Is Roman Catholicism accurate in every detail?

Extreme Unction is a very interesting practice of RCC. RCC must make sure they should call the priests while the dead body is still warm:laugh:
If the dead body is getting cold, they must warm it up by a heater.

 

Actually it is not over, but is still lurking.

I have never met any RC who admit that Heretics should have the right to live as they are.
I have never heard that Popes have repealed the authority to torture and kill the heretics.

RCC has always condemned the true believers as Heretics, then tortured and killed them.
Whenever I argued them about the Inquisiton and Crusade, they never admitted that RCC should have allowed the people called Heretics as Gamaliel in Acts 5:33-40 prevented Jews from persecuting the Christian believers.

This means that RCC will do the same during the Great Tribulation as they neither repent nor rescind what they did or believed as the method of treating the dissenting groups.

So, it is NOT OVER until the Lord comes.

 

How's that tinfoil hat fitting?

 

How on earth can you be accusing me of slander!? These are my own wife's parents, who most certainly are PB, albeit of the Exclusive variety - they trace their descent spiritually from J N Darby through F E Raven and James Taylor Senior. This article may help enlighten you; my wife's parents can be described as "Permafrosts"-Croydon Meeting. They practice what they call 'household baptism', in which they include infants, per the baptism of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:33 - see also here, here, here and here. Please therefore withdraw your accusation of slander (well, libel, in fact)

 

Actually Bob, only a few of those items I listed fall with my own church's beliefs and practices.

The point was that many of those items listed (especially those not regarding the Pope and Mary) are also believed in various degrees by a large number and a wide range of Christians -- including Methodists, Lutherans, Epsicopalians, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, and the Church of Christ.

 

I think you are talking about Taylorite Brethren, which were excommunicated far long time ago, and those people call themselves as Plymouth Brethren more than the actual PB's. We have the famous saying that if anyone calls himself or herself as a PB, then the person is no longer PB because we believe the Bible never allowed the denomination as we read 1 Cor 1:11-17. There have been many groups out of PB's such as Watchman Nee's and Witness Lee's local churches.

In our church groups so-called Plymouth Brethren Gospel Halls and Gospel Chapels, we can find no assembly performing Infant Baptism. The concept of Household Baptism could have been misunderstood from the House Baptism because many PB assemblies started from House churches and the Baptism was performed at the houses, which doesn't mean the Infant Baptism.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and confusion in the descriptions of the websites. It may take some time for me to verify them.

But in the meantime, as for the accusation of slander, I would withdraw it and apologize to you as you have the sufficient reason to doubt about it.

When you talked about PB's and Taylorites long time ago, I wondered why and what you meant by Taylor and so on, because I never heard about such name among the chief men of the brethren, but thought some practices strange to me.

We have many other small groups who left so-called PB"s and then perform the practices strange to us, for which we can hardly be responsible for.
As for Darby and others the articles need to be verified, which I think contain quite a lot of misunderstandings.

 

If you don't beleive the Bible just come out and say so.
You can't believe in two opposing systems of doctrine.
You can't be a Muslim and a Bible-believing Christian at the same time.
You can't be a Hindu and a Bble-believing Christian at the same time.
I have already shown you how the Catholic system of doctrine is in opposition to the Bible. You cannot believe both systems at the same time. You don't want to refute me; you just want to call me names. If that is your agenda on this board, I will take it up with adminstrative council and see what we can do.

 

Thanks, Eliyahu. My wife's family came out of the Taylorites in 1970 and many of them have now become Open but not her parents who are still Exclusive. They don't like calling themselves Brethren; they describe themselves as "just folks who meet together in the Lord's Name to study the Scriptures and Break Bread together."

 

I didn't call you, personally, a name.

I spoke what I see. You're a nice person, but when it comes to the hundred million times the Fundamentalists on this board bring up Catholicism, the fangs come out.

I challenge you to demonstrate where I have said I do not beleive the Bible. Perhaps the administrative council would do better to take up the manifold false accusations continually slung against me and those whole position is similar to mine, huh?

 

"the Fred Phelps type of antiCatholicism" was directed at me, and was in response to my post. It may have been veiled with a plural pronoun, but that doesn't make a difference. Your entire response was directed straight at me and it was very rude.

Why do fangs come out when people talk about damnable heresies which even deny the very cardinal doctrines such as the substionary atonement of Jesus Christ--that Christ died for our sins; paid the full penalty for them, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, idolatry, praying to the dead, Mary-worship, and many other "damnable heresies," as the Bible calls them.

I don't have to come up with a quote that you don't believe the Bible. If you believe in the doctrines of the RCC, that they are Biblical doctrines then by default you don't believe the Bible. That was my point. You can't believe both systems. You have to choose one or the other. If you believe the doctrines of the RCC, then you do not believe the doctrines of the Bible. You can't have both.

 

Thanks for making my point, DHK.

 

In fact, your argument enlightened me quite a lot. It seems that there were some misunderstanding in the websites plus the actual practices of the Infant Baptism even among PB's.
PB's have undergone several splits like 1870 in UK and 1926 in North America, there have been some divergences. Also, I confirmed Darby brought the Infant Baptism with him when he came out of Church of England.
I do not know how and when he repealed it later on, but the people here take it as Darby's personal opinion at that time, but there were some changes and the most of the practices among the PB's in North America are rather inherited from Scotland. The Scottish PB's are quite often visiting here for the fellowship. So, we consider Gospel Halls and Chapels are the only PB's

As for the Taylorites, the people here do not know very much about them. My friend confirmed that none of the so-called PB assemblies in North America perform the Infant Baptism as far as he knows. In North America we have about 4 groups, Gospel Chapel ( Open Brethen) Gospel Hall ( Exclusive Brethren), Fellowship, Community, but the Fellowship and Community assemblies are not considered as the so-called PB's and excluded from the fellowship.

One of the features of PB's is that they reject any practice quickly if they find it is wrong.

So, now I can understand your language when you talk about PB's.

 

I understand both of your points.

The fangs ought to come out against bad teachings. There is no biblical merit to many, many Catholic teachings and practices. For instance, Jesus wanted His followers to partake of the bread AND the cup at the Lord's table -- Catholicism withholds the cup from most of their own. Catholicism encourages diverting to Mary some of the attention that ought to go to Christ. Both these teachings, and those like them, should be opposed and refuted.

On the other hand, I do not believe the fangs ought to come out against the people. Accusing people of worshiping Mary as a goddess, when they would be opposed to such, is an attack on those people.

Beliefs, teachings, and ideas are inanimate things. People are people. There is an important distinction between the two. There ought to be a distinction between how we treat the two.

Jesus Christ had a lot of teachings on how we treat people. The parts of Scripture written after His earthly ministry do also. I believe that these teachings should be followed.

I hope I am making some sense.

 

justification

Justification by Faith alone.

In a nutshell Catholics think that we have to help Christ along by our works, which is heresy. His death was sufficient to purchase my salvation. Jesus Christ alone is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.:thumbs:

 

Actually, Nate7, I used to believe something like that about them.

It turns out that their teaching is sort of the following: `We ask for God's grace by doing this-and-that.'

I do not agree with that teaching either, but that is what they teach.

 

You were not opposed to on this before.

I kept it in mind all the time when I listed the false teachings.

It was RCC that killed the people condemned as Heretics but couldn't kill the alleged Heresies.

I still maintain the objections to their doctrines, which I have not learned for myself, which proves the failure of RCC's extermination of Heresies.

That is the key point of my questions, whether Heretics should have the right to live as heretics or not. But to this day, RCC excuse that their decisions to exterminate the heretics were right saying that otherwise the MUslims or Turks would have ruled over Europe.

If any religion have the policy that the heretics should be tortured and killed, then it means that they hate the people created in the likeness of God, instead of hating the doctrines and deeds of such.

Jesus said to let the tares grow until the time of harvest( Mt 13:24-32).
If God applies the same treatment which RCC did to the Christians by condemning them as Heretics, then He has to torture and kill all the 1.3 billion of Roman Catholics immediately, but God is patient with them waiting for their repentance.

RCC do not admit that the Heretics should have the right to live as Heretics and that torturing and killing Heretics is wrong, because if so, they are in the dilemma between their past history and the truth.

 

Eliyahu: the past is the past. I am most concerned for the people NOW.

If the Inquisition becomes active again, that matter will be relevant again. Their current teachings are in favor of religious liberty.

I wish you would consider the values Christ preached to us to live our overall lives by, rather than serve your grudge over matters centuries in the past.

As for this comment: "If God applies the same treatment which RCC did to the Christians by condemning them as Heretics, then He has to torture and kill all the 1.3 billion of Roman Catholics immediately, but God is patient with them waiting for their repentance."

Excuse me, but I know from personal acquaintances and friendships that at least some of the "1.3 billion of Roman Catholics" that are living right now have never tortured anyone or murdered anyone and have no desire to. Does that matter to you?

 

Dr Carroll of EWTN points out that Billy Graham would have been burned alive for teaching in the dark ages what he taught in the 20th century.

Fr Ken Ryan admits that the early baptist and many other Christian groups were "exterminated" by the RCC for being heretics.

The "extermination" was not confined to other religions. In fact in most cases Hindu Budhist etc were left alone.

in Christ,

Bob

 

You are missing the entire point --

#1. The RCC Magesterium ITSELF refuses to get past it's dark ages history by simply saying "Ok we were wrong in our own Canon Law regarding the extermination of those with doctrines that differred from our own".

#2. The issue is NOT whether RC members today are "inclined to torture heretics". The issue is that the position the RCC has taken in NOT distancing itself from the crimes against humanity that IT committed in the dark ages - has led its own members to trivialize the act of torture and extermination. IMAGINE if the bapists should tomorrow announce a policy of EXTERMINATING heretics!! What a awful thing. But then as cooler-heads prevail and they retreat from that action - SUPPOSE they STILL regard that as MORALLY and DOCRINALLY infallible!!???

in Christ,

Bob

 

I do not think it is vitally important if the Vatican publicly renounces its past. The vitally important thing, as I see it, is that they changed. I do not believe we should demand groveling after they quietly realized the need to change, and did so.

I believe you are missing the entire point of what I am saying.

What is most important? As Christians, what is most important:
1) being God's `little helpers' in ways He never specified for us, or
2) trustingly serving Christ in the ways He ordained by following His values?

I posit the latter.

As for the quote of Eliyahu that you quoted from me, well, I believe his sentiments are much stronger than yours. From the looks of it, he is holding ALL living Roman Catholics guilty for events that happened centuries ago, and which they would want nothing to do with repeating.