Catholic's Who Receive Christ As Their Personal Savior

[DefensorFidei]

Quote:This is patently untrue. Luther did not invent any of the doctrines of the reformation. He only carried on doctrines which the true church always believed. The true church has always been persecuted by Rome, Pagan and "Christian."

Such as statement shows your complete and utter lack of historical knowledge.

There is no evidence that any of the distinctly Protestant doctrines and teachings existed prior to 1517. Doctrines such as the "Bare Rememberance Memorial Meal" (AKA "The Lord's Supper), "making a decision for Christ, salvation by "faith alone", etc. simply cannot be found being spoken of, preached about in sermons, or in any objective search of history. Your saying that is is so does not in fact make it so.

Ex hoc ergo....you are delusional.

Quote:Error did not begin in the 2nd century, but actually in bible times. 2 Thess 2:7. This error was no doubt what later became Romanism.

Quote:Quote:
The United States also supported racism until the Civil War.

Ah, but the US repented of her crimes, which was what the civil war was about. Rome has never repented but glorified in her crimes.

And you are stupid as well. You couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag because you don't have the common sense to recognize and refute a point when it is made.

The point of my United States parallelism to the Church is that neither one of them has anything in their official documents which endorses bad behavior by individuals within their walls. You might as well say that America sanctions the sexual molestation of interns because of what that louse Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office.

Do you understand the concept? Or do I have to get out the paper and crayons for you?

Nothing in any official documents of the Church which teach morals and behavior give sanction to the doing of evil. The evils done in the Church were the choices of individual men (and a rare few at that) and not of the Church as a corpus.

Jesus said that the kingdom would have in it both good fish and bad, both wheat and tares until the end of time when the angels would sort the good from the bad.

Why don't you study your Bible before you go runnin' off your mouth in such abysmal ignorance?

[Davo]

The main doctine of the Reformation was Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone. The next was that the pope is the antichrist. This was taught from at least 1100 ad. by the true, persecuted church, which Rome calls heretics, and probably for much longer.

The Waldenisan "Noble Lesson" and "Treatise on Antichrist" date from about that time. The Waldensians claim their seperation from Rome from the time of Sylvester. Sylvester was the Bishop of Rome during the time that the Empire was removed to Byzantium.

So we see that the true church seperated when the bishop of Rome was freed from constraint by the removal of the empire and Emperor. (2 Thess. 2: 6- Rome falsely said the Waldensians went back only to Petrus de Lyon, who is also credited with the authorship of the Noble Lesson.

Quote:Nothing in any official documents of the Church which teach morals and behavior give sanction to the doing of evil. The evils done in the Church were thchoices of individual men (and a rare few at that) and not of the Church as a corpuse .

Not true. There were papal medals minted to boast of events like the Bartholmews massacre.

I don't think I was offensive to you and I'd appreciate it if you were not either.

[Davo]

On 2 Thessalonians 2

"Now anyone who has learned from Scripture what are the things that belong particularly to God, and who on the other hand considers well what the Pope usurps for himself, will not have much difficulty in recognizing Antichrist, even though he were a ten-year-old boy. Scripture declares that God is the only Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy (Jas. 4.12), and the only King whose office it is to govern men's souls by His Word. It represents Him also as the Author of all holy observances; it teaches that righteousness and salvation arc to be sought from Christ alone; and it assigns the means and the method. There is not one of these things which the Pope does not claim to be his own prerogative. He boasts that it is his right to bind men's consciences with such laws as he pleases, and to consign them to eternal punishment. With regard to the sacraments, he either institutes new ones at his own whim, or corrupts and debases those which had been instituted by Christ. But more?he does completely away with them in order to put in their place the blasphemies which he has devised. He contrives means of attaining salvation which are wholly at variance with the teaching of the Gospel, and in a word does not hesitate to alter the whole of religion according to his inclination. What, I ask, does it mean to be lifted above all that is reckoned to be divine, if this is not what the Pope is doing? When in this way he deprives God of His honour, he leaves Him nothing but the empty title of God, while he transfers to himself the whole of His power. And this is what Paul adds shortly afterwards, viz. that the son of perdition would declare himself to be God. As we have said, Paul does not use the term God by itself, but indicates that the pride of Antichrist would be such that he would set himself apart from his position and rank as servant, mount the judgment-seat of God, and would reign with a divine and not human power. Anything that is put in the place of God, even though it does not bear the name of God, is, as we know, an idol.

In the temple of God. This one word fully refutes the error or rather stupidity of those who hold the Pope to be the vicar of Christ on the ground that he has a settled residence in the Church, however he may conduct himself. Paul sets Antichrist in the very sanctuary of God. He is not an enemy from the outside but from the household of faith, and opposes Christ under the very name of Christ. The question, however, is asked how the Church may be referred to as the den of so many superstitions, when it was to be the pillar of the truth (I Tim. 3.15). My answer is that it is so referred to not because it retains all the qualities of the Church, but because it has still some of them left. I admit, therefore, that it is the temple of God in which the Pope holds sway, but the temple has been profaned by sacrileges beyond number. " Jean Calvin

What was obvious to a 10 year old boy in Calvin's day should be obvious to a grown man today.

[Davo]

Quote:There is no evidence that any of the distinctly Protestant doctrines and teachings existed prior to 1517. Doctrines such as the "Bare Rememberance Memorial Meal" (AKA "The Lord's Supper),

At the great Council of Francfort in A.D. 794 under Charlemagne 300 bishops protested against papish image worship. It was certainly a most remarkable protest of Western Christendom against that heathenish practice of antichristian superstition.?Nor was this all. For by its reception of Alcuin into the Council, and eulogium in its last canon on his erudition in ecclesiastical doctrine,1 it adopted and identified itself generally with Alcuin's published opinions on religion. What these were ap-pears both from other of his writings, and also from the Capitularies of Charlemagne drawn up by Alcuin : in the which there was set forth, says Bishop Newton, " doctrine respecting the sufficiency of the Scriptures, the worship of God alone, prayers in the vulgar tongue, the eucharist, justification and repentance, pretended visions and miracles, and other like points, such as a Papist would abhor, and a Protestant would subscribe." - E. B. Elliott


More later

[Davo]

Quote:There is no evidence that any of the distinctly Protestant doctrines and teachings existed prior to 1517. Doctrines such as the "Bare Rememberance Memorial Meal" (AKA "The Lord's Supper),

There was a disputation on just this matter at the time of Charles the Bald A.D.845, says mosheim

Quote:To these disputes of ancient origin were added controversies en-tirely new, and particularly that famous one concerning the manner in which the body and blood of Christ were present in the eucharist. It had been hitherto the unanimous opinion of the church, that the body and blood of Christ were administered to those who received the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and that they were consequently present at that holy institution; but the sentiments of Christians concerning the nature and manner of this presence were various and contradictory, nor had any council determined with precision that important point, or prescribed the manner in which this pretended presence was to be understood. Both reason and folly were hitherto left free in this matter, nor had any imperious mode of faith suspend-ed the exercise of the one, or restrained the extrava-gance of the other. But in this century, Pascasius Radbert, a monk, and afterwards abbot of Corbey, pretended to explain with precision, and to determine with certainty, the doctrine of the church on this head; for which purpose he composed, in the year 831, a treatise Concerning' the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. A second edition of this treatise, revised with care, and considerably augmented, was presented in the year 845 to Charles the Bald, and gave principally occasion to the warm and important controversy that ensued. The doctrine of Pascasius. amounted in general to the two following proposi-tions : First, that after the consecration of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, nothing remained of these symbols but the outward figure, under which the body and blood of Christ were really and locally present; and, secondly, that the body of Christ thus present in the eucharist was the same body that was born of the Virgin, that suffered upon the cross, and was raised from the dead. This new doctrine, and more especially the second proposition now men-tioned, excited, as might well be expected, the aston-ishment of many. Accordingly it was opposed by Rabanus Maurus, Heribald, and others, though they did not all refute it in the same method, nor upon the same principles. Charles the Bald, upon this oc-casion, ordered the famous Ratramn and Johannes Scotus to draw up a clear and rational explication of that important doctrine which Radbert seemed to have so egregiously corrupted. These learned di-vines executed with zeal and diligence the order of the emperor. The treatise of Scotus perished in the ruins of time, but that of Ratramn is still extant, and furnished ample matter of dispute, both in the last and present century.

It is remarkable that in this his adversary controversy, each of the contending parties were almost as much divided among themselves as they were at variance with their adversaries. Radbert, who began the dispute, con-tradicts himself in many places, departs from his own principles, arid maintains in one part of his book con-clusions that he had disavowed in another. His prin-cipal adversary Bertramn, or Ratramn, seems in some respects liable to the same charge ; he appears to fol-low in general the doctrine of those, who deny that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the holy sacrament, and affirm on the contrary that they are only represented by the bread and wine as their signs or symbols. There are, however, several passages in his book which seem inconsistent with this just and rational notion of the eucharist, or at least are susceptible of different interpretations, and have there-fore given rise to various disputes. Johannes Scotus, whose philosophical genius rendered him more accu-rate, and shed through his writings that logical preci-sion so much wanted, and so highly desirable in polemical productions, was the only disputant in this contest who expressed his sentiments with perspicuity, method, and consistency, and declared plainly that the bread and wine were the signs and symbols of the ab-sent body and blood of Christ. All the other theologists of his time fluctuate and waver in their opinions, express themselves with ambiguity, and embrace and reject the same tenets at different times, as if they had no fixed or permanent principles concerning the matter in question. From all this, however, it evidently appears, that there was not as yet in the Latin church any fixed or universally received opinion concerning the manner in which the body and blood of Christ are present in the eucharist.

From this we see that the current RCC teaching was new doctrine then and that before that each seemed to hold his own opininion on the matter.

[Jim]

With all of the debate heading many different ways and venues, I wanted to add that when it comes down to it, Christ is all in all.

If you are reading this, and you are attending a catholic church, maybe you have questions about what salvation really is? Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said:

Quote:Acts 4:10
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
4:11
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

It is not found in mary. It is not found in self. One does not "discover it". It is not through mary do we pray to our Lord Jesus Christ. Mary is not our mediator or intercessor.

Jesus Christ alone has these titles.

Jesus Christ loves you. he does not require that you go through rituals and liturgies, and masses to atone for works good or evil. He paid the price on Calvary, and desires you to accept His gift of Salvation.

Quote:John
3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

3:17
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Love in Christ,

Jim