How well do you know Catholic Christianity?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Helen on September 4, 2010 at 8:08am

Hi Roy,

Well...(long sigh...) I wish this question had an easier answer...

Again, we have to look into the root of the 'problem'. As you pointed out, Catholics believe that it is really hard to go straight to Heaven....

I suppose, this belief is not based only on the Scripture that says: "Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven" , but on many other examples, as an Apologetic site points out:

Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.

or

Luke 12:47-48 - when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master.

or

2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Paul’s use of “that day” demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and THERE IS NO mercy given in HELL. Where is Onesiphorus, then? He is in purgatory.

and there are many more,

But I quoted these just to state that you are probably right. Because according to Catholic belief, those who commit grave sin and do not make reparation for their actions will have to be purged before entering heaven.

Here is what the Church says:

Pope Gregory X,
Council of Lyons II, 1274: “Because if they die truly repentant in charity before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and omitted, their souls are cleansed after death for purgatorial or purifying punishments….” (Denzinger 464)

Now, we cannot say for sure about each individual who has, for example, committed or supported abortion. It will all depend on their repentance and the life they lead after repenting. Catholics also believe that to be truly in Christ is to live your life in perfect imitation of Christ. It is living for Christ and not the world, not just cofessing to believ in Him as a Saviour and go on living as a sinner.... That is why we have Saints.
The Catholic Saints are just people who achieved that kind of loyalty to the Gospel. People who lived their lives NOT to please the world, but GOD. Some of them were more perfect than otherS, some of them mastered a particular virtue, such as obedience, charity or humility, but we believe that no saint mastered all of the virtues at end of their lives, except for Mary. Since many of the Saints were sinners before they turned to Christ, they are such a great inspiration to us.

But going back to your question: Purgatory , according to our belief, is certain for all those who offend God and do not make sufficient reparation before death. So any one who dies in 'mortal' sin wil have to be purged. This might be the case of many pro-choice people, but we can always hope that , for instance, if someone at one point has a change of heart and instead of supporting abortion, they became an anti-abortion activist, or help prevent abortion by evangelizing, etc...all this counts as reparation, i suppose.

As I researched this subject to reply to your question, I found an article in the Catechism that actually says that anyone involved in performing or having an abortion is automatically excommunicated, in a 'latea sententiae', and cannot receive any of the Sacraments in the Church. Latea sententia does not require an official communication to be sent to the sinner.
And olny a bishop can lift that sentence in order for the sinner to be able to go to confession after his/hers repentance. Then they can be a Catholic again. Please note that the sin of abortion falls in the category of morals and faith, which is ruled by the Catholic Canon law.


Please check out this article if you want to read more on purgatory

http://divineblessings.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/does-purgatory-real...


and this

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html
All for now,
Helen

Permalink Reply by Helen on September 2, 2010 at 3:10pm

Hi Roy,

I don't have a lot of time just now, but let me at least address your question regarding Salvation.

Here is what the RCC says : Sections 161-162 of the Catechism

(161) "Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation ...therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification...(162) Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man...

Therefore, the Church of Rome does not exclude any believers from Salvation.

I assure you that faith in Christ HAS ALWAYS been the teaching of the RCC. HOWEVER, as you probably know, up until the early 16th Century the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church in the world, so all Christians were Catholics.

Since the oldest Protestant ecclesial community didn't exist until around 1520, Pope Eugene declared that "They will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS before death they are joined with Her'. This means: UNLESS they became Catholics they shall not be save; because to be a Christian and accept Jesus, in that time, meant to be a Catholic.

Here is the excerpt from Pope Eugene's Apostolic Letter. Please note that it dates before the reformation, Year 1441

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. - Council of Florence, Papal Bull Cantate Domino, by Pope Eugene IV, 1441.


Looking at the context of the world at time of this document, it is clear that the Church was excluding pagans and those who do not profess a belief in God from the Economy of Salvation, but not protestants, as other Christians did not exist yet.

Thanks and I write more soon.
Helen

PS. Simply put Roy, the RCC would not exist if she did not profess faith in Christ. Our Creed is a living proof for this:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The above Creed, with this wording dates from around AD 325 which we recite at every Mass,
and below is the Icon depicting Emperor Constantine (center) and the Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea (325) as holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381

Permalink Reply by RoyW on September 2, 2010 at 9:37pm

Helen,

Do you agree with this article?

From The Times
October 5, 2005
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.
Related Links

* Petty squabbles cause empty pews

* Roman road leads South to a brighter future

* Paedophile sues Catholic Church

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

The rest of the article can be found at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece

Roy

Permalink Reply by Helen on September 3, 2010 at 11:02am

Hi Roy,

Many thank for sending this.

No, I do NOT believe in anything the TIMES writes about the RCC. They HATE US!! I am sure this article is twisting things really badly.

They must be hallucinating, the Holy See would not say such a nonsense. I will find out where this comes from and let you know ASAP.

Cheers,
H.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on September 3, 2010 at 3:41am

Helen-

You have to do a bit more research and you have to learn to read the bible without the Catechism guiding your every thought. Can you tell me what the bible says without mentioning the Catechism? What has the Holy Spirit revealed to you personally as you study the bible? John 16 and many, many other scriptures state that God is our teacher.

The reason history can only record a Catholic church and not others is because all other faiths had went underground and many were slaughtered including the Nazarenes:

In the 4th century Jerome also refers to Nazarenes as those "...who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law." In his Epistle 79, to Augustine, he said:

"What shall I say of the Ebionites who pretend to be Christians? To-day there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans, and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers] are ordinarily called 'Nasarenes'; they believe that Christ, the son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, and they hold him to be the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe. But while they pretend to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither." "Jewish Encyclopedia: Jerome's Account"

Jerome viewed a distinction between Nazarenes and Ebionites, a different Jewish sect, but does not comment on whether Nazarene Jews considered themselves to be "Christian" or not or how they viewed themselves as fitting into the descriptions he uses. His criticism of the Nazarenes is noticeably more direct and critical than that of Epiphanius.

Theodosius I

In 380, mainstream Christianity–as opposed to Arianism–became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christianity became more associated with the Empire, resulting in persecution for Christians living outside of the empire, as their rulers feared Christians would revolt in favor of the Emperor. In 385, this new legal authority of the Church resulted in the first use of capital punishment being pronounced as a sentence upon a Christian 'heretic', namely Priscillian. Priscillian's execution was only the first use of this new Church authority after which, down through the centuries, many more heretics would be executed by the authority of the Catholic Church.

" During Constantine's reign, approximately half of those who identified themselves as Christian did not subscribe to the mainstream version of the faith. Constantine feared that disunity would displease God and lead to trouble for the Empire, so he took military and judicial measures to eliminate some sects. To resolve other disputes, Constantine began the practice of calling ecumenical councils to determine binding interpretations of Church doctrine."


Even here in 385 AD, the churches are not called Catholic at all.

During the 11th century, the East–West schism permanently divided Christianity. It arose over a dispute on whether Constantinople or Rome held jurisdiction over the church in Sicily and led to mutual excommunications in 1054. The Western (Latin) branch of Christianity has since become known as the Catholic Church, while the Eastern (Greek) branch became known as the Orthodox Church. So in the 11th century the church of Rome was called "CATHOLIC" also keep in mind all the other Christian faiths are still being persecuted for being heritics.

But lets go back to 451 AD. From Wikipedia:</</b>u>


The Council of Chalcedon was a church council held in 451 from 8 October to 1 November 451 at Chalcedon (a city of Bithynia in Asia Minor), on the Asian side of the Bosporus.
The Council is considered by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholics, and various other Western Christian groups to have been the Fourth Ecumenical Council . As such, it is recognized as infallible in its dogmatic definitions by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (then one church). Most Protestants also consider the concept of the Trinity as defined by these councils to be orthodox doctrine to which they adhere. However, the Council resulted in a major schism, with those who refused to accept its teaching, now known as Oriental Orthodoxy, being accused of monophysitism. The Oriental Orthodox churches reject the "monophysite" label and instead describe themselves as miaphysite. This council is the last council that is recognised by the Anglican Communion.

NOTICE: "And various other western Christian groups (groups means churches) notice the cover-up." There were many more Christian Faiths and not just Catholics.

So was there an original christian church?

There was and they were called the Sect of the Nazarenes because they baptized:
"For we found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:"
The book of Acts chapter 24 v 5.

The Nazarene sect (ἡ τῶν Ναζωραίων αἵρεσις) was an early Jewish Christian sect located in and about Jerusalem which proclaimed Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah and the Son of God The Nazarenes were similar to the Ebionites, in that they maintained their adherence to the Torah, but unlike the Ebionites, they accepted the virgin birth of Jesus.[7]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-Hegg_2007-5"[6] It is generally thought they adopted the name Nazarene because it was first applied to Jesus.[8]

The following creed is that of a church at Constantinople at the same period:
"I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads & sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants and observances and Synagogues, and the food and drink of the Hebrews; in one word, I renounce everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with the Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable. And may I be anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils." Parks, James The Conflict Of The Church And The Synagogue Atheneum, New York, 1974, pp. 397 - 398.

"Nazarenes" are referenced past the fourth century AD as well. Jacobus de Voragine (1230–1298) described James as a "Nazarene" in The Golden Legend, vol 7. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) quotes Augustine of Hippo who was given an apocryphal book called Hieremias by a "Hebrew of the Nazarene Sect" in Catena Aurea - Gospel of Matthew, chapter 27. So this terminology seems to have remained at least through the 13th century in European discussions

I will stop here or this will become too long,but the Baptists church traces its roots all the way back to new testament times as well.

Blessings Family.

Permalink Reply by Helen on September 3, 2010 at 1:13pm

Dear David,

My point is NOT denying that others existed, but to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is the Church that was initially led by Peter and the other Apostles.

I have myself posted here some exemples of writings where the disciples of the Apostles refer to what 'they' (NOT me) called sects which they, the disciples of the Apostles, considered not to be followers of Christ, since they did not embrace the teachings of the Apostles ( who held the true teachings of the Lord, 1- because they heard it first hand, 2- because they received the truth by the descending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost).

You see, if you look at history, there are numerous examples of breakages in Christianity, from the very early days this has existed. However David, those people history tell us about were not pro-protestants, let alone Catholics.

You keep pointing at different directions to refute something the very reputable historians throughout the centuries have not denied: the fact that the the Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church (yes, that's is our full name) traces back to Peter, having Peter himself as our first overseer - word which in greek means episcopos, the root word for bishop in English.

Now, about the things the Holy Spirit has revealed to me... Why would I discuss that here? This is not the reason of my comming to this forum.

Thanks again,
Helen

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on September 5, 2010 at 6:54am

Dear Helen,

It is obvious that we are not getting anywhere. No matter how much scripture we show you, for you to see the discrepancies in the RC interpretations your mind is already made up. I thought you would be willing to look at the biblical evidence and then comment back about our interpretation of scripture, but you have not done that once. When you use scripture to back up RC traditions/dogma I tell you how those scriptures are being misuse and taken out of context, but you never come back to tell me Hermeneutically why my interpretation is wrong or how I may be taking it out of context myself.

You are the new breed of Catholics that claim that Catholics don't worship Mary, that the pope's authority is not equal to scripture and that salvation can be found outside the RCC, but that is not what the RCC officially believes. The catholic church has change a bit when it comes to the worship of Mary, but for hundredths of years it was not like that and in most places around the world Catholics do worship Mary today and the church says nothing to them for doing it.

From the Roman Catholic Catechism:

The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267

The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

Past popes have taught this doctrine, as have previous catechisms and church fathers. Here is but one example…

On May 7, 2001, Pope John Paul II told 2,000 youth gathered at the Greek-Melkite Cathedral of Damascus that "you cannot be a Christian if you reject the Church founded on Jesus Christ."1

Catholic friend, you personally may not believe this, but your pope does. And it is an official doctrine of your religion.

The fullness of salvation is found in Christ alone. Not one human in this universe needs any manmade institution for the fullness of salvation. The above is an insult to God. God did not establish the RCC nor did it give the power to any church to give any human the fullness of salvation. What does that even mean the fullness of salvation? A person is either saved or not. Born again or not.

"...all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation..." Pg. 224, #846 Catechism

"Salvation is of the Lord."-Jonah 2:9

Salvation is the work of God. It is He alone who quickens the soul "dead in trespasses and sins," and it is He also who maintains the soul in its spiritual life. He is both "Alpha and Omega." "Salvation is of the Lord alone.

I need no church to give me what only God can give me. Not one verse in the Holy word of God that tells me that I need the RCC for fullness of salvation. Again another RC tradition started by man to keep people in bondage to the Church.

You are set in obeying the Catholic Church regardless of how we show you that church has been wrong in interpreting scripture from the beginning.

These are some of the issues I have a problem with about the RCC, so we will not see eye to eye here.

1 Salvation Through The Church
2 Salvation Through Good Works
3 The Church Forgives Sins
4 The One True Church
5 Baptism Saves
6 The Pope: Vicar of Christ
7 The Pope: Infallible
8 The Sacraments Save
9 The Sin of Presumption
10 Infant Baptism
11 Degrees of Sin
12 Transubstantiation
13 Eucharist: Preserves from Sin
14 Eucharist: Helps the Dead
15 Mary Saves
16 Mary: Saved from Birth
17 Mary: Perpetual Virgin
18 Mary: Source of Holiness
19 Mary: The Intercessor
20 Mary: Recipient of Prayers
21 Mary: Queen Over All Things
22 The Mass
23 Purgatory
24 Praying to Saints
25 Praying for the Dead
26 Statues
27 Confirmation
28 Confessing Sins to a Priest
29 Indulgences
30 Catholic Prayer
31 Penance
32 Celibacy
33 Last Rites

Out of the 33 RC traditions I listed above, 30 have no scriptural foundation and the other 3 have been established by taking scripture out of context. That is not a church I want to be a part of. Matter of fact I always tells Catholics to please read their bibles and visit a Christian Church. The RCC is not a healthy place for sound doctrine.

You have blindly believed that the RCC is the one true Church and no matter how much we show you to the contrary, you will believe what you have invested time believing. Well then sis - there is nothing more for me to say.

You continue to cite the catechism which tells you what to think about scripture and doctrine as if the Catechism was the word of God. In light of that I think is time to agree that we will not agree. I have no need for the Catechism. I have the Holy Spirit to lead me to all truth as the bible teaches me. Now I do not ignore the writings of so many beautiful Godly people throughout history, but when I read anything that is outside the bible, I align it to the biblical truth and if it contradicts the Holy Bible then I do not agree with it. Such is the case with the Catechism, what it teaches is in direct opposition to what the word of God teaches in many, many of its doctrines, so I have no need for it. I read it and I am amazed how blatantly the scripture has been twisted.

>>Now, about the things the Holy Spirit has revealed to me... Why would I discuss that here? This is not the reason of my coming to this forum.

Dear Helen - That is exactly what we do in this community and with all our Christian family. We discussed what the Holy Spirit has revealed to us about scripture, through our personal bible study. I hope you do not care about my opinion, if I am not backing it up with scripture, because when it comes to doctrine, I do not care what you think about it or any church if that opinion it's not back up by scripture and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. We all discuss (well - I dare say 90% of us here) what the Holy Spirit has revealed to us about scripture, that is what these forums are all about. Check out this prayer by Paul:

Ephesians 1:17-25 (New International Version)

17I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[a] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know they hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

>>You keep pointing at different directions to refute something the very reputable historians throughout the centuries have not denied: the fact that the Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church (yes, that's is our full name) traces back to Peter, having Peter himself as our first overseer - word which in Greek means episcopos, the root word for bishop in English.

What I have written still remains here for all to see and I have not gone in different directions. Catholic historians may claim the church traces back to Peter, but that fact has been successfully refuted multiple times throughout this discussion. Brother Scribe D'Nucov, did an outstanding job at it. But you have ignored His post as you have ignored many of my questions in multiple posts. I will answer some of your posts to my person, I have not answered yet, but I am not too interested on continuing this discussion. You are not capable of discussing these issues in a biblical manner primarily or to tell me why you believe what you believe biblically, without resorting to the Catechism that tells you what to think. So we are in two different worlds when it comes to Theology. My source is the word of God alone. The teachings, traditions, dogmas, philosophies, etc… of man are welcome, If and only If they align to the word of God, if not I do not adhere to them. I posted 5 responses today to various posts from you to me, which I had not answered previously.

So the only thing I can tell you at this point is :

I got nothing, but love for you. My Lord continue to bless you.

Permalink Reply by RoyW on September 5, 2010 at 8:10am

Helen,

This is an excellent work by David. It is obvious that he has put hours and hours of study into this. He has done this out of his care and concern for you and any others that are in bondage to an institution of man.

Please don't just discount what he is saying. Read it carefully, pray to Jesus and ask Him to help you in your search. None of us are perfect. However, the above is a work of love. Please don't take that lightly. Think carefully before you speak. I can tell there is a lot of caring on this sight. That post is a work of love.

God bless you,
Roy

Permalink Reply by Helen on September 5, 2010 at 5:24pm

Hi Roy,

Thanks. I will read everything carefully, dont worry. I always do. Now, are doing the same with my posts? I am sure you know it takes me time to reply to multiple comments by myself...There is love there too...

I am beginning to feel like you have more contempt for my church than you initially stated… but that is ok.

I asked David to make me that list in a private message. I will take my time to reply to everything and post a decent reply shortly. i have to admit, it is a lot of work being the only Catholic replying to so many attacks...But it is worth is because I do it as a penance…

I do have answers for his questions, so don’t celebrate yet and please open your heart and pray as well.

I just need to make time to do it.

God bless you
Helen

Permalink Reply by RoyW on September 5, 2010 at 5:37pm

Helen,

I have always felt that the Catholic church was not the true church. Now, you have me studying it and I must admit that the more I see in the church the more deception I see. I have never accepted your position that the Catholic Church was the original church and now I am convinced. I can only hope that David and others can get you to see the deception in the church. That is my prayer. I can see that you are not convincing him that the Catholic church is the true church either. I do believe God has many people in the Catholic Church. Eventually, He will call His people out of her. The Catholic Church is guilty of all kinds of crimes. It does appear that He has departed from the church.

Roy

Permalink Reply by Helen on September 5, 2010 at 5:01pm

Hi David,

You know what you said: No matter how many scriptures we show you....

David, I PROMISE YOU that I feel the SAME.

Honestly. I am frustrated not that you dont agree with me, but that you don't want to see why I believe what I believe.

So honestly, I do think we should move on...

Thanks anyways
H.

Permalink Reply by RoyW on September 2, 2010 at 9:01am

Very good observation. The difference still pretty much remains the same. It is a difference of opinion of the authority of Scripture.

Roy

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• …
• 17
• Next ›
• Page