Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Christ and the Apostles taught ONLY out of what we have as the Old Testament.
The New Testament wasn't yet written when Christ was here.
I read some of it one time in a Catholic childrens book. Fingers chopped of and bird poop in someone’s eyes.
Not in my Bible.

But they used the Septuagint and that was what Scripture was. The Septuagint includes Maccabees. And in the New Testament they quote from the Old Testament and the quote is from the Septuagint.

The very old Testament that you reject.

As I said, it was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles but somehow not good enough for you.

BTW, the first and original King James Version of the Bible also had all of the Books of the Old Testament translated from the Septuagint. So why do you use only part of the whole Bible instead of the whole Bible?

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Christ and the Apostles taught ONLY out of what we have as the Old Testament.
The New Testament wasn't yet written when Christ was here.
I read some of it one time in a Catholic childrens book. Fingers chopped of and bird poop in someone’s eyes.
Not in my Bible.

You must be confused, Maccabees 1 and 2, Wisdom, Baruch, Sirach, Tobit Judith and Esther...ALL Old Testament, more specifically Septuagint, and you are right Jesus and the Apostles used all 7 of those books.

The "church" in the early days was scattered, often in the homes of believers.

The Catholic church has created more atheists than any force on earth.

When I meet an atheist, I ask them, "did you go to a Catholic school? Invariably the answer is yes.

The interpretation of the passage "On this rock I will build my church" to mean that Peter is supposed to be some kind of "pope" or something is specious at best. There were no records at that time so how does the "Church" know the names of all the subsequent popes? What on earth is a pope? What on earth is it with all the garb and gold? A true apostle of Christ would be poor ("do not take even two cloaks") and the gold on the hands of the "pope" alone would provide irrigation for a tribe of starving farmers in Africa.

Finally - there is a stern and unequivocal admonition against adding or subtracting ANYTHING from the bible. The Catholics (as well as others) have added their own "holy" books to the bible. This alone exposes them as frauds.

Homosexual pedophile priests? What more needs to be said?

With all the horrors the "Church" has visited on civilization, they have driven people from Christ and still do to this day.

Catholic does not mean Christian. They are not the same thing.

Justified 7 wrote:

<quoted text>you said they think salvation is a process. It does; but you would have to read further on to know what they meant. I'm not upset when someone doesn't have a calvinist outlook. If they have called on the Lord; then why argue over that part? Some understand God's sovereignty and others haven't got there yet. Like you on everything when speaking of theology.

But the fact remains that it isn't instant and it isn't the perverted theology of Calvinism.

Nor do you understand the sovereignty of God. But then again neither did Calvin nor the rest of the stooges who followed him and his perverted views.

Your "god" is an unloving dictator.

My God isn't.

My God is the God of the Bible.

Your "god" is the man made fiction of a sick person.

John from NJ wrote:

<quoted text>
When you distort and otherwise corrupt the words of Jesus to suit you it is a crock and that is what you are doing.
We know well the fruits of much of Protestantland. Their church of "me" with their own personal and often conflicting theology is proof. When you ignore what doesn't suit you that is found in the Bible tells us much about you.
Much of Protestantism is based on two things, a strong dislike for Roman Catholicism (which includes tossing out the baby with the bathwater) and the worship not of God but oneself.
Jesus came and died for all mankind. Everyone is in need of salvation.
Isn't it interesting that you said:
"The "me" church you decry seems to consist of those who boast they possess ALL the Truth and dam* the rest of the world."
That so well describes most of the Protestants here. So very, very well.
They are the only ones who have said it. Not the Roman Catholics, not me, just the Protestants.
So thanks for agreeing with what I said.

I have never read such hogwash.

The Church of Christ worships CHRIST. Your post is a stream of lies.

AnthonyMN wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, I think you read it. LOL.
So, in your world, you take a little bit of Augustine, a touch of Aquinas, a lot from Calvin, mix in a little Huss, Wycliffe, Zwingli, etc., throw it in the oven and you get non-denom. fundamentalism according to your sect of maybe 200? Everone else in history has it wrong, but your little group has it right?

We don't make proclamations because we are human and fallible. Only God is infallible. So we can humbly look at the mistakes of history and correct them. So do all the Church Fathers agree on every issue? No. Can we learn things from each and everyone of them? Yes. Nothing wrong with examining all that is before you; then picking what is supported the most/or more balanced when looking at Scripture. You guys can never do that; if you did; it would mean that papal infallibility is over; and the whole house of cards would come tumbling down. Doesnt' matter anyways; you guys had a papal schism that ruined your credibility. Then we have conciliarism. The immoral popes. The murdering. So on and so forth.

John from NJ wrote:

<quoted text>
But somehow you don't believe that.
One should not pray for those who have died.
One should not ask the saints for their intercessions since they have died.

Let me tell you somethin John,
once a person is dead,praying aint gonna do them any good if they died a sinner.

If they heard the Gospel and refused it,all the prayin in the world aint gonna save them.

AS for prayin to the saints,they would be with God right?
God is in heaven right?

What is heaven like John?
Rev. 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Do you deny God's Word?

Don't you think that they would be sad knowing the troubles of this world?

Believe what you want.

John from NJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Please go back to what I said that you provided above. I said according to some Protestants it would be one thing and according to some (other) Protestants it would be something else.
It all depends on what they set up as a requirement for being "born again". And frankly the wise thief situation doesn't fit within their individual requirements.
It would be much better if you stopped and actually read what was presented, then stopped and thought about it, and only then responded.

I did read what you wrote; and it isn't saying what you are stating here.

Jack Corsaut wrote:

The "church" in the early days was scattered, often in the homes of believers.
The Catholic church has created more atheists than any force on earth.
When I meet an atheist, I ask them, "did you go to a Catholic school? Invariably the answer is yes.
The interpretation of the passage "On this rock I will build my church" to mean that Peter is supposed to be some kind of "pope" or something is specious at best. There were no records at that time so how does the "Church" know the names of all the subsequent popes? What on earth is a pope? What on earth is it with all the garb and gold? A true apostle of Christ would be poor ("do not take even two cloaks") and the gold on the hands of the "pope" alone would provide irrigation for a tribe of starving farmers in Africa.
Finally - there is a stern and unequivocal admonition against adding or subtracting ANYTHING from the bible. The Catholics (as well as others) have added their own "holy" books to the bible. This alone exposes them as frauds.
Homosexual pedophile priests? What more needs to be said?
With all the horrors the "Church" has visited on civilization, they have driven people from Christ and still do to this day.
Catholic does not mean Christian. They are not the same thing.

The Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Jesus.

So, If Mary is holy because she gave birth to God (a distortion - Jesus is the son of God, a part thereof, but clearly distinct), then what about the mother of Mary?

Worshiping Mary is a sin. She is not God, the son of God, or the holy spirit. She was a blessed woman chosen by God - nothing more.

John from NJ wrote:

<quoted text>
It was a "trust issue" since not everyone who claimed to be a believer was, and not everyone who claimed to be a believer was considered to be in the Church until they were taught and then Baptized.
Does Baptism save? There clearly are some exceptions of folks who were/are saved who were not Baptized. But those are exceptions that God can make as He wishes. Outside of those few cases, no one who wishes to be saved is not Baptized. It isn't a question of "does Baptism save" but more one of can one who isn't Baptized be saved. The answer is NO. If you pretend that you are somehow like the folks known to be exceptions and reject Baptism since you think you are on a par with Abraham or the wise thief on the cross, I think you should perhaps guess again.

guessing is not my theology; i leave that to folks like you and the catholics. The whole mentality that there is no prohibition to do so doesn't cut it. And yes; a person not baptized can be saved. And is saved if they call on the Lord to save them. Psalm 145:18,19/ Romans 10:13.

Paul WV wrote:

<quoted text>
The Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Jesus.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bible about a "Catholic" anything, or of a "pope". There is plenty about what is required of a Christian and none of involves some kind of ELECTED infallible person. Pure power and wealth.

John from NJ wrote:

<quoted text>
I see the word "exception" needs to be added to the list of words you don't understand.

just show me where it is considered an exception in the Bible. Not even the word; but even by principle. You can't. Remember this ;Apostle Paul came to preach the gospel; not baptize.

God is faithful wrote:

<quoted text>
~~~~~~~
If infant baptism, is not in the Bible... it does not make any difference where else
the laws of the Roman Catholic (so called) church
would write it down.
The CAT-echism DOG-ma Papal-BULLS or nany goats and the rest of the animals that have been conjured up have no place in God's plan of salvation.

i know; but you would have to follow the debate to know why i asked that. they say infant baptism replaced circumcision. if that is the case; then they have even a bigger problem because we are circumcised by Christ. And Jesus made a distinction between baptisms in Acts 1:5/Acts 11:16

Justified 7 wrote:

<quoted text>guessing is not my theology; i leave that to folks like you and the catholics. The whole mentality that there is no prohibition to do so doesn't cut it. And yes; a person not baptized can be saved. And is saved if they call on the Lord to save them. Psalm 145:18,19/ Romans 10:13.

True, but if one KNOWS they should be baptized, and are not, then is that not willful disobedience?

And sprinkling a baby, who does not know right from wrong, is ridiculous.

Absolutely horrible to prey on the poor and uneducated that way and actually prevent these people from acquiring a true baptism - immersion.

Is a river "holy"? What on earth is "holy water"?

Last time I checked the only true church is gods church in him.

A fool finds pleasure in evil conduct, but a man of understanding delights in wisdom. Proverbs 10:23

Buckster wrote:

<quoted text>
20 times 10%? Can you spot the deliberate mistake?
On the point of large families, I would agree, after all Jesus had all those brothers and sisters.

lol

"Jesus Christ the corner-stone and Peter the rock"

Words added to the bible by humans. A sin.

gene d wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps someone can make sense of this flapdoodle...I'll admit, it ain't me.

of course you don't understand.

Mark wrote:

You must be confused, Maccabees 1 and 2, Wisdom, Baruch, Sirach, Tobit Judith and Esther...ALL Old Testament, more specifically Septuagint, and you are right Jesus and the Apostles used all 7 of those books.

Jesus mentioned some of the Old Testament in the gospels but I am not aware of anything He quoted from those 7 books.
Did Jesus quote from any? What?