10 Misconceptions of the RCC

Your accusation is false. The Catholics I talk to, in my area, know nothing about faith and would say the same thing I say. In fact worse. They would equate faith with fatalism--whatever will be will be. To them faith is blind. If you want to talk about the ignorance of the Catholics and their faith (and/or faith), I am right here. But don't slam Baptists in the same way.
No Baptist I know defines faith that way. That is pure slander!! Look to your own first.

Here is a Biblical definition of faith.
Romans 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform]/b].

Faith is confidence, particularly confidence in the promises of God.
Abraham was fully persuaded that what God had promised he was going to accomplish. That is faith.

Faith is not works. One is not saved by works. That is where the RCC fails.
Salvation is by faith and not by works (Eph.2:8,9).
For by grace are ye saved through faith... and not by works. The verse is very clear.
It is also clear that the Catholic has no understanding what saving faith is.

That doesn't mean that even the present canon is true according to Scripture. It isn't. Heresy is still heresy. The RCC is completely wrong on the doctrine of salvation. One cannot be saved and believe what the RCC teaches on salvation at the same time.

 

I POSTED pertinent parts of the Canons of Trent showing some of the requirements for salvation. They say what they say. If Roman Catholicism were not a religion of works salvation there would be no required penance, no required sacraments, and no purgatory!

Of course it is not mentioned now days but the RCC teaches that if you are not RCC you go to hell, not even a stop over in purgatory!

 

I know what the canons say and the context of what the canons say. The problem is that you are trying to apply your paradigm to those canons. The fact is your pagadigm is just off when it comes to Catholic teaching. First you misunderstand what is actually being said when Anathema is being proclaimed. Anathema sit does not mean "let him be damned to hell." It means "let him be cut off". So when it is used in the canons the intention is to cut the person off from the Church or excommunicated. The next paradigm that you mistakenly applie is the inherent question in all your statements regarding this matter which is "what is the very minimum or least one needs to know to get to heaven?" Catholics don't think like that. Your question presupposes individualism. Catholics have a community mentality. Thus the fulness of what the Church teaches leads one to heaven and to a close relationship with Jesus Christ. So one interacts with the church community to get as close to Jesus as they can. That is the idea. And if someone decides that what the Church has held in perpetuity (the deposit of faith) is wrong then they cut themselves off from the community if the Church decides. Whether or not that person will be saved in your forensic sense the Church does not speak to because that is for God to decide.

I have already explained in a previous post in this thread about "there is no salvation outside the Church". or properly termed "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus". It was on this post

 

10. No Salvation outside the RCC.
Anyone who confess the faith in Jesus Christ can be saved.
Any specific denomination is not required.
This may be a wrong statement which should read like this:
Maybe, NO Salvation inside the RCC!



9. Prayer to the Dead,
RCC believes the Dead can travel everywhere and have the capacity exploded after death, to know everything in the world, to be everywhere in the world, to live forever thru the ages, to be perfect in delivering the message to God.
By this they are confessing that they believe in thousands of gods, which are omni-scient and omni-present.
RCC admit that they are believers in pagan divination, sorcery, witchcraft, familiar spirits, etc. They are confessing that they are the descendants of the sorcerers or diviners.

8. Aposltic Trandition

RCC confess that their churches are built upon the human being Peter and the human traditions, not on the Rock of Salvation, Jesus Christ ( 1 Cor 3:11)
So, they are confessing their church is not built upon Jesus Christ, but on the human tradition.They are admitting that their church is built upon a human being and human tradition.
The True Believers believe that their church is built upon the Rock of Salvation, Jesus Christ. ( Mt 16:18 and 1 Cor 3:11)

7. Clergy system like Priests, Bishops, Cardinals
There no titles like them in the bible
There are only 2 kinds of Offices in the churches demonstrated in the Scriptures, i.e. Elders(Overseers) and Deacons.
RCC clergy systems are from Babylonian Religion

6. Transubstantiation
They admit Accidents remain the same though Substances are changed.
But they believe that they drink the physical Blood of Jesus at the Eucharist.
Bible prohibits Eating Blood in whatsoever manner and says the person shall be cut off from the People of God if anyone eats the Blood.( Lev 17:11-14)
RCC confess that they are eating Human Blood and Human Flesh.
So, RCC confess that they are cut off from the People of God, which means that RC believers are not Christians.
RCC is quite honest when they confess their belief in :


5. Papapcy
This is the extension of the Babylonian Order of High Priests which moved to Pergamos ( Rev 2:13)
The Throne was transferred to Northern Italy by Etruscans. Their Supreme Priest was Pontifex Maximus.
Julius Caesar became the Pontifex Maximus and the title was carried over to Augustus, and to succeeding emperors who became the key dictators to persecute the Christians.
When the emperor Gratian didn’t want to use the title and handed it over to Damasus, the RCC Bishop of Rome, the Center of persecuting the Christians became the Popes.
Popes have led the Crusade, Inquisitions, Prohibitions of Bible, and all the wicked persecution against Christians.
RCC call Popes Holy Fathers but many of them died of STD.
We have only one Holy Father who never die!

4. Infant Baptism
This is UNBELIEVERS Baptism which baptise the babies who never confessed the faith.
This contradicts Acts 8:37 and therefore they deleted it in their bibles.
They baptize the babies without knowing the name of Jesus, without confessing their faith, then the babies become Christians with Christian names after the Baptism.
They may believe the god Aqua, Water god which turns the unbelievers into believers.
Infant Baptism is the best way to bring the billions of Unbelievers into the churches, making the churches Dens of Wolves.

3. Purgatory
RCC teaches ALL of their catholic believers with a few exceptions of the saints are not going to the Heaven directly, but to the Purgatory.
However, my Bible teaches that even the Robber at the Cross went to the Paradise!
RCC are sometimes honest, because they confess they do not go to the Heaven!

2. Prayer to Mary :
RCC pray to Mary from millions places of the world, Canada, USA, Italy, Poland Ireland, Philippines, Brazil, Argentine, etc.
How could Mary listen to the prayers from millions of places unless she became a goddess?
Mary couldn’t find Jesus for 3 days ( Luke 2:45-46)
How could Mary understand hundreds of languages since she couldn’t understand what Jesus said( Luke 2:50), unless her capacity exploded to become a goddess?

1. Mass
In which the priests ask their god to forgive their sins by lifting the cookies and the chalice because RCC do not believe the eternal effect of the Sacrifice by Jesus Christ at the Cross. They believe that Jesus’ Blood and Death were just a historical fact and that they need to offer the sacrifice for their daily sins. They don’t believe the Redemption by Jesus and His Blood at the Cross ONCE for ALL.
Chrsitmas is nothing but the combination of Christ+Mass which celebrates the Birthday of the pagan god, Horus or Solo.

 

Not at all. And BTW what accusation did I make? That Protestants believe faith is a strong belief about something? Certainly, isn't that what you believe? I mean most likely if I were to ask you, you would end up quoting hebrews but that doesn't really answer the question of what you mean by having faith. And since in your belief works are not required to follow faith that limits faith to belief albeit a strong faith or what many youth pastors have said. It makes the 12 inches jump from your head to your heart. But nevertheless it boils to to a belief. You then may say well actions naturally follow but what you mean is not that one will actively do good works but will passively do them.

From your discription of Catholics in your area it is clear (from your discription) that these Catholics don't know their faith. However, I know a lot of nominal baptist as well who don't know their faith so whats the difference?

I've already expressed the Catholic view of faith. And its accurate.

Yes that is in the scripture with regard to faith speaking about Abraham and notice your focus is on that passage is directed to only strongly believing something. Note that you use "was strong in the faith" but in the ESV we see it say "grew strong" by not waivering. How did he not waiver? His actions were in compliance with his faith. Nothing in what you just said indicated that works must be enacted to complete that faith or "faith must be acted upon" as it does in James

Again you prove my point. Actions don't have to accompany faith for you to hold that it is faith. Faith to you is strong belief or confidence.

No its not works. However, Faith is not faith unless it is acted upon. You certainly don't believe that. Its like telling a woman that you love her then ignore her. Is that love? Nope. Faith therefore is not faith unless it is acted upon.

This is where you are wrong. Catholic teach works do not save. Faith which allows for empowering grace enables you to act upon that faith.

Its just saying what I just said above it. Works to make God owe you does not save (Romans 4). However, Faith absent of works is dead (James 2).

It is clear we do. What you have just clearly pointed out is that you understand faith to be no more than a certainty or confidence that what God said is true. And that is where you end faith. Catholics believe in this certainty and follow up with and you will act upon that certainty and purposely live your life accordingly.

 

.First of all I have already explained your misundertanding about that phrase.

Yet Jesus says

It is clear these people "confess the faith in Jesus Christ yet Jesus says they will not be saved

So I guess Paul was remise when he ignored the activity of the Corinthians in 1Cor 15 refusing to rebuke them for

Or Maybe Jesus broke the Law when he spoke with Moses?

When we know that Moses died back in Deut 34

Or maybe you don't believe that those in Christ go to be with Christ when they shed off this body. Maybe you don't believe that those in Christ aren't truelly alive everlastingly? Just some thoughts.

Oh yeah, because Jesus didn't instruct his Apostles to continue the faith? Yeah right

Maybe Jesus lied when he said he gave them all authority? Is that what you think?

Oh yeah like there weren't Bishops (Episkopos) or Priest(Presbyter) in the NT. Maybe the Apostles didn't even create the Deacon. Yes, FYI I'm being sarcastic. These positions were in the bible.

All I need for this are bible verses

Didn't Jesus say?

Its clear you've read Hislop one too many times.

Yet Acts 2 says

Here are some verses to mull over

forgiveness in the age to come? Interesting.

and once again

Well, are you suggesting that even though Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit she got it wrong?

You clearly are mistaken about certian things especially history. Jack Chick is not a reliable source and neither is Alexander Hisop. Both have been proven wrong.

 

My faith is not a gut feeling. That is false accusation. My faith is confidence in the promises of God's Word, that what God has said, he will do. That is not a gut feeling. What you posted is an insult.
I walk by faith, live by faith, something you probably know nothing of except perhaps in theory, and even then I doubt that.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. There is nothing of works mentioned in that definition, nor in the previous definition that I gave you.

It is more than a strong belief in something. I strongly believe that Obama is the president of the U.S. That is fact, not faith. Again, faith is confidence in the word of another specifically the Word of God, His word to me that what he said or promised will come true.

Let me demonstrate using an earthly illustration. Right now the temperature (including windchill) outside is minus 30 Celsius, or minus 22 F. I also have a car built by Ford. It is not new, but only five years old. The manual says that although it should be plugged in, in extreme weather the car should start at minus 20. I also have a remote starter. In spite of the cold temperatures, I have faith that when I go and try and start my car, that it will start.
My faith is based on two things:
1. Confidence in the promises written by Ford in its manual.
2. My relation with my car. It has done it before.

If it doesn't start, my faith has not failed because I know that man is fallible and the things that man invents are fallible.
However, I have a relationship with my Lord, Jesus Christ. He has never failed me yet. As I walk with Him my relationship grows closer every day. He walks with me and talks with me (not audibly), but through his word and prayer. My confidence is through his word, which is perfect. I can put my confidence, not in a fallible manual, but in the infallible word of God, written by the Perfect and immutable Savior who created me for his glory, and has never, never failed me. That is the difference.
My car may fail me; Jesus never. He is the same: yesterday, today and forever.
1. Obama is the President. That is a fact. Obama cannot save. I do not put my faith in Obama.
2. Ford is a company. That is a fact. I put much faith in their manuals that what their manuals say is true and if followed my car will be in good operating condition.
3. The Lord is our Creator. That is fact. He is my Savior, and I have a personal relationship with him. That is also fact. I put my faith and confidence in him that what he says is true and he will do that which he says he will do.

I explained myself without referring to Hebrews.

You don't understand salvation. Neither do you understand the relationship of works to salvation. Salvation is by faith and faith alone.
If a person tells me he is saved by faith in the sacrificial blood of Christ, and described accurately the plan of salvation that he put his trust in, and then lived a homosexual lifestyle, would that individual be truly saved? This was the point that James was making. Works is not a part of salvation. Works was the proof of salvation.
We could only conclude about such an individual:
1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Again, you miss the boat. You neither understand Biblical salvation, nor the relationship it has with works.

It is a big difference. I encounter Catholic after Catholic that know little about their faith, and are completely ignorant about the Bible. But very seldom do I encounter a Baptist that cannot tell me the plan of salvation. That is not so with Catholics. They have no assurance whether they will go to heaven or hell.

Accurate according to your catechism, but inaccurate according to the Bible. Our standard is not the RCC faith, but rather the Bible.

Your misunderstanding on the nature of faith is characterized by your immediate reference to James which is not talking about salvation.
Abraham's faith was predicated on his relationship with God, not on any previous works that he had done. It was predicated on the fact that he had faith in God to begin with; that is that his standing before God was "righteous."
The very next verse says:
Romans 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

And that is what the Bible says:
Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
--Read it carefully.
"to him that worketh not, but believeth...

Works follow faith. They are not part of faith, nor a requirement of salvation. In your example, the action of love follows the verbal expression of love.

If that were true, you would do away with baptismal regeneration, an act of works based salvation. You would do away with the sacraments, examples of works based salvation. Do this; do that and grace will bestowed upon you. That is not true. Trust in Christ by faith, and you will be saved (as it says in Acts 16:31). But you don't believe that. The Bible teaches that works follows salvation, is never part of it.

James does not talk about salvation; thus your confusion.
Salvation is by faith alone. Read Eph.2:8,9 which gives a good description of how one is saved: by grace through faith and not of works. You cannot argue with that Scripture. Then after one is saved, read the 10th verse. After salvation the believer is created "unto good works" not before, not as part of salvation, but after salvation.

Again, what you say is a clear indication that the Catholics have no clear understanding of what faith is.
Faith is not facts, but based on facts. It is not blind but based on the facts of the Word of God, that they are true. That is what Abraham demonstrated.
Then faith is action. It is confidence that God will do what he said in His Word. It is based on those facts. It is also based on the relationship one has with the Savior. But you cannot understand that. It is not based on a relationship with a Catechism, but with the Living God, Jesus Christ, and what he has promised to his children. Your faith is void, vacant, empty, meaningless, based on a man-made fallible document that is not inspired. It is meaningless. It has no more value than my manual to my car.

 

DHK you get worked up and are not even paying attention really to what is said to you or even what you have said. My goal is not to work you up. But you certainly are there. For instance lets look at this post and your above objection. Then look at your other statements

And then you say

Not according to what you have said. So again where is the insult? Whereas, I'm being civil but you aren't look at what you said just in this post.

I have certainly never said these things of you. I have never questioned your faith or your salvation but I guess you feel free to do that to others despite the rules of this board. But to put you right. I certainly do have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I certainly do trust in Jesus Christ atoning blood. I certainly do put my trust entirely in him. I certainly do have a prayer life with Jesus Christ.
Your example

Doesn't follow. Because you imply two things 1) that I believe something because its based soley on fact and that 2) faith is only faith if it is placed on someone who can fulfill promises. To answer your first point faith is not faith if it only relies on facts. In this I will show you Hebrews that faith is the evidence of things not seen. To answer your second point I submit to you that faith is faith it does not matter on whom its placed whether it is faith or not.

Now here your argument is becoming unhinged because you set up a false delemma

Here is where you fall off on this discussion. If you follow the conversation closely we are talking about faith. Not salvation. In fact I suggested to you that we have a different understanding of what faith is. For you it is a strong belief, confidence, etc... I believe that Faith is only completed in Actions. I wasn't speaking to salvation. Thus you've invalidly jump from one topic, namely faith, to another, namely salvation. And clearly didn't really understand what I said. I said James teaches that Faith is completed in the works done accordingly. Now I believe a "Saving Faith" is putting your whole trust in Jesus Christ which is clearly evidenced by the actions you take in obeying Jesus Christ, the Father, living rightly. And since you seem to be all over the place jumping from faith to salvation you miss that in the end you actually agree with my perspective of faith.

which belies your belief that

because even you hold that faith isn't really faith unless it is acted upon. Despite your potestations. Look at what you have said

And of course I would agree with you.
I find it funny that you would say

and then supply

But apart from these discussions you have not encountered me! Yet you personalize the insult. And you wonder that people would say you attack them?

 

TS, think about it. Can you believe in the Islamic system of faith and believe what the Bible says about salvation and be a Christian at the same time? The answer is absolutely not! For one to be a Christian he must forsake the beliefs of Islam and turn to Christianity, just as Saul of Tarsus had to forsake the Jewish religion and turn to Christianity. The two cannot be reconciled. In both Christ is less than deity. There are many other doctrines as well that are at odds with Christianity.

It is my view that one cannot be a Catholic and a Christian at the same time. One must choose between the two systems of belief. For example, the new birth is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without the new birth one cannot enter the kingdom of God or heaven. But the RCC defines the new birth as baptism. That is heresy that simply condemns people to hell.

The new birth is regeneration by the Holy Spirit which cannot happen at infancy, but must happen when a person is old enough to think and reason for themselves. He must be old enough to understand the gospel and say yes to the gospel by receiving Christ as Savior.
These two beliefs are at antipodes with each other.
They can never be reconciled. It is what puts the RCC in a class by itself apart from true Biblical Christianity. One cannot believe in the doctrines of the RCC and be a Christian at the same time. You must choose one or another. You cannot be both. Their systems of belief, like Islam and Christianity, are at odds with each other.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK View Post
I encounter Catholic after Catholic that know little about their faith, and are completely ignorant about the Bible


Response by TS: But apart from these discussions you have not encountered me! Yet you personalize the insult. And you wonder that people would say you attack them?

Really guys what you both are saying has truth in it.....DHK was a Catholic & he lives in Canada which has many Catholics living there. If he makes a statement like that he probably has ample proof to back it up.....maybe even family members.

But TS, lets be honest here for a moment....most of the RC's I know (and this includes my past self) are for the most part functional illiterates when it comes to Scripture & Theology. What they have done (for centuries) is left the interpretation of the gospels to the Clergy & many of them (not all mind you, just many) have used their privileged positions as "Men of God" ah gasp--God help us, to protect their own privileged class to serve its own purposes.... invariably the society at the top! I believe you may have observed this 1st hand at some point in your own life! ;)

Time & again, throughout history, the gospel was read from the side of what protected the privileges of the clergy & wealthy, instead of reading it in all of its daring truth. And by doing these things they keep the laity eternally dependent on them for salvation.

So again, for the most part DHK is right, but for a character like you TS who is educated, been around the block a bit theologically & wants to evoke change in the RCC, you will have to face some of these dark sins of past & work to put them right. How you do this my brother, Ive no clue. But I dont think you will make much headway attempting to convince Baptists of your cause. We know who & what the RCC is & most of it is deceptive. I would encourage you to start doing what I do,IE., look to convert every RC to your cause & start a following..... in my case it will be Radical Fundamental Christians ....perhaps you can do the same. Then we wouldn't be diametrically apposed. :thumbs:

 

official catholic doctrine/dogma states that NONE can be saved apart from partaking of the sacramental grace offerred to them thru the RCC, that the Cross of Christ does NOT satisfy fully wrath of God, for a sinner MUST get themselves spiritually right enough to have God being able to actually see them as just and rightious and than will save them in the end!

we MUST co assist the lord to save us, as he provoded jesus on the Cross AND Sacramnets, but unless we do "our part' will NOT be save din the end!

 

If I were a Christian in Canada, I'm not sure what my viewpoint would be toward the Catholic Church or Protestant churches either, for that matter. The United Church of Canada is a real gem, isn't it? The average age of its members is 65. They believe in many things, but they do not necessarily believe in God. Some congregations proudly describe themselves as “post-theistic
Then there is the Anglican Church of Canda. Not far from the United Church theologically. There are some exceptions (like N.T. Wright) but mostly protestantism in Canada is dying and I think that considering it's message (or lack of one) that is a good thing.
I wonder what my opinion of Catholicism would be if I constantly encountered the type of Catholics in Canada, like DHK does, that at best could be described as 'cultural Catholics'. I did live and work in the Northeast in Trenton, N.J. where I heard John Spong give a lectures series with Matthew Fox (before the Catholic Church gave him the boot) and worked upstate New York for some time for the Friars of Atonement, so I can understand where EWF is coming from as well. I mentioned on another thread what my experience was like growing up within evangelical churches that began calling pastors from seminaries that had become liberal. Although claiming to be evangelical, they gradually adopted a liberal agenda. I started attending an Ev. Free church that had previously been PCUSA and which pulled out of that denomination for the same reasons. However, it was at the Baptist church I was raised in that I first encountered the uncanny ability of Biblical Christianities cultured despisers to always win arguments. "So Blue State Jesus, gay Jesus, married Jesus, myth Jesus, merely human Jesus, gnostic Jesus, any ol' Jesus that can breathe and speak deception to the world. He/she/it is so convincing - news magazines, Dan Brown novels, the History Channel and the internet all prove he/she/it - and our puny assertions of Biblical truth just seemed to be no match".
I try to read posts by people who have had some of the same experiences as I have and I think it makes it easier to understand how they have reached their conclusions regarding the Catholic Church. Catholics where I live now are much more knowledgeable of their faith and the scriptures than those I encountered in the Northeast. I suspect properly catechised Catholics in Canada are fairly rare.

 

And Yeshua, what would be the MOTIVE for the RCC to being linked to the laity every single step of the way of a members salvation? Would you venture to provide a guess?

 

your saying that Catholics who have lived with the RCC are more educated in their faith & the scriptures? OK how so & then where are they getting their instruction from?

 

They are as liberal as one can be denying the very fundamentals of the faith. Their emphasis is on social activity, not spiritual activity.

Most of the Anglican churches I know of don't differ much from the Catholic churches. There is a movement to try to unite the two back together.

The point I would make in the comparison is this:
The "nominal" Catholic is illiterate concerning the Bible, and often ignorant concerning his own faith as well.
The "nominal" Baptist will at least be able to explain the way of salvation, be familiar somewhat with the Bible, and know a little about his faith. He may not be a theologian, may only attend church two or three times a year, but he will be able to tell you something about salvation and his faith--considerably more in comparison than the average Catholic.

I would advise you to stay away from such "Baptists," as would most people on this board. There is a philosophy that the means justifies the ends. That of course is not true. Charles Finney was an evangelist who believed that just doing anything possible to get the person down to the altar to say a prayer was the primary purpose. He had many decisions, but of course not all were saved. That type of philosophy has been continued in some groups today. I don't agree with it.
There is only one Christ. He is defined quite accurately in the Word of God. That is the Christ that we must believe in. The Bible says:

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
--If he is the gnostic Jesus, the mythical Jesus, etc., then he is not bringing the doctrine of Christ. Don't even allow him into your house. Don't even say "good-bye" (God-be-with-ye) to him.

Maybe they are. And maybe Muslims are more knowledgeable about theirs as well. That doesn't make them right.

 

Walter, one problem that you have stands out immediately. It is not the Catholic [Universal} Church it is the ROMAN Catholic Church. Of course this is a mistaken view of most in the RCC!

I have challenged your view regarding the RCC as being less liberal than other denominations. I repeat a part of that post for your edification!

The list of deviations within the RCC from the Church established by Jesus Christ is almost endless. As for Biblical Truth the Teaching Magisterium trumps Biblical Truth. That the pope stands in Jesus Christ's stead on earth is Blasphemy. That priests are able to grant absolution is Blasphemy.

Consider the following statement of Jesus Christ:

Matthew 8:20. And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

and contrast that with the historic and current opulence of the papacy!

 

I've considered what you have to say. This is my conclusion after considering what you have to say. First of all to equate Catholicism with Islam is not only unwarrented but shows a total ignorance of Catholic belief. Catholics and Muslims aren't even alike. And to hold that Catholics aren't Christian is beyond the pale. Let me point out some facts for you that doesn't require faith just some knowledge.

If it weren't for the Roman Catholic Church DHK you and I am pointing you out. Would not be Christian. Why is this so? Well let me point some things.
1. It wasn't baptist congregations that united and defined the Trinity as Orthodox doctrine but Catholic ( I inlcude Orthodox because this was before the Catholic/Orthodox schizm). Yes Catholics preserved Orthodox teaching about the Trinity nature of God and the Nature of Christ. Otherwise all Christians today may very well be closer to Muslims in following Arius' teachings.
2. It wasn't Baptist Congregations that preserved Scripture in the West which eventually became accessable to everyone. Also it was Catholic Monks who painstakenly copied and preserved scripture for the Catholic Church. Had it not been for the Catholic Church, Europe (and I'm suspecting you are European decent) would never have been familiarized with the scriptures at all.
3. It wasn't Baptist Congregations that converted Europe to Christianity. If it hadn't been for the Roman Catholic Church that purposely went out evangelizing Europe; Europe would be no better off than Afganistan, or Pakistan. It wasn't the Baptist that Gentiled the roving bands of Vikings believing that Ragnarok was just around the corner raping and pilaging. It was the Catholics. Europe would still be in its tribalism. Had it not been for the Catholic Church converting all of Europe to Christianity there wouldn't have been a reformation and decenters from the Catholic Church culminating the the formation of the Baptist. So you wouldn't even have been Baptist much less Christian.
4. It wasn't Baptist Congregations that created the University system of education. If it weren't for the Roman Catholic Church Charlemagne would have seen no reason to create the University System in order to educate his people on understanding their Christian faith and the study of scripture. Better known as The Carolingian Renaissance. Europe would be today as they were then highly illiterate. Thus the bible wouldn't even have been and issue because not only would Europe not have access to the scripture but they wouldn't have been able to read it if some how it had. Also education wouldn't have been as prized in Europe as it became because of the University system and very possibly the "New World" would never have been found and the American Natives like the Maya would still be making human sacrifice and the North American Natives would have continued as they always have as hunter gatherer societies being anamist in beliefs. Thus Canada and the United States would never have come into existance. Much of the modern world's value of life and other moral sensibilities are due to Roman Catholic influence on Europe. It was the Roman Catholic Church that Gentiled Europe and allowed for the spread of Christianity.

So I find your assertion to be invalid.

 

I don't disagree there are a lot of marginal Catholics who don't know their faith which includes the Christian message. Many of these people who call themselves Catholics are only Catholics in a cultural sense not really in faith which is why so many of them don't have faith. But because one doesn't know their faith doesn't make the faith invalid just unknown. These people that DHK, you and I speak of aren't even really Christian they are secularist in reality. You may not know missionary kids as well as I since I grew up around them. What suprised me about many of them is that they were secularist. They knew what their parents taught and how much their parents gave up to teach the gospel but they had no more than a cursory understanding of it because they personally rejected it not outright but to the point where it affects their lives. Some still go to church and others do not. And if they don't teach it to their Children and no one from outside teaches them what will happen eventually? Well we see it happening right now all across the country. America is no longer Christian but secular. It use to be Christian but not now. The "man in the street" is generally very ignorant of Christian teachings. There was a day when this wasn't so. But now it is. I submit to you this is the issue with secular Catholics. However, I assure you that there are Catholics going against this trend. Many of my highschool classmates who were missionary kids are divorsed and remarried. When I ask them if they go to church today I hear that they don't because they really haven't found one they like and well its not really a priority for them. But ask them and they will tell you they are still Christian. That is not to say some have actually become missionaries themselves but these are fewer. And finally with Canada I was doing some research and the Government there has made preaching certain Catholic truths in the pulpit punishable by imprisonment or heafty fines. Unfortunately for that Country they don't protect freedom of speach like here in the US. Canada is on the decline as far as Christianity is conserned. Soon it will be illegal to be Catholic or Christian (Baptist for that matter) there. Unless the clergy is approved by the state. Canada will find itself in the same position as China. Where the Offical Catholic Church in China isn't really Catholic because all the government appointed bishops were not appointed by the Catholic Church and those Bishops who were appointed by the Catholic Church are under arrest for not holding to the government line. So all the visible Catholic Churches are being lead by bishops who aren't even Catholic. This is what will happen in Canada. So it is no suprise to me that Canadian "Catholics" aren't really Catholic.

 

When you say something is official please site the source otherwise you're just repeating heresay. Because the offical document may differ from what you have stated. In other words you are just repeating what someone else told you and you really have only done a cursory review rather than study but you try to sound as if you had by saying "official". The truth is you couldn't tell me what was official and what isn't official or even what documents to turn to, to determine what is official. I'm saying this to protect you from looking silly by making these statements.

 

EWF, I know its been a while since you were Catholic and you have many preconceived ideas from your own experience. But if I may assist you with this question. Most Catholics I know don't really have an interest in their own faith. They generally warm the pew so to speak. Have you ever availed yourself of Catholic training from your diocese? Why don't you find out whether I'm telling the truth? Call to speak with someone from your diocese to see what Catholics are teaching. I know in my area there is a conserted effort to get accurate Catholic teaching out focusing on the "marginal catholics". Just find out for yourself. Feel free to disagree but at least know rather than depend on past experiences.