Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

The Nitty-Gritty of Catholic Doctrine

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by davbeh2010 View Post




    Pontifex Maximus - 100% pagan title - 0% Christian title

    [ "He was responsible for an enormous collection of omens (annales maximi); that would be recorded and collected on a nearly constant basis. These heavenly signs would be written down along with accompanying events, and used to determine the divine favor of the gods. Doing so allowed following generations of priests and magistrates to understand the historic will of the gods and interpret future events against past patterns.

    Today, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, is still called the Pontifex Maximus. It's a political or governing office that has been in existence and in perpetual use for nearly 3,000 years." https://www.unrv.com/culture/pontifex-maximus.php - (emphasis mine)]


    Pontifex Maximus - Contrary to Holy Scripture -

    Deuteronomy 4:39 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) (Public Domain) (emphasis mine)
    39 Know therefore this day, and think in thy heart that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and in the earth beneath, and there is no other.


    Are you opposed to the LORD God in heaven above and in the earth beneath? There is no other! Someone better inform and educate Pontifex Maximus "on earth", the Truth of the matter!

    Classical Faith 101 (Deuteronomy 4:39)


    In Christ's service,
    David Behrens
    Sola Gloria Dei!
    Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
    When you get to the questions in the OP will have something to discuss.

    JoeT
    Sigillum Militum Χρisti † / "Truth exists. The Incarnation happened."

    Totus Tuus, "Totally yours . . . Keep me in this union".

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by highrigger View Post

      Funny you will not tell us how he alludes to Purgatory when it was invented much later.

      JohnR
      In short, inasmuch as we understand "the prison" pointed out in the Gospel to be Hades, and as we also interpret "the uttermost farthing" to mean the very smallest offence which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection, no one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides.

      Tertullian, de Anima, LVIII
      Your life has shown you to your flock as a rule of faith, an image of gentleness, and a teacher of moderation. You acquired greatness through humility and wealth through poverty. [source: Troparion of St.Nicholas (Byzantine-Ruthenian usage)]

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by highrigger View Post
        Tell me why that is relevant. Funny you never want to explain what is the definitions you are using. I suspect you either do not know or you know it is false and
        are embarrassed to tell us. (chuckle)
        You have asserted that your "bishops" are successors, directly to Irenaeus in a recent post, so you should be able to trace the apostolic lineage from Irenaeus to your present "bishop".

        Ready? Go!

        By the way there were no RCC bishops there either. It was an ECUMENICAL council and not a RCC council.
        That's hilarious, John. They would not have been ecumenical without the Church of Rome.
        Your life has shown you to your flock as a rule of faith, an image of gentleness, and a teacher of moderation. You acquired greatness through humility and wealth through poverty. [source: Troparion of St.Nicholas (Byzantine-Ruthenian usage)]

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by tester View Post

          What does it mean to you when it is said “that doctrine is not Biblical”?
          it is not in the bible : it may be true or false , (ex Thomas founded the Churches in India) but it is not Biblical
          I don't understand "it may be true or false"? How can an inerrant book be true or false - isn't that counterintuitive? Does it mean Thomas never went to India?

          What doctrine of the Catholic Church contradicts the Sacred Scripture?
          Unam Sanctum
          I know you tried hard but Unam Sanctam is a Papal Bull. Papal Bulls are written to heads of state, in 1302 A.D. that would be a king or queen. In the case of Unam Sanctam it was Pope Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair, King of France. But, you knew that, didn't you?

          Nevertheless, the Bull binding on the King of France; "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

          Can there be a doctrine that doesn't contradict the Bible and doesn't exist in the Bible?
          Sure Peter was the first bishop of Rome (Roman Pontiff) doesn't contradict the Bible and doesn't exist in the Bible but it may be true or it may be false
          Again we run into the counterintuitive. How can a truth be true yet isn't?

          Will you name at least one doctrine that conflicts with Sacred Scripture and state why or how it conflicts with Sacred Scripture?

          Unam Sanctum

          it has never been absolutely necessary for anyone's salvation to submit to the Roman Pontiff
          Once again the Unam Sanctam isn't binding on all the faithful, nevertheless it is strong advise that one be subject to the Roman Pontiff to gain Salvation. When reading the Bull notice that the Pope refers to two swords:
          ‘Behold, here are two swords‘ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard‘ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

          However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power.
          He is saying the state should be subordinate to the spiritual power of the sword. You have your powers in the wrong place, in the wrong frame of mind, and in the wrong spiritual world.

          JoeT
          Sigillum Militum Χρisti † / "Truth exists. The Incarnation happened."

          Totus Tuus, "Totally yours . . . Keep me in this union".

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by JoeT View Post

            I don't understand "it may be true or false"? How can an inerrant book be true or false - isn't that counterintuitive? Does it mean Thomas never went to India?
            you asked
            "What does it mean to you when it is said “that doctrine is not Biblical”?"
            my reply was: that means it is not in in the Bible
            therefore it is NOT from an inerrant book





            Again we run into the counterintuitive. How can a truth be true yet isn't?
            Again you asked
            Can there be a doctrine that doesn't contradict the Bible and doesn't exist in the Bible?
            Again:if it doesn't exist in the Bible then it did not have an infallible source

            I know you tried hard but Unam Sanctam is a Papal Bull. Papal Bulls are written to heads of state, in 1302 A.D. that would be a king or queen. In the case of Unam Sanctam it was Pope Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair, King of France. But, you knew that, didn't you?

            Nevertheless, the Bull binding on the King of France; "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

            Once again the Unam Sanctam isn't binding on all the faithful, nevertheless it is strong advise that one be subject to the Roman Pontiff to gain Salvation. When reading the Bull notice that the Pope refers to two swords:
            ‘Behold, here are two swords‘ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard‘ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

            However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power.
            He is saying the state should be subordinate to the spiritual power of the sword. You have your powers in the wrong place, in the wrong frame of mind, and in the wrong spiritual world.[JoeT
            too funny
            There are different interpretations presented by CARM Catholics of what Unam Sanctum really means.
            Do you even consider it to be infallible?
            One of the ekklēsia

            Comment


            • #51
              Not funny:

              Doctrine can be thought of as the body of truths taught by the Church. Doctrine literally means the “act of teaching,” hence we think of it in the same sense as the Catechesis. Doctrine can have many sources; it could be Sacred Tradition, or Sacred Scripture. But, there is more, doctrine can also be simple religious custom or just plain custom of a local community, legends, or it can be the disciplines of the Church, or religious customs such as genuflecting and making the sign of the cross, forms of respect.

              Whereas, dogma is the “doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation” [Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary]. The literal meaning of dogma is ‘declaration’ or ‘decree’. The faithful are obliged to accept dogma as God’s revelation of God as found in Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture as a matter of salvation. I realize there is a fine distinction between the two, but one that should be made in these types of discussions.

              With regard to the legend regarding St. Thomas teaching in India and his martyrdom is just that, an unverifiable story about St. Thomas. Another such legend is that he bore a close physical resemblance to Christ because “Thomas” means twin. The Apostolic narrative of Thomas is handed to us through the Church down through the ages. We are not obliged to ‘believe’ legends as a matter of salvation. Likewise, if we fail to observe a religious custom, as an example we fail to genuflect before the altar, we do not regard this as a matter of salvation - unless of course it is a deliberate disrespect to Christ or the Church.

              Originally posted by tester View Post
              you asked "What does it mean to you when it is said that doctrine is not Biblical?"my reply was: that means it is not in the Bible therefore it is NOT from an inerrant book.
              All dogma is doctrine of God’s revealed truth and as such it cannot conflict with Scripture. Otherwise, God would be viewed as conflicted - unable to make up His mind what is true; a counterintuitive absurdity. On the other hand, Catholicism takes Scripture to be inerrant and no teaching of Catholic dogma conflicts with scripture. In your previous response to the question “that doctrine is not Biblical,” you said “it is not in the bible: it may be true or false, (ex Thomas founded the Churches in India) but it is not Biblical” Whether or not St. Thomas is the founder of India’s Church isn’t dogmatic, and isn’t doctrine except with the caveat of being a legend.

              Consequently, we should find that a true dogmatic doctrine does not conflict with Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition. Can you name a dogmatic doctrine that does conflict with Sacred Scripture?

              Again you asked

              Can there be a doctrine that doesn't contradict the Bible and doesn't exist in the Bible? Again:if it doesn't exist in the Bible then it did not have an infallible source too funny There are different interpretations presented by CARM Catholics of what Unam Sanctum really means. Do you even consider it to be infallible?
              Catholics here, like me, find the description of “CARM Catholic” to be offensive. It denotes a Catholic that is CARM like - which is primarily heretical in nature. I have no problems with the being called ‘Roman Catholic,” but that only describes one Rite of Catholicism and omits a great many in communion with the Bishop of Rome; more properly we should be referred to as “Catholics”

              Your example is merely used to deflect the conversation to Unam Sanctam and it’s a perceived conflict with your perceived inalienable right to believe whatever proceeds out of you, not the truth; but, we’ll address it anyway.

              There is only one interpretation, the truth as witnessed by history.

              Unam Sanctam is infallible for the person it was addressed to. The Pope clearly is telling the King of France that the state must subject itself to spiritual authority, represented by Pope Boniface VIII. At the time in the 14th century the Pope was both an authority of state and a spiritual authority. In his conflict with Philip the Fair the Pope could address the State of France as the head of state, or as the head of the Body of Christ, a spiritual kingdom.

              Philip IV of France and Edward Longshanks of England were at war, former in 1286 A.D. and the latter in 1274 A.D.; each had placed embargos or imposed ecclesiastical seizures of properties and funds needed by the Pope in the Holy Lands. Both were dependent on clerical revenues and levies to support the war. You might recall that the Pope crowned both as Christian Kings. Hence, they owed allegiance to the Pope as a matter of state and as a matter of faith. In a previous Bull Boniface loudly protested royal acts and he had no intent for gifts to the Church to be used in defense of a Christian nation against another Christian nation. In 1296 the Pope wrote the Papal Bull Ineffabilis amor to Philip saying that “Christ gave His bride, the Church, dominion so that She could exercise power over all the faithful." He threatened Philip to throw his alliance to England in their dispute; all he needed to do is lift the sanctions against the Church. Philip’s response was to circulated a FAKE NEWS pamphlet claiming Boniface held the temporal authority of the King was superior to that of the Church. In response Boniface brought together a synod of French Bishops at which he issued the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam which as I’ve previously said spiritual authority ruled over any temporal power. The Papal Bull reminds the French king that his very salvation depends on being subject to the Roman Pontiff.

              These are little pieces of history that embarrasses and must be suppressed by your heretical sect to 'tell the lie'; the FAKE NEWS PROPHETS.

              JoeT
              Sigillum Militum Χρisti † / "Truth exists. The Incarnation happened."

              Totus Tuus, "Totally yours . . . Keep me in this union".

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by JoeT View Post
                Catholics here, like me, find the description of “CARM Catholic” to be offensive. It denotes a Catholic that is CARM like - which is primarily heretical in nature.
                JoeT
                CARM Catholics are a different than Catholic.com Catholics, lifesitenews Catholics, TheChurchMiltant Catholics, National Catholic Register Catholics and
                the National Catholic Reporter Catholics.

                Those other sites that accept comments on news stories are usually all in agreement with their opinions. (ex: outrage, disappointment)
                Carm Catholics usually have the opposite expressed views.(ex: everything is fine)


                how is this? CARM-Posting Catholics

                Pick any Catholic news story and follow the reactions on those other sites and then compare how it is addressed by CARM-Posting Catholics




                One of the ekklēsia

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by tester View Post

                  CARM Catholics are a different than Catholic.com Catholics, lifesitenews Catholics, TheChurchMiltant Catholics, National Catholic Register Catholics and
                  the National Catholic Reporter Catholics.

                  Those other sites that accept comments on news stories are usually all in agreement with their opinions. (ex: outrage, disappointment)
                  Carm Catholics usually have the opposite expressed views.(ex: everything is fine)


                  how is this? CARM-Posting Catholics

                  Pick any Catholic news story and follow the reactions on those other sites and then compare how it is addressed by CARM-Posting Catholics
                  That nice for them, I'm glad they have a unity of faith. I think you need to read what they say, you'll find it to be right in line with the Catholics posting here.

                  JoeT
                  Sigillum Militum Χρisti † / "Truth exists. The Incarnation happened."

                  Totus Tuus, "Totally yours . . . Keep me in this union".

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by JoeT View Post
                    Not funny:
                    Doctrine can be thought of as the body of truths taught by the Church. Doctrine literally means the “act of teaching,” hence we think of it in the same sense as the Catechesis. Doctrine can have many sources; it could be Sacred Tradition, or Sacred Scripture. But, there is more, doctrine can also be simple religious custom or just plain custom of a local community, legends, or it can be the disciplines of the Church, or religious customs such as genuflecting and making the sign of the cross, forms of respect.

                    Whereas, dogma is the “doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation” [Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary]. The literal meaning of dogma is ‘declaration’ or ‘decree’. The faithful are obliged to accept dogma as God’s revelation of God as found in Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture as a matter of salvation. I realize there is a fine distinction between the two, but one that should be made in these types of discussions.

                    With regard to the legend regarding St. Thomas teaching in India and his martyrdom is just that, an unverifiable story about St. Thomas. Another such legend is that he bore a close physical resemblance to Christ because “Thomas” means twin. The Apostolic narrative of Thomas is handed to us through the Church down through the ages. We are not obliged to ‘believe’ legends as a matter of salvation. Likewise, if we fail to observe a religious custom, as an example we fail to genuflect before the altar, we do not regard this as a matter of salvation - unless of course it is a deliberate disrespect to Christ or the Church.

                    All dogma is doctrine of God’s revealed truth and as such it cannot conflict with Scripture. Otherwise, God would be viewed as conflicted - unable to make up His mind what is true; a counterintuitive absurdity. On the other hand, Catholicism takes Scripture to be inerrant and no teaching of Catholic dogma conflicts with scripture. In your previous response to the question “that doctrine is not Biblical,” you said “it is not in the bible: it may be true or false, (ex Thomas founded the Churches in India) but it is not Biblical” Whether or not St. Thomas is the founder of India’s Church isn’t dogmatic, and isn’t doctrine except with the caveat of being a legend.

                    Consequently, we should find that a true dogmatic doctrine does not conflict with Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition. Can you name a dogmatic doctrine that does conflict with Sacred Scripture?


                    Catholics here, like me, find the description of “CARM Catholic” to be offensive. It denotes a Catholic that is CARM like - which is primarily heretical in nature. I have no problems with the being called ‘Roman Catholic,” but that only describes one Rite of Catholicism and omits a great many in communion with the Bishop of Rome; more properly we should be referred to as “Catholics”

                    Your example is merely used to deflect the conversation to Unam Sanctam and it’s a perceived conflict with your perceived inalienable right to believe whatever proceeds out of you, not the truth; but, we’ll address it anyway.

                    There is only one interpretation, the truth as witnessed by history.

                    Unam Sanctam is infallible for the person it was addressed to. The Pope clearly is telling the King of France that the state must subject itself to spiritual authority, represented by Pope Boniface VIII. At the time in the 14th century the Pope was both an authority of state and a spiritual authority. In his conflict with Philip the Fair the Pope could address the State of France as the head of state, or as the head of the Body of Christ, a spiritual kingdom.

                    Philip IV of France and Edward Longshanks of England were at war, former in 1286 A.D. and the latter in 1274 A.D.; each had placed embargos or imposed ecclesiastical seizures of properties and funds needed by the Pope in the Holy Lands. Both were dependent on clerical revenues and levies to support the war. You might recall that the Pope crowned both as Christian Kings. Hence, they owed allegiance to the Pope as a matter of state and as a matter of faith. In a previous Bull Boniface loudly protested royal acts and he had no intent for gifts to the Church to be used in defense of a Christian nation against another Christian nation. In 1296 the Pope wrote the Papal Bull Ineffabilis amor to Philip saying that “Christ gave His bride, the Church, dominion so that She could exercise power over all the faithful." He threatened Philip to throw his alliance to England in their dispute; all he needed to do is lift the sanctions against the Church. Philip’s response was to circulated a FAKE NEWS pamphlet claiming Boniface held the temporal authority of the King was superior to that of the Church. In response Boniface brought together a synod of French Bishops at which he issued the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam which as I’ve previously said spiritual authority ruled over any temporal power. The Papal Bull reminds the French king that his very salvation depends on being subject to the Roman Pontiff.

                    These are little pieces of history that embarrasses and must be suppressed by your heretical sect to 'tell the lie'; the FAKE NEWS PROPHETS.JoeT
                    I'd be embarrassed to believe such a thing. Thank God I am no longer catholic.

                    "I was changed, redeemed, forgiven before the blood was dry.

                    The debt I owed was canceled in the twinkling of an eye."

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Bible View Post

                      I like this thread. Yes I remember complaining many times that Catholicism is not biblical. The reality is that evangelicalism is not historical nor biblical nor cogent. Catholicism is historically verifiable and it is biblical simply because God through the Catholic Church compiled the scriptures for CATHOLICS to use in their liturgies. Evangelicals stole the bible from Catholics and edited the bible. The reformers were wrong to put God breathed scriptures in an appendix. The reformers dared to edit the bible as they saw fit. I am not surprised evangelicalism is the religion of editing the gospel to suit your needs and to protect a sinful lifestyle. Today, we see evangelicals churches edit the gospel to say homosexuality is not a sin.
                      This shows why you might have thought you were born again just because you went to a church that used the label 'evangelical'.

                      No bible teaching, believing church of born again believers would do that.



                      "I was changed, redeemed, forgiven before the blood was dry.

                      The debt I owed was canceled in the twinkling of an eye."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by JoeT;n5***907
                        Often seen in this forum is the refrain, in so many words, “Catholic Doctrine is not Biblical”.
                        What does it mean to you when it is said “that doctrine is not Biblical”?
                        What doctrine of the Catholic Church contradicts the Sacred Scripture?
                        Can there be a doctrine that doesn't contradict the Bible and doesn't exist in the Bible?
                        Will you name at least one doctrine that conflicts with Sacred Scripture and state why or how it conflicts with Sacred Scripture?
                        JoeT
                        Originally posted by JoeT;n5***907
                        What doctrine of the Catholic Church contradicts the Sacred Scripture?

                        The RCC, along with the EOC, first in their collusion with Pontifex Maximus Emperor Constantine, is the man-made religion that first edited the Gospel under the New Covenant, "on earth", to protect their sinful lifestyle "on earth". (i.e. Mark 8:31 - "doctrine of Christ" "on earth" - "nullified" - "doctrine of Caesar" "on earth" - "exalted" - Letter of the law, only, always - Friday (Nisan 15) (i.e. (1 John 2:19) (Jude 1:4) (Revelation 17:6))


                        Colossians 2:23 Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson (emphasis mine)
                        23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and [a]neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

                        Footnote: [a] severe treatment, asceticism


                        Jesus Predicts His Death and Resurrection - Doctrine of Christ "on earth" ( A one-time Sacrifice - the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world - Revelation 13:8)


                        Mark 8:31 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) Public Domain (emphasis mine)
                        31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the ancients and by the high priests, and the scribes, and be killed: and after three days rise again.

                        Mark 8:31 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) copyright © 1965, 1966 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America (emphasis mine)
                        31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

                        Mark 8:31 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE) copyright © 1989, 1993 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America (emphasis mine)
                        31 Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.


                        The RCC "on earth", along with the EOC "on earth", first in their collusion with the historical doctrine of the Pontifex Maximus Emperor Constantine "on earth" (non - Holy Spirit "inspired" epistle (decree) to the (West/East) bishops after the Council of Nicaea A.D. 325), along with all of their faithful Constantinians "on earth" who walk "on earth" as Caesar "walked "on earth" (i.e. in the Constantinian faith "on earth" - at least once annually "on earth" (1 John 2:19) (Jude 1:4) (Revelation 17:6), 100% reject the "verbatim" "doctrine of Christ" "on earth" 100% in (Mark 8:31). (i.e. Christ is not risen "on earth" according to the "doctrine of Christ" "on earth")

                        That is the nitty-gritty of the Catholic doctrine "on earth". (i.e. at least once annually "on earth")

                        Wake up ekklesia! Reject, and remove this "specific" Constantinian faith and doctrine (i.e. Caesar's doctrine - non - Holy Spirit "inspired" epistle (decree) to the (West/East) bishops after the Council of Nicaea A.D. 325), from the Christian seminaries, from the Christian schools, and from the Christian households, immediately. False teachers, and false doctrine are not allowed within the one true faith (Biblical Judeo/Christian faith - Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21) (i..e (2 Peter 2) "on earth" or in heaven) (1 Corinthians 5:6) (Galatians 5:9)

                        Please keep in mind that the antichrist's (false apostles - false prophets - false teachers - within the one true faith (Biblical Judeo/Christian faith)) are "all in" "on earth", 100% in the pit, and they want to take everyone else with them into the Lake of fire. So..., everyone is free to join them, if they so desire and wish to continue and pleasure in denying our Lord and Savior's doctrine "on earth", making a mockery of Christ and Christ's doctrine "on earth" (i.e. Mark 8:31 - i.e. Christ is risen "on earth" according to the "doctrine of Christ" "on earth" - what true worshipers of our Heavenly Father "on earth" should believe and practice - i.e. true Christians "on earth" - true followers of Christ's doctrine "on earth").


                        Matthew 10:33 Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson
                        33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.


                        In Christ's service,
                        David Behrens
                        Sola Gloria Dei!
                        Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
                        Last edited by davbeh2010; 07-09-18, 03:17 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by JoeT;n5***907
                          Often seen in this forum is the refrain, in so many words, “Catholic Doctrine is not Biblical”.

                          What does it mean to you when it is said “that doctrine is not Biblical”?
                          What doctrine of the Catholic Church contradicts the Sacred Scripture?
                          Can there be a doctrine that doesn't contradict the Bible and doesn't exist in the Bible?
                          Will you name at least one doctrine that conflicts with Sacred Scripture and state why or how it conflicts with Sacred Scripture?

                          JoeT
                          This is easy because there are many Catholic doctrines that conflict with scripture. First to come to mind is Purgatory, a dogma that is never

                          taught in scripture whatsoever. You use it to pretend that when we repent we are NOT totally forgiven. You say we are still stained by

                          sin and need Purgatory to clean it off. This totally violates the promise of Jesus that when we repent we are Justified - Sinless - Gods Holy Temple

                          as explained in the Parable Luke 18:10 and taught by Paul.

                          That is not the end of it. Now you tell poor Catholics they can pay some money for Masses for their dead relatives to pardon them

                          from Purgatory ignoring the poor that need that help. But that is another conflict to get into. I will leave aside how that damages

                          Christianity and our duties to Christ.

                          JohnR

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Mark Rome View Post

                            Sola Scriptura almost divided the Church in the 4th century with Arius. The Church had to finally step in and dogmatically define the Trinity, which you won't find defined in the NT.
                            Protestants accept the Catholic definition of the Trinity because it is provable from Scripture.

                            Originally posted by Mark Rome
                            Anyone can use Scriptures to make up almost anything they want. That's why there are thousands of Protestant denominations. All supposedly "Bible only" Christians.
                            Anyone can use Tradition to make up almost anything they want. That's why scripture as the final authority in faith and morals is necessary.
                            If he had meant to cast you away he would have done so long ago. If he wanted reasons for rejecting you he had reasons from all eternity, for he knew what you would be. No sin in you has been a surprise to him. C.H. Spurgeon

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Mark Rome View Post

                              The Catholic Church teaches the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union. She's the one who dogmatically defined them. So, yes, they are OUR doctrines. Like I said, you are just interested in Catholic doctrines and dogmas you don't agree with.
                              What proof do have they are right in their definitions, Mark?
                              Last edited by Howie; 07-09-18, 07:35 PM.
                              If he had meant to cast you away he would have done so long ago. If he wanted reasons for rejecting you he had reasons from all eternity, for he knew what you would be. No sin in you has been a surprise to him. C.H. Spurgeon

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Howie View Post
                                That's why scripture as the final authority in faith and morals is necessary.
                                Please quote where abortion is wrong.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X