Be brave to look at the evidences ! Is Catholicism right ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, not at all, but if you go by the bible only

What else would you have us go by?

Ephesians 2:8-9 : "For it is by grace you are saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast."

How do you interpret that? Does it mean that we can, in affect, live like the devil and still go to heaven, and that we can do no good works at all and an still go to heaven as well?
 
Upvote 0
Oct 10, 2019
29
15
Ile de France
Visit site
✟8,225.00
Country
France
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It all depends on what you think that Christ was referring to when He said "upon this rock I will build my church" doesn't it?

Was it Peter?
Was it what Peter stated? That being "
Matthew 16:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God
.

IMO Christ is building His church.. the body of Christ... all those that accept Him as savior.... the collective group of all humans that believe that He is the Christ...He is building His church on the fact that He was in fact the Christ, the Son of the Living God.


From:
What did Jesus mean when he said, “Upon this rock I will build my church”? | Bible.org

The name Peter (Gk., Petros) means “rock” or “rock-man.” In the next phrase Christ used petra (upon this rock), a feminine form for “rock,” not a name. Christ used a play on words. He does not say “upon you, Peter” or “upon your successors,” but “upon this rock”—upon this divine revelation and profession of faith in Christ.

From:

Upon this Rock I Will Build My Church

Peter is from petros, a masculine form of the Greek word for small stone, whereas rock is from petra, a different form of the same basic word, referring to a rocky mountain or peak. Perhaps the most popular interpretation is therefore that Jesus was comparing Peter, a small stone, to the great mountainous rock on which He would build His church. The antecedent of rock is taken to be Peter’s divinely inspired confession of Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (vv. 16–17).

What the Bible tells :

Mat 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

The English words “Peter” and “rock” are so different that it’s obvious that Jesus was referring to the faith Simon Peter received as a gift from the Father. Behind the Greek was the Aramaic which Jesus originally spoke, in which the word for Peter and rock are identical—kept.
So what Jesus is saying is “You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church,”.

For instance, I'm french and in french the bible verse is "tu es Pierre (you are Peter), et sur cette Pierre (and on this Rock) je batirais mon Eglise.."

Because Kepha is the Kepha, the Rock !
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0
Oct 10, 2019
29
15
Ile de France
Visit site
✟8,225.00
Country
France
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What else would you have us go by?

How do you interpret that? Does it mean that we can, in affect, live like the devil and still go to heaven, and that we can do no good works at all and an still go to heaven as well?

-"What else would you have us go by?"

Not your own interpretation but the one the Church had for 2000 years.

-"How do you interpret that? Does it mean that we can, in affect, live like the devil and still go to heaven, and that we can do no good works at all and an still go to heaven as well?"

No. Did I say that ?
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
What the Bible tells :

Mat 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

The English words “Peter” and “rock” are so different that it’s obvious that Jesus was referring to the faith Simon Peter received as a gift from the Father. Behind the Greek was the Aramaic which Jesus originally spoke, in which the word for Peter and rock are identical—kept.
So what Jesus is saying is “You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church,”.

For instance, I'm french and in french the bible verse is "tu es Pierre (you are Peter), et sur cette Pierre (and on this Rock) je batirais mon Eglise.."

Because Kepha is the Kepha, the Rock !
Of course it's obvious to you that it was "Peter" that Christ was going to build His church on.

However, the Greek words used are what is important... The word for "rock" that He used for Peter was a "small stone". Then He uses the Greek word for "mountain" for the "rock" that He is going to build His church on.

It is understandable that you have been taught this... and therefore, this is what you hold to..

My problems with this are..

1/ How was He to build a church on a man who would and did die?
2/ If He did build a church on Peter... is it not everyone that believes what Peter taught.. which, by default, must be what Christ taught.. and thus the teaching that Christ died for the "world" not just those that follow Catholic rituals.
3/ Christ did build His church on the foundation of the fact that He was the Christ and Son of the Living God.... Take this away and Christianity of any denomination falls to apostasy...Take Peter away and the truth of Christ still stands.

Therefore.. the church, the one true church, is anyone that believes on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ... Which is built on the fact that Jesus was the Christ and the Son of the living God..

Therefore... the "Rock" was Christ... the mountain and not Peter, the little stone.
 
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hi,

I'm a fervent christian catholic and I've recently started a new youtube channel expose the lies against the Church of Jesus Christ.
A few years ago I was tested in my faith in Jesus and I began to look at the offers from protestant denominations.. I investigated their claims on catholicism and I came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

I think that the choice Catholicism/Protestantism DOES matter and I'm only here because I love you and because I've found the truth about the Catholic Church.
I want you to honestly look at the evidences presented in my videos. Please be open and watch it and come back to me.
(of course all the arguments in favor of the Church and against protestantism are not found in this video..)


God bless !
I studied this seriously, over a period of 3 years while a friend of mine worked on converting me. My conclusion was that the founder of the Church is indeed Jesus of Nazareth, and that all who follow Him according to the way passed on by His original Apostles belong to that same Church:

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4

For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?...So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God. 1 Corinthians 3
 
  • Like
Reactions: grampster
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,294
3,677
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟218,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
presenting someone else's video never accomplishes much on a board that is supposed to be for "discussion." :)
I all the years I've been bloviating on this site, I think I've actually watched 2 videos that anyone posted. I just don't do videos except for entertainment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tampasteve
Upvote 0
Oct 10, 2019
29
15
Ile de France
Visit site
✟8,225.00
Country
France
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Of course it's obvious to you that it was "Peter" that Christ was going to build His church on.

However, the Greek words used are what is important... The word for "rock" that He used for Peter was a "small stone". Then He uses the Greek word for "mountain" for the "rock" that He is going to build His church on.

It is understandable that you have been taught this... and therefore, this is what you hold to..

My problems with this are..

1/ How was He to build a church on a man who would and did die?
2/ If He did build a church on Peter... is it not everyone that believes what Peter taught.. which, by default, must be what Christ taught.. and thus the teaching that Christ died for the "world" not just those that follow Catholic rituals.
3/ Christ did build His church on the foundation of the fact that He was the Christ and Son of the Living God.... Take this away and Christianity of any denomination falls to apostasy...Take Peter away and the truth of Christ still stands.

Therefore.. the church, the one true church, is anyone that believes on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ... Which is built on the fact that Jesus was the Christ and the Son of the living God..

Therefore... the "Rock" was Christ... the mountain and not Peter, the little stone.

One thing is a fact, the apostles and Jesus didn't speak the greek or at least in their everyday life. They spoke Aramaic. That's why I showed you that the aramaic words for Peter and Rock were the same.
Now, if you want to talk about the greek, we can.
What you are referring to is a very well know and common point that protestants.
In fact greek scholars admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. This is an entirely different dialect.
In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used.
Look it up !

"1/ How was He to build a church on a man who would and did die?"

Are you aware of something called apostolic succession.. That was common in the early Church and also now !
That's why the all popes have the role of Peter given by Christ !

"2/ If He did build a church on Peter... is it not everyone that believes what Peter taught.. which, by default, must be what Christ taught.. and thus the teaching that Christ died for the "world" not just those that follow Catholic rituals."

Jesus did die for the sins of the world yes. And ? What is the contradiction between that and the sacraments Jesus gave us ?

"3/ Christ did build His church on the foundation of the fact that He was the Christ and Son of the Living God...."

Yes, He is Christ and the Son of the living God and He is also the Head of the Church.

"Take this away and Christianity of any denomination falls to apostasy...Take Peter away and the truth of Christ still stands."

Well, if you are a protestant today it's only because of the existence of the Catholic Church.
Do not believe that "bible believing christians" were around since the time of the apostles.
It's not historically accurate to believe such a thing.
What you say is in no way an objection to the fact that Jesus founded a Church with Peter as the first pope.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Yes but the Orthodox Church is not universal.
It is as universal as the Roman Catholic Church. 'Universal' does not mean that every last square mile in the world has members of some church. If that were to be the case, Ignatius, whom you quoted in order to prove your point obviously could not have had that meaning in mind since, for one thing, the Christian faith in his day was nowhere near spread throughout the whole planet! Surely you know that to be true.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Basil the Great

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 9, 2009
4,766
4,085
✟721,243.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
Hi,

I'm a fervent christian catholic and I've recently started a new youtube channel expose the lies against the Church of Jesus Christ.
A few years ago I was tested in my faith in Jesus and I began to look at the offers from protestant denominations.. I investigated their claims on catholicism and I came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

I think that the choice Catholicism/Protestantism DOES matter and I'm only here because I love you and because I've found the truth about the Catholic Church.
I want you to honestly look at the evidences presented in my videos. Please be open and watch it and come back to me.
(of course all the arguments in favor of the Church and against protestantism are not found in this video..)


God bless !
In Defense of the Faith - I commend you for your dedication to your faith. I have no wish to get into a detailed debate, but perhaps a few points are in order.

First, it seems to me that if the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox were to ever join with the Catholics to form one Church, then pressure would be on many Protestants to go along. However, such a move seems like a remote possibility any time soon. As others have stated, the EO and the OO also have Apostolic Succession and even your Church recognizes their sacraments as valid. Just because they are "not in union with Peter" and are thus "wounded", as has been explained recently, seems like an insufficient reason for a merger.

Second, this is one Protestant who has spent quite a bit of time studying Church history, including the Great Schism, the Crusades and the Inquisition. I have come to the conclusion that the Eastern Orthodox have just a valid claim to be the Church founded by Jesus as the Catholic Church. (I do not know if the Oriental Orthodox make the same claim.) As far as Papal supremacy, history shows mixed results and we cannot be reasonably certain as to when Papal supremacy became recognized. However, while I do believe that the East did eventually come to recognize some form of Papal supremacy, it is iffy as to exactly the form and extent of such supremacy. Still, the bottom line for me is the First Ecumenical Council in the 300's which produced the Nicene Creed. If the Bishop of Rome was really viewed as having Papal Infallibility at that time, then there would have been no need to call an Ecumenical Council and take a vote of the Bishops to decide matters of faith. Hence, it seems to me that the extent of Papal supremacy that is taught by Rome today, was not recognized in the 300's.

Third, I now rise to the defense of the dear late Father Leonard Feeney, who was excommunicated back in the 1940's for teaching the age old doctrine, "Outside the Church, There is No Salvation". Oh, yes, he was reportedly excommunicated for not obeying his Bishop, but we all know that the real reason is because he taught a strict definition of the EENS (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) salvation doctrine, as was most definitely taught by Holy Mother Church back in the Middle Ages in the those two famous Papal Bulls. The first one condemned "the Greeks" (Eastern Orthodox) for rejecting the brief reunion that resulted from the Council of Florence. The second one specifically condemned "Jews, heretics, schismatics and pagans" and said that they could not go to Heaven, unless they reconciled with Mother Church prior to death. Now, though I disagree with Father Feeney, I cherish him for his faithfulness and his dedication. I have no doubt that Father Feeney was correct in his strict EENS interpretation, in terms of being faithful to the Magisterium's historic teaching.

Now, almost all of us here in C.F. are most thankful that the Catholic Church no longer holds to it's former strict salvation teaching, if for no other reason that such lends itself to much better relations between all four Christian groups. However, the fact remains, is that by now denying the former strict teaching of the salvation doctrine, the Catholic Church has basically given a "get out of jail free card" to the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants. Hence, there seems to be no real urgent reason for non-Catholic Christians to convert to Mother Church.

Fourth, while the Crusades trouble me some, what troubles me much more is that fact that Holy Mother Church authorized the use of torture during the Holy Inquisition for a period of 564 years, from the mid 1200's to the early 1800's. Such seems inconsistent with the Gospels and not only that, but the Catholic Encyclopedia itself says that a minimum of five Popes and probably more, mandated that the civil authorities burn heretics at the stake, under pain (threat) of excommunication if they failed to do so. Now, do not get me wrong. Protestants committed plenty of atrocities also, though the EO and the OO seem to have a better history than the Catholics and the Protestants. Regardless, the bottom line for me is that the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium seems to fall apart by the fact that torture was authorized for 564 years. Yes, I know that many will claim that the authorization of torture was not a teaching, but an administrative act. Well, that seems like splitting hairs to me and is a distinction without a difference.

Fifth, I commend you for your thread. The Catholic Church today is just as faithful to the message in the Gospels as the various Protestant groups. I especially like Pope Francis for his condemnation of the death penalty and his emphasis upon helping the poor and homeless. It deeply saddens me when I see some Evangelical Protestants claim that Catholics are not true Christians. I like to point out that the beloved late Rev. Billy Graham accepted Catholics as Christians way back in the 1950's, but this fact still falls upon the deaf ears of some, mostly those in the Fundamentalist Protestant wing. The Catholic Church still maintains hundreds of hospitals through it's various religious orders and provides much needed services through Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services. It would be wonderful if some day in the future all four Christian groups could merge to form one body, but such seems like a fantasy dream at this point in time.

Six, I will probably now offend some by asking the many former Catholics on this forum, why not consider coming home to Holy Mother Church? It is perhaps very strange that it takes a Protestant to pose this question, but maybe it is easier for me to do the invitation than for active Catholics to urge former Catholics to consider returning? Perhaps you had a good reason to leave the Catholic Church or perhaps not, such is between you and God. Nevertheless, I again pose the invite, why not at least ponder the possibility of reconciling with Mother Church?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tampasteve
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Supporter
May 19, 2018
10,947
11,699
Neath
✟1,002,593.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Hi,

I'm a fervent christian catholic and I've recently started a new youtube channel expose the lies against the Church of Jesus Christ.
A few years ago I was tested in my faith in Jesus and I began to look at the offers from protestant denominations.. I investigated their claims on catholicism and I came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

I think that the choice Catholicism/Protestantism DOES matter and I'm only here because I love you and because I've found the truth about the Catholic Church.
I want you to honestly look at the evidences presented in my videos. Please be open and watch it and come back to me.
(of course all the arguments in favor of the Church and against protestantism are not found in this video..)


God bless !

I like the video.

Catholicism is very much disliked by several on these forums as they truly dont understand it and refuse to move an inch from their ingrained prejudices.

God bless you
 
Upvote 0

Brian Mcnamee

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2017
2,308
1,294
64
usa
✟213,965.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

I'm a fervent christian catholic and I've recently started a new youtube channel expose the lies against the Church of Jesus Christ.
A few years ago I was tested in my faith in Jesus and I began to look at the offers from protestant denominations.. I investigated their claims on catholicism and I came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

I think that the choice Catholicism/Protestantism DOES matter and I'm only here because I love you and because I've found the truth about the Catholic Church.
I want you to honestly look at the evidences presented in my videos. Please be open and watch it and come back to me.
(of course all the arguments in favor of the Church and against protestantism are not found in this video..)


God bless !
Jesus is LORD that is right and He is coming again and will set up the kingdom on earth for 1000 years which is a belief that will get me an anathema while the pope is teaching Islam has the same God. The Catholic church is working to bringing in the global government based on saving the planet that is the rising kingdom that will be through the UN that will be the seat of authority that the antichrist will sit in. There is only one true church and that is the body of Christ consisting of all who's names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grampster
Upvote 0

miggles

miggles
May 15, 2004
4,693
656
71
florida
✟40,924.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Hi,

I'm a fervent christian catholic and I've recently started a new youtube channel expose the lies against the Church of Jesus Christ.
A few years ago I was tested in my faith in Jesus and I began to look at the offers from protestant denominations.. I investigated their claims on catholicism and I came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

I think that the choice Catholicism/Protestantism DOES matter and I'm only here because I love you and because I've found the truth about the Catholic Church.
I want you to honestly look at the evidences presented in my videos. Please be open and watch it and come back to me.
(of course all the arguments in favor of the Church and against protestantism are not found in this video..)


God bless !
i'm afraid to watch the video.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NeedyFollower

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,024
437
63
N Carolina
✟71,145.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Celibate
Hi,

I'm a fervent christian catholic and I've recently started a new youtube channel expose the lies against the Church of Jesus Christ.
A few years ago I was tested in my faith in Jesus and I began to look at the offers from protestant denominations.. I investigated their claims on catholicism and I came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

I think that the choice Catholicism/Protestantism DOES matter and I'm only here because I love you and because I've found the truth about the Catholic Church.
I want you to honestly look at the evidences presented in my videos. Please be open and watch it and come back to me.
(of course all the arguments in favor of the Church and against protestantism are not found in this video..)


God bless !

I believe that Paul was the apostle to the gentiles . I am a gentile . Jesus said to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves . I have been to the Vatican and St Peter's cathedral . Sistine Chapel , etc. ( all before I was a follower of our Lord Jesus Christ .) Humble ...lowly and meek Jesus . Where did all of the money come from to build these huge buildings when God said , heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool , what house will you build me ? What humble man builds an extravagant palace and says they follow the humble one ? Jesus said , the gentiles exercise authority over those who are their benefactors but it will not be so among you , therefore , whoever will be greatest , will become the least .
I am sorry but the evidence and history testifies against what you say . I have seen it . Lowly and meek ? You know who the Medici's of Florence ?
Jesus who had no home and was buried in a borrowed tomb . Jesus said I am the way the TRUTH and the life ..no man can come to the Father by me . Reason is not opposed to the truth . It agrees with it .
The church has too much innocent blood on it's hands to claim any sort of infallibility or succession . Paul said , as soon as I am gone , hungry wolves will enter the flock , drawing men after themselves .
In revelation Jesus tells various churches to repent . Lowly and meek . Humble . Lowly and Meek . I think the opposite of that is lavish ...well appointed . Luxurious . Do not follow men . Follow Jesus .
 
Upvote 0

Chris35

Active Member
May 27, 2018
272
158
Melbourne
✟53,753.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In Defense of the Faith.

I know you mean well and do this out of love, and have researched into catholicism because you are searching for the truth.

We just know that catholicism in itself is wrong. We just know the pope system, praying to the saints, and alot of other things catholicism does is off. We can see how wrong the catholic sermons are, and the incorrect meanings that they are telling people.

They can use the word of God to deceive and try to justify themselves by those verses, however im telling you, God reveals, and the Catholic Church at whole is wrong. They dont know God, if they did know God, they wouldnt do 70% of the things that the catholic church does.

While you have understanding of your mind. Pray that God reveals this understanding to you in your heart, pray that you may know him.

Try not to stand on the catholic church for understanding, but search for God in your heart, and search for understanding and a relationship with him in your own way, with the bible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

His student

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,235
555
78
Northwest
✟48,602.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
...... I investigated their claims on catholicism and I came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ..............
I too have investigated the claims of Catholicism and I came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic church is a heretical cult of the first order.

No born again, Bible believing Christian could come to any other conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hi,

I'm a fervent christian catholic and I've recently started a new youtube channel expose the lies against the Church of Jesus Christ.
A few years ago I was tested in my faith in Jesus and I began to look at the offers from protestant denominations.. I investigated their claims on catholicism and I came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

I think that the choice Catholicism/Protestantism DOES matter and I'm only here because I love you and because I've found the truth about the Catholic Church.
I want you to honestly look at the evidences presented in my videos.
Former devoutly raised, weekly Mass-going RC, and altar boy, CCD teacher and lector for some time here, and who can honestly say the Roman Catholic Church is not the NT church. For it is a church whose distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

Rather than subjecting Scripture to the uninspired words of men, what Scripture reveals is that the NT church not a church which,

1. Was not based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

2. Never promised or taught ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was essential for preservation of truth, including writings to be discerned and established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent as the stewards of Scripture means that such possessed ensured infallibility.

3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).

6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)

7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as [/FONT]

• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.

PS. You can hardly expect people to go watch/endure a teaching video and get back to you, esp when we have dealt with and refuted RC propaganda for years, by the grace of God.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Glorytothefather2245

Always Forgive!
Supporter
May 26, 2018
177
286
30
Rhode Island
✟215,963.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hi,

I'm a fervent christian catholic and I've recently started a new youtube channel expose the lies against the Church of Jesus Christ.
A few years ago I was tested in my faith in Jesus and I began to look at the offers from protestant denominations.. I investigated their claims on catholicism and I came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

I think that the choice Catholicism/Protestantism DOES matter and I'm only here because I love you and because I've found the truth about the Catholic Church.
I want you to honestly look at the evidences presented in my videos. Please be open and watch it and come back to me.
(of course all the arguments in favor of the Church and against protestantism are not found in this video..)


God bless !
Im not saying if your catholic your going to hell. But Christs church is not particular denomination it's his body of believers. It might have been the original church in the beginning but it's the "great harlot" of the revelations now. Sunday is not the true day of worship Saturday is. The catholic church changed the sabbath to fit in with Roman pagan religions. The catholic church is spoken about in revelations. "(Revelations 17) Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.” So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement." There is nowhere in the bible that says that Mary and the saints can intervene for us aswell as calling on specific angels. Also I'm not saying you didnt put together a good argument, but please reevaluate your answer. You do know we are living in the end of days right? There was only 1 ark in the old testament and in the last days there will be only 1 true church and it's the one that keeps all the commandments.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.