It's Official...
If you're not Catholic you're not a proper Christian.
Or so says a 16-page report issued by the Vatican and endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI.
From the TimesOnline...
Now personally, I don't give two figs for Ecumenism, because it seeks to draw all faiths together in a kind of shared... spirituality... which is contrary to the doctrines of faith contained within the Bible. There is only one God. And very few "Religions" worship Him.
But as for Defects within NON-Catholic churches, let's turn the lens on Catholicism for a moment...
The Eucharist, according to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, is the actual physical flesh of Jesus Christ Himself. Communion for Catholics is like going to a great big boar-roast-- a glorified Hawaiian luau. Every time good faithful Catholics line up to the altar the priests carve a little off His pierced side to plop into the starving mouths of the faithful. This Eucharist is what makes the believer clean... what sanctifies him, not the shed blood of Jesus, or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Mary, the perpetual Virgin, is co-redemptrix for believers. People pray to Mary so she can pray to her son who is angry with Mankind for rejecting and killing Him.
Mary was born without sin... immaculately conceived! Which means she could have died for the sins of mankind had she been able to live a sinless life. What need she then of bearing the Son of God if she herself could have went to that old rugged cross?
Did you know Mary is called the Queen of Heaven? In Akkad she [the Queen of Heaven] was called Ishtar. In Sumer she was called Inanna. In Egypt, Isis. All these women were goddesses; each referred to as 'The Queen of Heaven.'
But in truth...
The Eucharist is just a cracker. Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." Talk about putting God in a box! These people keep him on the carving table!
Jesus said, "I AM the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Sorry, no mention of Mary in there.
And why the insistence in turning Mary into a goddess? Doesn't Catholicism recognize that by doing so they break the Commandment that admonishes against having "other" gods before Him? This is Idolatry
As Mary being born of a Virgin herself.... Sorry, there's no mention in scripture to support this. None whatsoever.
I'm truly sorry Pope Benedict, but when it comes to pointing out defects, I'm afraid you don't have much room to talk.
Or so says a 16-page report issued by the Vatican and endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI.
From the TimesOnline...
The Vatican has described the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as "not proper Churches" in a document issued with the full authority of the Pope.
Anglican leaders reacted with dismay, accusing the Roman Catholic Church of paradoxical behaviour. They said that the new 16-page document outlining the "defects" of non-Catholic churches constituted a major obstacle to ecumenism.
Now personally, I don't give two figs for Ecumenism, because it seeks to draw all faiths together in a kind of shared... spirituality... which is contrary to the doctrines of faith contained within the Bible. There is only one God. And very few "Religions" worship Him.
But as for Defects within NON-Catholic churches, let's turn the lens on Catholicism for a moment...
The Eucharist, according to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, is the actual physical flesh of Jesus Christ Himself. Communion for Catholics is like going to a great big boar-roast-- a glorified Hawaiian luau. Every time good faithful Catholics line up to the altar the priests carve a little off His pierced side to plop into the starving mouths of the faithful. This Eucharist is what makes the believer clean... what sanctifies him, not the shed blood of Jesus, or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Mary, the perpetual Virgin, is co-redemptrix for believers. People pray to Mary so she can pray to her son who is angry with Mankind for rejecting and killing Him.
Mary was born without sin... immaculately conceived! Which means she could have died for the sins of mankind had she been able to live a sinless life. What need she then of bearing the Son of God if she herself could have went to that old rugged cross?
Did you know Mary is called the Queen of Heaven? In Akkad she [the Queen of Heaven] was called Ishtar. In Sumer she was called Inanna. In Egypt, Isis. All these women were goddesses; each referred to as 'The Queen of Heaven.'
But in truth...
The Eucharist is just a cracker. Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." Talk about putting God in a box! These people keep him on the carving table!
Jesus said, "I AM the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Sorry, no mention of Mary in there.
And why the insistence in turning Mary into a goddess? Doesn't Catholicism recognize that by doing so they break the Commandment that admonishes against having "other" gods before Him? This is Idolatry
As Mary being born of a Virgin herself.... Sorry, there's no mention in scripture to support this. None whatsoever.
I'm truly sorry Pope Benedict, but when it comes to pointing out defects, I'm afraid you don't have much room to talk.
from the mind of... Eric | 12:32 AM
24 Comments:
This is so vulgar and disrespectful, I stopped reading. You can be such a boor.
"Communion for Catholics is like going to a great big boar-roast-- a glorified Hawaiian luau."
Here, try this on for size:
Going to church for a fundamentalist is like going to a seance: They sing superstitious songs and utter magical phrases from a book of spells, hoping to call forth the ghost of their long-dead founder, who then enters the bodies of the faithful, animating them to do certain "holy" rituals, numbing their senses to "unclean" thoughts and slowing their tendencies to perform certain "sinful" behaviors.
Sounds plumb loony, don't it?
No Christian has any room to talk when it comes to the ridiculous features of any others' traditions.
Basically what Eric was saying, ER. It doesn't appear to me as if he was holding up his form of Christianity over the Pope's. Calm down.
This guy dies and goes to Heaven. St. Peter meets him at the Pearly Gates and gives him the run down including the following:
"You can go anywhere you like. The whole of Heaven is open to you now that you have come to Salvation. Go. Take some time to explore Glory and enjoy."
So the guy walks around and sees there are many doors. He enters one after the other to experience all the joys to be found behind each one. Eventually he comes to a door that he cannot open. It appears to be locked. Try as he might, it just won't open. He moves on and soon comes again upon Peter who says to him.
"Tell me of you time here thus far. Has it been as you'd hoped."
The guy replies.
"Yes, it's been great. I'm so happy to be here. I do have one question, though."
"Ask, my son," says Peter.
"Well, you said I could go anywhere, but I came to a door I could not open. It was that one over there."
"I'm sorry," replied Peter. "I forgot to tell you. That room is for Catholics only. They like to think they're the only ones here."
------------------
I was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition. I was always interested in religion classes during my time at Catholic school. When I entered adulthood, after going through my time of rebellion against everything, I came to a point where I became re-aquainted with Christianity and the Bible. I found that much of the Catholic tradition can be much like Eric said. I have since found that most of their traditions and rituals have become for them more than mere traditions and rituals and almost sacrements themselves. Nonetheless, I still disagree with much of their teachings. I do, however, give them, particularly their last two Popes, credit for holding fast to their beliefs and not watering them down to the satisfaction of modernity. In this way, I'm quite like them still. They understand that people are to adapt to God, not God to the people.
It sucks when religious folk tell you you're not part of the club, don't it?
I think this just shows that the Pope has the right to be wrong about something, just like the rest of us humans. It is our duty to study the Word and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead us into truth. There are unsaved folks sitting in the pews of all denominations, thinking they know the truth but if it is their own understanding only, they may be sincerely wrong.
I'll just let y'all discuss this one amongst yourselves.
One thing I meant to say earlier, is that since I was at the aforementioned Catholic school (St. Hubert's elementary---just past by it today in fact)from which I graduated in '69, it was not uncommon to be instructed that Roman Catholicism was the one true way. All others were pretenders and were lacking. Made me so happy I was Catholic. So this attitude expressed by Pope Benedict is nothing new, really. The joke I related isn't exactly new.
I spent two years at a Catholic High School in Montgomery Alabama in the late seventies. I'm familiar with the dogma, and I don't hold any rancor toward Catholics. What I do take issue with (in spirit) are the very same things Martin Luther took issue with. The Roman Church wants to hold itself as the paragon of biblical virtue, and that's fine... provided they can prove it.
And they can't.
Ever wonder why the Church threatened exCommunication to people who owned a printing press, or owned one of their Printed Bibles? What was the Church afraid of? That a the average European was capable of seeing through the Hooey they preached to the masses?
From "Technology and Authority in Times of Transformation" [.pdf]
"In 1479, Pope Sixtus IV authorized the University of Cologne to use ecclesiastical censures against printers, purchasers, and readers of heretical books. The focus was directed at suppressing heretical writing (Grendler 1977: 71; Steinberg 1959: 186). In 1487, Pope Innocent III, published a bull that decreed excommunication, fines, and book burning as a punishment for those dealing with heretical books. In 1501 Pope Alexander VI issued an additional bull, authorizing universal censorship with the goal of homogenizing censorship throughout Christendom. By that time the Roman Church was “shaken to its foundations by the Protestant Reformation, and alarmed at the increasing power which the secular state arrogated to itself” (Ibid: 186-187). This decree was written in the traditional form of guidelines, which were general, vague, and not efficient in preventing the circulation of books disapproved by the Church (Grendler 1977: 71)."
What about the Inquisition? Catholicism at its worst.
As to the supernatural aspects of the Eucharist... Jesus is currently, according to scripture, seated at the right hand of Father making intercession for the saints. Having said that, every time EVERY priest across the face of the earth raises the Eucharist to bless it, Jesus is crucified again times millions
There was only one sacrifice. Hebrews says to crucify Him again is to put him to open shame. It is God in the person of the Holy Spirit who sanctifies the believer... not a cracker, which is just a symbol of Christ's flesh, not His ACTUAL flesh.
_____
Marshall. I said what I did about Catholicism not knowing your history, but that doesn't change my opinion of the Roman Church. I have a lot of respect for Catholics, many of whom were friends of mine in school. Even so, I meant no offense to you or anyone. Please correct me if I've mis-stated any particular dogma.
There are a number of things done in Catholicism that have no scriptural basis-- the place called "Purgatory" comes immediately to mind --they have become, as you previously stated, traditions. Much of what goes on in protestant churches are also traditions.
Christians don't need Mary or a priest to intercede for them. We have been given the right, as sons and daughters of God Almighty to approach His throne ourselves... with boldness, I might add. And we do that while on our knees in prayer.
I don't know what all the hoopla is about. This is not some new doctrine the RCC has come up with. They've been saying they were the only true church for centuries.
I was raised in this religion. I was taught that there is no salvation outside of the church. To be excommunicated was like a death sentence.
Glad to see people are learning more about the false doctrines in this group.
My husband and I know Catholics who are saved - but it's in spite of the RCC teachings, not because of them.
They sing superstitious songs and utter magical phrases from a book of spells, hoping to call forth the ghost of their long-dead founder, who then enters the bodies of the faithful, animating them to do certain "holy" rituals, numbing their senses to "unclean" thoughts and slowing their tendencies to perform certain "sinful" behaviors.
ER, I suspect that's what you really think. Tell me I'm wrong.
I was not talking about what I believe, Ms. Green. I was pointing out that fundamentalism can be so construed, and that slapping around others, even the high-and-mighty Romach Catholic Church, for their own idosyncracies, invites such abuse.
As a matter of opinion, I do not consider anything that Eric said in his post to be "slapping around" Catholicism. He was pointing out some of their many unBiblical false doctrines. What is vulgar and disrespectful about pointing out false doctrine? Have we come to a point where even that is considered hateful?
...particularly since the issue of the thread surrounded the announcement from the Vatican.
And Eric,
I took no offense whatsoever. In fact, I was attempting to second your sentiments. My respect for the RCC is borne of their steadfastness, but my differences with them are akin to yours.
"It sucks when religious folk tell you you're not part of the club, don't it?"
Not when you don't have even a microscopic desire to be part of that particular group, pal.
But...don't get me started.
"Going to church for a fundamentalist is like going to a seance: They sing superstitious songs and utter magical phrases from a book of spells, hoping to call forth the ghost of their long-dead founder, who then enters the bodies of the faithful, animating them to do certain "holy" rituals, numbing their senses to "unclean" thoughts and slowing their tendencies to perform certain "sinful" behaviors."
Reverend Redneck...you're a fool.
Obviously the only "fundamentalist" church you have ever been to must have been some snake-handling bunch of wackos.
Doesn't surprise me that you'd visit...or even belong to a church such as you just described.
I'm an independent...FUNDAMENTAL...BAPTIST...and I've NEVER attended a church such as you described...and MUST have SOME experience with.
Trythfully...your deluded view of faithful christianity is indicative of your own attitude...which, my most irreverend friend, is black, cold, jealous, and vengeful.
Sickening, actually.
Your ignorance and intolerance is well indicated between the lines of your rant, Reverend Redneck.
How mature is this?
"If you bash some other religion, ELAshley...I'm gonna bash YOURS! So...NANNY-NANNY-BOO-BOO!
What an elitist, self-worshipping fraud you are, Rev!
And...by the freaking way....what is a "boor"?
Hmmm...
" 1. A person with rude, clumsy manners and little refinement.
2. A peasant."
Hey, EL...good thing you're not a "boor" ALL the time...like our Reverend Redneck most certainly is.
Eh?
Crawl back in yer hole, Dad. You don't understand different types of writing; it's no wonder you let thw rods of the Bible hit you a cow peeing on a flat rock: without much of it soaking in.
My description of a fundamentalist church was meant to echo the tone of EL's assessment of Catholic faith -- purposefully outlside the oines, a caricature, which is how I read EL's take on catlicks.
So, take a reading comprehension class. And settle down, Toadsuck.
And I'll learn to type! Gah.
r description of a fundamental Christian congregation, Reverend, is a reflection of your true attitude. Please do not attempt to deny it because wqe all know that it's waaaAAAYYY too easy to find examples of your rants that testify that these are your true feelings.
The fact is...the recent proclamations by "Pappa" and his cohorts is proving that the Catholic Church is a friend to leftist shmucks.
Catholics and liberals have something major in common. Both believe in paying for indulgences.
Ms. Green has the scoop.
You think you can read my mind, Toad. Tell me: What am I thinking now? What I deny is that you have the sense God gave a goose.
Fact is, you would be floored at how tradtitional and Bible-based the services are at my church.
Bible-based singing. Bible-based praying. Bible-based disdain for judgmentalism. Bible-based wide-open love. Bible-based openness and acceptance of all without regard to sexual orientation, social status or anything else.
We even have some Republicans -- as well as some political conservatives! -- in the congregation.
"We even have some Republicans -- as well as some political conservatives! -- in the congregation."
Wow. Yours IS a liberal church. Do you keep them fenced off in a separation section or are you fully inclusive?
Ha! Nope. Fully integrated.
There might be a redneck sittin' next to a gay dude sittin' next to a homemaker next to a lesbean next to a straight Dem sittin' next to a gay Republican. Rich, poor, highly educated, not, and everything in between -- although not as many black folks as there could be. That's the bane of most churches. Very Jesusy, all in all, tho.
wow. We've a decent mix of white/black (relatively) wealthy/poor, homeless/housed, Baptist/Catholic/Presbyterian/Quaker, etc...but finding a Republican at Jeff St is harder'n finding a Baptist at a bar...only much harder.
Dan, you continue to be a snide ass. Thanks for continuing to clutter things up with your rude inanities.
<< Home