A new day
Super Member
and I posted it. So did balshan, and other non-rc's. As a matter of fact, they all posted the teachings long before I did.I said one. Name one thing that the cc teaches.
and I posted it. So did balshan, and other non-rc's. As a matter of fact, they all posted the teachings long before I did.I said one. Name one thing that the cc teaches.
I challenge you to name one thing the cc teaches.and I posted it. So did balshan, and other non-rc's. As a matter of fact, they all posted the teachings long before I did.
It is so sad that you cannot read. HMMM. Read the op. My op started with this, I never said that your institution taught it. Ivclearly said:I said one. Name one thing that the cc teaches.
Well, considering the Roman Catholic priest (indelible marks and all) John Wycliffe was translating the Latin Vulgate verbatum, perhaps his superiors could have shown him his mis-translations! Perhaps you can enlighten us as to where his errors were, and why they are erroneous. (Don't forget that Middle English is different from Modern English.)Does it make any difference the Wycliffe bible was full of error?
"Hatred"? That seems to be a popular word amongst Catholics. Hatred would be digging up someone's cadaver, burning it, and throwing the remaining bones into the river. Hatred is burning someone at the stake for opposing simony.Or, would you rather be in error just to show your hatred for Catholicism?
JoeT
It is what the RCC teaches them and it used to teach me. You will be hated. But they are the ones who attack us personally in their posts. They attack us for revealing the truth about their institution, its false claims, its false teachings and what it practices.Well, considering the Roman Catholic priest (indelible marks and all) John Wycliffe was translating the Latin Vulgate verbatum, perhaps his superiors could have shown him his mis-translations! Perhaps you can enlighten us as to where his errors were, and why they are erroneous. (Don't forget that Middle English is different from Modern English.)
"Hatred"? That seems to be a popular word amongst Catholics. Hatred would be digging up someone's cadaver, burning it, and throwing the remaining bones into the river. Hatred is burning someone at the stake for opposing simony.
I really do not hate Catholicism. It deeply saddens me to know what the RCC could have been had it not been led astray. I see the man-made teachings that go counter to God's Word, and the resistance to God's Holy Spirit such teachings produces. But having lived 18 years in the system, I fully realize how it enwraps its adherents, and how it takes a work of God Almighty to free them.
His superiors did show Wycliffe his errors. Failing to renounce them he was found to be heretical.Well, considering the Roman Catholic priest (indelible marks and all) John Wycliffe was translating the Latin Vulgate verbatum, perhaps his superiors could have shown him his mis-translations! Perhaps you can enlighten us as to where his errors were, and why they are erroneous. (Don't forget that Middle English is different from Modern English.)
Wycliffe wasn't burned at the stake. He was dead when announced that his views were heretical. But, it was quite normal to burn heretics, that's the way people lived in the 1300's."Hatred"? That seems to be a popular word amongst Catholics. Hatred would be digging up someone's cadaver, burning it, and throwing the remaining bones into the river. Hatred is burning someone at the stake for opposing simony.
Could have fooled me. Yes, the picture of Catholicism you've painted in your mind is saddening, but not a true picture.I really do not hate Catholicism. It deeply saddens me to know what the RCC could have been had it not been led astray. I see the man-made teachings that go counter to God's Word, and the resistance to God's Holy Spirit such teachings produces. But having lived 18 years in the system, I fully realize how it enwraps its adherents, and how it takes a work of God Almighty to free them.
I never said Wycliffe was. Jan Hus, however, was. Tyndale, I believe, was strangled.His superiors did show Wycliffe his errors. Failing to renounce them he was found to be heretical.
Wycliffe wasn't burned at the stake.
So, yet another excuse from a follower of a "church" that claims to be following the Prince of Peace, who said, But I say to you: Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. And pray for those who persecute and slander you. In this way, you shall be sons of your Father, who is in heaven. He causes his sun to rise upon the good and the bad, and he causes it to rain upon the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward will you have? Do not even tax collectors behave this way? [Mat 5:44-46 CPDV]He was dead when announced that his views were heretical. But, it was quite normal to burn heretics, that's the way people lived in the 1300's.
Well, considering that the RCs on here have placed their faith in the RCC and its claims, of course you would say that anything disagreeing with those claims is not true. This is seen in JWs, Mormons, and other such groups.Could have fooled me. Yes, the picture of Catholicism you've painted in your mind is saddening, but not a true picture.
JoeT
Is this an official RC site?edit
JoeT
No; well maybe yes;Is this an official RC site?
"But, but, but, but, waaiiiiit! I have a friend who is a professor of Greek. He says, along with Strong's Greek concordance that the Greek should be translated as "vindicated" or--whatever--so there. "
Or----"But, but, but, but, waiiit! James is just contrasting a living Faith with a dead faith....."
Or---"But, but, but, waaiiiit! We believe we are saved by Faith alone, but not by a Faith that is alone."
Or---"But, but, but, waiiit! Blah, blah, blah, blah, Lutheranism. Blah, blah, blah, James Swan. Blah, blah, blah, blah, Strong's concordance. Blah, blah, blah, context.
Sorry that the best you can do is write "blah, blah, blah," etc.Blah, blah, blah, not biblical. Blah, blah, blah, Romanism. Blah, blah, blah, all we need is Jesus, not Mary and the saints."
Oh, you mean what Catholics do on here?I probably spend too much time on these boards. I mean--I know all the tricks!
What I meant by the above---was that----you caricaturize our Faith and do not understand it.this is true--"vindicated" is another meaning of "justified."
This is entirely true. He was.
True. We are saved by "grace through faith and not by works, so no one may boast."
Yes, context--kryptonite for Catholics and other works-righteous groups.
Sorry that the best you can do is write "blah, blah, blah," etc.
BUT--We don't need Mary or the saints in heaven for salvation. All we DO need is Jesus! You were correct to write that. The thief on the cross didn't have Mary or the saints in heaven--but he had Jesus. He focused entirely on Jesus--And he was saved--wasn't he?
Oh, you mean what Catholics do on here?
I caricatured nothing in your faith. And I do understand it. Which is one of the main reasons I will NEVER become a Catholic. The HS enables me to understand it, and understand that your church teaches too much that is not Biblical and therefore, it teaches errors and I must reject it.What I meant by the above---was that----you caricaturize our Faith and do not understand it.
You say correctly we are saved by faith but other RCs say we are saved by faith plus and ever state what plus is or means. It is interesting that RCs state they are united but on this question of salvation there seems to be a difference in belief.What I meant by the above---was that----you caricaturize our Faith and do not understand it.
Oh Bonnie does understand it and you harping on caricaturizing is you trying to divert from the truth that others post. Yet you do caricaturize what others believe all the time.What I meant by the above---was that----you caricaturize our Faith and do not understand it.
Yeah you do.I caricatured nothing in your faith.
No, you don't. If I said "Lutherans teach and believe in Consubstantiation" would you say I understood Lutheranism or would you say I did not understand Lutheranism?And I do understand it.
And I care why?Which is one of the main reasons I will NEVER become a Catholic.
If the Holy Spirit enables you to understand the Word of God, why do need a Church with a pastor to teach?The HS enables me to understand it,
No, you THINK you understand what my Church teaches. You don't.and understand that your church teaches too much that is not Biblical and therefore, it teaches errors and I must reject it.
Not if you do so in ignorance.But rejecting your church is NOT the same thing as rejecting Jesus Christ and His salvation, great and free--is it?
No Bonnie didn't and that is bearing false witness to state she did. RCs constantly attack Luther and Bonnie responds with the truth and not attacks.Yeah you do.
No, you don't. If I said "Lutherans teach and believe in Consubstantiation" would you say I understood Lutheranism or would you say I did not understand Lutheranism?
And I care why?
If the Holy Spirit enables you to understand the Word of God, why do need a Church with a pastor to teach?
No, you THINK you understand what my Church teaches. You don't.
Not if you do so in ignorance.
Yeah you do.
No, you don't. If I said "Lutherans teach and believe in Consubstantiation" would you say I understood Lutheranism or would you say I did not understand Lutheranism?
And I care why?
If the Holy Spirit enables you to understand the Word of God, why do need a Church with a pastor to teach?
No, you THINK you understand what my Church teaches. You don't.
But rejecting your church is NOT the same thing as rejecting Jesus Christ--is it? I reject the former and I do so fully cognizant of what that means. Salvation is in Jesus Christ alone, not in formally belonging to your church denomination.Not if you do so in ignorance.
The 4 Marian dogmas--or are those considered 4 separate things? How about Indulgences? Being subject to the pope is necessary for salvation...I said one. Name one thing that the cc teaches.
Yeah, you DO.No, I don't.
You miss the point. I was not asking about Consubstantiation. I already know Lutherans do not believe that. The POINT I was making was that--IF I continued to insist that Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation, even AFTER being corrected MULTIPLE TIMES by people like you who know what Lutherans do and do not believe----you would suggest that I either do not get Lutheranism, or, I do get Lutheranism, but none-the-less continue to falsely caricaturize what they believe.why not ask that on the Lutheran board? This is off topic for this board.
Because I care about Catholics who may wonder on to these boards.Good question. IF you don't care, then why even come on this board and interact with us?
Yeah-fellowship. Great.Because God's word tells us to meet together often for fellowship and worship. God in Christ Jesus has made us for fellowshiping together in Him, for encouragement, for learning, for hearing the Good News preached and to receive Holy Communion. Also, people in church have different duties--some are pastors, some are elders, some are teachers, etc. and etc. We do not all have the same talents.
You got that right.Sorry, but most of the time I don't. If I am not sure, then I ask.
It is if the Holy Spirit has revealed in your heart that the RCC is the Church of Christ and yet you reject it, even AFTER testimony by the Holy Spirit.But rejecting your church is NOT the same thing as rejecting Jesus Christ--is it?
That isn't the point.I reject the former and I do so fully cognizant of what that means. Salvation is in Jesus Christ alone, not in formally belonging to your church denomination.