Since you have been a Baptist, have you . . .

goodness, this thread has gotten ridiculous. No one is going to change the other one, so maybe we should just let it die (and bury it??) Sorry couldnt resist.

 

The problem Tater is that people make baseless accusations based on a misinterpretation of scripture, never give and answer, and hope it will go away.

 

Wherefore come out from amongst them and be ye separate saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

 

I am not a part of the Catholic church and do not touch their artificial sacrfice.

I assume you apply this to all walks of life. There are plenty of unclean things on the internet and you have not chosen to separate from it.

 

(ouch)

 

I do not go to the unclean sites on the internet, if that is what you are implying. My internet experiences are research into Biblical studies.

And email.

... Oh, and the BB.

 

Exactly, thank you for proving my point.

Just being someplace does not make one a partaker. I do not partake of the unclean thing when I go to a Catholic funeral so we are even.

 

so, since you have convinced yourself that it is ok to attend catholic services, how about dropping by the goliath site and shed some light on the madness there.

 

Since no one has given any evidence why it is wrong I am simply exercising a wonderful aspect of being a Baptist - soul liberty.

 

A little leaven leaveneth the who lump.

Ya know if ya put a drop, just a drop of poison in ground beef, it has poisoned the whole lump of ground beef.

To say I can attend catholic services as long as I don't participate in the unscriptural parts of the Mass, the funerals, the weddings, whatever, you are still taking part in the whole... which is poisoned with ungodly practice.

 

Just as posting on the internet is partaking of the whole - which is poisened by the ungodly sites.

 

The majority of Baptists and individuals recognize that church that does not line up with the truth that is set forth in God's Word to be christian... Wow!

Let's just all join hands with the devil and sing 'Kum-ba-yah'.

 

So does a little legalism.

How come the "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" concept is completely ignored by you in regards to Jack Chick? Seems a bit hypocritical on your part. You have no problem joing hands and singing 'Kum-ba-yah' that that devil. Next, you'll be singing the praises of Kent Hovind as well.

 

If we've learned nothing else from this thread, we've learned who rightly divides the word of truth and who does not.

 

I asked a Catholic fellow that I know who is a Catholic scholar and historian about the Council of Trent and if Pope John Paul II endorsed it.

I asked him this:

>And did John Paul II ever
>endorse The Council of Trent
>in any of his speeches
>or writings?

He answered: "Yes, most definitely when it made sense. He once addressed the following to traditionalists: "I desire that all the members of the Church remain the heirs of the faith received from the Apostles, worthily and faithfully celebrated in the Holy Mysteries, with fervour and beauty, in order to receive grace in an increasing manner (Council of Trent, sess. VII, 3 March 1547, Decree on the Sacraments) and to live with the Divine Trinity in an intimate and profound relationship. While confirming the good based on the liturgical reform wished by the Second Vatican Council and initiated by Pope Paul VI, the Church grants also a sign of understanding to those persons "attached to certain previous liturgical and disciplinary forms" (motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, n.5). It is in this perspective that one must read and apply the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei. I desire that everything may happen in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, in full harmony with Tradition, aiming at unity in charity and loyalty to the Truth."

"It is under "the action of the Holy Spirit, by whom the flock of Christ maintains itself one and whole and progresses in the unity of the faith" (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium, n.25) which the Successor of Peter and the Bishops, Successors of the Apostles, teach the Christian Mystery. In a very particular manner, the Bishops, gathered in Ecumenical Councils cum Petro and sub Petro, confirm and affirm the doctrine of the Church, Faithful Heiress of the Tradition already existing for almost twenty centuries, as a living reality which goes on giving a new impetus to the whole of the ecclesial community. The latest Ecumenical Councils - Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II - applied themselves to clarifying the mystery of the faith and undertook the necessary reforms for the good of the Church, solicitous for the continuity with the Apostolic Tradition, already recognized by St. Hippolytus.

I can guarantee you that his quotes are not bogus.

He gave me this site for their Catechism:

http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=trent&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

It also said this though:

But that justification only lasts until you sin again. Then it's the sacrifice of the Mass and penance for the removal of sins. This denies the sufficiency of the cross and the blood of Christ.

Note: all reference numbers of for the Catechism of the Catholic Church and can be easily looked up by anyone.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a10.htm#I

Craig; if you still think that they have no doctrinal error as it pertains to their soteriology, then you lack discernment. Gal. 5:4,9.

And if you still think that the Council of Trent wasn't written to directly combat the Reformation, especially grace alone by faith alone, then you are sadly mistaken.

http://www.carm.org/catholic/trent.htm

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/REFORM/COUNTER.HTM

 

I would agree that Trent was written largely as a reaction to the Reformation. Trent corrected the primary abuses pointed out by Luther and other protestants, namely the sale of indulgences. A major part was also to clarify on grace alone and faith alone and point out where those doctrines are in error when they go against James 2.

 

I would agree that Trent was written largely as a reaction to the Reformation. Trent corrected the primary abuses pointed out by Luther and other protestants, namely the sale of indulgences. A major part was also to clarify on grace alone and faith alone and point out where those doctrines are in error when they go against James 2.

</font>[/QUOTE]No Gold Dragon. They were rather inflicting more error by misinterpreting James 2 to say that works + faith + salvation. James never implied that. If he did then either his epistle or Paul's epistles and the Gospel of John were not Scripture.

What James was trying to point out was that so-called professing Christians that showed no change as per 2 Cor. 2:17, or fruit as per Gal. 5 were never saved in the first place.

Catholics are still misinterpreting this text. (1 Cor. 2:14)

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/JamesPau.htm

This Catholic site insists that the sacraments are the cause of grace:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm#II