences but removed a few more of the corrupt doctrines as well.

[OakWood]

2 hours ago, existential mabel said:

gosh that is shocking.

i have heard that they kept the bible away from the masses. how does that merit with the script of going into the world and preaching the gospel or something like that dont know the exact verse or wording come to that.

They kept the Bible from the masses because they knew that the word of God exposed them for the heretics that they were. If you were absolutely sure that your interpretation of the Bible was correct then you would have no hesitation in letting others read scripture, but they knew deep down that Catholicism had been built on a lie and scripture exposed that lie.

Roman Catholicism came about as a form of controlled opposition. Rome had tried for centuries to destroy Christianity but to no avail. It had tried lots of different methods ranging from 'good cop' to 'bad cop'. It had persecuted Christians on and off for nearly three centuries. Then it finally decided, if you can't beat them join them..... if you control Christianity then you control Christians. Once Rome established itself as the official church, it outlawed all other churches and quickly introduced Pagan elements.

The Romans were polytheists. They had a different god for different things - Mars, Jupiter, Apollo and so on... a god of war, a god of love, a god of the Sun, a god for partying. They didn't want to lose these traditions so they introduced the idea of sainthood, a different saint for each circumstance. A patron saint of this... a patron saint of that... a saint for blacksmiths, a saint for travellers. It's all the same thing just under different names.

The idea of partnering Jesus with Mary dates back to the partnering of Osiris and Isis. Its the same Pagan legend recycled over and over again and it's demonic in origin. The false gods are always the same wherever you go but with different names. Whether its the Viking gods or the Greek gods there's always a king of the gods, a god of war and so on..... To the Vikings they were Odin and Thor, to the Greeks they were Zeus and Ares, to the Romans Jupiter and Mars. The leader or king of the gods is always Lucifer, the great deceiver who loves to disguise himself under different names. To the Aztecs he is known as Quetzlcoatl or the serpent god (derived from the serpent in the garden of Eden).

Rome had to be very careful and had to change the Pagan structure slightly so it adopted Biblical themes as a mask for its deception. It also had to an adopt a fake reason for its authority by claiming that the apostle Peter was the founder despite Peter having died over two centuries before. The reason for Peter being the choice was because Jesus had told Peter that he was the rock on which his church would be built. The reason that Catholics are told that salvation also comes from Mary as well as Jesus is a Satanic deception to make people pray to someone else other than Jesus, which of course is a threat to one's salvation. Of course Catholics are not specifically told to pray to Mary instead of Jesus, but they are told that Mary is a mediator between man and Jesus which is a complete blasphemy and completely in contradiction to 1st Timothy 2:5. Mary was a righteous woman but a sinner like the rest of us. She has no power over a person's salvation. Any manifestations or apparitions of Mary such as the miracles of Fatima and Lourdes are demonic in origin. They are merely a ploy to lure Catholics into further idolatry.

Over the years Rome stamped down any opposition to its rule, and it did so brutally. Heretics were burned at the stake and Bibles were forbidden to all but Roman clergy. Then the Church split into two with the Great Schism which saw the Western Roman Church separating from the Eastern Orthodox Church, which also makes more of a mockery of Rome claiming to be the original one-and-only Church. Who is the original Church now? Is it Rome or is it Constantinople?

Popes have always declared themselves to be the representative of Jesus on Earth with some even claiming to be God himself, another blasphemy.

The Pope holdeth place on Earth, not simply of a man, but of the true god

Pope Innocent III

I am in all, and above all, so that God himself, and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory and I am able to do almost all that God can do

Pope Nicholas V

I alone am the successor of the apostles, the vicar of Jesus Christ, I am the way, the truth and the life

Pope Pius IX

Rome will even declare that Protestants have no authority because Protestantism has different denominations so they can't be the true Church because how can the word of God be divided? But what Catholics don't realise is that they too are part of a denomination. Rome was not the first Church, the early Church were the martyrs who were murdered by Rome, and the Catholic Church has been split since the Great Schism, so it too consists of denominations - Rome and Eastern Orthodox.

Catholicism has absolutely no claim whatsoever to be the true Church, the only viable claim it has is to being one of the first counterfeits of the true Church. Catholics would do well to leave Rome - they would be doing themselves a favour by coming to Christ as born-again worshippers. Catholics are decent lovely people but Rome has been deceiving them. They need to get out.

And I heard another voice from heaven say,Go out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues:

Revelation 18:4 (GNV)

[existential mabel]

Quote

The Romans were polytheists. They had a different god for different things - Mars, Jupiter, Apollo and so on... a god of war, a god of love, a god of the Sun, a god for partying.

what about the names of the days of the week and the names of the months

http://www.almanac.com/content/origin-day-names

http://www.almanac.com/content/origin-month-names

interesting sites

 

Quote

idea of sainthood,

gosh all those saints. there is a patron saint for lost causes even, now how did i know that ........this confuses me as in the bible i understood it to mean people that believed in Jesus were considered saints.

 

Quote

Rome had to be very careful and had to change the Pagan structure slightly so it adopted Biblical themes as a mask for its deception.

ah now that brings me onto christmas to me i have never been a fan of christmas even as a child. to me its a pagan festival. lol i didnt like it when i was a pagan and that didnt change when i became a christian. it doesnt make sense from the point of view that so many non christians and christians get so overboard about it they get into debt etc.
 Jesus was not born on the 25 December. obviously.. it is good to reflect and remember the birth of Christ. but all the tat that goes with it. and why is easter set at a different time? is this to do with the moon (pagan?).

i dont understand Mary being at the top of the agenda oh sure she played an important role but Jesus is THE one. no if. no buts . or why for's.

 

Quote

The reason that Catholics are told that salvation also comes from Mary as well as Jesus is a Satanic deception to make people pray to someone else other than Jesus, which of course is a threat to one's salvation.

that leaves me feeling uneasy. for something that is SO  important.

 

Quote

Constantinople?

i understand that he was the platform for the beginnings of christianity and that it was he that decided what stayed and what went in regards to the bible. and was he the chap who formed the service structure of the church (technically it wasnt known as catholic then)

 

Quote

Popes have always declared themselves to be the representative of Jesus on Earth with some even claiming to be God himself, another blasphemy.

wow is this for real?

do people still pay for the indulgences or has that been outlawed and who was it outlawed by?

 

 

[OakWood]

2 minutes ago, existential mabel said:

what about the names of the days of the week and the names of the months

http://www.almanac.com/content/origin-day-names

http://www.almanac.com/content/origin-month-names

interesting sites

 

gosh all those saints. there is a patron saint for lost causes even, now how did i know that ........this confuses me as in the bible i understood it to mean people that believed in Jesus were considered saints.

 

ah now that brings me onto christmas to me i have never been a fan of christmas even as a child. to me its a pagan festival. lol i didnt like it when i was a pagan and that didnt change when i became a christian. it doesnt make sense from the point of view that so many non christians and christians get so overboard about it they get into debt etc.
 Jesus was not born on the 25 December. obviously.. it is good to reflect and remember the birth of Christ. but all the tat that goes with it. and why is easter set at a different time? is this to do with the moon (pagan?).

i dont understand Mary being at the top of the agenda oh sure she played an important role but Jesus is THE one. no if. no buts . or why for's.

 

that leaves me feeling uneasy. for something that is SO  important.

 

i understand that he was the platform for the beginnings of christianity and that it was he that decided what stayed and what went in regards to the bible. and was he the chap who formed the service structure of the church (technically it wasnt known as catholic then)

 

wow is this for real?

do people still pay for the indulgences or has that been outlawed and who was it outlawed by?

 

 

It's not just the Popes who declared such blasphemies. Many members of the clergy have uttered them:

The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ himself, under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who is speaking.

Cardinal Guiseppe Sarto (Pope Pius X)

Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest in his bosom. He who rebels against our father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him, we do to Christ. We honour Christ if we honour the Pope.

Catherine of Sienna (later canonised as St. Catherine)

[existential mabel]

Just now, OakWood said:

It's not just the Popes who declared such blasphemies. Many members of the clergy have uttered them:

The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ himself, under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who is speaking.

 

Cardinal Guiseppe Sarto (Pope Pius X)

 

 

Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest in his bosom. He who rebels against our father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him, we do to Christ. We honour Christ if we honour the Pope.

 

Catherine of Sienna (later canonised as St. Catherine)

 

 

i really cant get my head around this. think its time for another cup of tea! its too massive to digest ......

[OakWood]

37 minutes ago, inchrist said:

can you please cite the original source for this?

I forget it, but I'll try and find it again. Give me some time.

[OakWood]

40 minutes ago, inchrist said:

can you please cite the original source for this?

It's probably from one of these:

A history of the Popes Volume II: Middle Ages to the Protestant reform        Wyatt North

The Papacy: Its history, Dogmas, Genius and Prospects                                   J.A. Wylie

History of the Papacy                                                                                           J.A. Wylie

But I'm not sure. I have other books on the subject. It's my own fault, I made notes of the quotes but forgot to list the source. Incidentally I try to keep a balance of sources. I have books on the Papacy written by Catholic sources and books on the Papacy written by non-Catholic sources. When it comes to quotes, I usually check another source to see the validity of the quote, and this may sometimes include an online source, so a spot of Googling may help. I am also collecting books on the Protestant Reformation so I have material from those too. I also try to spread the age of the books if possible, so for example, I will have books on a particular historical subject that may date from the 19th Century, but books on the same subject that were written in the 16th Century.

I'm going to keep looking for the source of these quotes, I'm sure I have it somewhere.

[OldSchool2]

5 hours ago, OakWood said:

Yes it was, and I believe it broke his heart to be forced to leave the Catholic Church but he was given no choice so he formed his own Church movement and removed not only the herecy of indulgences but removed a few more of the corrupt doctrines as well.

During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church had acquired some medieval baggage that is still present today in its catechism.

As for founding his own church, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica: "... After a generation of struggle against Roman Catholic and imperial authorities, Lutherans gained legal recognition through the establishment of the principle cuius regio, eius religio, which meant that the ruler of a principality determined its religion. From then on, the Lutheran churches in these principalities were free to develop unhindered by political and military threats."