Featured The Great Whore is Religious Rome

According to YOU the sources I have provided are full of lies. I have given specific examples of the misrepresentation that Rand is guilty of on his website. You and Rand are cut from the same fabric. You have a rabid hatred of Catholics so you hardly are going to be objective. And please don't use the 'I don't hate Catholics, I hate the Catholic Church' excuse. The Church IS it's members.

Now, I already gave this example but I will re-post it for your benefit, DHK. The website is full of this kind of nonsense (like the cut & paste from the website Melanie responded to).

Here is another example (under a picture of the Pope and Cardinal Law). There are many more:

Cardinal Law discusses his retirement package with his Head, the Antichrist.
Unlike Christ, who cuts evil servants asunder, appointing them their portion with the weeping hypocrites,
the Antichrist offers him a sweetheart deal consisting of immunity from prosecution,
immediate beatification, at least one life-size idol made in his image, lifetime pension, severance pay, stock options, gratis medical, dental and mental care,
free dry cleaning of all religious costumes, capes, caps and miters,
as well as fully paid membership in the Papal Golf and Country Clubs, worldwide.

Now do you think this guy realizes that you have to be DEAD to be beatified? I don't think these are half way plausible arguments. He makes stuff up as he goes along. A lot like Jack Chick. They are two-peas in a pod although Rand has problems with 'old Jack' as well. He has a right to opinions but not to fabricate lies. The end justifies the means for Rand. He has popped up on Catholic boards all over. He never responds to being corrected, he just does what he does on this board, continue to post different accusations from his website. It's hit & run tactics. Hardly qualifies as debate but YOU will put up with anyone trying to slam Catholicism no matter what means they use. Rand is just a vent in hyperspace.

 

I don't hate my family; they are Catholic.
I hate the doctrines they believe in that are sending them to hell. I trust you can see the difference.

If you take the time to read almost any Protestant commentary of the 19th century or before (Presbyterian, Baptist, etc.) they all agreed that the Pope was the Antichrist. It was a foregone conclusion. Look them up and see their comments on Rev. 17. Those who lived closer to the Apostles believed the same thing--Waldenses and Albigenses. No wonder the RCC exterminated the Albigenses!

I think his comments about beatification are referring to John Paul II. They are trying to speed up the process of "sainthood" as quickly as possible, are they not?
The rest of his quote seems fairly accurate when describing the sexual predators that the RCC has been harboring for such a long time. What you have heard in the U.S. is bad. What the priests, monks, sisters, convents, and especially Catholic schools for the natives, have done in Canada is atrocious. You haven't heard the half of it. Child molestation has gone on for years undetected--of the most cruel and unimaginable kind--children being treated as animals by the RCC, and no one to do anything about it.
He is right to say those things.
Just now is the UN exposing some of it--the tip of the iceberg.

Just like some of the garbage you post.
I already said I don't agree with everything he posts.
I don't agree with most of what you post.

 

Before one can be confirmed as a Catholic, one must be baptized as a Catholic.

Both are sacraments/mysteries which imprinted an indelible ‘character’ [caracter] upon Walter’s soul.

This is the same ‘character’ or ‘mark’ of which we are warned in Scripture:

“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads.”

The Latin Vulgate translates Rev. 13:16:

“et faciet omnes pusillos et magnos et divites et pauperes et liberos et servos habere caracter in dextera manu aut in frontibus suis.”

The Council of Trent confirms all Catholics receive this indelible character/mark when baptized and confirmed:

“CANON IX.-If any one saith, that, in the three sacraments, Baptism, to wit, Confirmation, and Order, there is not imprinted in the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible Sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, On the Sacraments)

Walter received the sign of the cross at baptism and confirmation.

Below is an excerpt and explanation of the ritual mystery/sacrament of confirmation:

333. What does the bishop say in anointing the person he confirms?
In anointing the person he confirms, the bishop says: "I sign you with the sign of the cross and I confirm you with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

335. What does the anointing of the forehead with chrism in the form of a cross signify?
The anointing of the forehead with chrism in the form of a cross signifies that the Catholic who is confirmed must always be ready to profess his faith openly and to practice it fearlessly.

337. What are the effects of Confirmation?
Confirmation increases sanctifying grace, gives its special sacramental grace, and imprints a lasting character on the soul.
(Source: http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson25.html)

FYI: The sign of the cross on the recipient’s forehead is always given by the right hand of the Bishop who wears the two-horned miter.

Either all these facts which I have only begun to enumerate are merely unfortunate coincidences which falsely accuse the RCC and her Pope, or they are the unmistakable fulfillment of prophecy as depicted by the Holy Spirit in Holy Writ.

 

Oh, please! You really need a new hobby! BTW, you are 100% wrong. One does not need to be baptized a Catholic before one is confirmed a Catholic. This is just one of the many, many misrepresentations you make of Catholics. You need to educate yourself before you post this garbage on this board and your hate-filled website. I was baptized in a Baptist church and therefore did not have to be baptized again in the Catholic Church. They accepted my Trinitarian baptism as a valid baptism. Of course this is news to you because you just THINK you know what the Catholic Church teaches.

Again, your wrong about a 'bishop who wears the 'two-horned' miter always being the one making the sign of the cross on the recipients head'. Since Vatican II, priest are also allowed to confirm people and many times out of necessity they do just that. Again, you are supplying material that is way out of date. I notice you depend heavily on the Baltimore Catechism and your interpretation of that. The new Catechism is much clearer and surly doesn't support your nonsense.

 

That would be a "change in doctrine." It wasn't always that way.
During the years around the time of the Reformation or earlier, do you think a follower of Peter Waldo, for example, if he had converted to Catholicism, that his adult immersion would have been acceptable to the RCC? I think not! They were heretics according to the RCC, though true believers in our eyes.
According to the Council of Trent, we are still heretics believing in justification by faith alone. We are "accursed."

Now, if they accept your Protestant baptism, do they accept your former belief of what that baptism meant? If the previous symbolism of the baptism has now changed from an ordinance to a sacrament, you might as well have been baptized again.
I was a Catholic. When I got saved, I was baptized again as an adult. My infant baptism is not a baptism at all. God does not consider or look upon infant baptism as baptism. It is just some water thrown on an infant--a useless liturgical ceremony without meaning or purpose.

The Catholic Catechism clearly states that baptism is the new birth, the means by which one is born again. It is the only way one can be saved in the RCC. If you are not baptized into the RCC, it doesn't make sense how you can be saved. How do you know that you are saved if your salvation, according to the Catholic Catechism, resides in their baptism. Check the Catechism.

 

BTW, without faith the Catholic Church teaches that nobody has salvation. You ignore that fact.

Well, here it is, right out of the Catechism. I would have thought all the time you have been on the BB and debating over baptism you would know better:

1271 "Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82"

It is for that reason why trinitarian baptisms are valid and it's another area unifies all Christians together provided one avoids the debates of adult vs infant baptism.

Sometimes rebaptism is necessary. For example when the proper documentation doesn't exist to prove it, people are from a non-christian denomination (like Mormons or J.W.'s) or not a valid denomination or people might choose to be rebaptise because it is signifying a new life.

 

First you ought to know that the Catechism contradicts itself in various places.
Second, one of its primary doctrines is baptismal regeneration, the doctrine that baptism saves. We have an entire thread dedicated to that doctrine.
Third, your statement is false based on the practice of infant baptism alone. No infant can have faith, but all infants are saved based on their baptism into the RCC. Check your catechism.

1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.
1282 Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom.

Both of these statements are complete heresy. They do not teach the truth.
First, baptism is not birth into a new life in Christ. It is not necessary for salvation. I was saved two years before I was baptized. My baptism had nothing to do with my salvation.

Second, even according to #1282, it states "children are baptized IN THE FAITH of the Church." The child does not require faith; it is speaking of the faith (or doctrine) of the RCC. You have been misled if you think an infant must have faith. That is not what the RCC teaches.

It teaches a superstition that is no better than Hinduism--that water saves. Absolute nonsense!!
It is Christ that saves; not hydrogen and oxygen mixed; not baptism.
Christ alone, and faith alone in Him alone can save. Study your Bible instead of swallowing this heresy hook, line and sinker.

 

That is an impressive list - I will have to study it.


One thing it is missing is the importance of the wine of Babylon in

[FONT=&quot]Revelation 17
1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying, ""Come here, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters,
2 with whom the kings of the earth committed acts of immorality, and those who dwell on the earth were made drunk with the wine of her immorality.''
3 And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]having seven heads[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and ten horns.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Wine[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: In Matt 16:6-12 – Yeast – leaven (literally “yeast”) is false teaching of Pharisees. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Wine Yeast –[/FONT]

The role of yeast in winemaking is the most important element that distinguishes wine from grape juice. In the absence of oxygen yeast convert the sugars of wine grapes into alcohol and carbon dioxide through the process of fermentation.[1] The more sugars in the grapes, the higher the potential alcohol level of the wine if the yeast are allowed to carry out fermentation to dryness.[2] Sometimes winemakers will stop fermentation early in order to leave some residual sugars and sweetness in the wine such as with dessert wines. This can be achieved by dropping fermentation temperatures to the point where the yeast are inactive, sterile filtering the wine to remove the yeast or fortification with brandy to kill off the yeast cells. If fermentation is unintentionally stopped, such as when the yeasts become exhausted of available nutrients, and the wine has not yet reached dryness this is considered a stuck fermentation.[3]
The most common yeast associated with winemaking is Saccharomyces cerevisiae which has been favored due to its predictable and vigorous fermentation capabilities, tolerance of relatively high levels of alcohol and sulfur dioxide as well as its ability to thrive in normal wine pH between 2.8 and 4. Despite its widespread use which often includes deliberate inoculation from cultured stock, S.cerevisiae is rarely the only yeast species involved in a fermentation. Grapes brought in from harvest are usually teeming with a variety of "wild yeast" from the Kloeckera and Candida genera. These yeasts often begin the fermentation process almost as soon as the grapes are picked when the weight of the clusters in the harvest bins begin to crush the grapes, releasing the sugar-rich must.[4] While additions of sulfur dioxide (often added at the crusher) may limit some of the wild yeast activities, these yeasts will usually die out once the alcohol level reaches about 5% due to the toxicity of alcohol on the yeast cells physiology while the more alcohol tolerant Saccharomyces species take over
[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeast_in_winemaking[/FONT]

Some doctrines that i do not agree with are --
1. Praying to the dead.
2. Using images - bowing down to them and serving them.
3. Inventing Purgatory and Indulgences
4. Inventing the idea of "Confecting the body and blood" of God the Son.
5. Limiting the New Covenant - to just "The Catholic Mass".
6. Excusing "extermination of heretics" -- Lateran IV. Torment and torture of the Inquisition
7. Claims to infallibility
8. Mary as co-redemptrix, Queen of Heaven, Sinless like Christ, Mother of God, etc
9. Attacking the sola scriptura principle for testing doctrine and practice.
10. infant baptism
11. Burning the Bible in the dark ages.
12. Why is the "2nd commandment" in the Catholic Catechism? Missing?k
13. Adoption of blind-faith evolutionism in all her universities "as fact" of nature and history.


To name just a few.

 

Having said that - there are a few doctrines that they hold to - that I do like

1. The Triune Godhead. One God in three persons.
2. The OT is the Word of God just like the NT.
3. Bodily resurrection of Christ
4. Rejection of OSAS
5. Affirming the Ten Commandments as the Moral Law of God
6. Miracles of the Bible are real.

So then - just because I differ with them on some doctrines - does not mean I differ with them on all -

in Christ,

Bob

 

In Matt 16 says "beware of the yeast of the Pharisees" - and then the point is made that this represents the "teaching".

So also the wine of Babylon - can be contrasted to "New Wine" in that one has wine yeast and the other does not. So this again can be a reference to "the teaching".

 

Your testimony is damning on several levels.

1. The fact that you were allegedly baptized in a Baptist church and then converted to Catholicism later in life proves water baptism does not save anyone.

2. There is no Baptist church of which I am aware that teaches baptismal regeneration by water, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, Church of Christ, and Winman, to name a few. Therefore, according to Roman Catholic doctrine you had not received the Holy Spirit. Nor were the required exorcisms pronounced over you. Nor had you renounced Satan. Nor was the baptismal water consecrated. Nor were you immersed 3 times. Nor had you received the sign of the cross on your forehead. Nor had you received their indelible mark on your soul.

3. In short, by accepting your alleged non-Catholic baptism the Catholic Church has contradicted its official teachings made public in the 1995 Catechism of the Catholic Church. (Now posted Online.)

4. To allegedly infallibly confirm and strengthen through the sacramental mystery of Confirmation that which you did not have in the first place (i.e., the Holy Spirit) is laughable and ludicrous.

5. If the RCC now admits non-Catholics receive the Holy Spirit at non-Catholic baptisms, they reverse centuries of orthodox dogma that pronounced Protestant dissidents damnable heretics, doomed to eternal Hellfire and brimstone.

6. This is yet another proof that the RCC is Mystery Babylon; i.e., the False Church of Confusion and Contradiction.

“1215 This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."”

“1237 Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate. the celebrant then anoints him with the oil of catechumens, or lays his hands on him, and he explicitly renounces Satan. Thus prepared, he is able to confess the faith of the Church, to which he will be "entrusted" by Baptism.”

“1238 The baptismal water is consecrated by a prayer of epiclesis (either at this moment or at the Easter Vigil). the Church asks God that through his Son the power of the Holy Spirit may be sent upon the water, so that those who will be baptized in it may be "born of water and the Spirit."

“1239 Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water.”

“1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.”

(All citations found online at the official Vatican website.)

Please note the last sentence. It should prove to be of great comfort to you, Walter.

No matter how heinous, perverted or plentiful your sins, the indelible mark of your Confirmation can never be erased.

You will remain the Lord’s always, promises the papal Antichrist and his army of two-horned bishops.

Walter, have you never heard the expression, “Sinning Religion?”

 

I can only imagine the mental, emotional and theological hoops you and other Catholic fanatics must jump through to deny eternal truth when confronted with the distressing fact that the Holy Triune God has infallibly and unconditionally denounced and exposed your so-called 'Holy' Mother Church to be the greatest Whore who ever lived.

Graciously and mercifully, there are many Catholics whom the Lord has elected to salvation before the foundation of the earth, whom He will effectually call out of Babylon into His true Church, the Bride of Christ, thereby averting the promised destruction of those who remain in her.

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

 

Hardly! I don't wrestle with my conversion to Christ's Holy Catholic Church at all! I'm not the only former Baptist on this board that now is happy to call themselves Catholic Christians. In fact, we were all Baptists when we joined the board and came to the truth while here. That is the only reason we have been allowed to stay. Otherwise, you would have your hands full like you have had on Catholic boards.

You are typical of anti-Catholics. You bring up a subject and when it is debated start doing the 'doctrinal dance' with the Mary worship, statue lickin', candle-lighting, holy-water splashin' nonsense. I notice on the Catholic boards you do he same hit & run you do here. First you claim I MUST have been baptized in the Catholic Church before I was able to join then when I prove you wrong you claim the Church has changed it's doctrine.

Well, here is webpage that of other former Baptists who are now Catholic Christians. Thousands of us enter the Church after studying the truth:

http://www.whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/protestant-converts/baptist