1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why I left the RCC

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by John3v36, Sep 13, 2002.

Top Posters
Page 4 of 5
  1. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hardly think someone who spends five years studying before converting is "ungrounder in her faith" or "an easy target."

    In fact, there was no way to get that out of what he wrote; you simply threw that out there to make it easier for you to swallow. Come back at what I said anyway you want, but that's the only conclusion. End of story.
     
    #61 GraceSaves, Sep 15, 2002
  2. Dualhunter

    Dualhunter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    #62 Dualhunter, Sep 15, 2002
  3. Eladar

    Eladar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it just me or is this getting just a little bit ridiculous?
     
    #63 Eladar, Sep 15, 2002
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Depends on which side of the aisle you are on.

    [​IMG]

    HankD
     
    #64 HankD, Sep 15, 2002
  5. Eladar

    Eladar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh Yahhh?!?!?!

    Yah!!!!!!

    Oh Yahhhh?!?!?!

    Yah!!!!!!

    Oh Yah????

    Yah!!!!
     
    #65 Eladar, Sep 15, 2002
  6. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    If you are competing with Macdonald’s for universality, yes, in that sense you can be called universal. Just don’t attach the name church to it. Macdonald’s doesn’t. It is a corporation, similar to the Catholic Church--a monstrosity of an organization, but not a church. Look up ekklesia. It is an assembly, not a world-wide hierarchal organization. The Catholic “Church,” never was a Biblical church.

    As for doctrines you listed:
    The Apostles believed these doctrines, and so did the early believers. That is pretty presumptuous of you to claim these Biblical doctrines for the Catholic Church seeing it didn’t even come into existence until the fourth century. The bodily resurrection, for example, Paul spends an entire chapter in 1Cor.15 elaborating on this very doctrine. You have the gall to come and say that the Catholic Church can claim credit for Paul’s plain teaching??

    There was no universal church, and there exists no such animal. Not until all believers will be united together in heaven will there be a universal assembly (church). Until that time comes there are only local churches, churches such as the Apostle Paul started on his three missionary journeys. He started over 100 churches (plural). There was and is no Catholic or universal church.
    The truth is 95% of all heresy originated from “Church Fathers,” and the Catholic Church. Take for example Origen, who was one of the greatest heretics of his time. You guys look up to him. Ask your friend Carson to post a list of his beliefs. Origen is known by some as the Father of Arianism. He was a heretic. You happen to agree with many of the Church Fathers, not because they agree with the Bible, but because they agree with Catholic heresy. You are happy to believe in man’s tradition, call it sacred, and put more value in it rather than in the very words of God.
    I believe the Bible as my final authority in all matters of faith and practice. I have God’s very revelation to mankind. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit dwelling within me. He guides me as I study the Word of God. I don’t need the magisterium; I have God.

    Ed, who deceived you into all of this nonsense, and why can't you see the plain truth of God's Word without going to some Catholic resource material?
    DHK
     
    #66 DHK, Sep 16, 2002
  7. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, Nils, it's not just you. It's degrading rather rapidly.

    Perhaps it would help if we tried to seperate the personalities from the issues on this thread. Any personal issues can be taken up by use of the private message system.

    I haven't had to close a thread in this forum in weeks. We'll see how this plays out in the next few pages.
     
    #67 Clint Kritzer, Sep 16, 2002
  8. John3v36

    John3v36 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    From A Catechism For Adults, page 27. "Sin is any thought, word, desire, action or neglect forbidden by the Law of God. To be guilty of sin, I must realize that I am breaking God's Law and I must freely choose to do it.

    There are two kinds of sin, mortal sin, which is a big sin and venial sin, which is a small sin. (I John 5:16 is cited, but the Douay Bible footnote on that verse says, `The difference cannot be the same as betwixt sins that are called mortal and venial, for it says you can't pray for mortal sin, or sin unto death.')

    "Some mortal sins are: refusing to accept all of God's teaching, never praying, telling serious lies, not going to Mass on Sundays or Holydays of Obligation, getting very drunk, killing an unborn child in the womb , all sins of sex, stealing something expensive. Mortal sin kills the grace in my soul. If I die with a mortal sin on my

    soul, I will be sent to Hell forever. Venial sins: telling small lies, being impatient, ordinary anger, stealing something cheap, speaking or thinking unkindly of others, getting slightly drunk. If I do something wrong but through no fault of my own do not know that it is wrong, I am not guilty of sin. For example, I can eat meat on Friday, forgetting, through no fault of my own, that it is Friday. In such a case, I am not guilty of sin."

    From Why Attend Sunday Mass? by John O'Brien, p. 1. "Take their attendance at Mass on Sunday. They are obliged under pain of mortal sin to attend."

    From A Catechism For Adults, page 28. "If I do something wrong but am not certain whether it is a mortal or a venial sin, I commit a mortal sin because I show myself willing to offend God seriously. For example, I do not know whether it is a mortal or venial sin to eat too much. I am guilty of mortal sin if I go ahead and eat too much even if later on I find out that it is only a venial sin."

    POST VATICAN II

    From St. Peter's Catechism, p. 21. "Scripture says that mortal sin is like crucifying Christ again and holding Him up to contempt (Hebrews 6:6). To make a sin mortal three conditions are necessary: Grave matter, sufficient knowledge and full consent. Venial sin is a sin in which one of the three conditions for mortal sin is absent."

    CHRISTIAN COMMENT

    From Roman Catholicism by Lorraine Boettner "The Roman Catholic Church divides all sin into two classes, making an important and elaborate distinction between so-called `mortal' and `venial' sins. Mortal, sin is described as "any great offense against the law of God, and is so called because it is deadly, killing the soul and subjecting it to eternal punishment. Even after a penitent has received pardon a large but unknown amount of punishment remains to be expiated in purgatory.

    "Venial sins, on the other hand, are `small and pardonable offenses against God, or our neighbor.' Technically, venial sins need not be confessed since they are comparatively light and can be expiated by good works, prayer, extreme unction, purgatory, etc. But the priests are not to be outdone by this technicality. The terms are quite elastic, and permit considerable leeway on the part of those who want to probe more deeply into the affairs of the penitent. It is generally advised that it is safer to

    confess supposed venial sins also, since the priest alone is able to judge accurately which are mortal and which are venial. The Baltimore Catechism (written, of course, by priests) says: `When we have committed no mortal sins since our last confession, we should confess our venial sins or some sin told in a previous confession for which we are again sorry, in order that the priest may give us absolution' (page 329). What chance has a poor sinner against such a system as that?

    "There is no agreement among the priests as to which sins are mortal and which are venial. But they all proceed on the assumption that such a distinction does exist. What is venial according to one may be mortal according to another. If the pope were infallible in matters of faith and practice, as claimed by the Roman Church, he should be able to settle this important matter by accurately cataloging those sins which are mortal distinguished from those which are venial. But such a list no pope has ever been able to produce. Instead what they have is an elaborate system of compromise which is designed to promote the authority of the church and to give a considerable amount of leeway to the priest as to what seems expedient in individual cases.

    "Among mortal sins, however, are those committed in breaking the ten commandments, together with the so-called `seven deadly sins'; pride, covetousness, lechery (lust, lewdness), anger, gluttony, envy and sloth. Included are practically all sexual offences, whether in thought, word or deed, and a long list of transgressions down to attending a Protestant church, reading a Protestant Bible, or missing mass on Sunday without a good excuse (which means that considerably more than half of the claimed Roman Catholic membership throughout the world is constantly in mortal

    sin). Sometimes violations of the rules of the church are treated as mortal sins, while transgressions of the commandments of God are treated as venial sins. All mortal sins must be confessed to the priest in detail or they cannot be forgiven. The theory is that the priest must have all the facts in order to know how to deal with the case and what penance to assign. The real reason, of course, is to place the penitent more fully in the hands of the priest.

    "But the Bible makes no such distinction between mortal and venial sins. There is in fact no such thing as venial sin. All sin is mortal. It is true that some sins are worse than others. But it is also true that all sins, if not forgiven, bring death to the soul, with greater or lesser punishments as they may deserve. The Bible simply says, `The wages of sin is death' (Romans 6:23) and there Paul was not speaking of any particular kind of sin, but all sin. Ezekiel says, `The soul that sinneth, it shall die' (18:4). When James said, `For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble at one point, he is become guilty of all' (2:10), he meant, not that the person who commits one sin is guilty of all other kinds of sin, but that even one sin unrepented shuts a person out of heaven and subjects him to punishment, just as surely as one puncture of the eyeball subjects a person to blindness, or as one misstep by a mountain climber plunges him to

    destruction in the canyon below. In the light of these statements, the distinction between mortal and venial sins is shown to be arbitrary and absurd.

    CATHOLIC JOURNALS

    From Columbia, May 1990. In an article The Forgiveness of our Sins by the late Archbishop John Whealon, he says, "The New Testament gives a distinction between a mortal and a venial sin." However, he never cites chapter and verse.

    SECULAR JOURNALS

    From Rocky Mountain News, 11/16/92. "The church identifies new sins. Thou shalt not evade taxes, thou shalt not fiddle with the company books, thou shalt not engage in genetic manipulation, thou shalt not drive while drunk.

    "These are some modern applications of the Ten Commandments found in the Roman Catholic Church's new Universal Catechism...

    "The catechism restates traditional sin such as killing, adultery and idolatry, but also brings the church up to date with temptations of the modern world...

    Prostitution and suicide remain sins, but the new catechism acknowledges that people may be driven to them by desperation or particularly cruel social circumstances."
     
    #68 John3v36, Sep 16, 2002
  9. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quite a missmash of stuff here.

    What your point other than you don't like Catholics?

    BTW, long posts like this usually just get ignored. Especially when they are not even your own thoughts.

    [ September 16, 2002, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]
     
    #69 trying2understand, Sep 16, 2002
  10. John3v36

    John3v36 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was it out of hate that John the Baptist said
    Matthew 3:7
    But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

    Was out of Love or hate that Jusus told the Pharisees and scribes “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Mark 7:9

    Was it out of Hate that Jesus said:
    Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
    Matthew 22:29
     
    #70 John3v36, Sep 16, 2002
  11. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, my friend, what is your point?
     
    #71 trying2understand, Sep 16, 2002
  12. Dualhunter

    Dualhunter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, my friend, what is your point?</font>[/QUOTE]Telling you that you are wrong is not hateful.
     
    #72 Dualhunter, Sep 16, 2002
  13. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    When did I say anyone was hateful?

    I'm just trying to understand what point John3v is trying to make.

    I can cut and paste a lot of disjoined things from all over the net too.

    But again, what's the point?
     
    #73 trying2understand, Sep 16, 2002
  14. Dualhunter

    Dualhunter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    When did I say anyone was hateful?

    I'm just trying to understand what point John3v is trying to make.

    I can cut and paste a lot of disjoined things from all over the net too.

    But again, what's the point?    </font>[/QUOTE]You Catholics are so often quick to accuse anybody who speaks against Catholicism of being hateful and so John3v36 asked if Jesus and John the Baptist were being hateful when they spoke against Jewish religious leaders of their time.
     
    #74 Dualhunter, Sep 16, 2002
  15. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    "You Catholics" sounds as though you are addressing a group instead of one person. I am one person. So again, when did I say anyone was hateful?

    Again, what is his point?

    If you believe that you know what his point was, by all means share it. Be sure to go back to the original disjointed, missmatch, cut and paste, loooong post though. Since that is where he started, so should you.

    Ron [​IMG]
     
    #75 trying2understand, Sep 16, 2002
  16. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Checkmate.

    So Jesus and John the Baptist can speak out against Jewish leaders and it appear as hate, but we know clearly that it is not. But there is an entire thread here declaring that the Catholic Church HATES the Jews.

    Can we say "double standard"? You guys can say we have hellish doctrines...and then WE get accused of being hateful? This is laughable.
     
    #76 GraceSaves, Sep 16, 2002
  17. Dualhunter

    Dualhunter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Checkmate.

    So Jesus and John the Baptist can speak out against Jewish leaders and it appear as hate, but we know clearly that it is not. But there is an entire thread here declaring that the Catholic Church HATES the Jews.

    Can we say "double standard"? You guys can say we have hellish doctrines...and then WE get accused of being hateful? This is laughable.    </font>[/QUOTE]Double standard? That would imply that one person was having one standard for one group and another standard for another group. The thing is though, one person said one thing and another person said the other so rather than a double standard we would have two people saying different things. But lets look at what jimraboin seems to be saying. He quotes the following:

    "Therefore have nothing in common with that most hostile people the Jews."

    His point appears to be that this implies that the Jews are not to be evangelized (pointing out that Jesus is the Christ as written in the Hebrew scriptures would be having something in common with them) but instead to be shunned and abandoned to perish. He then says that as a result of this statement, persecutions against the Jews increased which would strongly suggest that the statement was indeed received as a reason to hate and persecute the Jews. This goes beyond telling them that they are wrong, but instead describes active hatred against the Jews.
     
    #77 Dualhunter, Sep 16, 2002
  18. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly when does this saying mean to "shun?" In my reading of it, it's quite clear that there is a general dislike towards those who deny the Messiah, and that we should have nothing to do with their tradtions that were obviously overturned through Christ. For example, as has already been pointed out, "The Lord's Supper" in place of "Passover."

    You seek to find hatred and you make it appear in front of you. You make words mean things they don't. "Nothing in common" does NOT nor ever WILL mean "Nothing to do with."
     
    #78 GraceSaves, Sep 16, 2002
  19. Dualhunter

    Dualhunter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly when does this saying mean to "shun?" In my reading of it, it's quite clear that there is a general dislike towards those who deny the Messiah, and that we should have nothing to do with their tradtions that were obviously overturned through Christ. For example, as has already been pointed out, "The Lord's Supper" in place of "Passover."

    You seek to find hatred and you make it appear in front of you. You make words mean things they don't. "Nothing in common" does NOT nor ever WILL mean "Nothing to do with."    </font>[/QUOTE]If you look closely at my last post you might notice that I also find that the statement is not the most convincing argument by itself. The resulting persecution does suggest that the attitude behind the statement was one of hatred however, the persecution certainly wasn't done out of love.
     
    #79 Dualhunter, Sep 16, 2002
  20. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly when does this saying mean to "shun?" In my reading of it, it's quite clear that there is a general dislike towards those who deny the Messiah, and that we should have nothing to do with their tradtions that were obviously overturned through Christ. For example, as has already been pointed out, "The Lord's Supper" in place of "Passover."

    You seek to find hatred and you make it appear in front of you. You make words mean things they don't. "Nothing in common" does NOT nor ever WILL mean "Nothing to do with."    </font>[/QUOTE]If you look closely at my last post you might notice that I also find that the statement is not the most convincing argument by itself. The resulting persecution does suggest that the attitude behind the statement was one of hatred however, the persecution certainly wasn't done out of love.    </font>[/QUOTE]But this negates the argument. The argument is not whether one or more Catholics persecuted the Jewish people. It's whether the article written was fully erronous. You just admitted it's not necessarily erronous without taking in mind the persecutions. However, people's actions are not church doctrine, and it is only church doctrine that is protected from corruption; humans will always thorughout time sin, and this is separate.
     
    #80 GraceSaves, Sep 16, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 5
Loading...