The Truth about the RCC

When a Pope Asks Forgiveness, a book collecting no less than ninety?four statements of John Paul II expressing sorrow or repentance for corporate sins in which Christians and Catholics have been implicated. In addition to anti?Semitism and the Inquisition, this book deals with topics as diverse as the Crusades, dictatorships, divisions among Christians, discrimination against women, religious and secular wars, coercion of consciences, colonial oppression, black and Indian slavery, the Mafia, the genocide in Rwanda, and resistance to new scientific discoveries (Galileo, Darwin, and others). The Pope?s statements on these points are quite diverse in character, as might be expected because of differences in the Church?s relationship to each of these issues. It would be too much to say that in each case the Pope has pronounced a mea culpa on behalf of the Church.

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9812/articles/dulles.html

Why should Pope John Paul have asked for the forgiveness for their church?Why did he try to include the Protestant Churches there?

 

Why did Pope John Paul apologize for the past?

Why don't Catholics know about what the Pope apologized?

Isn't it because such apology was not sufficient?

CNN Report

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/12/sun.02.html

 

A ridiculous ignorance about the historical facts.
Only a small fraction of them reached Jerusalem, most of the expeditions were not even directed there but to Egypt or Byzantium, raping women and killing the innocent Jewish and Muslim civilian people. Once the focus was not to the Middle East, but to the Southern France where the Albigene Christian believers lived, and the catholic condemned them as Heretics and slaughtered them.
Contracting with Venentian merchants etc.

Does God teach raping the women? Does God teach this ?

Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

Albigensian Crusade
Main article: Albigensian Crusade
The Albigensian Crusade was launched in 1209 to eliminate the heretical Cathars of Occitania (the south of modern-day France). It was a decades-long struggle that had much more to do with the concerns of northern France to extend its control southwards than it did with heresy. In the end, both the Cathars and the independence of southern France were exterminated.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade


Today, RCC accuse Albigenes of what they never believed, never claimed after their ancestors killed them and destroyed their writings. But we are very sure that they were Bible Believers and spent most time preaching the Gospels, and for translating the Bibles.

 

Rcc

Eliyahu, sorry for the delayed reply, I've been out of town. I checked your link to Baptist History. I've encountered this history in every charismatic church I've attended, every SDA Church I've attended, every cult I've looked into. It's very, very common to most non-mainstream religions. Here's a partial list of churches that have "ripped off" that "history". I have no idea which was first (the chicken or the egg so to speak) whether the Baptist ripped someone off, or the multitudes ripped off the Baptist. Also I am not Catholic, I really am Baptist. But I am more inclined to the positions of the SBC than some Independent Baptist. Please forgive me as I do feel inclined to point out errors that I've been involved in and taught others. The awful truth is several common teachings (not official doctrines of the Baptist) are heretical, un-founded in scripture, and no honest Theologian or Scholar could embrace them. These are mostly embraced by Baptist taught only in Baptist Seminaries or instructed as laymen via sermons from trusted teachers/Ministers. All Baptist think "they are right, and have the "truth" of scripture". Sadly, they are often wrong. All the Churches listed below are pretty much cults that have the same "history" for their group as the referenced site.

Restoration Church of God, Sabatarian, Fountain Of Life Fellowship, Restoration Fellowship, The Total Truth, Seventh Era Church, Baltimore Church of God, Great Lakes Society For Bibilical Research, Associated Church Inc., Association for Bible Christians, Church of Eternal God, Giving & Sharing, Church of El Shaddai, liberty Foundation, Assembly of God, Disciples of God, Church of the Saviour, Berean Church, Family Church of God, Alpha & Omega Church, Community Church of God, Congregational Church of God, Church of the Messenger, Church of God Within,
House of Yawheh, Church of Kelowna, Patriot Of the Kingdom, Everlasting Church,
Pathway.....(and I'm sure thousands more).

Most of the above are from the different Churches of God with a few cults thrown in. That I'm aware of with this history. I am amazed at how every quack group I've visited (and thats several) or know about, all teach they are descended from the "original true" church, all have the same "history", all think they are uniquely descended "outside" of Catholicism.

Mans life is so short that repetitive heresies are the "norm" and not recognized by men. Nothing is new under the sun. Most groups & churches and many of these teachings and doctrines are not unique or new. They are simply re-births of old teachings/heresies. Thats part of the value of Catholicism, no other Christian "church" has the extensive records, histories, or doctrinal "depth" to shine a light on error. Most Churches & Seminaries only teach, expound, and "prove" things that fit in with their teachings and beliefs.

Several post in this discussion have taken the Catholic Church to task for believing in that the "body & blood" of Christ is real. Prior to the time of Luther all Christian movements believed that. But after Luther in as little as 15 years there were over 200 different theological understandings of the wine and bread. I will point out this about that. All things are the same on the level of the atom. Blood, wine, wood, stone, plastic - all are made of the same thing. The only variable is the speed and number of components. Anything "could" be anything. Everything is pretty much "nothing" to start with. I've read that if you remove the "nothing" between the atoms the whole earth would be substantially smaller than a car. The wine and bread "could" become anything if God desired. I cannot hold this belief against Catholics as all Christians believed it for about 1500 years. I've spent a life time proving myself the village idiot of Christianity. I'm most sure that many of those old timers before Luther, were much smarter and Godlier than I. So I say let them believe it in peace. They may be right.

 

Actually prior to Luther there were two theological thoughts concerning Holy Communion, the Orthodox who maintained it as a mystery and the RCC which bought into Aquinas' melding of Aristotle and Scripture.

 

Your definition of "Cult" may be from the view point of so-called "Mainstream Christians" such as RCC, COE, and Presbyterian etc, which are running on the Broadways thru the wide gate ( Mt 7:13-4)

Apostle Paul was condemned as the chief of the Nazareth Cult.
Acts 24:
5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
You may call Plymouth Brethren as a cult as they oppose to the Catholicism, as I do. But you can hardly find any practice of theirs against the Bible.
So, your definition of Cult and Orthodox is not based on the Bible but on the number of their members or human thoughts.

Are you scared to be called Heretic or Cult ? Jesus was a cult in the eyes of Jews, the then Orthodox !

You are very much stuck already in the definition of Cult and Orthodox, and you cannot get out of there!

I already pointed out that RCC didn't start until 300 AD, then were there no Christians during the period 30-300 AD?

Sadly, often your assessment is wrong, and that's why I define someone like you as Catholic Baptist.

You could never present any single verse to argue against my beliefs, but just often say CulT etc. What is your definition of Cult? Do you label it when the people do not belong to 1.,3 billion religion or at least 50 million like COE?

I don't know any of them, but I don't judge any of them until I hear from them in person directly. Do you know any of them biblically?

I don't judge them unless I see their fruits and hear what they believe and say.

Yes, they have a long history but we don't find any record that they fought for the Truth of the Bible, but just condemning others as Heretics just because they opposed to various paganism, Idolatry, purgatory etc. Also, they cannot deny the history of Inquistion and Crusade against the Christians like Albigenes.

RCC destroyed all the records of "so-called Heretics" and then re-wrote the History as if the dissidents had claimed what they actually didn't believe.

You should have participated in there. The Thread is still open. You are welcome there. But you must realize that you are wrong from the beginning:

Before 1500 AD, there were the believers opposing the Transubstantiation:
Read here:

1) John Wycliffe rejected the Transubstantiation.

John Wycliffe:
Rejected doctrine of 'Transubstantiation' b/c of its apparent contradiction of the doctrine of the incarnation
http://web.syr.edu/~jwrobbin/MiddleAges.html

He lived before 1200 AD, which proves you are wrong!

2) It was the 4th Council of Lateran in 1215 that RCC officially declared Transubstantiation as the official dogma.
Therefore it was annonced relatively later time even though there were some unofficial declarations like the Bull of Pope Lucius III in 1184. Therefore the objections by the True Believers emerged relatively later. Lateran Council declared the Anathema to the people who oppose to the Transubstantiation, why? there were already such opponenets!

Read here:

[FONT=바탕]The 13th-Century inquisitor Reinerius Saccho accused the Waldenses of denying transubstantiation: "Of the Sects of Modern Heretics," published in 1254.
[FONT=&#48148]"They do not believe the body and blood of Christ to be the true sacrament, but only blessed bread, which by a figure only is called the body of Christ, even as it is said, "and the rock was Christ"[/FONT]

[FONT=&#48148]This is from the RCC Inquisitor's own writing.[/FONT]

[FONT=&#48148]This disproves your claim that there were nobody opposing Transubstatiation before 1500AD.[/FONT]

[FONT=&#48148][FONT=&#48148]http://www.geocities.com/I_hate_spammers/waldenses2.html#chapter3[/FONT][/FONT]



[FONT=&#48148][FONT=&#48148]I want to ask you final question. Have you ever read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation for yourself?[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&#48148][FONT=&#48148]All of your arguments sound like the one by the person who never read the Bible throughout from Gen to Rev.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

Mes 228,

Here is another example that there were many dissident Christian groups who opposed to RCC even before 1500 AD.

RCC held the Council of Milevi in 416 AD. They condemned the Donatists because Donatists rejected the Infant Baptism and performed the Re-Baptism.

YOu can confirm this fact from Catholic sites like this:

In the Gospel Jesus instructs us to go forth and baptize the whole world ?not just adults. St. Paul baptized whole families and it is most likely there was at least one child in those families (Acts 16:15; 1 Cor. 1:16). The Third Council of Carthage (253 AD) with St. Cyprian taught that infants should be baptized as soon as possible after birth. The Council of Milevi in 416 AD taught the necessity of baptism for infants. This same position has been reaffirmed at the Fourth Lateran Council as well as the Councils of Vienne, Florence, and Trent.​

http://www.freewebs.com/acatholiclife/baptism.htm


Then you can confirm that with the History written by your defined " CULT"

Donatists insisted on rebaptism of those who came to them from the "established" churches, and further insisted on baptism of believers only by total immersion. The Council of Milevi in 416 A.D. passed the following edict against the Donatists: "Whosoever denies that newly-born infants are to be baptized...let him be accursed." This edict proves that the Donatists denied the practice of infant baptism

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0547.htm


BTW, Dr. Cassidy who is the Author of the above treatise is on this board on Bible Version Tread.


Don't both of the above writings, even RCC writings, prove that there were RE-Baptisers who denied Infant Baptism existing before 1500 AD?

Do you still believe that there would be NO Christian without RCC?

I must tell you this. I owe NOTHING TO RCC.

The people joining RCC in worshipping Idols will be thrown into the LAKE OF FIRE, I am very sure.



Read the Confession by your Ancestors here:

1689 London Baptist Confession​

Chapter 26: Of the Church. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. ( Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 )

Do you agree with them? or disagree with them?
​

​

​

 

To elaborate, the Eastern Greek Fathers of the Church where the first to try and explain the mystery of the Real Presence, by coining the term meta-ousiosis, which literally means change of one ousia or being-that of bread and wine-into another ousia or being, that of Christ’s living body and blood.

In order to continue protecting a very old revelation from Christ Himself, the West built upon meta-ousiosis in the 13th Century to precisely define being or substance (Transubstantiation), in response of the ‘mere symbol’ controversy that began in the 9th Century.

Then we have Luther who detested Zwingli’s symbolism, and therefore coined the term consubstantiation.
-

 

Rcc

Elihayu, for well over 20 years I read the Bible approx. 30 minuets a day and most days far more. I suspect I've read it cover to cover twenty or more times. The last few years I've tried not to read it so much as it is/was an addiction. Thats why when I reply to you I work from memory. I eventually realized that I read the Bible through the "glasses' I was given in my Church. My Bible study just reinforced what I was taught and enabled me to teach others the same. For example Baptism. I believed and taught only immersion of believers. I have given sermonetts with "7 Bibilical Proofs That Immersion Is The Only Valid Baptism". I do so regret, and repent of ever having taught such nonsense. Hopefully God will forgive the error I sincerely taught through ignorance. Anyone that has an open mind that really looks at the "other" side and "all" the scriptures soon realizes that "they" have at least as solid a foundation scripturally. Perhaps more so. Sad truth is I left many of the scriptures out of that sermon that deals with the subject as I "read" over them. And was blind from the "glasses" my teachers had given me (wow! that's a lame excuse). I suggest that you read the actual position of Catholicism, Lutherans, Episcopalians and their Bibilcal position before you trust what you've been taught "they teach" as the last word. Also read a little history outside of your regular reading material. There are historical Christian documents that date closely to the Apostles lives that deal with Baptism. These people are just as sincere, intelligent, as I (and probably you) and have the same scriptures. They did not arrive at their beliefs through ignorance, or evil, or lack of study, or because a Pope told them so. They arrived at their position by scripture just as you. Fact is they have more weight of scripture on their side of the scale. By the way all those groups baptize by immersion every day, none just 'sprinkle" in every circumstance. I realize more every day just how dangerous the world is in religious matters. Much smarter men than I have made merchandise of the "many". I suppose God knows what he's doing and allowing this to be. I know I don't. My sincere wish is that my thoughts and teachings actually reflect God and not men. Theres a difference. My conclusion is that God knows me far better than I know and understand him. Grace and mercy is the only hope I have.

 

mes228,

Thanks for your post.
I am not blaming you groundlessly, but pointed out the problems with your statements, either from the view point of Bible or from the historical facts.

I still wonder how you compromised yourself and your views with Bible teachings because I can quickly find the contradictions between them, and you claim that you read the Bible many times. I met a man who claimed that he read the Bible 78 times, but found nothing interesting to him at all.

In your above post, you mention that you regret about having preached the mode of Baptism should be by immersion only. Then I would hope that you explain how you could reach such conclusion despite the Bible teachings.
Please read here:

-1) Word Baptizo itself means Immersion.
- 2) Matt 3:16 - Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of water ( from inside of the water)
- 3) Acts 8:38 -and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the enuch, and he baptized him.
8:39 - and when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip,.

- Romans 6:3-4: Baptism by sprinkling cannot give this teaching-

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

John 3:23 - And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized.

If they were baptized by sprinkling, why did they need much water ?

Could Sprinkling teach the Truth of Death and Resurrection taught in Romans 6:1-4?

Where was the Sprinkling come from?

So, I want to hear from you about how you compromised your view with Sprinkling.


Another example was about the "Obligatory" Celibacy. I mentioned to you that the Bible 1 Timothy 3:2-5 and Titus 1:5-9 tell us Overseers could have one wife, children, whilst RCC doesn't allow it. How could you compromise such doctrines of RCC with Bible?

You said, there was Nbjection to Transubstantiation during the past 1500 years before 1500 AD. Then I presented you the proof that there was the objection to it by Waldensians.
Isn't it your turn to comment on that? Why did RCC prohibit any teachings which deny Transubstatiation by Lateran Council in 1215 AD ? You must learn how to admit and confess what you were wrong with before.

You advocated the Papal Infallibility Ex Cathedra, do you believe it? If so, can you present the list of the Infallible Decrees or Bulls by Popes? Do you believe it without knowing the detail? Why is the EX Cathedra Infallible? Is it because the chair has a certain magic power?

So far, you have never presented any Biblical argument except the blind love to the Catholicism, sadly.

 

mes228

I hope you know about the London Baptist Confession as you are a Baptist.

As you advocated Transubstantiation, Obligatory Celibacy, Papal Infallibility though you are a Baptist, I would like to hear from you about how you compromised yourself with the Baptists Confession as follows:

chapter 30

London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689

2. In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sin of the quick or dead; but only a memorial of that (c) one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the crosse, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all (d) possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the Mass (as they call it) is most abominable, injurious to Christs own only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the Elect.


6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of Bread and Wine, into the substance of Christs body and blood (commonly called Transubstantiation) by consecration of a Priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture (i) alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the (k) nature of the ordinance, and hath been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross Idolatries


http://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/bcfc30.htm#chapter30

 

Rcc

Eliyahu, the reason I haven't answered scripture for scripture in much of these postings is I feel it would accomplish little. Many here have their minds made up and simply wish to beat others over the head with "I'm right". I also see this as a Prov. 14:16 situation and feel that Prov. 9:7 applies in some of these postings. The spirit in much of these exchanges is simply wrong, doesn't edify or educate, it attacks.

I will take time to point out a few things on Baptism. I too believed and taught immersion using all the scriptures you pointed out. First I'll state that it's a false premise to begin with as Catholicism etc. all teach that immersion is a totally acceptable means of baptism and employ it throughout the world daily. I was baptized by immersion. Also baptism does picture death and burial. Everyone agrees with that fact. But there is more, much more.

Please look carefully at the scriptures you quoted to buttress immersion and notice one thing. Every scripture requires that you "infer" immersion. It is not stated.

In conclusion, Elihayu, I consider myself a "Christian" that attends a "Baptist" church. I do so because one major tenant of the baptist is the freedom that scripture is of "private interpretation". I disagree with a few teachings that are common to Baptist but the official doctrines of the SBC are something I can agree with.

Lets begin with "batizo" meaning to immerse or plunge into. Not in all cases look at Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4. baptizo can mean to "wash". Not all lexicons limit it to immersion. Many Old test. scriptures foreshadowing baptism show washing/sprinkling such as Moses decrees concerning uncleanness. The Passover Lambs blood. Nahaman washing to remove uncleanness. To mention a few.

Acts 9:17-18 shows Paul "stood up" to be baptized. Acts 1:4-5 tells followers not to depart from Jerusalem until they receive the Holy Spirit and in Acts 2 it is stated 3 times the Holy Spirit was "poured out". Christ also foretold they would be "baptized" with the Holy Spirit. The spirit was "poured out" on them to baptize them. Also Acts 16 shows the jailer and his entire family baptized in a moments notice in his house in the middle of the night. Very doubtful that a few hundred gallons of water was available immediately in that period, at night, and a vessel large enough to be immersed in. Acts 21:41 speaks of one day when over 3,000 were baptized in Jerusalem. Archaeology shows Jerusalem was (and is) almost a waterless city. There's only one major spring. Doubtful the inhabitants allowed 3,000 bodies to be immersed into their main water supply (or even taken for the project).

Many early Church pictures depict Christians being baptized standing in water with the water being poured onto their heads. As today there were cripples, the dying, the sick and ill, the lame. That needed to be baptized. Difficult today and near impossible in many circumstances you can imagine way back then. Even today in Moslem countries baptism carries a death penalty and must be done in secret. Very hard to do by immersion. Also Archaeologist have unearthed a Christian church in Nazareth dating from 200 A.D. and the baptistery is only large enough to stand in.

Early Christian writings from 50 A.D. to 120 A.D. (perhaps even some Apostles yet lived) such as the "Didache" state "... concerning thus you shall baptize... in living (running) water. But if you have not living water, then baptize in other water. If not in cold then warm. But if you have neither then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit..."

Also it's interesting that in the Old Test. Leviticus/Exodus/Numbers speaks of "sprinkling" the blood approx. 40 times to cleanse the alter, the people, the sacrifice etc. Isaiah 58:12 says "so shall he sprinkle many nations". Ezekiel 36:25 "I will sprinkle clean water upon you". In the New Testament Heb 9:19 illustrates
sprinkling to cleanse, verse 21 speaks of sprinkling with the blood of the tabernacle. Heb. 1022 speaks of "hearts sprinkled from an evil conscious". 1st Peter 1:2 "sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ".

There's much more that could be written and said on this subject. I think there's enough above to show why I deeply regret ever teaching the immersion only things I taught. I pretty much believe it is a polemic straw man created during the Reformation to cause division and hatred. It's a partial truth that separates Christians. Fact is a person is not a better Christian for being immersed. He may be a worse one if he bashes others with it. No one feels that immersion is wrong, all do it if circumstances require it. I prefer immersion if it's viable, but no longer accuse others over the matter.

 

I would just like to point out that none of the lexicons limit baptizo to immersion.

 

Sorry, posted this on the wrong thread originally:-

Eliyahu, you missed out some important paragraphs of the London Baptist Confession:-

(Italics mine.)

You see, even the Baptists (used to) acknowledge some kind of Presence.

 

Yes, could be, but not the full Transubstantiation. But I don't read any Real Presence in your post.

I believe the Real Presence everywhere.

 

But there must be in order for the 'worthy believers' to feed upon Christ in eating the bread and wine

 

Yes, I agree but that is another issue which doesn't involve much contention.

 

I think there is contention about it if one reads some of the posts here and also many modern Baptist and other evangelical statements of faith/ confessions.