The error of the catholic "priest".

[Patrick Miron]

19 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

Lie. Please list these churches. Bear in mind that the NAME on a building does not indicate or prove a separate denomination.

Also, you use the term "protestant" incorrectly.

 

It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.

Jesus QUOTED the Old Testament!

God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?

 

 

More lies. 

The Roman Catholic "Church" was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church.  The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire.  Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its false claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.

The early church as described in the NT did the following: shared all things in common, relationships, support missionaries/ministers, teaching & preaching, praying, worshiping, reading of scripture, evangelism, fostering spiritual gifts. No where does the NT dictate fancy buildings, robes, repetitive prayer, a priesthood, Mary worship, sectarianism, or any order of service, etc.. all these are MAN MADE traditions ADDED ON. 

The true church isn't catholic or protestant. It doesn't have a mailing address or a zip code. It is the body of believers in Jesus Christ the world over. Christ has written their names in the book of life. Christ knows who His friends are.
 

You say the catholic "church" interpreted the Bible?

 

LOL. It's only officially interpreted 0.01% of the Bible!

 

I am going to start a new thread for this topic, as this thread is about the false catholic priesthood.

 

 

Thanks for sharing your UNSUPPORTED views.

This is a GREAT site: I share supported facts and receive unsupported opinions in return.

I really and truly appreciate your reply; but please supply collaborating evidence if I am to take you seriously.

Easter Blessings,

Patrick

 

 

[Patrick Miron]

19 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

You REALLY expect someone to address all the points you made in this absurdly long post?

 

You are throwing out many points and hoping no-one addresses them.

 

I agree that a doctrine should not be based on one verse. The catholic "church" is guilty of these many times.

 

Lets pick one thing, although most of your points are in fact false or plain lies.

 

 

The standard response from catholics when they get cornered is to flood people with many topics or points ( as you have done ) or start attacking the Bible, either by the "thats your interpretation" game ( even though the catholic "church" has only officially interpreted 0.01% of the Bible! ) or the "if it wasnt for us, you wouldn't have a Bible".

 

So, now the topic changes to the source of the Bible.

 

It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.

God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?

Now, if you want to discuss this topic of the Bible, start a new thread.

 

This thread is about the false catholic priesthood.

 

OK, is Do get it.

If I simply share my personal opinion as is the case of the replies I'm receiving; they are meaningless.

If I support my positions with facts; I'm being loquacious.

It's interesting though that MY questions don't get responded too. Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Easter Blessings MY new friend,

Patrick

 

[Patrick Miron]

On 5/4/2018 at 4:35 PM, Yowm said:

Not all 'Protestants' are born again. The ones who aren't tend to be theological liberals. The ones who are born again agree on the essentials otherwise the minor differences are due to the remaining old nature we have and see through a glass dimly (1Cor 13:12).

The Bible is not a Catholic birthed book as the Jews had it Centuries before Rome...

What special privilege, then, has a Jew? Or what benefit is to be derived from circumcision? The privilege is great from every point of view. First of all, because the Jews were entrusted with God's truth. (Rom 3:1-2)
 

The RCC wasn't thee exclusive Christians for the 1st 1000 years. The first hundred or so years the congregations were mostly Jewish. In the 2nd Century persecution of the Jews started up and was fomented by the so called RCC until we had such things as ...

Third Council Toledo in 589AD where the children of Jew/Christian marriages were to be baptized by force.

In 1215- 4^th Lateran Church Council , canon laws were passed requiring that Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress. Later it was decreed they also had to wear an oval badge.

In 1252 Pope Innocent IV authorizes the use of torture by the Inquisitors against the Jews and other apostates.

So, I don't get it either, as Jesus tells us to love our enemies and spread the Gospel not the sword. I'd rather not go by the RCC's interpretation, thx.

 

4 hours ago, Patrick Miron said:

 

OK, is Do get it.

If I simply share my personal opinion as is the case of the replies I'm receiving; they are meaningless.

If I support my positions with facts; I'm being loquacious.

It's interesting though that MY questions don't get responded too. Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Easter Blessings MY new friend,

Patrick

 

 

13 minutes ago, Patrick Miron said:   First THANKS for your POST reply. REALLY: so then please explain why in the Protestant communion their ARE thousands of different churches. WHAT my friend makes them [1] do this [2] different {3] and what and why are they separated {and please don't tell me they are All equal or alike; THAT's a cop-out.}s to your second position: Please prove to me that the Bible is NOT a "Catholic birthed book" as I ascertained. ....  And who; on what evidence, is the "Author" of Holy Scriptura IF it was NOT the Catholic Authors; their Faith and their Church? HOW my new friend do YOU explain that it was exclusively today's RCC {as thee exclusive Christians for 1,000 years} that interpreted the bible; and NOW no-longer can?  I don't get it? Easter Blessings, Patrick   [1] Not all 'Protestants' are born again. The ones who aren't tend to be theological liberals. The ones who are born again agree on the essentials otherwise the minor differences are due to the remaining old nature we have and see through a glass dimly (1Cor 13:12). OK? So let’s jump to your second line: if as you state there are only “minor differences”: WHY then are their different “churches?” …. Here’s why I ask: It has been MY understanding that every-church is self-identified by its OWN chosen set of Faith beliefs. And by “remaining “old nature” am I to understand “old sinful nature?” [2] The Bible is not a Catholic birthed book as the Jews had it Centuries before Rome... REALLY???? So the “Jews” ALSO had the NEW TESTAMENT, of which 6 of the AUTHORS were Catholic Apostles. Exegesis claim the NT was FULLY authored between 35 AD & the End of the 1st. Century. And “IF {??} As you claim the Catholics Church did not birth the bible; who did and on WHAT evidence? [3] What special privilege, then, has a Jew? Or what benefit is to be derived from circumcision? The privilege is great from every point of view. First of all, because the Jews were entrusted with God's truth. (Rom 3:1-2) 1st I’m going to share what a close friend who’s an Historian say’s and then add my own comments. Quote HOW my new friend do YOU explain that it was exclusively today's RCC {as thee exclusive Christians for 1,000 years} that interpreted the bible; and NOW no-longer can?  I don't get it? [4] The RCC wasn't thee exclusive Christians for the 1st 1000 years. The first hundred or so years the congregations were mostly Jewish. In the 2nd Century persecution of the Jews started up and was fomented by the so called RCC until we had such things as ...   FROM MY FRIEND A Professional-HISTORIAN It is nonsense that most Christians were Jewish for the first 100 years or so. In fact, the congregations were mostly Gentile after about 50. Jews who did not accept Jesus as Messiah made strong efforts to disassociate themselves from Jewish-ancestry Christians by the reign of Nero, only 30 years after the Crucifixion.  Secular records were distinguishing between Jews and what they called new adherents to “Chrestos” during the reign of Claudius. Within 40 years of the Crucifixion, there was no longer a city of Jerusalem still standing, no Israel left, and the Jews not butchered in the uprising put down by Titus were scattered far and wide across the vast Roman Empire precisely to keep them from forming communities (The Diaspora). The notion that the Christian community was majority “Jewish” until 130 AD is simply absurd.    (Incidentally, if most Christians were really Jews during the first 100 years, what was the circumcision controversy about?) END QUOTES   My friend is absolutely correct. Jesus TRIED going to the Jews first and the hierarchy led the successful effort to Crucify Jesus. This was because THEY DID clearly recognize that Jesus WAS establishing a New Religion {singular} and a New Church {singular.} Pagans were to have their TEMPLES; Jews their Synagogues; and  “THE WAY”; the original name for Christianity {soon to be changed again to “Catholics” very early in the 2nd. Century, were to have “MY CHURCH”; Mt 16:18 {singular.}     The Jews YOU speak of were entrusted with the Old Testament and Yahweh’s teachings, which were sufficient for their salvation before Christ & Grace. BEFORE the Incarnation and Birth & Life of Jesus.    [5] Third Council Toledo in 589AD where the children of Jew/Christian marriages were to be baptized by force. FROM MY FRIEND the HISTORIAN This was Canon 14 from the 3rd Council of Toledo:   ·        The 14th forbade Jews to have Christian wives, concubines, or slaves, ordered the children of such unions to be baptized, and disqualified Jews from any office in which they might have to punish Christians. Christian slaves whom they had circumcised, or made to share in their rites, were ipso facto freed; ·          Spain was always a hotbed of unrest and the Christian rulers were constantly under attack from one group or another. The Jewish population being targeted here were clearly well-to-do and in a position to persecute or harm Christians. Saying that their children were “baptized by force” is inaccurate. The law addresses children of Christian women fathered by Jewish men. It’s highly doubtful that Christian mothers were upset about a law that safeguarded their right to have their own offspring baptized. Your correspondent’s characterization of this law as one that is a persecution of Jews is wrongheaded. Quite the contrary. The purpose of the law was to correct a situation in which Christian women and children were being persecuted by Jewish slaveholders. END QUOTES   Sent from my iPad  [6] In 1215- 4th Lateran Church Council , canon laws were passed requiring that Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress. Later it was decreed they also had to wear an oval badge.    FROM MY FRIEND the HISTORIAN {Canon} #68. Jews appearing in public A difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians in some provinces, but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable. Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen women, and Jews or Saracens with Christian women. In order that the offence of such a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind, we decree that such persons of either sex, in every Christian province and at all times, are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress — seeing moreover that this was enjoined upon them by Moses himself, as we read. They shall not appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion Sunday; because some of them on such days, as we have heard, do not blush to parade in very ornate dress and are not afraid to mock Christians who are presenting a memorial of the most sacred passion and are displaying signs of grief. What we most strictly forbid however, is that they dare in any way to break out in derision of the Redeemer. We order secular princes to restrain with condign punishment those who do so presume, lest they dare to blaspheme in any way him who was crucified for us, since we ought not to ignore insults against him who blotted out our wrongdoings. END QUOTES   [7] In 1252 Pope Innocent IV authorizes the use of torture by the Inquisitors against the Jews and other apostates. FROM MY FRIEND A HISTORIAN Second, the old canard about the supposed torture inflicted by the Inquisition has been debunked repeatedly by serious historians. It’s barely worth comment, but here goes. The Spaniards were brilliant record keepers. Every single case was meticulously detailed. The records are still available today to scholars. The facts of the overall mildness and even benevolence of the Inquisition are beyond dispute at this point. It is a fact that secular authorities were FAR more harsh, and that prisoners frequently falsely claimed to be heretics in hopes of being transferred to Inquisition courts. Were punishments in ALL courts in every country more harsh and cruel than today’s standard would permit? Of course. We no longer hang people for stealing a loaf of bread, as the English did only a 150 years ago. That’s beside the point. We don’t judge the behavior of people who lived 600 years ago by modern standards. We judge them in the context of their own times, taking into account their circumstances and understanding of the threats they faced.   The reason some Jews (and far more Muslims) fell afoul of the Inquisition was mostly political, not religious. The atmosphere of uncertainty and fear following the completion of the Reconquista in Spain was one similar to our own here in the U. S. following 9/11. There were a great many “terrorists”,  sleeper cells, spies, and others not happy about the reassertion of Christian rule over Spain. The Inquisition can mostly be seen as a “mopping up” action that inevitably follows any civil war. There are always pockets of lingering resistance, etc.  that the ruling party feels it must suppress. The specific problem the Christian rulers faced was the reality (or at least fear) that many Muslims and Jewish were pretending to be Christian in order to stay in Spain (where they could work to return Spain to Muslim rule). This was a very realistic fear. It was mostly these feared crypto-Jews/Muslims who were being sniffed out by the Inquisition. Some heretical Christians fell afoul of the system, as did many career criminals who preferred the inquisitors to the King’s court. But mostly, it was a perfectly rational reaction to a very real problem of Muslim resistance to Christian rule.  There are critics of U. S. policies of keeping certain Muslim groups under surveillance. The situations are analogous. In short, the Inquisition was created out of motives of legitimate self-defense. END QUOTES http://www.newadvent.com/cathen/06796a.htm Pope Gregory IX Gregory IX was very severe towards heretics, who in those times were universally looked upon as traitors and punished accordingly. Upon the request of King Louis IX of France, he sent Cardinal Romanus as legate to assist the king in his crusade against the Albigenses. At the synod which the papal legate convened at Toulouse in November, 1229, it was decreed that all heretics and their abettors should be delivered to the nobles and magistrates for their due punishment, which, in case of obstinacy, was usually death. When in 1224 Frederick II ordered that heretics in Lombardy should be burnt at the stake, Gregory IX, who was then papal legate for Lombardy, approved and published the imperial law. During his enforced absence from Rome (1228-1231) the heretics remained unmolested and became very numerous in the city. In February, 1231, therefore, the pope enacted a law for Rome that heretics condemned by an ecclesiastical court should be delivered to the secular power to receive their "due punishment". This "due punishment" was death by fire for the obstinate and imprisonment for life for the penitent. In pursuance of this law a number of Patarini were arrested in Rome in 1231, the obstinate were burned at the stake, the others were imprisoned in the Benedictine monasteries of Monte Cassino and Cava (Ryccardus de S. Germano, ad annum 1231, in Mon. Germ. SS., XIX, 363). It must not be thought, however, that Gregory IX dealt more severely with heretics than other rulers did. Death by fire was the common punishment for heretics and traitors in those times. Up to the time of Gregory IX, the duty of searching out heretics belonged to the bishops in their respective dioceses. The so-called Monastic Inquisition was established by Gregory IX, who in his Bulls of 13, 20, and 22 April, 1233, appointed the Dominicans as the official inquisitors for all dioceses of France (Ripoil and Bremond, "Bullarium Ordinia Fratrum Praedicatorum", Rome, 1729, I, 47).

1. Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.
2. The second rank is held by the general synods of the East or of the West, composed of but one-half of the episcopate. The Synod of Constantinople (381) was originally only an Eastern general synod, at which were present the four patriarchs of the East (viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), with many metropolitans and bishops. It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also.
3. Patriarchal, national, and primatial councils represent a whole patriarchate, a whole nation, or the several provinces subject to a primate. Of such councils we have frequent examples in Latin Africa, where the metropolitan and ordinary bishops used to meet under the Primate of Carthage, in Spain, under the Primate of Toledo, and in earlier times in Syria, under the Metropolitan — later Patriarch — of Antioch. END QUOTES

4.   Papal and conciliar infallibility

5.      Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council's decrees approved by the pope are infallibleby reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council's infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. …….END QUOTES

 [8] So, I don't get it either, as Jesus tells us to love our enemies and spread the Gospel not the sword. I'd rather not go by the RCC's interpretation, thx.

 When Jesus taught us “to turn the other cheek” He was speaking metaphorically. This lesson is perhaps more clearly expressed in John: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Do unto others as YOU would have them do unto you. There is no prohibition against self- defense.

 FROM MY FRIEND the HISTORIAN

A final point that I never noticed when I was a Protestant:

their belief system is grounded in “sola Scriptura”, 

but without the early Catholic Church, there simply is NO

New Testament for them to consult! There are no Gospels available for them to study without the Catholic Church, hence no knowledge of Christ, let alone his teachings. “Scripture” prior to the Council of Nicaea, meant the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament. Whenever anyone in the NT mentions the word “scripture”, that person is by necessity referring to the OT. Because the NT didn’t exist until the Canon was given to the world by Catholic prelates and scholars. There were just myriads of writings and letters circulating. How was anyone to know what was authoritative? Regardless of how many “Jews” were in the earliest Christian congregations, it is incontrovertible that the Church was “Catholic” during the 4th C when the NT was being assembled and declared as the revealed Word of God by The Catholic Church. 

  

FROM MY FRIEND A HISTORIAN

If your correspondent is a sincere seeker, I would suggest he/she dive into the Early Fathers. All who seek Him with sincerity find the truth. God did not permit a huge gap lasting 1500 years or even 300 years to exist during which believers just assembled together with no unity, guidance, orthodoxy, or structure. Jesus Christ did not hand his disciples a Bible. He gave them a Church, a Pope, and 7 Sacraments, and His authority here on earth, to be exercised through preaching, healing, and the forgiveness of sins. The Pope and his fellow workers established a hierarchy of ordained men: deacons, priests, and Bishops. They established dioceses and held councils to maintain orthodoxy. That’s all Biblical. The Catholic Church was created by Christ Himself for our eternal benefit here and salvation beyond. END QUOTES

 My new friend, I truly appreciate you POST and the effort you put forth.

 Thank you and Easter Blessings,

Patrick