I reject the Rcc, its pope, its marian dogmas, its claim to be the one, true church..

balshan

Well-known member
Not complicated when one understands hierarchy in Christ's Church.... obey those that have rule over you--he who hears you, hears me--the wisdom of God made known through the Church--the pillar of truth (y)
No we do not have to obey wolves and false teachers which your leaders are. We do not have to follow those who set a bad example and the fact that your leaders do not expose sin but hide it, is going against scripture. Your institution lies and does not know the truth. It lied about its sexually immoral priests, it lied to authorities, it lied to the victims and it lied about the victims. It also teaches false doctrines.

You are right your institution is well known, it has been well known throughout the centuries for its rotten fruit.
 

balshan

Well-known member
o_O Christ is not the head of our Church? :rolleyes:
If Jesus was head, then your institution would not be morally bankrupt and it is. Its fruit throughout the centuries has been rotten. The latest scandals will not be the last and your so called hierarchy have become part of the sin because they did not expose it. Scripture is clear about whose who know what is right and do not do it.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
Of course. Thank you! Happy to do it! I do recall a time when I ever suggested that Protestants were Catholic.

Right--so what God has actually said----and understanding it---does not matter?

How should we understand the presence of God in the Eucharist? The way the Baptists, Lutherans or Presbyterians understand it? "Who cares? Just be born again! Believe what you want--as long as you don't believe what Catholics believe!"

Are the Five Point Calvinists right about Double Predestination or not? "Who cares? Just be born again! Believe what you want--as long as you don't believe what Catholics believe!"

Should we baptize infants or not? "Who cares? Just be born again--and whatever you do, don't be Catholic! I don't think we is ought to baptize infants, but--if you want to do so--as long as you aren't Catholic, I don't care. I mean--Baptism itself is Biblical, so in the end---baptizing infants vs not baptizing them--why get in a snit over it?" Indeed! Tell that to the Baptists who were formed precisely because they thought the issue important enough to found a sect over.

Again--I can see why you would want to minimize or otherwise dismiss as irrelevant the above questions and not otherwise think critically about these issues. In your mind- as long as the person isn't Catholic, it really doesn't matter.
I made a very cogent reply in #190. I see no need to restate what I did, with all due respect to you.
 

Mik

Well-known member
WE'VE GOT CHRIST HIMSELF, and the Holy Spirit indwelling All Born again Christians, as Jesus Promised, that HE SENT to us to lead us into truth.

What need have we of a (supposed) "Vicar of Christ" in a dress and a funny hat to tell us Roman LIES????

It appears that the "Gates of HELL" have prevailed against the "Roman Catholic System" that's been teaching LIES for centuries.
I think you have definitely missed the point of my response to MF.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I made a very cogent reply in #190. I see no need to restate what I did, with all due respect to you.
Okay, um, wow! Um, yeah....

I went back and re-read your post---trying to figure out exactly how that reply was "cogent." For the life of me, I cannot figure out what exactly about your post was "cogent," excuse me, "very cogent."

Maybe our definitions of "very cogent" are off? Maybe you define "very cogent" differently than me?

My definition of "very cogent" is: "clear" "logical" "convincing" "compelling" etc. Rest assured I saw nothing convincing, compelling, logical, clear, or otherwise "very cogent" in your reply. In fact, your reply seems to be to be a word salad--a non-answer. I take that as a left-handed compliment.

If your definition of "very cogent" is "I don't know, but I want to seem like I know, so here are a bunch of meaningless words" then I agree--your post was indeed, "very cogent."
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
Okay, um, wow! Um, yeah....

I went back and re-read your post---trying to figure out exactly how that reply was "cogent." For the life of me, I cannot figure out what exactly about your post was "cogent," excuse me, "very cogent."

Maybe our definitions of "very cogent" are off? Maybe you define "very cogent" differently than me?

My definition of "very cogent" is: "clear" "logical" "convincing" "compelling" etc. Rest assured I saw nothing convincing, compelling, logical, clear, or otherwise "very cogent" in your reply. In fact, your reply seems to be to be a word salad--a non-answer. I take that as a left-handed compliment.

If your definition of "very cogent" is "I don't know, but I want to seem like I know, so here are a bunch of meaningless words" then I agree--your post was indeed, "very cogent."
Of course you don't. That's because you see me as your advisary. I'm going to put in quotes what I wrote so you can, individually respond to everything I wrote in that reply, maybe improve my writing skills so it won't be so much "word salad" and "clear", "logical", "convincing" and "compelling". Below is the quote professor.

"...you protestants...". I love that you acknowledge we are not part of your religious institution.

God has promised we born again believers only need believe we are saved by Grace, through faith and not of works for our salvation. Simple. Something rc's can't understand because of their pharisiacal obsession with the rcc's "authority" and its many, many man-made dogmas, rules and tradition. So not complicated for us romish but complicated for you. Theology does play an important role in preserving the essentials of the Christian faith but it only serves the purpose of preserving the essentails of the faith found in God's breathed written Word. Revealed to us by the Holy Spirit inspired writers of the Bible.

Have at it romish. I look forward to your dissecting my very poorly written, illogical, unclear, unconvincing mish mash of word salad.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Okay, um, wow! Um, yeah....

I went back and re-read your post---trying to figure out exactly how that reply was "cogent." For the life of me, I cannot figure out what exactly about your post was "cogent," excuse me, "very cogent."

Maybe our definitions of "very cogent" are off? Maybe you define "very cogent" differently than me?

My definition of "very cogent" is: "clear" "logical" "convincing" "compelling" etc. Rest assured I saw nothing convincing, compelling, logical, clear, or otherwise "very cogent" in your reply. In fact, your reply seems to be to be a word salad--a non-answer. I take that as a left-handed compliment.

If your definition of "very cogent" is "I don't know, but I want to seem like I know, so here are a bunch of meaningless words" then I agree--your post was indeed, "very cogent."
Oh yes another RC revealing what love your neighbour doesn't mean.

Oh so the post was over your head.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Of course you don't. That's because you see me as your advisary. I'm going to put in quotes what I wrote so you can, individually respond to everything I wrote in that reply, maybe improve my writing skills so it won't be so much "word salad" and "clear", "logical", "convincing" and "compelling". Below is the quote professor.

Have at it romish. I look forward to your dissecting my very poorly written, illogical, unclear, unconvincing mish mash of word salad.
You know, I would have a lot more respect for you and other posters on this site if you just said something like "That is a good point, I do not know." It is okay to say, "That is a good point, I do not know." I have said that at times on this site. I admit rarely have I said that, but I have said it.

It is alright if you do not have an answer.
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
Of course. Thank you! Happy to do it! I do recall a time when I ever suggested that Protestants were Catholic.

Right--so what God has actually said----and understanding it---does not matter?

How should we understand the presence of God in the Eucharist? The way the Baptists, Lutherans or Presbyterians understand it? "Who cares? Just be born again! Believe what you want--as long as you don't believe what Catholics believe!"

Are the Five Point Calvinists right about Double Predestination or not? "Who cares? Just be born again! Believe what you want--as long as you don't believe what Catholics believe!"

Should we baptize infants or not? "Who cares? Just be born again--and whatever you do, don't be Catholic! I don't think we is ought to baptize infants, but--if you want to do so--as long as you aren't Catholic, I don't care. I mean--Baptism itself is Biblical, so in the end---baptizing infants vs not baptizing them--why get in a snit over it?" Indeed! Tell that to the Baptists who were formed precisely because they thought the issue important enough to found a sect over.

Again--I can see why you would want to minimize or otherwise dismiss as irrelevant the above questions and not otherwise think critically about these issues. In your mind- as long as the person isn't Catholic, it really doesn't matter.
There you go again playing the victim, poor persecuted catholics. Catholics miss the forest for the trees. Yes there are differences in denoms. There are differences in the rcc too right? Your constant back and forth with MF is proof of that. Lastdaysbeliever's point is relevant. The point is that when a person is born again they are a new creation; 2 Cor 5:17, our citizenship is now in heaven; Phil 3:20 and we are sealed in the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption. Now, when a person is born again they will probably seek a local assembly to worship in, study with, learn and serve. If that local assembly is; baptist, lutheran, methodist....they will learn those particular teachings. Every born again believer has a date with Jesus at the bema seat judgment. If what we have learned or passed on is somehow incorrect we will hear about it then. That judgement is not to determine where we spend eternity because that was settled at the cross when we believed. That judgement is for rewards. What happens after a person is born again is between them and God. Youre making entirely too much of it. Be born again first then if you want to debate Lutherans go for it. We focus here on the false teachings of the rcc because those teachings are found nowhere in the bible and are harmful to the soul.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Well-known member
Wow----I would have thought you believed that the Church ceases every time a pope dies, until a new one is elected.
Well, you're the one that supposedly despises your "pope", which you have no need of anyway because you have created a pick and choose, cafeteria religion of your own. You pick which de fide dogmas to believe and which ones to reject because they don't conform to you religiously indifferent ecumeniical beliefs.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
You know, I would have a lot more respect for you and other posters on this site if you just said something like "That is a good point, I do not know." It is okay to say, "That is a good point, I do not know." I have said that at times on this site. I admit rarely have I said that, but I have said it.

It is alright if you do not have an answer.
What does your comment have to do with how my comment was word salad, unclear, illogical, uncompelling and unconvincing? I willingly asked you to show me how it was so. I find your deflection telling, that what you really thought of my comment was it was true but you were unwilling to write "That is a good point..."! out of loyalty to your religious institution and its rules, dogmas and tradition. So be it. As far as respect, whether there is mutual respect, that is something earned not just given.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Well, you're the one that supposedly despises your "pope", which you have no need of anyway because you have created a pick and choose, cafeteria religion of your own. You pick which de fide dogmas to believe and which ones to reject because they don't conform to you religiously indifferent ecumenical beliefs.
No, I read the documents in CONTEXT. I also look at how to appropriate translate them.

You, on the other hand see a statement and then jump to conclusions.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
There you go again playing the victim, poor persecuted catholics. Catholics miss the forest for the trees. Yes there are differences in denoms. There are differences in the rcc too right? Your constant back and forth with MF is proof of that. Lastdaysbeliever's point is relevant.
No, it isn't at all analogous. MF has broken Communion with the RCC--and for all intents and purposes is just as Protestant as you are. I know it is hard to believe that--given how Catholic he sounds and writes. Catholic trappings do not make someone a Catholic.

Essential to Catholicism is unity with the Bishop of Rome. We do not get to invalidate popes because we don't like them, their pastoral priorities are not what we want them to be, we disagree with them, etc. That is what the reformers did. They invalidated the authority of the pope and bishops and went off and founded their own sects.

I can't stand Pope Francis. I think he has been an absolute disaster for the Church. That being said--he is still the pope. I can't stand many of the bishops today. I think they are arrogant, self-important, and poor teachers and leaders of our Church, The bishops today act more like politicians than bishops. But they are still bishops.
The point is that when a person is born again they are a new creation; 2 Cor 5:17, our citizenship is now in heaven; Phil 3:20 and we are sealed in the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption. Now, when a person is born again they will probably seek a local assembly to worship in, study with, learn and serve. If that local assembly is; Baptist, Lutheran, methodist....they will learn those particular teachings.
Yes, they will. The question is--are they learning BIBLICAL teachings? That is what I am asking--and THAT is what no one seems to want to answer.
Every born-again believer has a date with Jesus at the bema seat judgment. If what we have learned or passed on is somehow incorrect, we will hear about it then.
If that is the case, why can't you apply that same logic to Catholics--who ALSO believe Jesus is LORD, GOD, and SAVIOR? Fine. If we are wrong about Mary, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc, we will find out about it then!
That judgement is not to determine where we spend eternity because that was settled at the cross when we believed. That judgement is for rewards. What happens after a person is born again is between them and God. Youre making entirely too much of it. Be born again first then if you want to debate Lutherans go for it. We focus here on the false teachings of the rcc because those teachings are found nowhere in the bible and are harmful to the soul.
Fine. But this exact same logic applies to Catholics. If we got some things wrong, God will correct us on Judgment Day.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Well-known member
No, I read the documents in CONTEXT. I also look at how to appropriate translate them.

You, on the other hand see a statement and then jump to conclusions.
What complete nonsense. You show an almost complete ignorance of the entire body of teaching of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II, and I don't think you even know what Vatican II says.

I'm the Protestant? - when the only work or authors I've ever seen you reference in any of our correspondence are all Protestants? You're the most Protestant poster on this forum.

Pre-Vatican II Catholicism was all just irrelevant stuff taught by some "obscure" popes or somebody that says some things that don't apply anymore. We can just subjectivise everything because of "historical context."

When Pope Boniface VIII defines; "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we DEFINE that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff", we can't be sure what he meant by that because of "context"?

It's one of the most definitive, clear, unambiguous, and dogmatic statements on the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church made by a pope. Unlike the mush that is the writing of the post Vatican II "popes", the writing by the Church before Vatican II was clear and concise.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
When Pope Boniface VIII defines; "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we DEFINE that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff", we can't be sure what he meant by that because of "context"?

It's one of the most definitive, clear, unambiguous, and dogmatic statements on the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church made by a pope. Unlike the mush that is the writing of the post Vatican II "popes", the writing by the Church before Vatican II was clear and concise.
For the one millionth time: I agree that in matters of salvation it is absolutely necessary that every human creature be subjected to the pope.

What Boniface is asserting in other words is: "The pope, not the secular ruler is the visible head of the Church on earth." As the Church was founded to bring the graves of salvation to the world, and as the pope is the visible head of the Church on earth, it is necessary for salvation for everyone to be subject to the Roman Pontiff---and not the secular ruler.

I do not understand what you aren't getting here.
 
Top