Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ

mica

Well-known member
Because the statement is meaningless when there are hundreds of competing sects, all preaching mutually exclusive doctrines.
no, they all are not. you show that you know little about what they do teach.

That line must be on p1 of the RCC guide book for online catholic posters.

How can I know what the Gospel IS when the Protestants themselves don't even know what it is?
your church (if it was His church) would be teaching it continually. It's in scripture. read it. One cannot be saved without it.

Yeah, actually it IS, because there are Lutherans and Baptists, etc. If the Gospel wasn't Lutheran, Baptist, etc, there would not be Lutherans Baptists, etc, there would just be Christians.
I sometimes listen to a Lutheran minister and he teaches it. I also listen to at least 2 Baptists ministers and they both teach it. I've gone to services in numerous different denoms - and they all taught it.

Yeah, you dismiss that as unimportant nonsense. It is actually quite important. These questions are about the Gospel.

I am not calling God's Gospel meaningless, I am calling YOUR STATEMENT meaningless. Learn the difference!
it must be meaningless to catholics - the RCC doesn't teach it and most catholics don't know it. The gospel by which we are saved. It is contrary to the RCC beliefs about salvation, so not something it wants to promote by teaching it. The gospel doesn't include the RCC, its pope or its teachings as necessary for salvation. It is all about Him, His sacrifice and resurrection.

So you call your post an answer do you? That is an answer? That is what passes for an answer in your world?
He gave great responses. That you don't like them is understandable. Catholics don't like the truth of God's word.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
So for all of those previous yrs that you claim the RCC existed it was uncertain about the IC. Then suddenly it was certain. Why was it uncertain for all of those prev yrs?

Well, the Church didn't define the full equality of Jesus with the Father until 325AD. You aren't troubled by that--because you know that while the Church did not define this until 325AD it doesn't mean the Church didn't believe it before then. You aren't troubled that the Church did not define the NT Canon until 325AD---because there also, you know that while the NT wasn't defined until 325AD, it does not mean that the Church was without the Scriptures for 325 years.

Apply the same logic to the IC. The Church does not formally define doctrine unless or until there is a need to do so. Asking "Well, gee whiz, I mean, like, you know, why did it take so long for the Church to define the IC?" is sort of like asking why it took so long for the SCOTUS to rule on some point of law. The SCOTUS only rules on a legal issue when there is a need. The Church defines doctrine when there is a need to do so. Why did it take 1854 years for the Church to define the IC? Because by 1854, there was a need for the Church to do so.

The Church defines what she believes-----because she believes it. The Church does not believe something because it is defined.
Why did it suddenly claim to be certain? Did God add something into scripture? have verses been added to the catholic bibles? How did Catholics even live without the certainty of it?

Quite easily. Again, Catholics lived so long before the definition---because there wasn't a need to issue a definition. Your question is like asking "How did the Church live for 325 years without a definition on the full equality of Jesus Christ with God the Father?"
Was that before or after the pope came to be infallible?

Jesus Christ was and is always God. Jesus didn't become God because the Church defined it in 325AD. The Church defined it in 325AD because Jesus is God.

The same logic works for any other defined doctrine of the Church. Papal infallibility was defined in 1870 because the pope is infallible. The pope did not become infallible because papal infallibility was defined in 1870.

Mica, do yourself a favor and go back to the JV boards. You clearly aren't cut out for varsity level debate.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Yeah--and Catholics believe as much, so this doesn't help you since you think we reject the Gospel.
If the RCC truly believed as much, then they would not ignore scripture down grade it for a man made book. If they did they would not ignore the evil fruit but follow scripture on what to do. If they did they would know the difference between the literal and the symbolic. If they did they would not put Mary in front of Jesus. If they did they would not make up revisionist history. If they did the institution would be a light on the hill. If they did then they would not have scandal after scandal.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
If the RCC truly believed as much, then they would not ignore scripture down grade it for a man made book.

We don't down grade the Scriptures for a man made book (whatever that means.)
If they did they would not ignore the evil fruit but follow scripture on what to do. If they did they would know the difference between the literal and the symbolic.

We do. You are the one who cannot tell the difference.
If they did they would not put Mary in front of Jesus.

We don't. You are the one who thinks we do.
If they did they would not make up revisionist history. If they did the institution would be a light on the hill. If they did then they would not have scandal after scandal.

You need to move on from the scandal. These boards are for academic debate.

If you want to talk about the scandal, then go to the "RCC Other" boards and discuss it there.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
Here's your answer right in the verse quoted.

“This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says:...'

Where did God tell anyone in the rcc to try heretics and put them to death? Course heretics as far as the rcc is concerned are believers that wouldn't submit to Rome.
“Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Put your sword on your side, each of you! Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor.’”


Did God really say this just after verse 14 that says "And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people"?


Or did "Moses anger burn hot" (Verse 19) and he made this decision on behalf of God?
 

balshan

Well-known member
We don't down grade the Scriptures for a man made book (whatever that means.)

Of course you pretend you don't know what that means. You have never heard of the catechism, which be honest is considered a higher level than the bible, no matter what you say with words. Yes RCs have downgraded the scriptures by making out they cannot be interpreted by mere humans, by saying you cannot translations of the canon etc. RCs have thrown doubt on what is really the word of God, is it just the original writings, can the copies be trusted. Then it makes up things like is it a real narrative in scripture or something else. It changes the meanings of the words to suit its false teachings. Of course it downgrades the very word of God by these comments and acts.
We do. You are the one who cannot tell the difference.

Yep you are right your institution ignores the evil fruit and it cannot tell the difference. It ignores the writings of Paul.
We don't. You are the one who thinks we do.

Oh you do. Your are the only ones who think you don't.
You need to move on from the scandal. These boards are for academic debate.

If you want to talk about the scandal, then go to the "RCC Other" boards and discuss it there.
To move on from the scandals, means they just get repeated. If you think your institution has cleaned up the institution then you are sadly mistaking. Cases are still be revealed. It is more than one. These scandals are part of the academic debate they show your institution makes false claims and the evidence is in the numerous scandals. These scandals also show that your institution ignores scripture. I will talk about when and where I want. You need to see that they are evidence of how you institution is not what it claims to be.

Your pope blesses idols. Your leaders are involved in all the things that Paul tells us not to do. Totally ignores 1 cor 5:11 and then makes out it follows the apostles. Seriously you joke.

1 Cor 5:11

But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people

By ignoring scripture you downgrade its value. It is the word of God.
 

balshan

Well-known member
“Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Put your sword on your side, each of you! Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor.’”


Did God really say this just after verse 14 that says "And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people"?


Or did "Moses anger burn hot" (Verse 19) and he made this decision on behalf of God?
Over 30 verses about loving your enemies:

Matt 5:44

But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Luke 6:28

bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you

Matt 7:12

“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Rom 1214+

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly.


Your response shows how RCC does not understand what love your neighbour truly means.
 

mica

Well-known member
Nondenom40 said:
So you believe in Sola fide?
That is not part of the Gospel. That is a Protestant invention.
yes, it is. by believing the gospel by faith alone in Him.

no it isn't. does the RCC teach you that? did protestants exist in the 1st century?

One is not permitted to deny what they know to be true. Note that "know" is the key word.
one who? one catholic? not permitted by whom?
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
Over 30 verses about loving your enemies:

Matt 5:44

But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Luke 6:28

bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you

Matt 7:12

“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Rom 1214+

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly.


Your response shows how RCC does not understand what love your neighbour truly means.
"Kill your brother, your friend, your neighbor"?

"Thus says the Lord" was your answer. And now that is a lack of charity? Moses didn't love those 3000 enough?
 

balshan

Well-known member
"Kill your brother, your friend, your neighbor"?

"Thus says the Lord" was your answer. And now that is a lack of charity? Moses didn't love those 3000 enough?
So you follow Moshe not Jesus/Yeshua. But only when it suits the RCC killing and murdering others.
 

balshan

Well-known member
:rolleyes:

Was Moses wrong in slaying the 3000? Why or why not?
So you follow Moshe and not Jesus? Just so you can justify the murders, killings of your institution. I follow Jesus. Was Moshe following God's instructions. Yes or no. I do not question God.

Jesus says love your enemy. If you follow Moshe then you would need to kill the stiffnecked people in your institution. Moshe was not killing unbelievers, these were people who knew the Lord and then went back to pagan worship. Moshe carried out God's instructions. Your institution killed people outside their institution. You are not comparing apples with apples. Yeshua clearly tells us to love our enemies. Your institution is well after Yeshua/Jesus but you do not follow Him.
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
Read more scripture - there are many accounts of those of God who disobeyed a pagan ruler. Did the apostles stop teaching about Jesus? How about Stephen? Read the words of Ananias who was sent to Saul/Paul. He still obeyed God. there are many like accounts thru out the OT and NT.

how about Acts 10?

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.


Choose this day who you will serve - God or man.

...

Right; what does any of that have to do with Catholicism?
evidently you didn't read the post (by a catholic) that I replied to. you should do that before commenting on the reply to it.

post 500
 

mica

Well-known member
Well, the Church didn't define the full equality of Jesus with the Father until 325AD. You aren't troubled by that--because you know that while the Church did not define this until 325AD it doesn't mean the Church didn't believe it before then.
maybe if someone in the RCC knew Him and His word it wouldn't have taken them so long to 'define it'. the excuses you all come up with. the RCC teaches you that and you just blindly accept it.

You aren't troubled that the Church did not define the NT Canon until 325AD---because there also, you know that while the NT wasn't defined until 325AD, it does not mean that the Church was without the Scriptures for 325 years.
your church hadn't existed for that many yrs.

Apply the same logic to the IC. The Church does not formally define doctrine unless or until there is a need to do so.
which clearly shows the RCC isn't His church. It also shows it doesn't know what is in scripture and / or just doesn't believe it and that what God has in His word isn't what the RCC wants to teach people. why would it claim to be His church and not want to teach His word to others?

Asking "Well, gee whiz, I mean, like, you know, why did it take so long for the Church to define the IC?" is sort of like asking why it took so long for the SCOTUS to rule on some point of law. The SCOTUS only rules on a legal issue when there is a need. The Church defines doctrine when there is a need to do so. Why did it take 1854 years for the Church to define the IC? Because by 1854, there was a need for the Church to do so.
No, His church knew doctrine was found within His word. His word defines it.

and no, I don't use language such as 'like, you know' etc. Did you grow up with valley people? And no, His church isn't like SCOTUS. your church doesn't define what it calls doctrine until a crisis because it doesn't know what it is and has to guess at it and take a vote on it - instead of searching scripture for what He says about it. your church wanted to make doctrine out of one of its false beliefs / teachings, that's all - be honest about it. Scripture says nothing about the IC - that's made up by the RCC men. It is not of God.

The Church defines what she believes-----because she believes it. The Church does not believe something because it is defined.
yep, all on her own because it isn't scriptural and God isn't sending out emails with new beliefs in them. His word doesn't change. that of the RCC does.

Quite easily. Again, Catholics lived so long before the definition---because there wasn't a need to issue a definition. Your question is like asking "How did the Church live for 325 years without a definition on the full equality of Jesus Christ with God the Father?"
of course not. did any catholics before that check to see if it was in scripture? were they allowed to have or read scripture before then? did any catholics exist before then?

Jesus Christ was and is always God. Jesus didn't become God because the Church defined it in 325AD. The Church defined it in 325AD because Jesus is God.
Believers already knew that. they didn't need the RCC to define it. the apostles and disciples knew that already. the RCC seems to have come late to being 'His church'... His church existed long before the RCC did.

The same logic works for any other defined doctrine of the Church. Papal infallibility was defined in 1870 because the pope is infallible. The pope did not become infallible because papal infallibility was defined in 1870.

Mica, do yourself a favor and go back to the JV boards. You clearly aren't cut out for varsity level debate.
yes, doctrine of the RCC, not of God.

do we have one of those? have I ever been on it? if not how can I go back to it? I'll struggle along here in hopes you can catch up with me.
 
Last edited:

balshan

Well-known member
maybe if someone in the RCC knew Him and His word it wouldn't have taken them so long to 'define it'. the excuses you all come up with. the RCC teaches you that and you just blindly accept it.


your church hadn't existed for that many yrs.


which clearly shows the RCC isn't His church. It also shows it doesn't know what is in scripture and / or just doesn't believe it and that what God has in His word isn't what the RCC wants to teach people. why would it claim to be His church and not want to teach His word to others?


No, His church knew doctrine was found within His word. His word defines it.

and no, I don't use language such as 'like, you know' etc. Did you grow up with valley people? And no, His church isn't like SCOTUS. your church doesn't define what it calls doctrine until a crisis because it doesn't know what it is and has to guess at it and take a vote on it - instead of searching scripture for what He says about it. your church wanted to make doctrine out of one of its false beliefs / teachings. that's all - be honest about it. Scripture says nothing about the IC - that's made up by the RCC men. It is not of God.


yep, all on her own because it isn't scriptural and God isn't sending out emails with new beliefs in them. His word doesn't change. that of the RCC does.


of course not. did any catholics before that check to see if it was in scripture? were they allowed to have or read a bible before then?


Believers already knew that. they didn't need the RCC to define it. the apostles and disciples knew that already. the RCC seems to have come late to being 'His church'... His existed before the RCC did.


yes, doctrine of the RCC, not of God.

do we have one of those? have I ever been on it? if not how can I go back to it? I'll struggle along here in hopes you can catch up with me.
Great response.
 

mica

Well-known member
balshan said:
Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life
Yeah--and Catholics believe as much, so this doesn't help you since you think we reject the Gospel.
according to what the RCC teaches and what catholics believe (and post here), you all do reject it. Most don't know what it is.

catholics have head knowledge of some things, but their hearts know nothing about it.
 

Maxtar

Active member
according to what the RCC teaches and what catholics believe (and post here), you all do reject it. Most don't know what it is.

catholics have head knowledge of some things, but their hearts know nothing about it.
Your opinion has been duly noted - and rejected!
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
according to what the RCC teaches and what catholics believe (and post here), you all do reject it. Most don't know what it is.

catholics have head knowledge of some things, but their hearts know nothing about it.
Your opinion has been duly noted - and rejected!
your rejecting what you consider to be my opinion is nothing compared to your rejecting of God's word. in rejecting His word you reject eternal life with Him.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
No you have a false gospel. That is beyond doubt.

First I never made that claim. You pulled that out of the bag. Pell said laicized priests and Rome reinstalled them. Royal Commission. But popes knew of Marcial and what he was doing.

Bishops have been involved, the bishop of Broome is being investigated as we speak. A priest reported him to the church and was ignored so it is now in the hands of priests.

It was not a kangaroo court and it was not the Royal Commission that put him in jail. Pell was not innocent of knowing boys were being molested. There was the Royal Commission and then there was a criminal court case the two are different. In fact, the report from the Royal Commission concerning Pell was not released because he was facing criminal charges, so that it would not influence criminal proceedings. You obviously do not understand how a Royal Commission works and it was into every institution across Australia. No I don't understand at all. I quoted from pell's own words which I watched. His court case was not televised. Two different things. The Commission was not just into your institution and your ignorance on this topic is showing.

Of course you do not accept the truth, no surprise at all. By the way I mentioned more than child abuse you just try to narrow it down, all the scandals of your institution to one thing and make out it is a small number. That is not the truth and you know it. There were rapes of nuns, there are those priests who slept with a woman and are not married, there are those who have children outside marriage and the homosexuals. You try and fail to minimize the scandals of your institution and Paul is still ignored.
1 Cor 5:11

But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people

Just sweep the false claims and teachings, the centuries of sin, the ignoring of the instructions of the apostles and Jesus under the carpet and that shows how far away from Jesus your institution is.
Agreed! One of the most shameful tragedies in life is that many children have been and still are being abused by Roman Catholic priests. They will live the rest of their lives with that horror tucked away into the far reaches of their minds.
 

mica

Well-known member
Agreed! One of the most shameful tragedies in life is that many children have been and still are being abused by Roman Catholic priests. They will live the rest of their lives with that horror tucked away into the far reaches of their minds.
yes, we had another case of it in the local area this past year. the priest was arrested. I don't know much more about it, but then I seldom watch the news these days.

that is not the only way priests destroy lives, they continue to lie to the people and teach against God's word. They're destroying more than lives here on earth, but also for eternity.
 
Top