Featured Pope Francis gives church hundreds of new saints...

I am glad that God saves many out of the Catholic church.At least they learn about the trinity.The fact that they are biblically ignorant leaves them vulnerable to the cults.
That anyone would appeal to Jn3 for baptismal regeneration shows they are devoid of truth absolutely.
Think about the false "popes" waking up everyday knowing they are living a lie and are devoid of the Spirit.
For my catholic friends who post here.....be honest with yourself.When you attend your meetings.....watch the people looking at their watches waiting to...get it over with!
After the idolatrous mass...they run to their cars...no biblical conversation to be had...

Do they still follow the St.joseph missal? On your jobs...the guy cursing the most is the catholic guy. The guy telling the dirty jokes is the catholic guy...then when he lays in his casket...the ungodly priest says...he was born again by his baptism......sure he was....and in hell being in torment he would like to send someone back to warn his brothers like in lk 16.
I am not anti catholic.....I am anti rc church because of its idolatry.
The priest told me I was a separated brethren.....but salvation came to me in my twenties.....not my christening,first communion, or bogus confirmation.

 

Hello WM,
No not at all....It would say to me that just because you were brought into a baptist church does not mean that you have a saving relationship with Jesus as Lord. I would like for you to trust in His perfect work as I would all cradle catholics to do.
My post you will find unfortunately to be right on point.
Next time you go to a "mass"....see if what I say is not true...be honest.

The fact that some of you come to post is good, however the fact that many more are not here shows they have no interest in the truth of God.

Most that speak on catholic answers are protestant apostates....they learned a little religion in a baptist, or protestant church....drifted into a roman church were they an feel like they know something more than the congregation of the dead they sit with.....I know all about it my friend.

 

Try not to take the Lords name in vain when you post.

 

For you my friend:
Quest. 49: What is the significance of the Third Commandment?
Ans: The Third Commandment requires the holy and reverent use of
God’s names, titles, attributes, word, works, and institutions,
and prohibits their profanation in any way.
See also: Lev. 19:12; 24:10–14; Deut. 6:13; 23:21; 28:58; Psa. 8:1; 20:1;
29:2; 68:4; 109:17–18; 138:2; Prov. 30:8–9; Eccl. 5:1–6; Isa. 48:1–2;
65:16; Jer. 23:10–11; Ezk. 36:23; Matt. 5:37; 6:9; 7:21–23; 12:36–37; Lk.
6:46; Jn. 17:6; Acts 1:8; 4:12; 9:15–16; Rom. 2:24; 3:13–14; 2 Cor. 5:20;
Phil. 2:9–11; Col. 3:17; 2 Tim. 2:19; Titus 2:5; Rev. 13:5–6; 15:4.
COMMENTARY
This Commandment is two–fold in its analysis: first, a perpetual
prohibition declared. God’s name is not to be taken in any way less than that
which properly and reverently reflects his true nature, worth, honor, glory and
majesty. Second, a warning issued: Divine judgment or chastening is a
certainty for the profaner.
The First Commandment reveals the Object of our worship—the one true
God; the Second, the mode of our worship—true spirituality; the Third, our
inward attitude toward God in worship—true reverence, or a proper frame of
spirit.
98
There are many ways in which God’s name can be taken in vain: in
thought, word, or deed. Blasphemy, profanity, swearing and cursing are the
four major explicit means of violating this Commandment. Lightness or
frivolity concerning God’s name is also forbidden, as is hypocrisy in religious
profession. Demeaning God’s Word is also necessarily included in this
prohibition, as is invoking his name in prayer when praying in either self–will
or in a manner inconsistent with his nature and character (Matt. 6:9). See
Question 101.
There are several common ways in which God’s name is taken in vain:
first, blasphemy, railing or reviling is willful, injurious speech against the
majesty of God (Matt. 12:24–32; Rom. 2:21–24).
Second, profanity, which presupposes God’s name. Profanity specifically
refers to the irreverent use of God’s name or religious objects. The term
derives from pro, “before,” and fanum, “temple, shrine, sanctuary,” and thus
before [or outside] the temple [abode of the “god”] and hence “common,
secular, outside the realm of God.” God, however, is the God of all created
reality, omnipresent, immense and immanent. There is nothing apart from
him, nothing secular, common or profane. Thus, to profane anything
associated with God is to take his name in vain (Matt. 5:33–37).
Third, swearing an oath. Swearing may refer to coarse language in
general, but it refers specifically to an oath which invokes or refers to the
name of God or some religious object as a means of enforcing one’s veracity
or determination. Swearing an oath may be either righteous and legitimate or
sinful, i.e., taking God’s name in vain (1 Sam. 14:44; 1 Kgs. 17:1; Matt. 5:33–
37). A Christian is to be taken at his word, and therefore is not to swear by
anything or anyone (Matt. 5:33–37).
Fourth, cursing, which may refer to coarse language in general, but it
technically refers to calling down the wrath or judgment of God upon an
enemy or evil–doer. Cursing may be either legitimate or sinful (Lev. 24:11;
Numb. 23:8; Dt. 27:15–25; Josh. 6:26; 1 Sam. 17:43; 2 Kgs. 2:23–24; 2 Tim.
4:14).
Cursing is the most useless and senseless of sins. Unlike idolatry, it is
transparently irreligious and immediately reveals the hypocrite. Unlike
murder, there is not even the possible momentary satisfaction of revenge.
Unlike lying or stealing, it brings not even temporary advantage. Unlike
immorality, it brings no momentary pleasure whatsoever, nor does it satisfy
any lust. Unlike covetousness, which is necessarily thoughtful, it is irrational
and unthinking. Why, then, is cursing so prevalent? Mankind, created in the
image of God, has the gift of speech to praise God and communicate with one
another. Blasphemy, cursing or swearing is the awful expression of depraved
sinners who are spiritually impotent to create, and can only articulate the
frustration of their perverted “god–complex” by vocalizing their hatred and
disdain for both God and man in wicked and destructive terms. Words
become weapons, oaths become frustrated incantations and cursing becomes a
99
perverted theology of self–destruction. The very gift of speech, meant to
declare God’s truth and make society coherent, rather profanes God’s name,
perverts the truth and fragments society (Rom. 3:13–14).

 

I was born a RC.....have a second cousin who is a nun..who speaks on telecare,so I think I know about it.I cannot judge your heart WM, but I can judge your posts. What you are posting cries out for help.No one who understands grace would go to a works gospel ,which is no gospel at all.
If the time comes that you want help. I would be glad to help.
It grieves me to hear people turn away from truth.

 

Yeah, your not anti-Catholic :laugh:

I, too, was saved out of the Baptist church into the Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. My conversion has brought me into a closer relationship with the Lord Jesus than I ever had as Baptist. BTW, the guy telling the dirtiest jokes in my neighborhood says he is 'a bible believing Baptist'.

 

To qualify as "apostolic", a church must hold to apostolic doctrine. That disqualifies the RCC. Unless you can find Mariolatry, popes, papal infallibility, and other such inventions and innovations in the apostolic writings, the scriptures.

Walter, I believe you are genuine, but if you wanted ancient Catholicism (with a capital 'C'), you should have gone to Eastern Orthodoxy or Old Catholicism which have not adopted Roman innovations and development of doctrine.

 

I want to point out that I don't think you are knowledgeable about the Old Catholic Church. If you actually knew it I don't think you would have lumped it into the same category with the Orthodox Church. This Church is actually a relatively new development. Members from the see of Utrecht. There separation came in 1870 over Vatican I declaration of Papal infallibility. They uphold The Eucharist. But more to the point as a denomination they have become just as liberal (if not more so) as the Anglican Church and in fact are in full communion with the Anglican Church.

However, I find it interesting that you would suggest Walter to go Orthodox or Old Catholic if he wanted to get to the original Church. Here is my point about that. Both Orthodox and Old Catholics hold that the Eucharist is the very presence of Jesus Christ. They uphold a liturgy for worship. Orthodox have Marian Veneration (though admittedly not the same dogmas). How then do you reconcile these practices and beliefs which are more in line with Catholic Teaching than Baptist teaching? Especially if your referring to the ancient church?

 

I am very knowledgeable about Old Catholicism. I wasn't referring to Utrecht. They are apostate. There are many orthodox Old Catholics. The reason they call themselves "Old Catholic" is because they seek to practice Catholicism apart from Roman innovations.

Believe it or not, I am able to be objective, especially as it comes to my area(s) of study: Church history and theology. If one does not wish to be Baptist but is attracted to Catholicism, there are several options that are much closer to the ancient church than the RCC, and I was pointing those out to Walter. I could also add Continuing Anglicanism of the High Church variety - conservative in theology and morals, liturgical, traditional. If I wanted to be Catholic, I would go with one of these groups I have mentioned.

That is my objective analysis. Now, personally, I am too attached to Baptist principles to give them up for Catholicism, attached to the "General" variety of Baptists, that is.

 

WM - thank you for sharing this.

Ok so we can all agree that name-calling does not prove one's doctrine to be correct. It did not work in the dark ages to stop the reformation and it does not solve anything today.

And we can all agree that the sola-scriptura testing model is much preferred over a lemming followership of "we agree we all say we a right so we must be right" model.

I am just not sure how that would lead to the Catholic solution as the solution for the problem.

When you say "early church" do you mean first century church?

in Christ,

Bob

 

I went to my nephew's first communion last Sunday. Not only does he have no idea what the meaning is behind it, that was the most dead and robotic service I have ever been to! It was like the zombie apocalypse inside of 4 stained glass windowed walls! The idols adjoining the halls made me want to puke. The lack of love from the hundreds there is telling. I feel bad for you new 'converts'. My wife, an ex catholic, felt uneasy and mentioned how cold and dead everything felt.

 

Walter,

I am for catholics and would like for them to trust in Jesus perfect work on the cross.

Were you born again in the baptist church? Are you saying that you were saved as a baptist, and then converted?

The only time there will be One Holy Church is In heaven on the last day, when it assembles.:thumbs:

I have spoken to many catholic priests.....it was shocking what they had to say.My second cousin the nun.....has many unscriptural ideas that she has promoted on telicare.....

http://ncronline.org/authors/sr-camille-darienzo

 

No...when works are looked at as meritorious they trust in Jesus ...Plus....

Hebrews 10:10-14 is clear......It was a once for all time never to be repeated sacrifice.....

no unbloody re-offering of any.mass...


Were you saved in the baptist church??? I did not see your response:thumbs: