The Truth about the RCC

Honestly DHK, I believe you’ve confused me with “mes228”. I believe he claimed the popes have only spoken ex cathedra 13 times, but he said he wasn’t sure. I was only agreeing in regard to his overall assessment.

But to answer your question, this may help. When the pope speaks ex cathedra, he’s NOT adding any new doctrine to the deposit of faith given by Christ to His Church. The pope is merely stating more clearly and explicitly some truth, which was, from the beginning, a part of the deposit of faith. To clarify, the US Supreme Court doesn’t add to the Constitution by its decisions, but simply states the meaning of a certain clause with reference to certain conditions.

So DHK, you say you were Catholic for 20 some odd years. Did you never study the Catholic faith seriously before you left or were you just so blindsided that you took the word of whoever witnessed to you?
-

 

I studied it quite thoroughly. I know what the catechism says. I have a copy of the documents of Vatican II, and am familiar with their contents. I am familiar with the contents of what was dereed at the Council of Trent. And I am very familiar with the history of the RCC, from both sides of the story--the RCC version and the actual historical version.
But I also know my Bible. That is what I know best. And that is what matters the most. I ask you these questions to try to get you to see the inconsistencies of the RCC position; to make you think. Think about it. If there were only 13 (or whatever) infallible decrees made, does that not logically mean that all other statements of doctrine are not infallible, and on those grounds can be challenged. How then can you be sure that the RCC doctrine is grounded in truth. I know what was indoctrinated into me. I know now that it was false.

Here is the truth:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--There is no light in the RCC. They do not speak according to "this word." Their man-made doctrines cannot be found in the Word of God.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--The basis of sola scriptura--that "damnable" doctrine which the RCC hates; that doctrine which teaches believers to study the Bible (which the RCC has traditionally taught their followers not to do).
My own personal testimony: Because I studied and searched the Scriptures daily, and compared them to RCC teachings, I was left with no other choice but to leave the RCC church. It was either follow God or the RCC. I chose God.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--Again, this verse is discouraged from the followers of the RCC. They are not encouraged to study their Bibles, but rather listen to the priest's homilies, and his interpretation of the Bible only--a faulty interpretation.

I can keep on listing more. This should be enough for now.

 

I thought I explained this through the authoritative nature of the one deposit of faith, but I'll expound a little more. This one deposit of faith is contained in both the written word of God and in Tradition. The fullness of Christ’s revelation is the one deposit of faith. To ensure the unity of faith, the Magisterium of the Church has the task of interpreting the deposit of faith and applying it to specific times and circumstances.

Often times the Magisterium of the Church has to offer a solemn definition on matters pertaining to faith and or morals, which is what Catholics refer to Ex Cathedra. These definitions provide absolute certainty that the teaching belongs to the deposit of faith.

In other instances, the Magisterium identifies the truth found in the deposit of faith without providing a solemn definition; mainly b/c there’s been no question. You’re familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a lot of what written therein hasn’t been solemnly defined, but the teaching found within cannot be changed b/c it’s true and considered infallible.
-

 

The Catechism has changed since I was a Catholic. That fact in itself shows that Catholic doctrine is not infallible. It changes according to the dictates and will and whim of the RCC. So when did the Catholic Church decide that the Muslims were saved? It was not when I was a Catholic. This is something that is newly added to the Catholic Church. And of course, since Islam has only existed since the seventh century you certainly can't consult the ECF for that one. Where do you (the RCC) dream up these doctrines (even the ones in the Catechism).

The difference between understanding the catechism before and after I was saved, is that after I was saved I learned to think about things more rationally and objectively. I was no longer being spoon-fed mindlessly accepting everything that the RCC taught. Thus it didn't take long to leave it.

Again, This statement was not in the Catechism that I ever studied:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#841

The Catholic Church changes. The Bible never.

 

Agnus Dei...

DHK posted....

And you turned right around and said...

Agnus, you seem to have the classic symptoms of one who has been brainwashed. You sound just like the "moonies" would sound when christians (or even the de-programmers) would try to get them to see truth.

DHK posted the scriptures...and there are sooo many more...that make clear that we are all...ALL OF US...to turn to Gods scriptures alone seeking authoritative truth, with the Holy Spirit as our guide. He posted the scriptures.

And the scriptures also make clear in Mark that we are NOT to heed Tradition equal to scripture...

"5 "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.

7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’[a]
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men[b]—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do."
9 He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[c] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[d]
11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"—’ (that is, a gift to God),
12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother,
13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

You on the other hand, by regurgitating the Catholic propaganda you have been indoctrinated with, say...

I dont know how Catholics can not see such a blatant lie that they have been told, apart from some sort of brainwashing.

That is a demonic lie. The Jehovahs Witnesses have their "Magesterium", called the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. They do the thinking for their people, as the Catholic Church does the thinking for theirs. Jim Jones was the "Magesterium" for his group. He did the thinking for them. David Koresh was the "Magesterium" for his group. Mary Baker Eddy is the "Magesterium" for the Christian Science group. Rev Sun Yung Moon was the "Magesterium" for the Moonies.

ALL cultic groups command their people...

"YOU can not interpret the scriptures! We are to do that. WE are the ONLY ONES who are ordained to do that. WE TELL YOU WHAT THE TRUTH IS and YOU believe as we tell you to believe."

It is a very very sad thing to see this going on right before our eyes, and when we try to help those trapped they wont hear.

Please heed what is being said on these threads, Agnus. We are trying to help you and so many others.

Mike

 

Agnus Dei...

100% irelavent. The amount of time an organisation has been around means absolutly NOTHING. I recently spent several years fellowshipping at a non-denominational fellowship that started in 1991. And yet it was one of the most vibrant and spiritually alive fellowships I have ever been a part of.

There is only one group of christian people that belong to God on this planet, Agnus. And that group of people are known as...


(Drum roll, please)


All the CHRISTIANS.


The denominational group they individually are a part of means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Mike

 

Mike,

You rightly brought the Bible verses.

Agnus may have some vision problem, so we must provide him special services for him to read the Bible.

Mark 7:
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’[a]
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men[b]—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do."
9 He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[c] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[d]
11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"—’ (that is, a gift to God),
12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother,
13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."


This is why I emphasize that the Catholics must read the Bible for themselves alone without any assistance from anyone else, because they may be brainwashed if they are taught by others.

I have never met any Catholic who read the Bible alone, for herself or for himself.

RCC say that the Bible should be read with the assistance by the priests.

RCC people have been well trained to reject the Words of God.

RCC people are well brainwashed to disbelieve that they are already brainwashed but to believe that they always need to be brainwashed by their false teachers.

If my statements are thought to be wrong, please read the Bible for yourself alone. Read the Gospel John and Romans first, then the rest of the Gospels and the whole New Testaments seriously, Read King James Version or New King James Version. They will convict you of various sins, then you will be really saved. You will have much different view for the faith.

 

So far RCC confirmed that the Assumption of Mary and Immaculate Conception of Mary are the Infallible Doctrine ex cathedra.

So far they never provided the list of Infallible Dogma issued by Pope EX Cathedra.

They never confirmed whether Papal Infallibility issued in 1854 and confirmed at the Council in 1870 was issued from EX Cathedra.

So, they still leave the possibility to admit that Papal Infallibility can be Fallible because it was not issued from Ex Cathedra.

RCC change their doctrines or their dogma all the time to suite their needs.

If they had issued such dogma during Dark Ages, they would have not backed off to " Only Papal Bulls Ex Cathedra"

They try to re-write the history to heal their wounds now, and may succeed in doing so, to the eyes of many foolish people.

 

DHK: I find it hard to believe that a former Catholic would be confused regarding the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). Apparently DHK, you weren’t that of a ‘devout Catholic’ growing up.

First the CCC is not a freshly drafted document, but rather a synthesis of other documents. That should be evident to anyone that studies the ‘footnotes’ and I’m big on footnotes and sources so I can verify what I’m reading.

The question you have surrounding CCC 841, is a quotation taken wholly from Vatican II. Since you were a former Catholic I should direct you to look at Lumen Gentium (LG), the Vatican II document from which this (CCC 841) was taken from and you’ll be surprised to learn that the phrase is not meant to say that Islam is a method of salvation parallel to Christianity.

Here’s the link to Lumen Gentium, the quote you have questioned comes from LG 16, but it’s a part of a larger context in the document. So back-up to LG 13 and read forward to LG 16.

If you need some help putting the sections in context, I’ll be happy to help you out. But as a former Catholic, you shouldn’t need any.
-

 

Vatican II was still a relatively new document when I was saved. Thus I will stand by statement. In the catechism I studied there was no mention of the Muslims ever having a chance of salvation. Even for the Catholics to suggest as much is heresy. It negates the very words of Jesus in John 14:6 who said:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me.

 

Again as a former Catholics, DHK and D28guy, are really without excuse, for they should be familiar with Tradition (Big “T”) and tradition (small “t”). I’ve covered these differences in other threads, but they’re either ignored or overlooked, so again, I’ll explain:

The big “T” Tradition is the tool by which the Church has determined correct Christian teaching. Tradition is determined by 3 things: 1) Antiquity (what has been believed from the very beginning), 2) Universality (what has been believed by all Christians everywhere) and 3) Consensus (what has been agreed to be Orthodoxy, especially by the Church Councils and Fathers).

When we read of Jesus condemning tradition, He’s condemning the small “t” traditions of men that have corrupted practices of doctrines. Jesus wasn’t attacking Christian Tradition, b/c Jesus started that oral Tradition, 1 Corinthians 11:23, we see Paul pass on that oral Tradition.

In Acts 16:4, we read how the decree of the Jerusalem synod regarding the status of the Gentiles in the Church was delivered or Traditioned to the Churches which Paul had established on his first Missionary journey. In Corinthians 11:2, Paul praises the Corinthian Church for keeping the Traditions just as he had delivered them to the Church. Also in 1 Corinthians 11:23, Paul indicates that what was handed down to him in regard to the Lord’s Supper, he likewise passed on to the Corinthians.

In 2 Timothy 2:2, we see how oral Tradition was to be handed on in Apostolic succession. Paul instructed Timothy to orally commit what he had been taught by Paul to other bishops and hand on the Christian truth through Scripture and Oral Tradition.

Stand firm and hold to the tradition which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or epistle. (2 Thess 2:15)​

Likewise, the Catholic Church has been handing on that Tradition in written form (Sacred Scripture) and oral form (Sacred Tradition). Christian truths were preached orally.

So by faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by preaching Christ. (Romans 10:17)​

We also learn from Scripture that many of Christ’s teachings were not recorded in Scripture: …with many such parables he spoke to them…(Mark 4:33) …He began to teach many things…(Mark 6:34), but we are not told what Jesus taught here. Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book (John 20:30) But there are many other things which Jesus did, were every one of them to be written…the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25). So it’s safe to say that the world could never hold the books that could be written on what Jesus said, because He preached for over 3 years before He Ascended into Heaven. In Acts 2:42, Christians devoted themselves to the Apostles teachings years before the completed cannon of the Bible.
-

 

Agnus,

What if you find the contradiction between the written Bible and the oral traditon?

What if Buddhists bring some tradition and say that it is the tradition taught by Jesus as well ?

The traditions which we should keep are already written in the Bible such as Head-Covering. Lord Supper itself is not the tradition but the written commandment.

We are talking about human traditions which are contradictory.

 

Agnus Dei...

With all due repect, all of that "Big T" vs "little t" gobbledegoop goes in one ear and out the other. That is a bunch of complete nonsense that the Catholic Church apologists have come up with to try to wiggle out of the fact that the scriptures condemn their lifting Catholic tradition to an equal place as scripture.

And the scriptures alone were the source of their truth.

And the source of those "traditions" would have been found in the scriptures alone.

And that would be truth found clearly in Gods scriptures.

And those oral traditions would have been the oral articulation of clear scriptural truth.

Yes, to orally proclaim clear scriptural truth.

Scriptural truth is truth wether it is given in written form or articulated verbally.

No.

What the Catholic Church does...for 1600 or so years now...is to DREAM UP STUFF out of the clear blue sky that has not a SHRED of scriptural support whatsoever, and then proclaim to their victims that they must hold it to be true because they have decided to call it "tradition".

Our Lord in Mark 7 CONDEMNS this practice that is so prevalent in the Catholic Church...

"6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’[a]
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men[b]—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do."
9 He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[c] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[d]
11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."."



To repeat what I said earlier, what the Catholic Church does...for 1600 or so years now...is to DREAM UP STUFF out of the clear blue sky that has not a SHRED of scriptural support whatsoever, and then proclaim to their victims that they must hold it to be true because they have decided to call it "tradition".

And what are some of those traditions?...

The assumption of Mary
The perpetual virginity of Mary
The *supposed* sinlessness of Mary
Magic trinkets, scapulars, little statues and holy water
Priests with magic powers who can turn crackers into Jesus and wine into His blood.
Catholics praying to, and asking favors from, human beings who have died rather than to God.
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

And why do Catholics believe such utterly ridiculous nonsense?

Because the CATHOLIC CHURCH has told them that all of this is part of the "Holy Tradition" that takes the place of scriptural truth, and renders it of no effect.

Sadly,

Mike

 

Agnus Dei...

YES!

And THAT is...*PRECISELY*...what the Catholic Church has been doing for 1600 years now. The Catholic Church has been practicing and teaching traditions of men that have been "corrupted practices and doctrines" that are not of God.

And every bit of that "oral tradition" would have been a tradition that was an articulation of truth found in the old testament scriptures, or it was truth that would be found in the new testament scriptures a few years later.

The Epistles...

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reprooof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work."

The Old Testament...

"To the Law and to the testimony. If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Acts...

"And these were more fairminded, in that they searched the scriptures daily, to see wether these things be so."

God bless,

Mike

 

Please, put it in context. I read LG13-16 and it still says Mohamadians are part of salvation. Could you explain how the Catholic Church came up with this?

 

He can't without a clear contradiction of God's Word which says:

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
--Of course "that name" to the Muslims would be "Allah and his prophet Mohammed," blasphemy according to the Word of God.

And:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
--There is no getting around that statement by Christ Himself.

 

Agnus is a Gentleman, not Agnes.