NationStates Jolt Archive

"If anyone holds to one single one of these (heresies) he is not a Catholic."
-- Pope Leo XIII (from Encyclical Satis Cognitum:28)

What is Heresy?
"Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined an proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines." (Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).

What must we believe?
"By the divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written Word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed." (Vatican Council I, Denzinger 1792)

Who does not believe all those things taught by the Magisterium of the Church?
"Any baptized person who … obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic." (C. 1325)

Can a heretic be a valid Pope of the Roman Catholic Church?
No. The Papal Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV teaches that: if anyone was a heretic before the Papal election, he could not be a valid pope, even if he is elected unanimously by the Cardinals. Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law) teachers that : if a cleric (pope, bishop, etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office without any declaration by operation of law. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Antonius, St. Francis deSales, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and many other tehologians all teach that a heretic cannot be a pope: "If however, God were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant." -- St. Alphonsus Liguori, Church Doctor: Verita bella Fede. Pt. iii, Ch.viii, 9-10.

101 Heresies of John Paul II (http://holywar.org/101heres.htm)

Heresies/ Errors of John Paul II
Traditional Catholic Dogmas and Beliefs


The Catholic Church Lacks Unity.
UUS:7-10

Christian unity is the Catholic Church.
Pius XI, MA:3,15.

Infants can be saved without baptism.
EV:99, 3/25/1995

Infants need Baptism for salvation.
St. Zosimus I, D.102.

Muslims worship the One True God.
CH:141, 1994

Only Catholics can worship God.
Gregory XVI, SJS

Heretical sects have an apostolic mission.
LOR, 06/10/1980

The Catholic Church is the only apostolic mission.
Leo XIII, SCG:35

The Holy Spirit uses sects as means of salvation.
CT:32, 10/16/1979

The Holy Ghost does not give life to heretics.
Leo XIII, SCG:18

We must pray with heretics for unity.
UUS:21, 05/25/1995

If anyone prays with heretics, he is a heretic.
St. Agatho I, SCN:XXI:635

Liberty of conscience is a right of man.
LOR, 09/01/1980

Liberty of conscience is insanity.
Gregory XVI, D. 1613

Heretics are Christians.
LOR, 12/23/1982

Only Catholics can be Christians.
Pius VI, D. 1500

Each man is united with Christ.
RH:13.3, 1979

Christ is not in all men.
St. Pius X, D.2103

Heretics have the Apostolic Faith.
US:62, 05/25/1995

True Faith cannot be found outside the Church.
Pius IX, Sqi

The New World Order is holy unity.
PA:39, 1987

The New World Order is evil.
Pius XI, MA:1-2

God loves heretics, pagans, etc.
PA:48, 1978

Without the Catholic faith, it is impossible to please God.
Paul III, D.787

Jews are our elder brothers in the faith.
CH:99, 1994

The Jews reject the One Faith of Jesus Christ.
Gregory I, ETC

Masons are sons of God the Father.
LOR, 05/22/1984

The Masons are sons of the Devil.
Pius IX, Sqa

Heretics are our brothers in Christ.
LOR, 09/16/1980

Heretics are sons of the Devil.
Clement I, EIC:42,46

Ecumenical Councils do not need to defend the truth.
CH:162, 1994

Ecumenical Councils must defend the truth.
Pius II, D.717

Dogmas and doctrines grow and evolve.
EDA, 1987

Evolution of dogma and doctrine is condemned.
St. Pius X, P:12-27

All inter-religious marriages are good.
FC, 11/22/1981

All inter-religious marriages are discouraged.
Gregory XVI, SJS:1-9

Buddhism is a great religion.
PM:147, 06/17/1984

Buddhism is a false pagan religion.
St. Pius X, P:14

All men have a human dignity of equal rights.
PP:478, 09/01/1980

Equal rights for all men is senseless.
Pius VI, QA

The New World Order is needed for the world.
PP:809, 09/02/1981

The New World Order is a reign of terror.
Benedict XV, TBR:35

Luther had a profound religious spirit.
PM:105

If anyone does not condemn heretics, let him be anathema.
Vigilius, D.223

John Paul II prayed with Jews: "our dearest brothers."
LOR, 04/13/1986

The Jews are not "our dearest brothers."
Innocent III, ETN

Christ's Body is not only the Catholic Church.
LOR, 07/08/1980

Christ's Body is only the Catholic Church.
Pius XII, MC:17-18

All men are saved.
LOR, 05/06/1980

All outside the Catholic Church cannot be saved.
Eugene IV, D:714

Christ's miracles do not prove His messianic dignity.
LOR, 11/11/1983

Christ's miracles did prove His messianic dignity.
St. Pius X, D.2028

All men have the right of religious liberty.
CCC:2106, 10/11/1992

All have the right of religious liberty is false.
Pius IX, D.1690,99

Infidels can be saved for : "May Ghandi live forever!"
SME:9

All infidels are damned!
St. Pius X, GOH:13

The Catholic Church rejoices when heretics preach.
CH:141, 1994

The Catholic Church condemns a heretic's talk.
Paul IV, ACA

Heretics can be Christian martyrs outside the Church.
UUS:84, 05/25/1995

Outside the Church there are no Christian martyrs.
Pelagius II, D.247

Heretics legally can receive the sacraments from us.
UUS:46, 05/25/1995

Heretics cannot legally receive the sacraments.
Leo XIII, ENL

Heretics are not our enemies, but our brothers.
UUS:42, 05/25/1995

Heretics are our enemies.
St. Clement I, EIC:42,46

Anti-Christs have the human right of religious liberty.
FCR:2, 09/01/1980

Only Catholics have the right to religious liberty.
Pius IX, D.1690, 1699

The State cannot forbid non-Catholic religions.
FCR:2-4, 09/01/1980

The State must forbid non-Catholic religions.
Pius IX, D.1777, 1778

Heretical sects can have the life of the Church.
CT:32, 10/16/1979

Heretical sects cannot have the life of the Church.
St. Gregory I, EP5

Christian unity subsists in the Catholic Church.
CCC:820, 10/11/1992

Christian unity is the Catholic Church.
Pius XI, MA:7

"Dialogue" is required to bring unity to the Church.
CCC:821, 10/11/1992

The Catholic Church forbids meetings for "unity."
Pius XI, MA:15

Sanctification and truth can be found in heretical sects.
CCC:819, 10/11/1992

It is false to say that all religions are true.
St. Pius X, P:14

Today's heretics are not to be blamed for their heresy.
CCC:817, 10/11/1992

Today's heretics have despised the True Faith.
Pius XI, MA:16

The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
CCC:816, 10/11/1992

The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
Pius XII, MC:17-18

There is hope for infants who die without baptism.
CCC:1261, 10/11/1992

Outside the Church there is no hope for salvation.
Pius IX, D.1717

The understanding of dogmas grow by man's experience.
CCC:94, 10/11/1992

Evolution of dogma is an error of the Modernists.
St. Pius X, P:12-13,25-27

All men belong to the Catholic Church.
CCC:836, 10/11/1992

Only Catholics are members of the Church.
Pius XII, D.2286

The Catholic Church is joined to heretics.
CCC:838, 10/11/1992

Heretics are separated from the Catholic Church.
Pius XII, D.2286

The Old Law is alive and working to God's call.
CCC:839, 10/11/1992

Old Law ceased, and fulfilled by the New Law.
Eugene IV, D.712

The plan of salvation includes the Muslims.
CCC:841, 10/11/1992

It is false to say: salvation is open to Mohammedans.
Gregory XVI, VM:13

The Catholic Church has a bond with false religions.
CCC:842, 10/11/1992

False religions are separated from the Church.
Eugene IV, D.705

False religions seek the One True God Who saves.
CCC:843, 10/11/1992

False religions worship the Devil.
Gregory XVI, SJS

At Assisi, 150 false religions "prayed with one voice to the Lord."
US:76, 05/25/1995

At Assisi, 150 false religions worshiped the Devil.
Gregory XVI, SJS

John Paul II prayed with Anglican-heretics in 1982.
UUS:24, 05/25/1995

If anyone prays with heretics: he is a heretic.
Benedict XV, C.2338.2

One can be saved outside the Church by a moral life.
VS:3, 08/06/1993

True morality and salvation are only in the Church.
Gregory XVI, D.1613

Salvation is not only for those who are explicitly in the Church.
Rmi:10, 12/07/1990

Salvation is found only in the Catholic Church.
Boniface VIII, D.468-469

Apostate Jews and Christians have "a common heritage."
PM:135, 04/13/1986

Apostate Jews do not have the Faith of salvation.
St. Gregory I, ETC

In 1991, John Pual II prayed with Lutherans for "unity."
UUS:25 05/25/1995

Praying with heretics for "unity" is heresy.
Pius IX, D.1685-1687

Dialogue meetings can bring Christian unity.
UUS:31,32, 05/25/1995

These "assemblies" for "unity" are condemned.
Pius XI, MA:15

Catholics can legally receive the Sacraments from heretics.
UUS:46, 05/25/1995

No one can pray with heretics and be a Catholic.
St. Agatho, SCN:XI:635

Catholics must rejoice when heretics shed their blood.
UUS:47, 05/25/1995

Catholics must anathematize all heretics.
St. Martin I, D.271-272

John Paul II gave a blessing to Lutherans in 1991.
UUS:73, 05/25/1995

If anyone patronizes heretics: he is a heretic.
Innocent III, RCH:I:441

The "faith" of heretics praises and thanks God.
UUS:74, 05/25/1995

It is false to say: heretics can praise God.
Pius IX, D.1718

A communion of faith exists between heretics and Catholics.
UUS:75, 05/25/1995

Catholics and heretics share no unity of faith.
Leo XIII, SCG:18,27-18

Heretics honor Holy Scripture with a true religious zeal.
UUS:12, 05/25/1995

Heretics dishonour the Holy Scriptures.
Pius IX, D.1788

The Holy Spirit gives "sanctifying power" to heretics.
UUS:12, 05/25/1995

Heretics cannot live in the life of the Holy Spirit.
Pius XII, D.2286

God wills and inspires heretics to shed their blood for Him.
UUS:12, 05/25/1995

All heretics who shed their blood go to Hell.
Eugene IV, D.714

God's Church is build up when heretics receive the Eucharist.
UUS:12, 05/25/1995

Heretics sin when they receive the Eucharist.
Leo XIII, ENL

Catholic Church and Eastern Schismatic Church are one in faith.
UUS:59,62

Heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.
St. Pius V, CCT:101

Apostate Jews worship the One True God.
PM:135, 04/13/1986

Apostate Jews do not worship the One True God.
Gregory XVI, SJS

The Catholic Church respects the Islamic spirutial tradition.
PP:2443, 08/19/1985

It is false to say: all religions are true.
St. Pius X, P:14

Goodness and truth are found in false religions.
CCC:842, 10/11/1992

It is false to say: all religions are good.
Pius XI, MA:2

The religious experience of Islam deserves respect.
CH:93, 1994

It is false to say: Mohammedans can experience God.
St. Pius X, P:14

Modernism renews and unites the Church of Christ.
CH:76, 1994

Modernism attempts to destroy the Church.
St. Pius X, P:23

Buddhists by higher help reach liberty and supreme illumination.
CH:80, 1994

It is false to say: Buddhists can experience God.
St. Pius X, P:14

The Church rejects nothing holy and true in false religions.
CH:80, 1994

Outside the Church the Truth cannot be found.
Gregory XVI, D.1617

The Holy Spirit works effectively a common root in all religions.
CH:81, 1994

It is false to say: all religions are true.
St. Pius X, P:14

John Paul II prayed with animists and was amazed at it.
LC, 08/23/1985

It is false to think: all religions are good.
Pius XI, MA:2

The sphere of salvation includes those not in the Church.
CH:140, 1994

No one can be saved who is not in the Church.
Pius IX, D.1716

With God, man creates his personal salvation.
CH:195, 1994

No one can be saved outside the true faith.
Pius IV, D.1000

The Catholic Church is present in all its elements in heretical sects.
CN, 05/28/1992

Outside the Catholic Church there is no holy unity.
St. Leo IO, DJP:129,II:3

Man's dignity is: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
ALL, 04/1980

Freemasonry is: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
St. Pius X, LFH

Evolution is more than just an hypothesis.
LOR, 10/23/1996

Evolution is the doctrine of the Modernists.
St. Pius X, P:26

Worship in common with heretics is good.
UR:8, 1965

Worship in common with heretics is condemned!
Benedict XV, C.1258

John Paul II prayed with sorcerers, calling out the "spirits."
LOR, 08/11/1985

John Paul II worshiped the Devil.
Gregory XVI, SJS

Outside the Church there is no salvation is not Catholic exclusively.
CH:141, 1994

The Catholic Church is the only way of salvation.
Eugene IV, D.714

All deceased men "are standing before" God as saints.
LOR, 11/01/1993

No one can be saved who is not in the Church.
Pius IX, D.1716

It is unevangelical to condemn heretics.
UUS:15, 05/25/1995

It is evangelical to condemn heretics.
St. Martin I, D.271-272

Buddhism is a religion of salvation.
CH:84-85, 1994

Buddhism is a religion of damnation
Eugene IV, D.714


Table of Sources - Abbreviations (http://www.truecatholic.org/heresiesjp2.htm#sources)
by Patrick John Pollock

Were all of the pronouncements in blue made ex cathedra?

Well, Servus Dei, that was a long post!

Looks like you've made Pope J look more like a good guy than a bad guy in my opinion.

Give it a rest. You're obviously a nutjob. While applaud your faith in the Lord, I condemn your arrogance. It doesn't matter. Denominations do not matter one bit. The catholic church is wrong.

The catholic church is wrong.

Which one?

Heresy! YAY! :D

I'm just happy that I don't live in a time when they kill heretics. Dying makes heresy considerably less fun. *nod*

Yep, he's TT/DA alright.

Lutherans collectively just looked at that post and sighed.

What a pity that the Holy Inquisition had lost one of its finest aspirants because he was born 500 years to late.

The Catholic Church IS the heretic Church! They have turned their back on Christ!

I denounce the Pope and his teachings as ANTICHRIST! [/rant]

most of the comments in blue were made before Vatican II, the Catholic Council that changed most of what the Catholic Church believed. John Paul was initiated as Pope about 20 years after Vatican II. Those ideas expressed by him were in compliance with the documents written during the Vatican II council.

Nothing is impossible to the Divine Benevolence of God.

If you desire with all your heart, friendship with every race on earth, your thought, spiritual and positive, will spread; it will become the desire of others, growing stronger and stronger, until it reaches the minds of all men.

Do not despair! Work steadily. Sincerity and love will conquer hate. How many seemingly impossible events are coming to pass in these days! Set your faces steadily towards the Light of the World. Show love to all; 'Love is the breath of the Holy Spirit in the heart of Man'. Take courage! God never forsakes His children who strive and work and pray! Let your hearts be filled with the strenuous desire that tranquillity and harmony may encircle all this warring world. So will success crown your efforts, and with the universal brotherhood will come the Kingdom of God in peace and goodwill.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 29)

most of the comments in blue were made before Vatican II, the Catholic Council that changed most of what the Catholic Church believed. John Paul was initiated as Pope about 20 years after Vatican II. Those ideas expressed by him were in compliance with the documents written during the Vatican II council.
The Catholic Church is always the same. Evolution of dogmas is CONDEMNED!

VIVA lA JOHN PAUL II (I am catholic, a real one)

Actually, he would have been considered a heretic for defying the true Pope :D

My Karma ran over your Dogma. :)

The Catholic Church is always the same. Evolution of dogmas is CONDEMNED!

you're a moron.

you're a moron.
For defending Catholic doctrine? Do you think evolution of dogma is not a heresy?

VIVA lA JOHN PAUL II (I am catholic, a real one)

Actually, he would have been considered a heretic for defying the true Pope :D
Oh yes, the Novus Ordo "catholic" religion established in the 1960s... :rolleyes:

I admit I adhere to the Catholicism from A.D. XXXIII with those other 260 popes and hundreds of saints, theologians and Scripture on its side.

Do you think evolution of dogma is not a heresy?
I think that you should get out and have some fun more often.

For defending Catholic doctrine? Do you think evolution of dogma is not a heresy?

so you're saying that Vatican II was wrong, that we should go back to receiving Eucharist on at the Communion rail and listening to Mass entirely in Latin? That those who have never been exposed to Christ's teachings not because of ignorance, but because of their location in life, are going to hell? Sounds to me like you just don't like JPII and are trying to convince others your opinion is true without reviewing all the facts beforehand.

Aw rats! I can't be a heretic, I was never baptised.

I believe he's not the first pope to change something. Which I've always found really funny. First they say popes are infallible, then pope B says something different than pope A. Either somebody is fallible, or god keeps changing the rules.

I am a CONSERVATIVE Catholic, not a traditionalist catholic, as it has come to mean. Also, that was a legally convened council (Vatican II)

EDIT- its not cool to steal lists from websites

Bitchkitten, pope's are not infallable, they are antichrist. Don't bother.

so you're saying that Vatican II was wrong, that we should go back to receiving Eucharist on at the Communion rail and listening to Mass entirely in Latin? That those who have never been exposed to Christ's teachings not because of ignorance, but because of their location in life, are going to hell? Sounds to me like you just don't like JPII and are trying to convince others your opinion is true without reviewing all the facts beforehand.
I) The Mass is always entirely in Latin, and receiving Communion while kneeling at the altar rail is Divinely mandated and required by Church Law.

"The use of the Latin language prevailing in the great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruptions of true doctrine."
--Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei

That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.
(Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Philippians iiX)


II) Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus...

Were all of the pronouncements in blue made ex cathedra?

Answer the question, please.

Either somebody is fallible, or God keeps changing the rules.

In order to keep up with the changing times the Catholic Church has had many councils over the years, such as the Council of Trent and Vaticans I and II. I will agree, however, that the infallibility of the pope started when one of the popes made himself infallible. That could be considered a little iffy.

I am a CONSERVATIVE Catholic, not a traditionalist catholic, as it has come to mean. Also, that was a legally convened council (Vatican II)

EDIT- its not cool to steal lists from websites

I) A LIBERAL "catholic."

II) I did not "steal" the list from a website.

I) The Mass is always entirely in Latin, and receiving Communion while kneeling at the altar rail is Divinely mandated and required by Church Law.

"The use of the Latin language prevailing in the great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruptions of true doctrine."
--Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei

That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.
(Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Philippians iiX)


II) Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus...

only before vatican II. have you ever been to a mass recently??

In order to keep up with the changing times the Catholic Church has had many councils over the years, such as the Council of Trent and Vaticans I and II. I will agree, however, that the infallibility of the pope started when one of the popes made himself infallible. That could be considered a little iffy.
The Council of Trent and The Vatican Council would contradict the "vatican II" apostate council.

You've now made my IGNORE List, Servus!

most of the comments in blue were made before Vatican II, the Catholic Council that changed most of what the Catholic Church believed. John Paul was initiated as Pope about 20 years after Vatican II. Those ideas expressed by him were in compliance with the documents written during the Vatican II council.

Vatican two didnt change the truth of the Mother Church, it simply allowed the holy Spirit to work in opening the minds of the faithful. The council was the will of God.

In reply to the first post:
The group he is quoting from is in Schism, and not in communion with the holy Roman Church.
The irony of schismists lecturing on heresy is kinda funny.
and by the 'poster' has violated canon 1373,1374(ATLEAST)

The Catholic Church is always the same. Evolution of dogmas is CONDEMNED!
Frankly, that's irrelevent, because so many of the doctrines of the RCC are either conflicting with or unsubstantiated by Scripture. ;)

I did not "steal" the list from a website.

Check out this link:

http://64.70.141.207/Romanism_contradictions2.htm

Evolution is more than just an hypothesis.
LOR, 10/23/1996

Evolution is the doctrine of the Modernists.
St. Pius X, P:26


"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

Pius XII

only before vatican II. have you ever been to a mass recently??
Yes, the same it as it always has been. The Mass of all times dating from the early Christians on the tombs of the martyrs and codified at the Council of Trent as the Mass of all time.... always in Latin, always universally the same every where in the world, free of novelties and abuses- THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE for the Roman Catholic Mass!

The Council of Trent and The Vatican Council would contradict the "vatican II" apostate council.

the council of trent and the vatican council were enacted to keep up with the times. as were vatican II. do you consider the previous councils to be heretical?

i think this one neatly sums it all up:


Dogmas and doctrines grow and evolve.
EDA, 1987

Check out this link:

http://64.70.141.207/Romanism_contradictions2.htm
That is another source you can easily locate on Google. I clearly linked to the web site where this was taken from and the author's name appears in the first thread.

Yes, the same it as it always has been. The Mass of all times dating from the early Christians on the tombs of the martyrs and codified at the Council of Trent as the Mass of all time.... always in Latin, always universally the same every where in the world, free of novelties and abuses- THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE for the Roman Catholic Mass!

Good sex comes close. :)
SOmetimes, participants even shout out to the lord in exstacy. :)

Yes, the same it as it always has been. The Mass of all times dating from the early Christians on the tombs of the martyrs and codified at the Council of Trent as the Mass of all time.... always in Latin, always universally the same every where in the world, free of novelties and abuses- THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE for the Roman Catholic Mass!

the "mass of all times" has been changed over the years ever so slightly, even before the vatican II council and youre not talking about that. care to share why?

You realize, of course, the office of the papacy itself wasn't instituted for a LONG TIME after the formation of Christianity. In fact, the actual declaration that "The Bishop of Rome PWNS all" happened just before the fall of the Western Empire, if I'm not mistaken.

the council of trent and the vatican council were enacted to keep up with the times. as were vatican II. do you consider the previous councils to be heretical?
The doctrines reached at the former two councils (especially Trent) would be suppressed, replaced, and contradicted by the Vatican II's teachings.

At last I meet Defensor Fidei. Well, YOU ARE A HERETIC DF! I am a Catholic, I attend the real Mass and follow the real Vicar of Christ John Paul II! He was elected by a valid college of cardinals and is therefore the Pope of the True Church!

At last I meet Defensor Fidei. Well, YOU ARE A HERETIC DF! I am a Catholic, I attend the real Mass and follow the real Vicar of Christ John Paul II! He was elected by a valid college of cardinals and is therefore the Pope of the True Church!
You think a "True Catholic (TM)" like him would listen to you? And yes, people like him suck

Chapter 25:6 Westminster Confession of Faith


There is no other head of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph_1:22; Col_1:18); nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God (Mat_23:8-10; 2Th_2:3, 2Th_2:4, 2Th_2:8, 2Th_2:9; Rev_13:6).

Popery is the greatest abomination to our Lord and Saviour. Every single Pope that has ever existed or will ever exist is a heretic, not just John Paul. The very practices and principles of Romanism are based entirely on the most profound and blatant heresy and blasphemy.

Just thought I'd add my two cents.

Originally Posted by Servus Dei
Dogmas and doctrines grow and evolve.
EDA, 1987

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

wouldn't that mean you're just a little hypocritical?

At last I meet Defensor Fidei. Well, YOU ARE A HERETIC DF! I am a Catholic, I attend the real Mass and follow the real Vicar of Christ John Paul II! He was elected by a valid college of cardinals and is therefore the Pope of the True Church!
Well said, except the Latin Mass can be said with the bishops permission. John Paul II is the TRUE POPE.

OATH AGAINST THE ERRORS OF MODERNISM
Pope St. Pius X
September 1, 1910
Sacrorum Antistitum


To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I,...... , firmly embrace and accept all and each of the things defined, affirmed and declared by the inerrant Magisterium of the Church, mainly those points of doctrine directly opposed to the errors of our time.

And in the first place I profess that God, beginning and end of all things, can be certainly known, and therefore also proved, as the cause through its effects, by the natural light of reason through the things that have been made, that is, through the visible works of creation.

Secondly, I admit and recognize as most certain signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion the external arguments of revelation, that is, the divine deeds, and in the first place the miracles and prophecies. And I maintain that these are eminently suited to the mentality of all ages and men, including those of our time.

Thirdly, I also firmly believe that the Church, guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was immediately and directly instituted by the real and historical Christ himself, while dwelling with us; and that it was built upon Peter, prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors till the end of time.

Fourthly, I sincerely accept the doctrine of the faith handed on to us by the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers, always with the same meaning and interpretation; and therefore I flatly reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, to the effect that these would change their meaning from that previously held by the Church. I equally condemn every error whereby the divine deposit, handed over to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept by her, would be replaced by a philosophical invention or a creation of human consciousness, slowly formed by the effort of men and to be henceforward perfected by an indefinite progress.

Fifthly, I maintain in all certainty and sincerely profess that faith is not a blind feeling of religion welling up from the recesses of the subconscious, by the pressure of the heart and of the inclination of the morally educated will, but a real assent of the intellect to the truth received from outside through the ear, whereby we believe that the things said, testified and revealed by the personal God, our creator and lord, are true, on account of the authority of God, who is supremely truthful.

I also submit myself with due reverence, and wholeheartedly join in all condemnations, declarations and prescriptions contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, mainly those concerning the so-called history of dogmas.

Likewise I reprove the error of those who affirm that the faith proposed by the Church can be repugnant to history, and that the Catholic dogmas, in the way they are understood now, cannot accord with the truer origins of the Christian religion.

I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that the more learned Christian has a two-fold personality, one of the believer and the other of the historian, as if it would be lawful for the historian to uphold views which are in contradiction with the faith of the believer, or to lay down propositions from which it would follow that the dogmas are false or doubtful, as long as these dogmas were not directly denied.

I likewise reprove the method of judging and interpreting Holy Scripture which consists in ignoring the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith and the rulings of the Apostolic See, following the opinions of rationalists, and not only unlawfully but recklessly upholding the critique of the text as the only and supreme rule.

Besides, I reject the opinion of those who maintain that whoever teaches theological history, or writes about these matters, has to set aside beforehand any preconceived opinion regarding the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition, as well as the divine promise of a help for the perpetual preservation of each one of the revealed truths; and that, besides, the writings of each of the Fathers should be interpreted only by the principles of science, leaving aside all sacred authority, and with the freedom of judgment wherewith any secular monument is usually studied.

Lastly, I profess myself in everything totally averse to the error whereby modernists hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition, or, what is much worse, that there is, but in a pantheistic sense; so that nothing remains there but the bare and simple fact to be equated to the common facts of history, namely, some men who through their work, skill and ingenuity, continue in subsequent ages the school started by Christ and his apostles. Therefore I most firmly retain the faith of the Fathers, and will retain it up to the last gasp of my life, regarding the unwavering charisma of the truth, which exists, has existed and will always exist in the succession of bishops from the Apostles; not so that what is maintained is what may appear better or more suitably adapted to the culture of each age, but so that the absolute and unchangeable truth preached by the Apostles from the beginning may never be believed or understood otherwise.

All these things I pledge myself to keep faithfully, integrally and sincerely, and to watch over them without fail, never moving away from them whether in teaching or in any way by word or in writing. Thus do I promise, thus do I swear, so help me God...

Chapter 25:6 Westminster Confession of Faith


There is no other head of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph_1:22; Col_1:18); nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God (Mat_23:8-10; 2Th_2:3, 2Th_2:4, 2Th_2:8, 2Th_2:9; Rev_13:6).

Popery is the greatest abomination to our Lord and Saviour. Every single Pope that has ever existed or will ever exist is a heretic, not just John Paul. The very practices and principles of Romanism are based entirely on the most profound and blatant heresy and blasphemy.

Just thought I'd add my two cents.
you a Free Presbyterian?

Well said, except the Latin Mass can be said with the bishops permission. John Paul II is the TRUE POPE.

thank you.

Evolution is more than just an hypothesis.
LOR, 10/23/1996

Evolution is the doctrine of the Modernists.
St. Pius X, P:26


"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

Pius XII


Explain this please.

Potpourri is the greatest abomination to our Lord and Saviour
So I should stop using it to freshen the air in my room? :p

So I should stop using it to freshen the air in my room? :p

Use candles. They're very catholic. :)

Well said, except the Latin Mass can be said with the bishops permission. John Paul II is the TRUE POPE.
I like how you attempt to shove the actual issues into a corner and just keep shouting about the status of John Paul II.

John Paul II may be legally pope, but a heretic nonetheless. Why don't you try actually defending his heretical acts?

[FONT=Garamond]OATH AGAINST THE ERRORS OF MODERNISM
Pope St. Pius X
September 1, 1910
Sacrorum Antistitum


note the date. when was vatican II again, kiddos? and what did the council do?? didn't they UPDATE THE CATHOLIC BELIEF STRUCTURE TO A MORE MODERNISTIC APPROACH??

Well said, except the Latin Mass can be said with the bishops permission. John Paul II is the TRUE POPE.

Yes, a Latin Mass is just as acceptable as a regular, and vice-versa. BTW I'm a Catholic Conservative as well, like you, but not one of those Vatican 1 heretics.

Were all of the pronouncements in blue made ex cathedra?

I get the feeling that Servus Dei is going to keep ignoring this question. I wonder why? :rolleyes:

I like how you attempt to shove the actual issues into a corner and just keep shouting about the status of John Paul II.

John Paul II may be legally pope, but a heretic nonetheless. Why don't you try actually defending his heretical acts?
What makes you any less of a heretic?

I like how you attempt to shove the actual issues into a corner and just keep shouting about the status of John Paul II.

John Paul II may be legally pope, but a heretic nonetheless. Why don't you try actually defending his heretical acts?

Probably because there aren't enough of them. When he allows women to be priests, and stops persecuting gays then I, for one, will defend his heretical acts. :)

Were all of the pronouncements in blue made ex cathedra?

Two questions (well, actually, three)
1. Are you ever going to give him (points at Texan Hotrodders) an answer?
2. If so, can we please have it?
3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but (seeing as you are a "Catholic", and leaving all claims against the RCC aside), if you speak against the Pope, such as you have done, due to the fact that he (not you) is infallible, doesn't that make you the heretic?

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but (seeing as you are a "Catholic", and leaving all claims against the RCC aside), if you speak against the Pope, such as you have done, due to the fact that he (not you) is infallible, doesn't that make you the heretic?
Servus Dei believes that the Jean-Paul II isn't the "legal" Pope

NOT DEFENSOR FIDEI AGAIN!

*calls in crack team of soldiers with rabbit sniper laser rifles to eliminate the threat*

http://anikari.zioncreation.com/Neurozys.jpg

I don't know why he keeps trying. If your cause is so desperate that you have to keep returning to, and annoying, a little community of webgamers like us, it has already lost legitimacy. Especially when it's considered that a healthy portion of those playing the game are atheistic, or even anti-religious to begin with, and don't care, and the majority of Christians present aren't anti-semites trying to legitimize their hate-filled beliefs by shrouding them in religion.

Servus Dei believes that the Jean-Paul II isn't the "legal" Pope

But JPII is the legal pope, so by denying the fact that he is Servus Dei is, in fact, speaking heresy.

Explain this please.
What needs to be explained? The Church had already declared the idea of total Evolution to be the heretical doctrine of the Modernists. Pope Pius XII allowed further investigation to be put into evolutionary theories by the Church. However the doctrine remained prohibited and is now disproven by Catholicsm.

If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which is unproven even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
--Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis

ANSWER TEXAS HOTRODDERS QUESTION! Were the blue comments made ex cathedra?

Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which is unproven even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things
Wrong! Evolution is the gradual change of a species over time . . . ABIOGENESIS is the scientific theory on origin of life

But JPII is the legal pope, so by denying the fact that he is Servus Dei is, in fact, speaking heresy.

I see.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't speaking against the pope, such as Servus Dei is doing, grounds for excommunication?

Two questions (well, actually, three)
1. Are you ever going to give him (points at Texan Hotrodders) an answer?
2. If so, can we please have it?
3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but (seeing as you are a "Catholic", and leaving all claims against the RCC aside), if you speak against the Pope, such as you have done, due to the fact that he (not you) is infallible, doesn't that make you the heretic?

I) Some were directly, virtually all the statements were made with infallible basis.


II) Exactly which doctrine? (No salvation outside the Church, etc...)

III) No, it is a Catholic's duty to point out heresy even in the Holy Office.
Liberalists consider any thing any pope prior to Vatican II stated to be archaic and ignore it while every word of John Paul II seems to be idolized. Papal idolatry for John Paul II; while the words of every other Holy Roman Pontiff is just an old rogue statement.

CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS

POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 4, 1963


1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

Wrong! Evolution is the gradual change of a species over time . . . ABIOGENESIS is the scientific theory on origin of life
The Church does not submit secular scientists' changing dogmas.....

The Church does not take in secular scientists' statements.....
The Church could at least get the scientific theories they try to refute correct . . .

Evolution doesn't theorize the origin of life. That's Abiogenesis

The Church does not take in secular scientists' statements.....
so...the earths still flat and at the centre of the universe?

so...the earths still flat and at the centre of the universe?

And it's about seven thousand years old. :)

And it's about seven thousand years old. :)
Heretic! It's only 4000! :D

And here I was, thinking that Christianity should be based more on faith, rather than an entanglement of rules and hiearchies... silly me.

so...the earths still flat and at the centre of the universe?
The earth was never flat... :rolleyes:

The earth is the center of the universe, with the sun and moon revolving around it.

And it's about seven thousand years old. :)
see, thats what i thought

but then these lunatic scientists with their secular dogmas and "proof" came along...and i just didnt know what to think

glad weve got that cleared up :)

The earth was never flat... :rolleyes:

The earth is the center of the universe, with the sun and moon revolving around it.
apparently it was flat, until Columbus managed not to fall off it

and if you believe the second thing...then youre beyond hope

Servus Dei believes that the Jean-Paul II isn't the "legal" Pope
Tell me, where that was stated?

Under canon 1364 all schismists are under latae sententiae excommunication and carrying on with non approved tridentine rites is a violation of canon 1365.

So..for someone who claims to follow the Magisterium of the Church...you certainly are breaking her codes.

What needs to be explained? The Church had already declared the idea of total Evolution to be the heretical doctrine of the Modernists. Pope Pius XII allowed further investigation to be put into evolutionary theories by the Church. However the doctrine remained prohibited and is now disproven by Catholicsm.

If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which is unproven even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
--Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis
The Catholic Church has never prohibited evolution. Pope Pius only attacked communists who believed souls were not created by god. Later on in Humani Generis Pius clearly acknowledged the possibility of the natural evolution of an organism's body coexisting with the divine creation of each individual's soul.

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question."

The earth was never flat... :rolleyes:

The earth is the center of the universe, with the sun and moon revolving around it.

And yet I"M the crazy one? :confused:

The Catholic Church IS the heretic Church! They have turned their back on Christ!

I denounce the Pope and his teachings as ANTICHRIST! [/rant]


Who is a prot to denounce the Pope? Your word means nothing and you are going to hell when you die.

Don't debate him on science. Make him reveal his flaming anti-semitism. Though keep in mind hes tricky about it.
What do you think should be done with the Jewish people, SD?

The earth was never flat... :rolleyes:

The earth is the center of the universe, with the sun and moon revolving around it.
Holy shit. That is sad.

Who is a prot to denounce the Pope? Your word means nothing and you are going to hell when you die.
i thought that we were meant to have faith in Christ, not the Pope

must have got this christianity thing the wrong way round somewhere...

Please don't feed the troll (http://img28.exs.cx/img28/623/feed_troll.gif)

The earth was never flat... :rolleyes:

The earth is the center of the universe, with the sun and moon revolving around it.

i would LOVE to believe you if you can prove to me that the sun revolves around the earth. ready. set. go.

i would LOVE to believe you if you can prove to me that the sun revolves around the earth. ready. set. go.
Heretic, can't you see it as it rises in the East and sets in the West? ;)

i thought that we were meant to have faith in Christ, not the Pope

must have got this christianity thing the wrong way round somewhere...

Oh, get real! God doesn't care what He said. God only cares about what the Pope says He said. ANd if you don't do what the guy in the big hat says God said, then God will... um... wedgie you.

Holy shit. That is sad.
I think it's very funny. It makes me smile to read the statements of people like Servus Dei.^^

Oh, get real! God doesn't care what He said. God only cares about what the Pope says He said. ANd if you don't do what the guy in the big hat says God said, then God will... um... wedgie you.
shit no, not the Lords Wedgie...i might fall off the edge of the earth, you know, because those secular scientists with their secular dogmas just arent to be trusted

Heretic, can't you see it as it rises in the East and sets in the West? ;)

*sigh* i believe you're right. you caught me on that one. my mistake. ;)

The Catholic Church has never prohibited evolution. Pope Pius only attacked communists who believed souls were not created by god. Later on in Humani Generis Pius clearly acknowledged the possibility of the natural evolution of an organism's body coexisting with the divine creation of each individual's soul.

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question."

Pius XII did not condone biological evolution.

Any such theory was prohibited centuries ago at the Lateran Council IV and was re-iterated at the Vatican Council with words added specifically to address Darwinism and Teilhardism.

Pius XII did not condone biological evolution.

Any such theory was prohibited centuries ago at the Lateran Council IV and was re-iterated at the Vatican Council with words added specifically to address Darwinism and Teilhardism.

key words in that post = centuries ago

Pius XII did not condone biological evolution.

Any such theory was prohibited centuries ago at the Lateran Council IV and was re-iterated at the Vatican Council with words added specifically to address Darwinism and Teilhardism.
Whatever, it is useless to argue with someone who thinks the earth is the center of the universe.

Don't debate him on science. Make him reveal his flaming anti-semitism. Though keep in mind hes tricky about it.
What do you think should be done with the Jewish people, SD?
"Let the Gospel be preached unto them and, if they remain obstinate, let them be expelled!"
--Pope Leo VII

"Hey look at me! I'm Leo VII!"
-Pope Leo VII

key words in that post = centuries ago
Key words: "and was re-iterated at the Vatican Council...." (with even more specifics addressed, as well...)

Even so, are you saying that somehow Church doctrines have an expiration date?

"Let the Gospel be preached unto them and, if they remain obstinate, let them be expelled!"
--Pope Leo VII

"Don't be stupid, be a smarty! Come and join the Nazi party!"

"Hey look at me! I'm Leo VII!"
-Pope Leo VII

Misquote!! :eek:

What he actually said was;

"I'm Leo VII, bitch!" -Pope Leo VII

Key words: "and was re-iterated at the Vatican Council...." (with even more specifics addressed, as well...)

Even so, are you saying that somehow Church doctrines have an expiration date?



Dogmas and doctrines grow and evolve.

...and??

http://img203.exs.cx/img203/9449/cocoape1xh.jpg

The earth was never flat... :rolleyes:

The earth is the center of the universe, with the sun and moon revolving around it.

You're scaring the other catholics.

Exactly when did the catholic church decide that Galileo wasn't a heretic? This question is meant for someone that doesn't think he still is.

You're scaring the other catholics.

Exactly when did the catholic church decide that Galileo wasn't a heretic? This question is meant for someone that doesn't think he still is.
1992, IIRC.

...and??
Dogmas and doctrines do not grow and evolve.

Dogmas and doctrines do not grow and evolve.

Do you?

I thought I knew insane until this day.

*sigh* Pope John Paul II has done more to bring about a measure of unity between Christian and non-Christian denominations than any other pope in history, possibly than any other religious leader in history.

He's not a heretic, Servus.

Perhaps you should consider that God's plan for humanity is better served by bringing reconciliation between these groups for injustices perpetrated by both sides, that God's purpose is better served by striving for unity and understanding where possible between these groups.

Perhaps, Servus, you should consider that, since I assume you are Catholic, these statements of doctrine made by Pope John Paul II are divinely inspired, the desire of the Lord for the people of this world. Perhaps once there was a time where exclusivity was merited, and perhaps in those days God demanded it.

But is it not possible, now, that God desires unity, that God has seen that the time is ripe to forge understanding in the hearts of humanity?

:) Aiera

The Catholic Church is always the same. Evolution of dogmas is CONDEMNED!

The majority of those things aren't even dogmas!

I thought I knew insane until this day.

*sigh* Pope John Paul II has done more to bring about a measure of unity between Christian and non-Christian denominations than any other pope in history, possibly than any other religious leader in history.

He's not a heretic, Servus.

Perhaps you should consider that God's plan for humanity is better served by bringing reconciliation between these groups for injustices perpetrated by both sides, that God's purpose is better served by striving for unity and understanding where possible between these groups.

Perhaps, Servus, you should consider that, since I assume you are Catholic, these statements of doctrine made by Pope John Paul II are divinely inspired, the desire of the Lord for the people of this world. Perhaps once there was a time where exclusivity was merited, and perhaps in those days God demanded it.

But is it not possible, now, that God desires unity, that God has seen that the time is ripe to forge understanding in the hearts of humanity?

:) Aiera


The Catholic Church teaches that there is no unity outside the Catholic Church. Followers of "non-christian religions" are damned.

Dogmas and doctrines do not grow and evolve.

what about the doctrines and dogmas about how the Mass should be run? over the years, even before any of the councils that you consider "heretical", certain things in the Mass changed and evolved. you don't seem to be bashing those things that you see in the Tridentine Mass that have changed. are you saying that those things are not heretical, but other things are? make up your mind.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is no unity outside the Catholic Church. Followers of "non-christian religions" are damned.
so i take it the Protestant churches and the other Christian churches are fine then? excellent

The Catholic Church teaches that there is no unity outside the Catholic Church. Followers of "non-christian religions" are damned.

tell that to your priest. see what he thinks. you'll be surprised.

what about the doctrines and dogmas about how the Mass should be run? over the years, even before any of the councils that you consider "heretical", certain things in the Mass changed and evolved. you don't seem to be bashing those things that you see in the Tridentine Mass that have changed. are you saying that those things are not heretical, but other things are? make up your mind.
Nothing has changed in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It has its roots in the ancient Christians' practices and the Council of Trent decreed it as the Roman Rite for all time.

The Tridentine Mass is all Holy and Catholic.
The Novus Ordo "mass" of Paul VI is a Protestantized ecumenical circus.

so i take it the Protestant churches and the other Christian churches are fine then? excellent
There is no Christianity outside the Catholic Church.

There is no Christianity outside the Catholic Church.
so...what are all those other churches who believe Jesus was the one true son of God, and in the trinity?

If they believe that, theyre Christian.

So, there are Christian churches outside the Catholic church.

and where in the Bible does it say this?

There is no Christianity outside the Catholic Church.
What is your scriptural basis for that statement?

The Catholic Church teaches that there is no unity outside the Catholic Church. Followers of "non-christian religions" are damned.

You're not a Trad-Cath by any chance?

The Catholic Church taught once that there is no unity outside of the Catholic Church. However, it is clear that there is a measure of Unity...certainly we Catholics believe in the same God, the same Jesus, that an Anglican or a Baptist does.

And, wisely, in light of this, the Catholic Church now acknowledges that there is unity to be found outside the Catholic Church.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Happily Catholic,
:) Aiera

Nothing has changed in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It has its roots in the ancient Christians' practices and the Council of Trent decreed it as the Roman Rite for all time.

The Tridentine Mass is all Holy and Catholic.
The Novus Ordo "mass" of Paul VI is a Protestantized ecumenical circus.

it did have it's ROOTS in the practices of the first Christians, but things did evolve. you obviously arent educated enough in the faith that you are defending to say anything that is actually true.

JPII vs. the Catholic Church


“The various religions arose precisely from this primordial human openness to God. At their origins we often find founders who, with the help of God's Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience. Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, rites and precepts of the various religions. […] Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour."
--John Paul II


For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the Divinely revealed religion.....
--Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos,

Mortalium Animos: On True Religious Unity (http://www.dailycatholic.org/mortaliu.htm)

it did have it's ROOTS in the practices of the first Christians, but things did evolve. you obviously arent educated enough in the faith that you are defending to say anything that is actually true.
Things did not evolve, but were fulfilled. And as the Council of Trent declared, there is one Roman Mass, and it is not to be tampered with by a meddling council of freemasons.

Servus, I find it funny that all of the refutations that you use are based on church tradtion rather than on Scripture. I don't put much faith in tradition. It's what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for. While I don't agree with everything that JP2 has said, using tradition to condemn him doesn't work.

why then, do christians of ALL denominations, jews, and islamics all share a common scripture, known as the old testament or torah or what have you? why do we all share the belief in the one, true God?

Servus, I find it funny that all of the refutations that you use are based on church tradtion rather than on Scripture. I don't put much faith in tradition. It's what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for. While I don't agree with everything that JP2 has said, using tradition to condemn him doesn't work.
The Bible is written Tradition. The Holy Apostle Saint Paul commands us to hold onto the Holy Traditions.

Things did not evolve, but were fulfilled. And as the Council of Trent declared, there is one Roman Mass, and it is not to be tampered with by a meddling council of freemasons.

who exactly were the freemasons and what council did they 'tamper' with?

it did have it's ROOTS in the practices of the first Christians, but things did evolve. you obviously arent educated enough in the faith that you are defending to say anything that is actually true.

Quite right, Undercover. There are now, I think, something closer to 8 accepted rites of Mass in the Catholic Church.

Servus, you really need to read an up-to-date Catechism.

:) Aiera

why then, do christians of ALL denominations, jews, and islamics all share a common scripture, known as the old testament or torah or what have you? why do we all share the belief in the one, true God?
We do not.

"Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved."
--Pope Saint Gregory the Great, Moralia

The Bible is written Tradition. The Holy Apostle Saint Paul commands us to hold onto the Holy Traditions.

I'm sure that the Pharisees had written down there traditons at some point or another. So who decides which tradtions are holy and which aren't? THey must be judged according to Scripture. The point is that only things that are stated in Scripture can be used to refute someone. Tradition cannot.

We do not.

"Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved."
--Pope Saint Gregory the Great, Moralia

JESUS WAS A FREAKING JEW!

The Bible is written Tradition. The Holy Apostle Saint Paul commands us to hold onto the Holy Traditions.

Speak less of Paul! One of the grave errors of the early Church was the over-reliance on Paul's teachings, and the under-reliance on Christ's own teachings.

If you would call yourself Christian, speak more of Jesus!

;) Aiera

who exactly were the freemasons and what council did they 'tamper' with?
I)
"...the partisans of evil seems to be combining together, and to be struggling with united vehemence, led on or assisted by that strongly organized and widespread association called the Freemasons. No longer making any secret of their purposes, they are now boldly rising up against God Himself. They are planning the destruction of holy Church publicly and openly, and this with the set purpose of utterly despoiling the nations of Christendom, if it were possible, of the blessings obtained for us through Jesus Christ our Saviour. Lamenting these evils, We are constrained by the charity which urges Our heart to cry out often to God: "For lo, Thy enemies have made a noise; and they that hate Thee have lifted up the head. They have taken a malicious counsel against Thy people, and they have consulted against Thy saints. They have said, `come, and let us destroy them, so that they be not a nation.’”
--Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus


II) The apostate "vatican ii" non-dogmatic council.

We do not.

"Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved."
--Pope Saint Gregory the Great, Moralia

You do not address the issue. Is not the God that appears in the Old Testament the same God that appears in the New? And if you would answer yes, then you must answer yes too that both the traditions of Islam and Judaism are based off of the Torah, or what we call the Old Testament.

To do otherwise is a logical fallacy.

And yes, Jesus was a Jew.

:) Aiera

I'm sure that the Pharisees had written down there traditons at some point or another. So who decides which tradtions are holy and which aren't? THey must be judged according to Scripture. The point is that only things that are stated in Scripture can be used to refute someone. Tradition cannot.
Scripture is Tradition, declared Sacred through Tradition by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

I)
"...the partisans of evil seems to be combining together, and to be struggling with united vehemence, led on or assisted by that strongly organized and widespread association called the Freemasons. No longer making any secret of their purposes, they are now boldly rising up against God Himself. They are planning the destruction of holy Church publicly and openly, and this with the set purpose of utterly despoiling the nations of Christendom, if it were possible, of the blessings obtained for us through Jesus Christ our Saviour. Lamenting these evils, We are constrained by the charity which urges Our heart to cry out often to God: "For lo, Thy enemies have made a noise; and they that hate Thee have lifted up the head. They have taken a malicious counsel against Thy people, and they have consulted against Thy saints. They have said, `come, and let us destroy them, so that they be not a nation.’”
--Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus


II) The apostate "vatican ii" non-dogmatic council.

i didn't want a definition of freemasons. i know who they are, thankyouverymuch. i want you to name one.

II) The apostate "vatican ii" non-dogmatic council.

You ARE a Trad-Cath, aren't you? ;)

Vat2 was the inspired action of God to bring the message and the people who heard it into closer unity. Since then, God's greater purpose of peace has been served by attempts to reconcile injustices between different Christian groups (and non-Christian groups) and the Holy Church, and by attempts at dialogue of mutual understanding.

Why is this a bad thing?
:( Aiera

You do not address the issue. Is not the God that appears in the Old Testament the same God that appears in the New? And if you would answer yes, then you must answer yes too that both the traditions of Islam and Judaism are based off of the Torah, or what we call the Old Testament.

To do otherwise is a logical fallacy.

And yes, Jesus was a Jew.

:) Aiera
I) Mohammedanism and Talmudism do not worship the True God, the Old Testament is not relevant to a discussion of this sort of matter.

II) Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews and became a Light for the Gentiles, not a Jew.

Given that John Paul II is the Pope of the Catholic Church, and as such is the infallible representative of God on Earth according to the Catholic Church, your analysis is by definition flawed.

You ARE a Trad-Cath, aren't you? ;)

Vat2 was the inspired action of God to bring the message and the people who heard it into closer unity. Since then, God's greater purpose of peace has been served by attempts to reconcile injustices between different Christian groups (and non-Christian groups) and the Holy Church, and by attempts at dialogue of mutual understanding.

Why is this a bad thing?
:( Aiera
Souls are being damned in the name of ecumenism. There is still no salvation outside the Church, regardless of who JPII decides to take a photo op with.

Eventually the damage done by the council will be undone; Our Lady assures us of this.

Given that John Paul II is the Pope of the Catholic Church, and as such is the infallible representative of God on Earth, your analysis is by definition flawed.
A pope is not a totally infallible individual.

I) Mohammedanism and Talmudism do not worship the True God, the Old Testament is not relevant to a discussion of this sort of matter.

II) Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews and became a Light for the Gentiles, not a Jew.

he was crucified by his own. people. those who crucified him were jews. if his own people were jews, then wouldn't that make him one?? i want you to show me where in the Bible it says Jesus was a Gentile.

Scripture is Tradition, declared Sacred through Tradition by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

RIght, but every other tradition which is not in the Scriptures must be judged according to them. By this standard, I reject most of what the Catholic church teaches.

And can you come up with Scriptural reasons that JP2 is a heretic? Quite a bit of the stuff that you mentioned look Scriptural, just not traditional.

I) Mohammedanism and Talmudism do not worship the True God, the Old Testament is not relevant to a discussion of this sort of matter.

Yes it is. Our God has woven the history of the Hebrews, and His many miracles, interventions, and actions are recorded in the Old Testament. The Old Testament provides the crucial foundation for a full and complete understanding of God, and its many prophecies foretell the coming of Christ.

It is highly important, and matters greatly. And if you would claim for one moment that the Jews, into which religion Jesus was baptised and whose temples Jesus taught in (at times, Jesus in Scripture is even called 'Rabbi') do not worship this same God as we, you are a delusional heretic, not the current Pope.

II) Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews and became a Light for the Gentiles, not a Jew.

Jesus Christ is a light for All, silly.

:) Aiera

Our Lady assures us of this.

Wow, you've really gotten your Catholicism confused. Mary has no say in the matter - she is an intercessor.

:) Aiera

When examining a particular religion, it is always prudent to begin with a thorough examination of the main tenet of their particular belief system. In the case of Roman Catholicism, this tenet is the Sacrament of the Mass. It is the Sacrament around which all others revolve. Cardinal Spellman, in his book, The What and Why of Catholicism says, “The sacrament of the Mass forms a pivot on which all else turns. If it is what the Catholic Church believes it is, it is the greatest testimonial of the love of God for man, and the greatest testimonial to the validity of Catholicism. But if it be false, it is the worst farce and blasphemy every perpetrated by god or man and the Catholic Church collapses into nothingness.”

The question that is then begging to be asked is, “Is the Mass Valid?” and thereby, “Is Roman Catholicism Valid?” By answering the first question, the answer to the second will be made plain for the world to see. In the following pages, I hope to make it quite clear through careful analysis of Catholic theology as held by official Vatican decree in comparison to that held in the Bible, that the answer to both questions is an emphatic “No.”

I must first begin this exposition by defining the Roman Catholic belief on the Mass. It is taught that the Mass is a true, un-bloodied sacrifice, Christ crucified in perpetuity, and a propiatory offering for the sins of the living and the dead where the host and the wine are transubstantiated into the actual body, blood, and divinity of Christ.

With that out of the way, the first reason that the Mass is invalid is that the sacrifice has to be repeated. On page 124 of the Baltimore Catechism, we find that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to not attend Mass on Sunday, or a Holy Day of obligation unless they are absolutely unable to do so. A mortal sin, according to Catholic theology, if un-confessed, will send a soul straight to hell, not to Purgatory, but to hell. The Rev. Dr. Bill Jackson told a story of a one-hundred year old Catholic who had been to every single Mass from the time he was a baby onward. He would have been to well over 500 Masses in his life. Then, one Sunday, he decided to skip and go fishing. He went, fell in the river and drowned, and according to Catholic theology, went to hell. It doesn’t matter what he did with the rest of his life, he missed a Mass and thereby had a mortal sin which sent him straight to hell.

If you will look at Heb 10:10-17, preferably in your King James Bibles, you will find the Biblical doctrine on Christ’s sacrifice.

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

If it weren’t for the fact that I had so much more evidence, I could just stop right here. We find that Christ’s sacrifice for the remission of sins was (Verse 10) “once for all.” That means that there is no repetition necessary, as Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to wipe away the sins of mankind. Also, in Verse 11, it almost seems as if the Apostle Paul is addressing modern day Catholics. Paul is writing to the Jewish Christians, and in that community there was still great observance of the Old Covenant which also called for daily sacrifices. It says that the priests stand, offering often the same sacrifices, but these don’t take away sin. Sounds like a direct rebuff of the doctrine of the Mass to me. The apostle goes on to emphasize again, the once for all sacrifice of the Cross in verse 12, “after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever”. The meaning here isn’t very ambiguous, yet, Paul saw fit to emphasize the point again in verse 14 incase anyone wasn’t listening. “For by ONE offering he hath perfected FOR EVER them that are sanctified.”

The Mass, as opposed to the Biblical Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, is repeated and not once for all. Also, the Mass doesn’t even remit sin as Rome claims as after it is done, you are left no better off than you were before. If you commit a mortal sin after the sacrifice of the Mass, you are going to Hell, whereas with the Biblical, once for all sacrifice, there is forever remission of sin and those sanctified are perfect in the eyes of the Lord. (Perfect refers to the legal definition of their spiritual state, and not to their actual state as being perfect. The sinner is viewed in the eyes of God as sinless for it is said that not one sin can enter into heaven. However, though he may be viewed as sinless, this is a legal definition as the person has obviously sinned.)
As we continue, Verse 16 speaks of the inward process of sanctification, while verse 17 says that the Lord will not remember the sins of those who are sanctified, and in 18 says that where that remission is, “THERE IS NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN.” The Lord himself said that with this new covenant whereby those who are sanctified are perfected forever and their sins remitted; there is no more offering for sin. Why then does the Catholic Church continue, then to make offerings for sin?

The next reason the Mass is not valid is that it is un-bloodied. If we look at page 168 of the Baltimore Catechism, we find it saying, “The mass is a sacrifice of the new law in which Christ offers himself in an un-bloodied manner.” Let us take a look at Hebrews 9:19-22.

Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Heb 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

According to Old Testament law, there was no sacrifice which was without the shedding of blood, for, as we see in verse 22, “Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” The Catholic Church calls this an un-bloodied sacrifice and even the most ardent Catholics would have to admit that there is no blood shed during the mass, as opposed to the Biblical sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

Also, the Catholic Church claims that the Mass has infinite power. In other words, its power to take away sins goes on forever and ever, until the end of time and space. Yet, it does not guarantee Salvation. Therefore, this claim must be patently false. As we saw before, the Mass does not have the ability to remit sins, for you could go to 5000 Masses, and have any number of Requiem masses said after your death and still go to Hell.

In 1Pet 2:24 we see who actually does have infinite power to remit sins.

1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

This is none other than Christ who “HIS OWN SELF” bore our sins, that is, not with any assistance from the Mass, and not with any assistance from the so-called “Co-Redemptrix” Mary. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy from Isa. 53:6

Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

One of the greatest reasons that the Mass is not valid is that the Immolation of the Host and Wine, that is, their Transubstantiation into the actual body, person, and divinity of Christ, is not true. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most influential Roman Catholic philosophers developed this idea of transubstantiation based on the principles of Aristotle. Aristotle said that a substance, while remaining the same, could have different appearance, or as the Roman Church calls them, accidents. For instance, water can be turned into ice and steam. Both ice and steam look and feel vastly different than water, yet they are still water. The Roman Church took this principle and reversed it for Transubstantiation. Instead of the substance remaining the same and the accidents change, it is the accidents that remain the same while the substance changes. In other words, they say while the wine looks, feels, and tastes like wine…you could take it to a laboratory and have it tested and it would be wine, they say it is actually blood with all the plasma and platelets and corpuscles etc. etc. They say that the entire body, person, and divinity of Christ are in the Host and the wine.

Regardless of whether or not you believe in Sola Scriptura, even ardent Catholics would admit that the teachings of Aristotle don’t in any way relate to, or should be used in any way to interpret the Bible. God has given us all that we need to examine the scriptures. Imagine if your preacher or priest got up in the Pulpit one Sunday and said, “Today we are going to learn about Jesus…through what Plato, Sophocles, and Voltaire have to say about him.” That isn’t the Christian way to do things. We don’t look at God’s inspired, inerrant, infallible word through the eyeglass of some fallible and in Aristotle’s case, pagan human being. To again quote Dr. Bill Jackson, ““If you want to base your life on Aristotle, be my guest. I’m not going to kill you for doing it, but I sure will tell you that you’re in for some real bad licks up ahead of time if you base your life on Aristotle.” We must instead use the tools God has put before us, the Holy Scripture, to prove if Transubstantiation is correct.

Now, to claim something as ridiculous as transubstantiation, one would think the Roman Church would have to come up with some Bible verses to support it. Well, they do, but for the most part they are misinterpreted or taken out of context.

Let us take to begin with one of the verses that have convinced more people of this than any other, to the ruin of souls not a few.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

At first glance, this would appear to support the Romanist idea of the Mass. However, when we actually take time to analyze the text, we figure out what is really going on here. This episode in the Bible takes place one year before the Lord’s Supper was instituted, and it doesn’t make sense to be talking about the Lord’s Supper then. I shall demonstrate, in due course, that these verses could not possibly be talking about the Eucharist. In acknowledgement of such, Augustine did not speak of the Lord’s Supper when expositing this verse, but waited until the Lord’s Supper later on to speak of it.

When one is confused as to the meaning of scripture, it is best to consult the context that it is in. We are confused by what Jesus meant when he said to eat his flesh and drink his blood long before the Lord’s Supper. So, we must look at the context, which I have provided. Glancing at verse 54, he says those who eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood shall have eternal life and shall be raised up on the last day. This single verse, as unassuming as it is, exposes the fact that it is not about the Mass. Both you and the entire world know that there have been millions who have partaken in the Mass and have, in actuality or by the supposed Dogmas of the Roman Church, gone to Hell. Jesus said that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood have eternal life. He didn’t say, “Those who eat and drink it will have eternal life…oh except for Leroy over there…and those people too.” It was an all inclusive statement. Therefore if people can partake of the Mass, and still go to Hell, especially in light of the previous point about how there is no remittance of sin, then it cannot be the Mass that Jesus is addressing.

What is the Lord talking about? Sanctification. Those who are sanctified have eternal life without exception and that is the only group about which anyone can say that. Therefore, it must be speaking about the Sanctification of the human soul.

The next most popular verse used to assert that the Mass is scriptural is Matthew 26:26. As with all the others, I have provided appropriate context.

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Now, the Catholic apologist in your life will stick up his finger right there and say “Ah-Ha! There it has Jesus holding the bread, saying that it is his body!” Many Catholics get upset and cry hypocrisy when evangelicals point out to them that Jesus was using a metaphor. “You always talk about the literal reading, well that is the literal reading!” they will cry. When one looks at a literal reading of the Bible, one has to take into account that Jesus used a lot of metaphors. He has also variously called himself a stone, a tree, a vine, and plenty of other things. If we took those literally as well, the entire Bible would be reduced to nonsense. The literal reading is the plainest, most clear reading of the word, and where Jesus was clearly using metaphors, we must acknowledge it. Not only do I believe that Jesus was using a metaphor here as well, but I can prove it.

There are two ways of interpreting the statement, “This is” (and no, this does not come out of the Bill Clinton Theological Dictionary). The first way to interpret it is metaphorically. For instance, if you hold up a picture and say, “This is my girlfriend or boyfriend.” It’s quite obvious that it is just a representation of the person and that one cannot converse or otherwise interact with them. The other way of interpreting it is the literal way, the way that would be used when the person is actually physically there and you are introducing them to someone. Now how do we find out which of these Jesus means? Well, he tells us quite plainly if you follow the context. According to the Roman Catholic doctrine, when Christ said “This is my blood”, it actually became blood. However, a quick look at verse 29 shows that to be impossible. It says “I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THE VINE, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” The Lord Jesus Christ is infallible and does not make slipups. If it was blood, he would have said, “I will not drink henceforth of this blood.” Instead, he said “Fruit of the vine.” (E.g. WINE!). This, from Christ’s own lips, proves that transubstantiation is not supported by this verse. Indeed, the doctrine of transubstantiation is not supported by scripture at all. And if it be not supported by God’s word, we must look on it as invalid.

As we now see that transubstantiation is not real, then we must also, by using acute logic, draw another conclusion as to the Mass’s invalidity: It is idolatrous. The Priest, once he has supposedly immolated the host and the wine, then holds it up in the air and says, “This is your God.” Then, the entire congregation prays to the wafer, they pray Latria, the highest form of Roman Catholic prayer, the one directed at God alone. (Latria is prayer to God, Dulia is Prayer to the saints, Hyper-dulia is prayer to Mary) Now, since we have previously determined that transubstantiation is false, and therefore the host does NOT become the body, person, and divinity of Christ, then we must say that those praying to this wafer are praying to an idol and not to God.

Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Many of you will recognize this as the second commandment, unless you are of the Catholic faith, where, in many of the Catholic Bibles, this commandment is either taken out all together, or merged with other commandments. In the more traditional Rheims Catholic Bible, they had the decency to leave God’s word in the Bible, but instead corrupted it with a mistranslation. The Hebrew word for “bow” in verse 25 is ùÑçä
(shaw-khaw), which means to bow down and lay prostrate. In the Rheims Bible it says “adore” instead of bow, which would help their doctrine about the veneration of and bowing down in front of statues and icons. Even in the Latin Vulgate Bible, translated by the so-called “Saint” Jerome, the word that they use is “adorabis” which is form of the verb adorare, to adore. Overall, this has the effect of softening the condemnation of idolatry.

Yet, as much as their mis-translators may have hoped, their defamation of God’s word won’t get them off the hook. It is clear that not only is one not supposed to make graven images, but one is not supposed to even bow before them or give any hint of reverence, let alone serve them and pray to them. All three of these things are done in the Mass. The priest makes for the congregation an idol in the form of this bread, which he falsely claims to be God. Then, the congregation venerates it, often bow down before it, and pray Latria (ironically, the root word of idolatry), which is, according to the rather skewed and un-Biblical Catholic doctrine of various types of prayers with different values assigned, the highest form of prayer intended for God alone. If this is not a clear violation of the second commandment, that is, blatant idolatry which is wicked in the sight of God, then there is no thing which can be called idolatry.

Again, if we follow logic’s natural course, with it now being proved that the Mass is idolatrous, we must draw the final and most important reason for its invalidity; it is blasphemous. Idolatry alone is not the end of its blasphemy, though. It degrades and violates our Lord, Jesus Christ, when it says that it perpetuates or makes effective the work of the Cross, which was shown in earlier verses to be completed in one offering. It makes the statement, through this doctrine, that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was not sufficient to save mankind as it requires a Mass every Sunday and Holy day to be effective, and even then, there is no guarantee of anything. (This stands in sharp contrast to Christ’s Biblical guarantee of permanent salvation to those who believe and are sanctified) Also, to believe, as it has been stated in previous collections of doctrine, that they are perpetuating his sacrifice, or as it has also been stated by leading Catholic theologians, daily repeating the sacrifice at Calvary, and sacrificing our lord again and again when the Bible states that it was a “once for all” offering for salvation, is Blasphemous. This is the single most hateful act against the Person of Jesus Christ that can be committed. This is no small matter of a “slightly off” Lord’s Supper, or “a weird little doctrine that can be overlooked”. It is a matter of Blasphemy against the Lord Jesus Christ, and this is no matter that can be overlooked.

I will remind you of the quote from Cardinal Spellman that I mentioned in the beginning of this: “The sacrament of the Mass forms a pivot on which all else turns. If it is what the Catholic Church believes it is, it is the greatest testimonial of the love of God for man, and the greatest testimonial to the validity of Catholicism. But if it be false, it is the worst farce and blasphemy every perpetrated by God or man, and the Catholic Church collapses into nothingness.” In light of all the evidence that has been presented, especially the fact that the Mass is blasphemous and hateful to God, we must conclude inevitably that the Mass is invalid, and as the entirety of Roman Catholic doctrine rests on the Mass, as Cardinal Spellman pointed out, then the doctrines of the Catholic Church must also be invalid, and furthermore, blasphemous and hateful to God.

The conclusions from this that we can read into our own lives from this are many and divers. Yet, first, I must state what conclusions we must NOT read into this in our own lives. We must not, I repeat not, be of the belief that all Catholics are evil, or even a majority of them. I once considered myself to be a Catholic, but was gloriously converted and saved by the grace of God. I, along with many of my friends who also converted, was misled by the Roman Church and lied to…but that didn’t make me evil, nor does it make my friends or any other Catholic evil. We must also not be of the belief that all Catholics are going to hell, and I cite for this the same reasons as I provided for my first statement, along with the fact that there are many true, doctrinally sound Christians in the Roman Church that simply have no idea how far Rome has gone from the Gospel.

What we SHOULD read into this, however, is that the entire doctrine of ecumenism, that is of Protestant Churches uniting in doctrine and worship with Catholic ones, including every single document and every single ecumenical organization should be avoided like the plague.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

The Apostle Paul here is addressing how to deal with those who have gone greatly out of the way, and no longer teach Christian doctrine as the Catholic Church no longer does. He commands every Christian, in the name of the Lord, to separate themselves from those who do not teach the doctrine of Jesus Christ, as preached by his own lips and by the teachings of the Apostles. Paul doesn’t tell us, “If they are gone out of the way, seek ye a compromise with them, for un-Christian doctrine is not as important as unity.” No! He says, “WITHDRAW YOURSELVES”. Christian unity cannot be based merely on love for one another, as we are all commanded to have such, but it must also be grounded in doctrinal unity…it must be grounded in the teaches of Jesus Christ…and when one group, no matter how large or small, goes out of the way as greatly as Rome has left the path, then we have no recourse but to withdraw ourselves.

The Protestant reformation was not a mistake, or the folly of bigots. It was the re-discovery of the Gospel hidden by the Roman Church. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, and the other great reformers saw the evil, and did as Paul commanded all Christians to do. This is why one of the many emblems of the reformation is “Separated unto the Gospel.” For it was by separation from the Roman Catholic Church that mankind was able to discover the Gospel, as Rome did not allow any but the clergy to read the Bible, which was not to be in the vernacular. In fact, they burned Bibles that were found in the hands of commoners. Only by separation from an organization such as the Roman Church which had such a hatred of God’s holy word were Christians able to find the true promise of salvation…not in the Church or any ecclesiastical body…but in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Let it be our call today, let it be our earnest prayer, to see another Reformation in our day! Let it be our call, in this day of wickedness and Ecumenism for those who have fallen pray to modernism and Romanism to see the light of the Gospel! Let it be our call to have those Churches and preachers of God’s word who are supping with Rome and speaking of any unity to see the error of their ways and once again separate themselves unto the Gospel! But most of all, let it be our prayer that the God of Israel, the father of Jesus Christ and the Creator of the world, will call the millions of people enslaved by Romanism out of it’s unloving and un-Christian darkness…and that in this we may help by witnessing to, and bringing the word of God to them who are trapped and without its light.
================================
Merry X-mas, Servus Dei. Chew on it for a bit.

OOC: By the way, a good friend of mine wrote this, not me, so I cannot claim authorship, but I will defend it anyways.

I) Mohammedanism and Talmudism do not worship the True God, the Old Testament is not relevant to a discussion of this sort of matter.
So Christians worship two gods, the one in the old testament, and the one in the new?

news to me


II) Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews and became a Light for the Gentiles, not a Jew.
Thanks for disproving that Jesus is the son of the God you worship, or the Messiah.

Jesus was Jewish, but if the Jews dont worship the Christian God, then Jesus cannot be the son of the Christian God and still be the Messiah

he was crucified by his own. people. those who crucified him were jews. if his own people were jews, then wouldn't that make him one?? i want you to show me where in the Bible it says Jesus was a Gentile.
He came unto His own, but His own received him not.
(Gospel According to Saint John iXI)

So Christians worship two gods, the one in the old testament, and the one in the new?

news to me


Thanks for disproving that Jesus is the son of the God you worship, or the Messiah.

Jesus was Jewish, but if the Jews dont worship the Christian God, then Jesus cannot be the son of the Christian God and still be the Messiah
I) The God of the Old Testament is the God of Catholicism, not of Judaism nor of Mohammedanism.

I) The God of the Old Testament is the God of Catholicism, not of Judaism nor of Mohammedanism.

but you said:

I) Mohammedanism and Talmudism do not worship the True God, the Old Testament is not relevant to a discussion of this sort of matter.

now, Islam and Judaism both use the "old testament" and the god in it as their god, but according to you they dont worship the Christian god.

Then you say that the god in the old testament is the Christian god, so the Jews and Muslims must worship the same god.

The Roman Catholic Mass of All Time:
http://www.latin-mass-society.org/images/ware/ware0422.jpeg


The Judeo-Protestant "Novus Ordo Mess":
http://www.stelizabeth.org/Jubilee/1982-92/special_children_mass85.jpg

but you said:
now, Islam and Judaism both use the "old testament" and the god in it as their god, but according to you they dont worship the Christian god.

Then you say that the god in the old testament is the Christian god, so the Jews and Muslims must worship the same god.
They do not actually worship the God of the Old Testament but are a disgrace to Him.


"If someone should kill the beloved son of a man, and then stretch forth their hands still stained with blood to the afflicted father, asking for fellowship, would not the blood of his son, still visible on the hand of his murderer, provoke him to just anger instead? And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God the Father of their sin against His Son. And at every stretching forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ! For they who persevere in their blindness inherit the blood-guilt of their fathers; for they cried out: "His blood be on us and on our children."
--St Basil, On Prayer, Sermon Nine

The Roman Catholic Mass of All Time:
http://www.latin-mass-society.org/images/ware/ware0422.jpeg
[/IMG]
:eek:

That freaked me out for a sec, I thought that was a Church I used to go to. But they didn't do Latin Mass.

They do not actually worship the God of the Old Testament but are a disgrace to Him.

why do you continue to ignore the fact that the "old testament" is an important part of all three religions, and that the god in their versions of the same book carries on through their religion as their god?

why do you continue to ignore the fact that the "old testament" is an important part of all three religions, and that the god in their versions of the same book carries on through their religion as their god?
The God of the Old Testament is neither the Talmudic nor the Mohammedan god!

The God of the Old Testament is neither the Talmudic nor the Mohammedan god!
So Jesus wasnt the son of the Christian god?

Umm, Servus Dei, As somone who used to be a member of the Traditional Catholic movement let me say that this is a very inappropriate way to spread beliefs. troll-like behaviour isn't helping anyone. It's annoying and embarissing to the people in that sect who are good.

So Jesus wasnt the son of the Christian god?
Yes, He was.

Umm, Servus Dei, As somone who used to be a member of the Traditional Catholic movement let me say that this is a very inappropriate way to spread beliefs. troll-like behaviour isn't helping anyone. It's annoying and embarissing to the people in that sect who are good.
I am a Roman Catholic, not a member of some sect. :rolleyes:

let me say that this is a very inappropriate way to spread beliefs
What SD does is more a way to reduce christian beliefs by using himself as a repulsive warning.
Keep up doing the good work, SD!^^

Yes, He was.
he was the Son of the Jewish god as well - or so he claimed he was. He was a Jew, so claiming to be the son of god would mean he was the son of the Jewish god, and followed the scriptures of the Old Testament - the very same ones that are in the Christian Bible, with the very same God

Which leaves either two options:
1) Jesus was the son of god and the Jews worship the same god as the christians
2) The Jews worhsip a different god, and Jesus was the son on the Jewish god, not the Christian god

well, if we completely ignore the fact that Christianity is a branch of Judaism...

Yes, you are a RC, but you are in a sect of the RCC. Much like a charismatic Catholic or a member of Opus Dei

sect Audio pronunciation of "sect" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skt)
n.

1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.


With the 20 million trads compared to (liberal estimates) the 1 billion NO Catholics, you are therefore by judge of the English language a sect.

So, if non-believers go to hell, which is worse? Spending eternity with Commando2 or Servus Dei. Because evidently we get to share time with one of them. :rolleyes:

well, if we completely ignore the fact that Christianity is a branch of Judaism.

Don't tell the Jews that :)

Jews for Judaism (http://www.jewsforjudaism.com)

So, if non-believers go to hell, which is worse? Spending eternity with Commando2 or Servus Dei. Because evidently we get to share time with one of them. :rolleyes:Do we get to pelt one of them with marshmallows? If so, I think SD would be much funnier, 'cause he'd have that whole "whoa is me, I'm in hell" thing going on. Add marshmallows to the mix and woo, it'd be a grand old time.

I, by the way, plan on occupying the 6th circle. :D

Yes, you are a RC, but you are in a sect of the RCC. Much like a charismatic Catholic or a member of Opus Dei

sect Audio pronunciation of "sect" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skt)
n.

1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.


With the 20 million trads compared to (liberal estimates) the 1 billion NO Catholics, you are therefore by judge of the English language a sect.


I) Arians once held dominance and oppressed the minority as well. We know that God brought victory upon the Truth and Her Defenders.


"Catholics who remain faithful to TRADITION even if they are reduced to but a handful, they are the True Church of Jesus Christ"
--St. Athanasius

Don't tell the Jews that :)

Jews for Judaism (http://www.jewsforjudaism.com)
basically all theyre saying is that they dont want to be converted?

anyway...its true, Jesus was a Jew, his apostles were Jews, all his early followers were Jews, the basis for Christianity is Jewish...its just an offshoot of Judaism that thinks the Messiah arrived 2000 years ago...

Mmmmmm...dinner.

When examining a particular religion, it is always prudent to begin with a thorough examination of the main tenet of their particular belief system. In the case of Roman Catholicism, this tenet is the Sacrament of the Mass.

Mass isn't a Sacrement, silly.

Here, I'll list them for you:
-Baptism
-Reconciliation
-First Holy Communion
-Confirmation
-Marriage
-Holy Orders
-Annointing of the Sick

That appetizer out of the way, on to the soup!

It is the Sacrament around which all others revolve. Cardinal Spellman, in his book, The What and Why of Catholicism says, “The sacrament of the Mass forms a pivot on which all else turns. If it is what the Catholic Church believes it is, it is the greatest testimonial of the love of God for man, and the greatest testimonial to the validity of Catholicism. But if it be false, it is the worst farce and blasphemy every perpetrated by god or man and the Catholic Church collapses into nothingness.”

Note the use of the small-s word 'sacrament'. At least I can see the source of your confusion, but rest assured that you are confused.

A Sacrement is one of the seven Holy Rites (states) through which a Christian progresses in their faith journey. A sacrement is simply a religious rite of a non-specific flavour.

The question that is then begging to be asked is, “Is the Mass Valid?” and thereby, “Is Roman Catholicism Valid?” By answering the first question, the answer to the second will be made plain for the world to see. In the following pages, I hope to make it quite clear through careful analysis of Catholic theology as held by official Vatican decree in comparison to that held in the Bible, that the answer to both questions is an emphatic “No.”

I must first begin this exposition by defining the Roman Catholic belief on the Mass. It is taught that the Mass is a true, un-bloodied sacrifice, Christ crucified in perpetuity, and a propiatory offering for the sins of the living and the dead where the host and the wine are transubstantiated into the actual body, blood, and divinity of Christ.

So far so good.

With that out of the way, the first reason that the Mass is invalid is that the sacrifice has to be repeated. On page 124 of the Baltimore Catechism, we find that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to not attend Mass on Sunday, or a Holy Day of obligation unless they are absolutely unable to do so. A mortal sin, according to Catholic theology, if un-confessed, will send a soul straight to hell, not to Purgatory, but to hell. The Rev. Dr. Bill Jackson told a story of a one-hundred year old Catholic who had been to every single Mass from the time he was a baby onward. He would have been to well over 500 Masses in his life. Then, one Sunday, he decided to skip and go fishing. He went, fell in the river and drowned, and according to Catholic theology, went to hell. It doesn’t matter what he did with the rest of his life, he missed a Mass and thereby had a mortal sin which sent him straight to hell.

Actually, that canon has since been repudiated as far as I know. The reason it was instituted was at one time, in times of persecution, the only context in which people could learn more about and enrich their faith was in gatherings of praise and worship - to do so outside those hidden and sheltered times would be to invite disaster. So it was made mandatory in that way so that people, largely uneducated peasants in those times, would not fall away from the message of Christ.

In more modern times, of course, we know better. It is still good for a Catholic to attend Church, because the community atmosphere allows for the strenghtening of understanding of the faith and the mutual support in achieving it and returning from the path of sin. But no longer is it a mortal sin to miss a mass.

Furthermore, we do not continually submit Christ to repeated sacrifice (as Jack Chick would content). You were so on the right track with transubstantiation and the cleaving of eternity into reality in the moment of Christ's giving up of His spirit. All we do is tap into that moment again and again and again, tap into the first, original, and only sacrifice of Christ again and again.

If you will look at Heb 10:10-17, preferably in your King James Bibles, you will find the Biblical doctrine on Christ’s sacrifice.

KJV?!?!? Get out of here! Use something like the RSV, which is a hyper-accurate translation of the original texts of Scripture, as opposed to the error-ridden KJV.

If it weren’t for the fact that I had so much more evidence, I could just stop right here. We find that Christ’s sacrifice for the remission of sins was (Verse 10) “once for all.”

Funnily, so does Catholic doctrine, if you'd bother to actually read it.

That means that there is no repetition necessary, as Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to wipe away the sins of mankind. Also, in Verse 11, it almost seems as if the Apostle Paul is addressing modern day Catholics. Paul is writing to the Jewish Christians, and in that community there was still great observance of the Old Covenant which also called for daily sacrifices. It says that the priests stand, offering often the same sacrifices, but these don’t take away sin. Sounds like a direct rebuff of the doctrine of the Mass to me. The apostle goes on to emphasize again, the once for all sacrifice of the Cross in verse 12, “after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever”. The meaning here isn’t very ambiguous, yet, Paul saw fit to emphasize the point again in verse 14 incase anyone wasn’t listening. “For by ONE offering he hath perfected FOR EVER them that are sanctified.”

Why do I agree with you so much if I'm Catholic?

Of course we don't have to repeat the sacrifice of Christ...we just keep coming back to the only sacrifice of Christ, time and again.

The Mass, as opposed to the Biblical Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, is repeated and not once for all. Also, the Mass doesn’t even remit sin as Rome claims as after it is done, you are left no better off than you were before. If you commit a mortal sin after the sacrifice of the Mass, you are going to Hell, whereas with the Biblical, once for all sacrifice, there is forever remission of sin and those sanctified are perfect in the eyes of the Lord. (Perfect refers to the legal definition of their spiritual state, and not to their actual state as being perfect. The sinner is viewed in the eyes of God as sinless for it is said that not one sin can enter into heaven. However, though he may be viewed as sinless, this is a legal definition as the person has obviously sinned.)
As we continue, Verse 16 speaks of the inward process of sanctification, while verse 17 says that the Lord will not remember the sins of those who are sanctified, and in 18 says that where that remission is, “THERE IS NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN.” The Lord himself said that with this new covenant whereby those who are sanctified are perfected forever and their sins remitted; there is no more offering for sin. Why then does the Catholic Church continue, then to make offerings for sin?

The next reason the Mass is not valid is that it is un-bloodied. If we look at page 168 of the Baltimore Catechism, we find it saying, “The mass is a sacrifice of the new law in which Christ offers himself in an un-bloodied manner.” Let us take a look at Hebrews 9:19-22.

The conversion of water to wind and bread to flesh happens without the shedding of blood. That's what we mean by un-bloodied.

According to Old Testament law, there was no sacrifice which was without the shedding of blood, for, as we see in verse 22, “Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” The Catholic Church calls this an un-bloodied sacrifice and even the most ardent Catholics would have to admit that there is no blood shed during the mass, as opposed to the Biblical sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

There is no blood shed, but there is blood present. Take a sip of the cup. ;)

Also, the Catholic Church claims that the Mass has infinite power. In other words, its power to take away sins goes on forever and ever, until the end of time and space. Yet, it does not guarantee Salvation. Therefore, this claim must be patently false. As we saw before, the Mass does not have the ability to remit sins, for you could go to 5000 Masses, and have any number of Requiem masses said after your death and still go to Hell.

I am unaware of the part of the Catechism that states what you claim, and in fact to my knowledge the opposite teaching is in fact true.

This is none other than Christ who “HIS OWN SELF” bore our sins, that is, not with any assistance from the Mass, and not with any assistance from the so-called “Co-Redemptrix” Mary. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy from Isa. 53:6

Mary has no part in redemption. She is merely an intercessor, one who we can ask to pray for us, with us, to the Lord. The power of redemption rests still with Jesus.

One of the greatest reasons that the Mass is not valid is that the Immolation of the Host and Wine, that is, their Transubstantiation into the actual body, person, and divinity of Christ, is not true. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most influential Roman Catholic philosophers developed this idea of transubstantiation based on the principles of Aristotle. Aristotle said that a substance, while remaining the same, could have different appearance, or as the Roman Church calls them, accidents. For instance, water can be turned into ice and steam. Both ice and steam look and feel vastly different than water, yet they are still water. The Roman Church took this principle and reversed it for Transubstantiation. Instead of the substance remaining the same and the accidents change, it is the accidents that remain the same while the substance changes. In other words, they say while the wine looks, feels, and tastes like wine…you could take it to a laboratory and have it tested and it would be wine, they say it is actually blood with all the plasma and platelets and corpuscles etc. etc. They say that the entire body, person, and divinity of Christ are in the Host and the wine.

Actually, the consumption of the body and blood of Christ are based not solely on Aristotle (from his teachings comes an understanding of the divine process by which transubstantiation happens, but nothing more) but on Scripture. Jesus, at the Last Supper, hands the bread and the cup to his disciples saying to them "Take, eat, this is my body" and again "Take, drink, this is my blood".

It's right there in the book, man. ;)

Regardless of whether or not you believe in Sola Scriptura, even ardent Catholics would admit that the teachings of Aristotle don’t in any way relate to, or should be used in any way to interpret the Bible. God has given us all that we need to examine the scriptures. Imagine if your preacher or priest got up in the Pulpit one Sunday and said, “Today we are going to learn about Jesus…through what Plato, Sophocles, and Voltaire have to say about him.” That isn’t the Christian way to do things. We don’t look at God’s inspired, inerrant, infallible word through the eyeglass of some fallible and in Aristotle’s case, pagan human being. To again quote Dr. Bill Jackson, ““If you want to base your life on Aristotle, be my guest. I’m not going to kill you for doing it, but I sure will tell you that you’re in for some real bad licks up ahead of time if you base your life on Aristotle.” We must instead use the tools God has put before us, the Holy Scripture, to prove if Transubstantiation is correct.

See my above.

Now, to claim something as ridiculous as transubstantiation, one would think the Roman Church would have to come up with some Bible verses to support it. Well, they do, but for the most part they are misinterpreted or taken out of context.

This should be good.

Let us take to begin with one of the verses that have convinced more people of this than any other, to the ruin of souls not a few.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

At first glance, this would appear to support the Romanist idea of the Mass. However, when we actually take time to analyze the text, we figure out what is really going on here. This episode in the Bible takes place one year before the Lord’s Supper was instituted, and it doesn’t make sense to be talking about the Lord’s Supper then. I shall demonstrate, in due course, that these verses could not possibly be talking about the Eucharist. In acknowledgement of such, Augustine did not speak of the Lord’s Supper when expositing this verse, but waited until the Lord’s Supper later on to speak of it.

Odd. Much of what Jesus says in Scripture is looking to the future. How many times does He foretell the way in which He is to die?

When one is confused as to the meaning of scripture, it is best to consult the context that it is in. We are confused by what Jesus meant when he said to eat his flesh and drink his blood long before the Lord’s Supper. So, we must look at the context, which I have provided. Glancing at verse 54, he says those who eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood shall have eternal life and shall be raised up on the last day. This single verse, as unassuming as it is, exposes the fact that it is not about the Mass. Both you and the entire world know that there have been millions who have partaken in the Mass and have, in actuality or by the supposed Dogmas of the Roman Church, gone to Hell. Jesus said that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood have eternal life. He didn’t say, “Those who eat and drink it will have eternal life…oh except for Leroy over there…and those people too.” It was an all inclusive statement. Therefore if people can partake of the Mass, and still go to Hell, especially in light of the previous point about how there is no remittance of sin, then it cannot be the Mass that Jesus is addressing.

And, again, if you'd bother to consult an updated Catechism, you'd see that the Catholic Church maintains that you don't have to be a member thereof to find redemption and salvation.

What is the Lord talking about? Sanctification. Those who are sanctified have eternal life without exception and that is the only group about which anyone can say that. Therefore, it must be speaking about the Sanctification of the human soul.

The next most popular verse used to assert that the Mass is scriptural is Matthew 26:26. As with all the others, I have provided appropriate context.

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Now, the Catholic apologist in your life will stick up his finger right there and say “Ah-Ha! There it has Jesus holding the bread, saying that it is his body!” Many Catholics get upset and cry hypocrisy when evangelicals point out to them that Jesus was using a metaphor. “You always talk about the literal reading, well that is the literal reading!” they will cry. When one looks at a literal reading of the Bible, one has to take into account that Jesus used a lot of metaphors. He has also variously called himself a stone, a tree, a vine, and plenty of other things. If we took those literally as well, the entire Bible would be reduced to nonsense. The literal reading is the plainest, most clear reading of the word, and where Jesus was clearly using metaphors, we must acknowledge it. Not only do I believe that Jesus was using a metaphor here as well, but I can prove it.

Yet we must be cautious as to what we call figurative and what we call not figurative. By your logic, Jesus is being metaphorical when he states "I am the Son of God".

Careful, there. ;)

There are two ways of interpreting the statement, “This is” (and no, this does not come out of the Bill Clinton Theological Dictionary). The first way to interpret it is metaphorically. For instance, if you hold up a picture and say, “This is my girlfriend or boyfriend.” It’s quite obvious that it is just a representation of the person and that one cannot converse or otherwise interact with them. The other way of interpreting it is the literal way, the way that would be used when the person is actually physically there and you are introducing them to someone. Now how do we find out which of these Jesus means? Well, he tells us quite plainly if you follow the context. According to the Roman Catholic doctrine, when Christ said “This is my blood”, it actually became blood. However, a quick look at verse 29 shows that to be impossible. It says “I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THE VINE, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” The Lord Jesus Christ is infallible and does not make slipups. If it was blood, he would have said, “I will not drink henceforth of this blood.” Instead, he said “Fruit of the vine.” (E.g. WINE!). This, from Christ’s own lips, proves that transubstantiation is not supported by this verse. Indeed, the doctrine of transubstantiation is not supported by scripture at all. And if it be not supported by God’s word, we must look on it as invalid.

Or perhaps, Jesus is now speaking of himself in metaphor, calling himself the vine. And what fruit could that vine bear, I wonder? Salvation, perhaps?

As we now see that transubstantiation is not real, then we must also, by using acute logic, draw another conclusion as to the Mass’s invalidity: It is idolatrous. The Priest, once he has supposedly immolated the host and the wine, then holds it up in the air and says, “This is your God.” Then, the entire congregation prays to the wafer, they pray Latria, the highest form of Roman Catholic prayer, the one directed at God alone. (Latria is prayer to God, Dulia is Prayer to the saints, Hyper-dulia is prayer to Mary) Now, since we have previously determined that transubstantiation is false, and therefore the host does NOT become the body, person, and divinity of Christ, then we must say that those praying to this wafer are praying to an idol and not to God.

In holding up the flesh of Christ, the priest would hardly be telling a lie.

Many of you will recognize this as the second commandment, unless you are of the Catholic faith, where, in many of the Catholic Bibles, this commandment is either taken out all together, or merged with other commandments.

I just flipped open my Catholic Bible. It was in there, in its appropriate place and context. Sorry, pal.;)

In the more traditional Rheims Catholic Bible, they had the decency to leave God’s word in the Bible, but instead corrupted it with a mistranslation. The Hebrew word for “bow” in verse 25 is ùÑçä
(shaw-khaw), which means to bow down and lay prostrate. In the Rheims Bible it says “adore” instead of bow, which would help their doctrine about the veneration of and bowing down in front of statues and icons. Even in the Latin Vulgate Bible, translated by the so-called “Saint” Jerome, the word that they use is “adorabis” which is form of the verb adorare, to adore. Overall, this has the effect of softening the condemnation of idolatry.

The most accurate translation of the Bible, the RSV, has the word "bow" written in the place you speak of. Funnily enough, that's what the Catholic Church uses.

So, remind me, what was your point here?

Yet, as much as their mis-translators may have hoped, their defamation of God’s word won’t get them off the hook. It is clear that not only is one not supposed to make graven images, but one is not supposed to even bow before them or give any hint of reverence, let alone serve them and pray to them. All three of these things are done in the Mass. The priest makes for the congregation an idol in the form of this bread, which he falsely claims to be God. Then, the congregation venerates it, often bow down before it, and pray Latria (ironically, the root word of idolatry), which is, according to the rather skewed and un-Biblical Catholic doctrine of various types of prayers with different values assigned, the highest form of prayer intended for God alone. If this is not a clear violation of the second commandment, that is, blatant idolatry which is wicked in the sight of God, then there is no thing which can be called idolatry.

*sigh* Okay, Jack Chick.

Evidently, there has been a grave misunderstanding made by you in your interpretation of Catholic faith practice. I've tried to point this out where possible.

Tell you what - look up the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed. If you want to know what Catholics really believe, you don't need to go any further than that.

I'll give you a hint of how they begin: I believe in God, the Father Almighty.

Again, if we follow logic’s natural course, with it now being proved that the Mass is idolatrous, we must draw the final and most important reason for its invalidity; it is blasphemous. Idolatry alone is not the end of its blasphemy, though. It degrades and violates our Lord, Jesus Christ, when it says that it perpetuates or makes effective the work of the Cross, which was shown in earlier verses to be completed in one offering. It makes the statement, through this doctrine, that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was not sufficient to save mankind as it requires a Mass every Sunday and Holy day to be effective, and even then, there is no guarantee of anything. (This stands in sharp contrast to Christ’s Biblical guarantee of permanent salvation to those who believe and are sanctified) Also, to believe, as it has been stated in previous collections of doctrine, that they are perpetuating his sacrifice, or as it has also been stated by leading Catholic theologians, daily repeating the sacrifice at Calvary, and sacrificing our lord again and again when the Bible states that it was a “once for all” offering for salvation, is Blasphemous. This is the single most hateful act against the Person of Jesus Christ that can be committed. This is no small matter of a “slightly off” Lord’s Supper, or “a weird little doctrine that can be overlooked”. It is a matter of Blasphemy against the Lord Jesus Christ, and this is no matter that can be overlooked.

I will remind you of the quote from Cardinal Spellman that I mentioned in the beginning of this: “The sacrament of the Mass forms a pivot on which all else turns. If it is what the Catholic Church believes it is, it is the greatest testimonial of the love of God for man, and the greatest testimonial to the validity of Catholicism. But if it be false, it is the worst farce and blasphemy every perpetrated by God or man, and the Catholic Church collapses into nothingness.” In light of all the evidence that has been presented, especially the fact that the Mass is blasphemous and hateful to God, we must conclude inevitably that the Mass is invalid, and as the entirety of Roman Catholic doctrine rests on the Mass, as Cardinal Spellman pointed out, then the doctrines of the Catholic Church must also be invalid, and furthermore, blasphemous and hateful to God.

The conclusions from this that we can read into our own lives from this are many and divers. Yet, first, I must state what conclusions we must NOT read into this in our own lives. We must not, I repeat not, be of the belief that all Catholics are evil, or even a majority of them. I once considered myself to be a Catholic, but was gloriously converted and saved by the grace of God. I, along with many of my friends who also converted, was misled by the Roman Church and lied to…but that didn’t make me evil, nor does it make my friends or any other Catholic evil. We must also not be of the belief that all Catholics are going to hell, and I cite for this the same reasons as I provided for my first statement, along with the fact that there are many true, doctrinally sound Christians in the Roman Church that simply have no idea how far Rome has gone from the Gospel.

What we SHOULD read into this, however, is that the entire doctrine of ecumenism, that is of Protestant Churches uniting in doctrine and worship with Catholic ones, including every single document and every single ecumenical organization should be avoided like the plague.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

The Apostle Paul here is addressing how to deal with those who have gone greatly out of the way, and no longer teach Christian doctrine as the Catholic Church no longer does. He commands every Christian, in the name of the Lord, to separate themselves from those who do not teach the doctrine of Jesus Christ, as preached by his own lips and by the teachings of the Apostles. Paul doesn’t tell us, “If they are gone out of the way, seek ye a compromise with them, for un-Christian doctrine is not as important as unity.” No! He says, “WITHDRAW YOURSELVES”. Christian unity cannot be based merely on love for one another, as we are all commanded to have such, but it must also be grounded in doctrinal unity…it must be grounded in the teaches of Jesus Christ…and when one group, no matter how large or small, goes out of the way as greatly as Rome has left the path, then we have no recourse but to withdraw ourselves.

The Protestant reformation was not a mistake, or the folly of bigots. It was the re-discovery of the Gospel hidden by the Roman Church. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, and the other great reformers saw the evil, and did as Paul commanded all Christians to do. This is why one of the many emblems of the reformation is “Separated unto the Gospel.” For it was by separation from the Roman Catholic Church that mankind was able to discover the Gospel, as Rome did not allow any but the clergy to read the Bible, which was not to be in the vernacular. In fact, they burned Bibles that were found in the hands of commoners. Only by separation from an organization such as the Roman Church which had such a hatred of God’s holy word were Christians able to find the true promise of salvation…not in the Church or any ecclesiastical body…but in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Let it be our call today, let it be our earnest prayer, to see another Reformation in our day! Let it be our call, in this day of wickedness and Ecumenism for those who have fallen pray to modernism and Romanism to see the light of the Gospel! Let it be our call to have those Churches and preachers of God’s word who are supping with Rome and speaking of any unity to see the error of their ways and once again separate themselves unto the Gospel! But most of all, let it be our prayer that the God of Israel, the father of Jesus Christ and the Creator of the world, will call the millions of people enslaved by Romanism out of it’s unloving and un-Christian darkness…and that in this we may help by witnessing to, and bringing the word of God to them who are trapped and without its light.

To your entire post, I echo the words of Jesus to Peter:

Get thee behind me, Satan. You sow the same seeds of discord that the Catholic Church once, in its grave error, did sow in its relationship with the Protestants.

:) Aiera

*bites his tongue* I could really say something, but they're enough flames already.

okay then I just misunderstood you. Yeah, that's all there saying and they're just ticked at the so called "Messasnic Jews".

I was just saying don't tell them that Christianity is another branch of Judaism such as Orthodox, Reconstrutionist, and Reform, etc.

]"Catholics who remain faithful to TRADITION even if they are reduced to but a handful, they are the True Church of Jesus Christ"
--St. Athanasius

What about those who remain faithful to Scripture, like me?

okay then I just misunderstood you. Yeah, that's all there saying and they're just ticked at the so called "Messasnic Jews".

I was just saying don't tell them that Christianity is another branch of Judaism such as Orthodox, Reconstrutionist, and Reform, etc.
ok

What about those who remain faithful to Scripture, like me?

umm, you go to the exact opposite of Alaska. ;)

umm, you go to the exact opposite of Alaska. ;)

Beg pardon? I lost your meaning.

What about those who remain faithful to Scripture, like me?
Scripture and Tradition through the Church, and you may be saved.

Scripture and Tradition through the Church, and you may be saved.
where did it ever say in the bible that you had to follow the Roman Catholic church? it didnt, it just said that you had to repent and accept Christ as your saviour

What you are saying here is in direct contradiction to the word of Jesus Christ, so in effect you are arguing with Christ himself

I was just being sarcastic, sorry on the lost meaing.

Okay, I'm gone. I've had enough western legalism and don't wish to get in any more.

where did it ever say in the bible that you had to follow the Roman Catholic church? it didnt, it just said that you had to repent and accept Christ as your saviour

What you are saying here is in direct contradiction to the word of Jesus Christ, so in effect you are arguing with Christ himself
The Bible is Tradition. Without the Church, there is no Bible.
The Bible (in corrupted translations) is essentially the Protestant god.
The Protestant god lives and thus, dies, in a man-produced book.

Scripture and Tradition through the Church, and you may be saved.

Not just through Scripture? Then I suppose Paul was wrong when he said how to be saved in Romans and Acts. And Christ was wrong when he condemned the Pharisees for their traditions. Tradition is fine, but only if it follows Scripture.

The Bible is Tradition. Without the Church, there is no Bible.
The Bible (in corrupted translations) is essentially the Protestant god.
The Protestant god lives and thus, dies, in a man-produced book.
But you are saying that what Christ said in the Bible is wrong

The Bible is Tradition. Without the Church, there is no Bible.
The Bible (in corrupted translations) is essentially the Protestant god.
The Protestant god lives and thus, dies, in a man-produced book.

True, some people do worship the Bible. But it sounds like you are worshiping the church, which is just as bad.

Not just through Scripture? Then I suppose Paul was wrong when he said how to be saved in Romans and Acts. And Christ was wrong when he condemned the Pharisees for their traditions. Tradition is fine, but only if it follows Scripture.

Paul said to hold tight to tradition.

No evolution of Catholic Dogmas is a perfect way for a pope with an agenda to make his power long lasting. Surely, some popes were less interested in the church, and moreso with politics or, in the case of some Renaissaince popes, their mistresses.

Not just through Scripture? Then I suppose Paul was wrong when he said how to be saved in Romans and Acts. And Christ was wrong when he condemned the Pharisees for their traditions. Tradition is fine, but only if it follows Scripture.
The traditions of the Pharisees were an offence to God, being rooted in the traitorous Jewish race. Christian Tradition is the sole basis of Christianity, Christ never even suggested writing what He said down, and especially not idolizing the written pages as though that was His sole connection to the world. The Bible developed as a way to further share the message of Christ through the written word, but Scripture is linked closely to and is dependent on Tradition.

Paul said to hold tight to tradition.

Sure, but how do we decide which traditions? Is it just what our preists/ministers say? Or is there something higher to judge them on?

now, Islam and Judaism both use the "old testament"
Islam does not.

Sure, but how do we decide which traditions? Is it just what our preists/ministers say? Or is there something higher to judge them on?
The Holy Ghost inspires the Church, just as He did when codifying the canon of the Bible.

The Holy Ghost inspires the Church, just as He did when codifying the canon of the Bible.

And if I tell you that I am inspired by the Holy Spirit as well, then what do you say?

Islam does not.
it uses the "old testament" stories, for example, moses...noah etc

it uses the "old testament" stories, for example, moses...noah etc
The Islamic holy text is the Qu'ran, not the Tanakh.

The earth was never flat... :rolleyes:

The earth is the center of the universe, with the sun and moon revolving around it.

1- yes the world was flat, and then God made it round for more surface area. JK :D

2- it's all a matter of perspective. If you're on earth the moon rotates around you, on the moon earth rotates around you. It's all relative. In space everything is moving so you can't say one goes around the other, as both are moving in reltation to each other.

other than the sun and moon, everything else doesn't circle in a normal orbit though. THEY orbit the sun (and vice versa).

so everyone an try to absorb that, but if it's too much, go watch spongebob. Clears your mind right up. Mind Sniper! :sniper:

The Islamic holy text is the Qu'ran, not the Tanakh.
where did i say it wasnt?

And if I tell you that I am inspired by the Holy Spirit as well, then what do you say?
All are given the chance to receive the Ghost. Few do, and those outside the Church do not.

All are given the chance to receive the Ghost. Few do, and those outside the Church do not.
what about the apostles?

what about the apostles?
The Apostles are part of the Church. The Catholic Church alone continues this Apostolic Tradition.

The Apostles are part of the Church. The Catholic Church alone continues this Apostolic Tradition.
how can they be part of the church when the church didnt actually exist in 30 AD?

The whole pædophilia (homosexual, no less, talk about hypocrisy) thing kind of spoiled my respect for Catholicism. I've considered founding my own religion and if there is one thing I can say, it is that you, Servus Dei, are about as far from my ideas as possible. If you want people to take Catholicism seriously, you should stop with this nonsense. You are not doing your religion any favors by proclaiming reactionary bilge.

The whole pædophilia (homosexual, no less, talk about hypocrisy) thing kind of spoiled my respect for Catholicism. I've considered founding my own religion and if there is one thing I can say, it is that you, Servus Dei, are about as far from my ideas as possible. If you want people to take Catholicism seriously, you should stop with this nonsense. You are not doing your religion any favors by proclaiming reactionary bilge.
Homosexuality and pædophilia are condemned by the Catholic Church.

how can they be part of the church when the church didnt actually exist in 30 AD?
They were in A.D. XXXIII...

Homosexuality and pædophilia are condemned by the Catholic Church.
So who then did abuse those children?

All are given the chance to receive the Ghost. Few do, and those outside the Church do not.

This is according to who? The church? Sorry, you can't prove your points using your own authority. Only God can do that, not fallible men.

They were in A.D. XXXIII...
did the Roman Catholic church exist in 33AD?

did any Christian church exist in 33AD?

were the apostles not followers of Christ rather than some organisation that purports to spread his ideals but fails miserably?

So who then did abuse those children?
What "children?"

where did i say it wasnt?
Allow me to be clear, then: the Qu'ran IS NOT AND DOES NOT CONTAIN THE TANAKH. Do doubt the Qu'ran contains some of what is in the Tanakh, but Muslims do not read the Tankah as part of the Islamic religion.

did the Roman Catholic church exist in 33AD?

did any Christian church exist in 33AD?

were the apostles not followers of Christ rather than some organisation that purports to spread his ideals but fails miserably?
Think of the Catholic Church more as a library of Christ's ideas.

Homosexuality and pædophilia are condemned by the Catholic Church.Well there you go... hypocrits to the core.

did the Roman Catholic church exist in 33AD?

did any Christian church exist in 33AD?

were the apostles not followers of Christ rather than some organisation that purports to spread his ideals but fails miserably?
I) Yes.

II) Yes, the Roman Catholic Church.

III) You fail to comprehend what the Church actually is.

What "children?"
you know, the ones who got molested by the priests

Well there you go... hypocrits to the core.
No...

you know, the ones who got molested by the priests
Perhaps you are referring to the Novus Ordo priests and their homosexual scandals...

I) Yes.

II) Yes, the Roman Catholic Church.

III) You fail to comprehend what the Church actually is.
The Roman Catholic church certainly didnt.

I fail to understand what the church is? enlighten me, o wise one.

Perhaps you are referring to the Novus Ordo priests and their homosexual scandals...
no, i was thinking of the Catholic priests actually.

the ones who molested the kids

The Roman Catholic church certainly didnt.

I fail to understand what the church is? enlighten me, o wise one.

The community of believers of the living, teaching Church, as Christ intended.

Not a dead, bible-reading church.

no, i was thinking of the Catholic priests actually.

the ones who molested the kids
Catholic priests do not molest kids.

Catholic priests do not molest kids.
Yeah, and there never was an Auschwitz. :rolleyes:

Catholic priests do not molest kids.

Laughing! Are you kidding me?

Yeah, and there never was an Auschwitz. :rolleyes:
What are you trying to imply?

Laughing my fucking ass off! Are you kidding me?
Present proof.

The community of believers of the living, teaching Church, as Christ intended.

Not a dead, bible-reading church.
that wasnt the Roman Catholic church in AD 33. That was a loose collection of Jews who thought Jesus was the messiah, Christianity grew out of that

So, tell me again, why the Catholic church? Why do only believers of that particular brand of christianity get the holy spirit?

The aposltes did, and they werent Catholics, just Christians. Says so in the Bible, read Acts.

Oh and change your signature before I report you to the moderators, if you please.

Actually let's chat about that. What you are basically saying is that Jews are bad people. Why?

The community of believers of the living, teaching Church, as Christ intended.

Not a dead, bible-reading church.

Yup. My church is a living, teaching church based on the Bible.

Catholic priests do not molest kids.
hmmm....yea, if the priests in Ireland who did it arent Catholic Priests. And ones in America too i believe

Unlucky...they were Catholic Priests and child molestors

Present proof.

And when your molested seventeen times, then you talk to me. Talk to me while your molester hides out in the Vatican away from the FBI.

hmmm....yea, if the priests in Ireland who did it arent Catholic Priests. And ones in America too i believe

Unlucky...they were Catholic Priests and child molestors
Present proof for your accusations.

Present proof for your accusations.
gladly:

The Catholic Archbishop of Dublin has apologised to a victim of child sex abuse by a priest.
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2703125.stm)


Two Catholic priests from the Republic of Ireland who have been convicted of child sex abuse have been dismissed by the Pope.
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4101239.stm)


Irish police are to be given access to Catholic Church documents relating to child sex abuse by clergy in the Archdiocese of Dublin.
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2617249.stm)

now tell me that Priests have never abused children. The church admits it

He apologized because he knows it is true.

The pope is a heretic according to this thread. You think I care if he dismisses them?

Please excuse my unnecessary language a few posts up. They have been edited.

gladly:


BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2703125.stm)



BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4101239.stm)



BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2617249.stm)

now tell me that Priests have never abused children. The church admits it


Those are Novus Ordo priests, not Catholic priests.

Those are Novus Ordo priests, not Catholic priests.
they are priests ordained in the Roman Catholic church, ergo they are Catholic priests

Yes, the same it as it always has been. The Mass of all times dating from the early Christians on the tombs of the martyrs and codified at the Council of Trent as the Mass of all time.... always in Latin, always universally the same every where in the world, free of novelties and abuses- THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE for the Roman Catholic Mass!
Except that you are wrong. The services of the early church were in Aramaic and Greek. And the Roman Catholic church is in no place to be lecturing on heresy and schism either, since they introduced the filioque clause without meeting in council to do it. Therefore it is only the church of the East, safeguarded in Constantinople and Moscow that is the true, non-schismatic church.
Of course, I don't believe that either. I don't believe any man-made organisation has the ability to call itself the One True Church.

geez, why don't you give it up, troll?

The Papal Bull Cum

Great .... more bestiality talk .... sigh ...

Looks like you've made Pope J look more like a good guy than a bad guy in my opinion.

Same here.

After reading the "heresies" I never felt more proud to be Catholic.

Those are Novus Ordo priests, not Catholic priests.

Sorry Charlie.

But a couple of the Priests attacked kids back in the 50s.

I know a woman who was attacked as child. She is 82.

When the Catholic Church stops hiding these animals, then they can talk about morality again.

Homosexuality and pædophilia are condemned by the Catholic Church.

And yet the church has been hiding these attacks for 50 years(probably longer).

I think JP's getting a bit too old to the Pontiff, and its a darn pity that popes hold their positions until their deaths. He looked really sick to me a week ago.

What a pity that the Holy Inquisition had lost one of its finest aspirants because he was born 500 years to late.
Well said indeed.

The Catholic Church is always the same. Evolution of dogmas is CONDEMNED!
So you still believe the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Well said indeed.


So you still believe the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Yes he does.

The earth was never flat... :rolleyes:

The earth is the center of the universe, with the sun and moon revolving around it.

*drinks a glass of water so that she can spit it out again*

Hi there, I'd like to introduce you to my friend, Nicklaus Copernicus.

Well there you go... hypocrits to the core.

So you've never done something wrong? The paedophilia scandals are dreadful and it's appalling that higher-ups chose to try to hide it rather than take the proper action and bring the priests to justice. There's absolutely no excuse for it and I hope that sooner or later they all go to jail. But the Church is an incredibly huge organizations and it's natural that there are going to be a some bad eggs in that number, particularly as it's been shown that paedophiles tend to gravitate towards occupations which will bring them into contact with children, such as the clergy, teaching, and so forth. My point is that It doesn't mean they all are - I grew up Catholic and we had probably about 10 priests in the time I was there, and none of them were ever accused of molesting anyone as far as I know. They were all, to greater or lesser extents, perfectly decent, upright men and good priests.

The main problem with the Church is, and has been for a long time, that it's got too much money and power. Some people will be devout and strong enough not to abuse that but it's going to accrue a lot of corruption because that's pretty much what happens to large, powerful organisations. Every so often you've got to take the rug out and beat it and shake it to clean it up.

I) Some were directly, virtually all the statements were made with infallible basis.

What do you believe constitutes an infallible basis, aside from speaking ex cathedra?

they are priests ordained in the Roman Catholic church, ergo they are Catholic priests
I would invite you to re-examine exaclty what the point of this thread is.

It is not hard to see what a Novus Ordo priest is.

Except that you are wrong. The services of the early church were in Aramaic and Greek. And the Roman Catholic church is in no place to be lecturing on heresy and schism either, since they introduced the filioque clause without meeting in council to do it. Therefore it is only the church of the East, safeguarded in Constantinople and Moscow that is the true, non-schismatic church.
Of course, I don't believe that either. I don't believe any man-made organisation has the ability to call itself the One True Church.
I) There is no eastern church other than the Catholic Church.
The "orthodox" are a loose collection of nationalistic sects that deny numerous Catholic dogmas and lack marks of the Church.

II) The early Latin (Western) Christian services were in...Latin. The worship services of early Christians were varied based on location and other circumstances, there were Aramaic and Greek services as well, hence the Eastern Catholic rites.

There is no eastern church other than the Catholic Church.
The "orthodox" are a loose collection of nationalistic sects that deny numerous Catholic dogmas and lack marks of the Church.
God doesn't exist.

Poor Pope

He devotes his life to his God and this is how his God repays him; numerous illnesses and unrelenting pain? Glad I'm not Catholic.

Hmm, speaking as a Catholic I like most of the changes he's made. Maybe it's not heresy if it's putting the church BACK ON the path of righteousness again - it's a thought. Women should be priests.

What the Pope said before becoming a Pope could have been heresy. But he can't be a heretic after becoming Pope. In fact, it would be heresy to say that he's an heretic.

And, honestly, it's all pointless. We all know Christ is the true heretic for not following the teachings of the Cosmic Cow. He now spends his existence in the Cow's dung for misleading humanity, along with all those who follow him.

Blessed be the Cosmic Cow!

The Catholic Church is always the same. Evolution of dogmas is CONDEMNED!

And yet dogmas have been evolving since 33 AD. Go figure...

I) There is no eastern church other than the Catholic Church.
The "orthodox" are a loose collection of nationalistic sects that deny numerous Catholic dogmas and lack marks of the Church.

II) The early Latin (Western) Christian services were in...Latin. The worship services of early Christians were varied based on location and other circumstances, there were Aramaic and Greek services as well, hence the Eastern Catholic rites.
I)What they lack is the marks of unbiblical heresy as most prominently evinced in the filioque clause. They deny a lot of extra-biblical accretion that plagues the Roman Catholic Church.
II)Well of course the early Latin services were in Latin. It may have escaped you, but the Church didnt' start in Rome and the Bible was originally written in Greek. The most prominent churches in the early years of the Church were in Asia Minor and Palestine. Eastern Catholics are schismatic and are relics of an era when picking the wrong side in an ecclesiastical battle could mean death.
Edit: The New Testament was written in Greek. The Old Testament was of course in Hebrew, Aramaic and Chaldean.

What the Pope said before becoming a Pope could have been heresy. But he can't be a heretic after becoming Pope. In fact, it would be heresy to say that he's an heretic.
No, it wouldn't.

I)What they lack is the marks of unbiblical heresy as most prominently evinced in the filioque clause. They deny a lot of extra-biblical accretion that plagues the Roman Catholic Church.
II)Well of course the early Latin services were in Latin. It may have escaped you, but the Church didnt' start in Rome and the Bible was originally written in Greek. The most prominent churches in the early years of the Church were in Asia Minor and Palestine. Eastern Catholics are schismatic and are relics of an era when picking the wrong side in an ecclesiastical battle could mean death.
Edit: The New Testament was written in Greek. The Old Testament was of course in Hebrew, Aramaic and Chaldean.
I) The Filioque is Biblical and validly decreed by the Christian Church.

II) Eastern Catholics were those Faithful easterners being oppressed by their self-serving "orthodox" churches who returned into union with the Holy See. This brought them out of the mess that is the Eastern schism and into the fold of the One Church.

Dogmas and doctrines do not grow and evolve.


They will if you feed them! :D

I) The Filioque is Biblical and validly decreed by the Christian Church.

II) Eastern Catholics were those Faithfu easterners being oppressed by their self-serving "orthodox" churches who returned into union with the Holy See. This brought them out of the mess that is the Eastern schism and into the fold of the One Church.
I)It is decreed by the RCC, and is unsupported Biblically. Jesus even says "I will send the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father" thus upholding the original language.
II)Whatever. That's a matter of perspective and debating it isn't going anywhere. But the fact remains that they have not put an unbiblical pope between themselves and the One we worship.