[Tj3]

No I don't wish for you to believe on my account. But I'd rather you believe on Christ's account. No, not on my account at all, but on account of God's love. (Jer 31:3), (Is 54: 10; cf. 54:8) A God who it is said 'so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son for God is love' (John 3:16), (1 John 4:8, 16.)

Therefoe what you beleive is something between you and God. For me, a fallible human, I've found the Roman Church a reliable refuge, a place of strenght. Pope Paul VI best describes our faith as follows (only part of the e Credo is printed here):

I am a beliver in the gospel of Jesus Christ and I put my faith solely in Him, not in traditions of men nor in any denomination or organization of men.

If you choose to do, that is your choice, but don't expect me to stop warning others against following men rather than God.

Now you say that you believe that your church is a denomination founded by Christ, but you failed to show me where any denomination existed in the 1st century, let alone yours, and certainly not that Jesus wanted to start a denomination. And indeed, you have failed to show how your denomination founded in 325AD by Constantine could be the one and only true church. That is entirely contrary to scripture. And posting a belief statement about your denomination is not going to convince me to turn from scripture. These are just a few of the questions that you would need to address.

[JoeT777]

I am a beliver in the gospel of Jesus Christ and I put my faith solely in Him, not in traditions of men nor in any denomination or organization of men.

If you choose to do, that is your choice, but don't expect me to stop warning others against following men rather than God.

Now you say that you believe that your church is a denomination founded by Christ, but you failed to show me where any denomination existed in the 1st century, let alone yours, and certainly not that Jesus wanted to start a denomination. That is entirely contrary to scripture. And posting a belief statement about your denomination is not going to convince me to turn from scripture.

By all means warn them Paul Reverie. Ride out - "the Cathlics are coming"

If you can twist my words that badly (actually the Pope's word), only God knows what you could do to Scripture.

JoeT

[Tj3]

By all means warn them Paul Reverie. Ride out - "the Cathlics are coming"

If you can twist my words that badly (actually the Pope's word), only God knows what you could do to Scripture.

JoeT

Joe, I stand on scripture - not the words of your church leadership. I believe that God's words are infallible, man's words are fallible.

[JoeT777]

Joe, I stand on scripture

Maybe its time to step down off the Bible and read it instead?

[Tj3]

Maybe its time to step down off of the Bible and read it instead?

Joe,

Nice try, but I would love to see you get into God's word instead of trying to covert us to what the men in your denomination teach as part of their tradition.

[JoeT777]

Joe,

Nice try, but I would love to see you get into God's word instead of trying to covert us to what the men in your denomination teach as part of their tradition.

I'm not trying to convert you. That's not my job! I'm a pew warmer for crying out loud.

[Tj3]

I'm not trying to convert you. That's not my job! I'm a pew warmer for crying out loud.

Good! Because you will never convince me to turn from God's word.

[JoeT777]

Good! Because you will never convince me to turn from God's word.

You hate Catholics so bad, I’d be willing to bet you’ll be one within a year or two. You’re convicting yourself.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

You hate Catholics so bad

How do you get "hate" out of this thread? Just because someone disagrees with you, that means he hates you?

[Tj3]

You hate Catholics so bad, I’d be willing to bet you’ll be one within a year or two. You’re convicting yourself.

JoeT

Why do Roman Catholics so often use the "hate" card against anyone who disagrees with their doctrines?

Why can they not accept that there are some who accept the Bible at face value and do not and will not agree with them?

Why can they not accept that people can disagree and yet care for them?

[JoeT777]

How do you get "hate" out of this thread? Just because someone disagrees with you, that means he hates you?

Why do Roman Catholics so often use the "hate" card against anyone who disagrees with their doctrines?

Why can they not accept that there are some who accept the Bible at face value and do not and will not agree with them?

Why can they not accept that people can disagree and yet care for them?

Ok change "hate" to "dislike." My bad for using too strong a word.

[Tj3]

Ok change "hate" to "dislike." My bad for using too strong a word.

Dislike is not true also.

If you said that I strongly disagree with Roman Catholicism as a religion, I would agree, but disliking Romans Catholics is so far off base. If only you knew my background. But rather you chose to prejudge me because I disagree with you.

[JoeT777]

Ok change "hate" to "dislike." My bad for using too strong a word.

Ok Tom, it’s time to pony up.

Let’s hear a “reasoned” explanation on why you think the Catholic Church didn’t start till 325AD. Where applicable base your explanation on scripture and history; and use references – I’d like to verify them. Personally, I haven’t seen anything except your opinion – “the tradition of men”. It would even be more appropriate to discuss how “Scripture interprets Scripture” is scripturally based. Actually, it would be better still if you could give a Scriptural argument of how "Sola Scriptura" is authoritatively scripturally based.

JoeT

[Tj3]

Ok Tom, it’s time to pony up.

Let’s hear a “reasoned” explanation on why you think the Catholic Church didn’t start till 325AD. Where applicable base your explanation on scripture and history; and use references – I’d like to verify them. Personally, I haven’t seen anything except your opinion – “the tradition of men”. It would even be more appropriate to discuss how “Scripture interprets Scripture” is scripturally based. Actually, it would be better still if you could give a Scriptural argument of how "Sola Scriptura" is authoritatively scripturally based.

JoeT

Sigh! I have posted information many times on this. I am not on my home computer right now, but later I can post some information again. I am surprised that you are not aware of history surrounding your denomination and the Roman Empire. Here is something that one of your Cardinals wrote on the topic:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, proces­sions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.
(Source: An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[JoeT777]

Sigh! I have posted information many times on this. I am not on my home computer right now, but later I can post some information again. I am surprised that you are not aware of history surrounding your denomination and the Roman Empire. Here is something that one of your Cardinals wrote on the topic:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, proces­sions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.
(Source: An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok - well I've got most of the weekend to research through my history books. Which Eusebius are we discussing; as I recall one was a bishop another was a historian but lived a hundred years or so apart?

JoeT

PS: Newman: "the Church of the Fathers might be corrupted into Popery, never into Protestantism."

[Tj3]

Ok - well I've got most of the weekend to research through my history books. Which Eusebius are we discussing; as I recall one was a bishop another was a historian but lived a hundred years or so apart?

Eusebius of Caesarea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eusebius was an advisor to Constantine and was present at the Council in 325AD.

[Tj3]

Joe,

I'd like to comment on a few of these items that you listed

{quote]To the glory of God most holy and of our Lord Jesus Christ, trusting in the aid of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, for the profit and edification of the Church, in the name of all the pastors and all the faithful, we now pronounce this profession of faith, in full spiritual communion with you all, beloved brothers and sons.

I trust in Jesus Christ alone, not in those who are dead in the flesh, and who, like myself were sinners saved by grace through the death and resurrection on the cross. Scripture never says to put our trust in men, but in God alone:

Ps 16:1
Preserve me, O God, for in You I put my trust.
NKJV

Ps 71:5
5 For You are my hope, O Lord GOD;
You are my trust from my youth.
NKJV

Heb 2:12-13
"I will declare Your name to My brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You."

13 And again:

"I will put My trust in Him."
NKJV

God alone can give us right and full knowledge of this reality by revealing Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose eternal life we are by grace called to share, here below in the obscurity of faith and after death in eternal light.

Roman Catholicism says that His grace comes to us only through the Roman Catholic Church.

We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.

And who came to earth to make us God and gods.

For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
(CCC #460)

We believe in one Baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Baptism does not save - it is Jesus' sacrifice on the cross that saves and remits our sins.

We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ;

The errors in this are just so many.

- There is one church, but not a denomination
- Peter is not nor ever was the Rock - scripture is clear, abundantly explicit that it is Jesus.
- A denomination cannot be the body of Christ. All who are in the body of Christ are saved. Membership in a denomination does not save.

And there are so many other errors in this one paragraph alone.

We believe that the Church founded by Jesus Christ and for which He prayed is indefectibly one in faith, worship and the bond of hierarchical communion.

But you believe it is a denomination.

We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation,

And you believe that you denomination is necessary for salvation! This is denominationalism at its worst. There were no denominations in the 1st century, so what happened before 325AD?

This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation.

This doctrine is explicitly referred to as a betrayal of Christ in John 6.

[De Maria]

I trust in Jesus Christ alone, not in those who are dead in the flesh, and who, like myself were sinners saved by grace through the death and resurrection on the cross. Scripture never says to put our trust in men, but in God alone:

That is an incomplete understanding of Scripture. From the time of Moses, God has put authority in men that men may trust in man.

Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.

And Moses accepted that authority:
15 And Moses answered him: The people come to me to seek the judgment of God.


Moses was literally God's vicar. God's representative who went in place of God to Pharoa:
Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

And this is what Jesus has done with Peter and the Church. Peter literally means Rock. And the only Rock mentioned in Scripture is Jesus.

1 Corinthians 10 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Therefore when Jesus named Simon, Rock, the meaning is clear. Peter is representing Jesus to us.

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Roman Catholicism says that His grace comes to us only through the Roman Catholic Church.

Correct. All grace flows through the Body of Christ.

And who came to earth to make us God and gods.

For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
(CCC #460)

That is correct. That is straight from Scripture.

2 Peter 1 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.

Baptism does not save

Scripture says it does:

1 Peter 3 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

- it is Jesus' sacrifice on the cross that saves

That is true. If Jesus hadn't died on the Cross, we could not repent and be baptized for our salvation. Baptism is the application of Jesus' grace.

Colossians 2 12 Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.

and remits our sins.

Not if we don't cooperate with His grace:

John 8 24 Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.

The errors in this are just so many.

- There is one church, but not a denomination

The Catholic Church.

- Peter is not nor ever was the Rock - scripture is clear, abundantly explicit that it is Jesus.

Only if you twist the Scripture:

John 1 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

Cephas means Rock in Aramaic.

- A denomination cannot be the body of Christ. All who are in the body of Christ are saved. Membership in a denomination does not save.

If membership in the Kingdom of Heaven does not save, then membership in a Church does not save either:

Matt 13:
24 Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. 25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way.

26 And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. 27 And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? 28 And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? 29 And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. 30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.

And there are so many other errors in this one paragraph alone.

The errors are yours.

But you believe it is a denomination.

Apparently you have your own definition of "denomination".

# a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith
# a class of one kind of unit in a system of numbers or measures or weights or money; "he flashed a fistful of bills of large denominations"
# appellation: identifying word or words by which someone or something is called and classified or distinguished from others
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

It is a simple word which means "name" or "designation".

Obviously, our set of beliefs can be distinguished from other Christian denominations by the term Catholic Church.

But the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ can be proven both Scripturally and historically.

And you believe that you denomination is necessary for salvation!

Why yes. If Jesus Christ had not established a Church, there would be no salvation. All the graces of Jesus Christ flow through His Church.

This is denominationalism at its worst. There were no denominations in the 1st century, so what happened before 325AD?

Well, yes there was. There was one. The Catholic Church.

This doctrine is explicitly referred to as a betrayal of Christ in John 6.

That is your misunderstanding of the Scripture. The Scripture is clear that he who betrayed Christ did not believe in transubstantiation which Christ had just explained:

John 6 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.


Sincerely,

De Maria

[JoeT777]

he who betrayed Christ did not believe in transubstantiation

How do we know this?

JoeT

[ordinaryguy]

But the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ can be proven both Scripturally and historically.

Your standard of "proof" is abysmally low. But you probably don't really expect anyone who doesn't already believe it to be persuaded.