Roman Catholic Church Unknown In Holy Writ!

[Fiosh]

I'm sorry to hear that so many of you do not believe in life after death.

[Gerioke]

I'm sorry to hear that so many of you do not believe in life after death.

[Leonard]

I see it again and again. Catholics who do not understand Roman Catholic doctrine, quoted as if they were official Roman spokespersons, and as if what they were saying were official Roman Catholic doctrine.

Look, I'm not Roman Catholic. The reason I'm not is because I believe Rome has some of their doctrine loused up like a chicken noodle soup sandwich! However most of what we've touched on in this thread is practices and beliefe by some Roman Catholics, but which is NOT official Roman doctrine.

Don't say 'the Roman Catholic Church' when you really mean 'some Roman Catholics.'

I have had this same discussion with Brother Arthur more than once, and have demonstrated clearly to him again and again that much of his hostility is misplaced, and many of his statements dead wrong. Of course on an individual basis Scripture and reason is always trumped by unreasoning animosity........

And hey, if I thought I could get Jesus' mama praying for me, I'd be on that Oprah on a cheesecake!

[Shane]

I do not agree with Catholic doctrine, but need we be so anti-Catholic? They are not a cult, they are not antichrist, and those who truly love the Lord and have accepted Him will go to heaven...like it or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is exactly where one f the major problems lies. To a Catholic Christs sacrifice on the cross is not good enough they still have to pay for their sins in Purgatory.

It is absolutely frightening how many people on this board can not see the difference between the reformer view and Catholism. Maybe everyone should start reading what Luther was on about!

Please note it is not about hating Catholics but dont condone their teaching and view of salvation. It is wrong.

I cant help wondering about the Apostles in the context of the Popes passing. I will bet my life that all of them would have wanted Christ glorified instead of themselves. This extreme glorification of the Pope is actually extremely sad.

It is quite simple The Catholic faith is another Gospel and Christians must stand for truth.

[Shane]

Look, I'm not Roman Catholic.  The reason I'm not is because I believe Rome has some of their doctrine loused up like a chicken noodle soup sandwich!  However most of what we've touched on in this thread is practices and beliefe by some Roman Catholics, but which is NOT official Roman doctrine. 

Don't say 'the Roman Catholic Church' when you really mean 'some Roman Catholics.'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is simply false of course its Roman Catholic doctrine.

[Arthur Durnan]

I love it, I love it, but will it sell in Peoria? Ah, the blustering and hectoring by those whose response is most directed by momentum than biblical rationale. The Apostle Paul, of course - for those who appreciate Holy Writ - was the Apostle to the Uncircumcision (Gentiles); the Apostle Peter to the Circumcision (Jews). This alone should give one a very distinct reminder about WHO was essentially the "charge d-affaires" re Rome. NOT Peter, but Paul. That must be school-room-obvious. And, oh, in passing, it might be in order to wonder why a gentleman called Linus was "Pope" No. 2 when the APOSTLE JOHN was still alive? Hmm. Somebody got their lines crossed?

The Christian Church which Jesus Christ founded in eternity past was NOT built on Peter by any stretch of any R.C's vivid imagination: The Apostle Paul is quite clear in Ephesians 2:20 that the Chjurch of Jesus Christ was built on a MULTIPLICITY of Apostles and Prophets - NOT on Simon Peter only as Rome would have the populace think. Very interesting. In fact, the very words used by Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 16: with respect to PETRA (a MASSIVE rock-face such as in Petra, Jordan itself) and PETROS (as in Peter, a little stone-pebble) underscore the gargantuan, monumental DIFFERENCE between Peter of Capernaum as an individual among many individuals AND the powerful CONFESSION by this man from Capernaum, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!" in Matthew 16:16. One is not the other. Simply turn to PETER HIMSELF in 1 Peter 2:4-8 to see what PETER HIMSELF wrote concerning the ekklesia and his place in it. The proession made by Petros is the very same confession all of us make when confronted by the Lord Jesus. Peter is one of many. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing other. Why in the divine universe should those who love Jesus Christ bow before him - or before any person who thinks he has succeeded him - and especially as that mistaken individual lies dead in his triple coffins! Some kind folk in Rome came across these past several days regretably as biblically tone-deaf.

But we surely digress. Pray tell, WHERE in Holy Writ - either in the Challoner Rheims, the Douay or in, say, the KJV, whatever - do we find a "ROMAN CATHOLIC" church so stated? WHERE in Holy Writ do we discover a "pope" or a "papacy" centered in Rome or a "Vatican"? WHERE, one dares ask, are we presented with "Cardinals, archbishops, purgatory, confessional boxes, prayers to Mary, her 'immaculate conception,' her 'bodily assumption,' the need for 'indulgences' re a 'purgatory,' special funeral rites & regulations to be rigorously followed for burial of a "pope," praying to saints, saints becoming such only AFTER death as opposed to LIVING saints redeemed by Jesus' precious blood, the rite of "beatification," or "canonization," plus all the other bones, beads, apparitions and relics associated with an institution long gone astray? Won't somebody rise and tell? And with specific assurance grounded in the Christian Bible. "Thy Word is truth."

And while we're on it, pray tell, WHICH specific disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ referred to himself as a "Roman Catholic"? Was it Andrew, yes? Was it Philip, yes? Was it Thomas, yes? Was it Peter himself, yes? WHICH one? ANYONE at all? Then why would we expect to be called something totally UNHEARD OF or completely UNKNOWN in the Holy Scriptures whatever version? Please, let's not be anything more or other than portrayed in God's quite emphatic Word of Truth. Especially as it refers to eternal life and eternal destiny. Ah, voila, we've got us a beautiful Kodak moment, yes?

La illaha illa'llah!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Leonard]

A very peculiar ending to your post Arthur. Are you a Muslim now?

Shane: Some of what you have said has merit. Purgatory is just such an area where Roman doctrine is SOOOOOO messed up! Still as I said 'much' of what was posted against is NOT official Roman doctrine.

[William Putnam]

Arthur Durnan contributed:

I love it, I love it, but will it sell in Peoria? Ah, the blustering and hectoring by those whose response is most directed by momentum than biblical rationale. The Apostle Paul, of course - for those who appreciate Holy Writ - was the Apostle to the Uncircumcision (Gentiles); the Apostle Peter to the Circumcision (Jews).

I have encountered this claim before, and I am always reminded of the "two hats" worn by the pope. First of all, he is the leader of the Whole Catholic Church and has jurisdiction over same through the Holy See, which happens to have it

Edited April 10, 2005 by William Putnam

[Shane]

A very peculiar ending to your post Arthur.  Are you a Muslim now?

Shane:  Some of what you have said has merit.  Purgatory is just such an area where Roman doctrine is SOOOOOO messed up!  Still as I said 'much' of what was posted against is NOT official Roman doctrine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Leonard

Could you give me an example of such doctrine that is not held to?

I was Catholic for 30 years and I would just like to clarify.

[Leonard]

A very peculiar ending to your post Arthur.