Catholicism, is it True?

[jimmy]

This is for Dcardenas and his claims that the Church is the whore of Babylon. This is my last response from the other thread. If someone wants to add there insight I hope you will do so.

I am still waiting for an answer to my question, where in the bible does it give a list of the scriptural books. If you can not tell me this, then how can you even claim that any of them are scripture?

First of all, it is The Catholic Church. The word Roman was not added until after the reformation, and that was by the protestants. Further, The name “Roman Catholic” only deals with part of the Church. It only speaks of the Latin Catholics, while it leaves out the Byzantine Catholics, the Maronite Catholics, The Chaldean Catholics, The Greek Catholics, and so forth. They are all part of the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” that is under the bishop of Rome.

I find it amazing that you find your own opinion higher than that of the disciples of John the apostle, Ignatius and Polycarp. I find it amazing that you look at your views of scripture as being greater than that of Augustine and Chrysostom and Jerome and Basil and Ambrose. Most of all, I find it amazing that you reject the bible. Yes, that is right, you reject the bible. It is the bible that calls the Church “the pillar and ground of truth”. It is the bible that says to follow the traditions handed down, whether by word of mouth or by epistle. You further reject the teachings of Christ when you deny Apostolic Tradition because Christ never taught sola scriptura, and neither did his apostles.

I find it amazing that you accept the writings of some 20th century guy who knows nothing but his own opinion over that of the Church Fathers. Your theology is less than 100 years old.

The only Christians around for the first 1000 years after the ressurection were Catholics. There was no such thing as a born again until the 20th century.

I have read the book of Revelation. You grossly miss-represent it.

 

[icequeen]

#37
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/post_new.gif Today, 12:10 PM
icequeen http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_online.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_601360”, true);
Regular Member
Join Date: August 10, 2004
Location: Central California
Posts: 109

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Converting to Catholicism
Quote:
the Roman Catholic Church, the whore of Babylon. The one on the seven hills, no not Iraq it can not be re-built
I hate to get nit-picky, but Revelations does indeed refer to Rome as the Whore of Babylon, but Vatican Hill is OUTSIDE of Rome. It is on the other side of the Tiber River and it was never considered one of the seven hills of Rome, therefore, it was not considered a part of Rome. Sorry for hijacking the thread.

I moved mine over too because I really didn’t want to hijack the other thread and your post went up when I was typing. So Dcardenas, have looked at a map yet? Also, answer this. Did God want there to be 36,000 different denominations, each explaining the Bible in their own unique interpretation? Does the Bible say that anywhere?

 

[jimmy]

Thankyou icequeen. I will add Dcardenas las posts here.

“Pray to St. Philomena. Whatever you ask from her; she will obtain for you. - Pope Gregory XVI”

This scares me. Who the heck is St. Philomena??? Yikes. You are making Jesus jealous. Nobody and the bible means nobody is the middle man or woman to God, only his son Jesus.

I hate to get nit-picky, but Revelations does indeed refer to Rome as the Whore of Babylon, but Vatican Hill is OUTSIDE of Rome. It is on the other side of the Tiber River and it was never considered one of the seven hills of Rome, therefore, it was not considered a part of Rome. Sorry for hijacking the thread.

I also have to get nit-picky, but it is not the “Revelations” of Jesus it is the Revelation (singular) Look at the very first verse;

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

 

[geezerbob]

I just read his post in Ask an Apologist. He asked a question (sort of) and ended with a statement that he hoped we would learn the truth. It is very obvious that he is hear to preach, not to debate or learn or even read. Had he browsed the Apologetics and Non-Catholic forums for a few minutes, he would have had his questions answered and his misconceptions cleared up. I honestly don’t think he wants to hear what we have to say.

 

[Genesis315]

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John

Yet you disagree with John’s own two students, Polycarp and Ignatius.

 

[icequeen]

OK, am I having a blonde moment? I can’t find any of his posts. Did he erase them? Is that scared to see the truth?

I also have to get nit-picky, but it is not the “Revelations” of Jesus it is the Revelation (singular) Look at the very first verse

You are absolutely right! I was having a problem spelling the word that I didn’t even check to make sure that I was accurate.

 

[geezerbob]

Dcardenas has been suspended and his posts may have been deleted. However, if you want to read them, you can go to the Ask an Apologist forum, click on his name, and pull them up.

 

[jimmy]

geezerbob:

I just read his post in Ask an Apologist. He asked a question (sort of) and ended with a statement that he hoped we would learn the truth. It is very obvious that he is hear to preach, not to debate or learn or even read. Had he browsed the Apologetics and Non-Catholic forums for a few minutes, he would have had his questions answered and his misconceptions cleared up. I honestly don’t think he wants to hear what we have to say.

Yeh, I realized that when he would not come to this thread and discuss it yesterday.