Does the RCC teach that non-Catholic Christians are anathema?

[PRmerger]

*Going back in time as early as the days of the Athanasian Creed, it was taught then that ***“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” ****source: (Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 39)

About 585 A.D., Pope Pelagius II infallibly stated, "If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized (means excommunicated) according to the opinion of the same Fathers… Consider (therefore) the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord. [Gal. 3:7]" (Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 246)

In 1208 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, "By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 423)

In 1215 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, **“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved…” **(D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 430)

In 1302 A.D., Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sins…” (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 468)

In 1302 A.D., by the power invested in him, Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, “…we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 469)

Under paragraph # 816 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we read, “The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: ‘For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.’” (C.C.C. # 816)

As stated, not only is salvation found in the Catholic Church, but also the “fullness of the means” of salvation.

Complete Source:

---

---

Source: Bible
For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. 1 Thessalonians 5

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:12

God admits one person at a time and not through a religion, but rather through a Person. These He has called have yet to be revealed.

Yes, Pat. Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. For you would not know Christ without the Church.

When you quote the Bible, it is because the Catholic Church gave it to you–thus, without it, you could not be saved.

 

[PRmerger]

*Going back in time as early as the days of the Athanasian Creed, it was taught then that ***“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” ****source: (Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 39)

About 585 A.D., Pope Pelagius II infallibly stated, "If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized (means excommunicated) according to the opinion of the same Fathers… Consider (therefore) the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord. [Gal. 3:7]" (Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 246)

In 1208 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, "By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 423)

In 1215 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, **“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved…” **(D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 430)

In 1302 A.D., Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sins…” (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 468)

In 1302 A.D., by the power invested in him, Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, “…we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 469)

Under paragraph # 816 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we read, “The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: ‘For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.’” (C.C.C. # 816)

As stated, not only is salvation found in the Catholic Church, but also the “fullness of the means” of salvation.

Complete Source:

---

---

Source: Bible
For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. 1 Thessalonians 5

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:12

God admits one person at a time and not through a religion, but rather through a Person. These He has called have yet to be revealed.

Pat, I want to commend you, in the source you cited above, for not using Catholic porn!

The source you cited, as if to say that the CC does NOT teach that Christ is our means of salvation, says this:

In Summary, for someone to be saved, he must,

(A) Have faith in Jesus,

(B) Be properly baptized, and

(C) Die in a state of righteousness.

OR

(D) Have faith in Jesus and the intent of converting to the Catholic faith prior to dying. While he may not have been baptized by water, he would have received the Baptism of blood or of desire.

Like most Catholic things, the answer is not either/or, but both/and. It’s not Christ OR the Catholic Church, but BOTH–the Head and the Body. Christ AND His Bride, the Church.

Without the Body, the Church, you are serving a decapitated Christ.

Again, I am saddened that you have such hateful feelings for an entity which is only a figment of your imagination. The CC you have such vehement objection to DOES NOT EXIST.

 

[momtoo]

You judge and wrongly at that because no Christian hates another. You recognize me? What?

I’m not condemning you, Pat De, but I can judge your intent. I have to judge on a daily basis (and decide if something is good or evil, right or wrong). Judging character, sizing someone up, deciding on what’s good and right, we do it daily. But I never condemn, as you suggest. Pat De, since you twist words and don’t really give answers I will take a look at what your motives are to see why you are trolling on this site. After all, the honest people on this forum have answered your questions faithfully and then been told by you that they are liars. So I will examine this. If you are a former Catholic and perceive the Church has done something to you so you are angry and cannot say anything good about Her then I believe you would know we don’t worship statues. I have a hard time believing that a former Catholic would not know that we don’t worship statues so that makes me think that your “former” status means you are a former religious person, former protestant, and now you are more of a spiritualist who has no religion per say. And the spiritualists I know do things like worship “mother earth”, so you worship trees, correct? Well, I have a very reliable source that tells me you do. You worship trees and that’s all there is to it…This is what you are doing to these good people who are trying to answer your (sincere or insincere?) questions. We live our Roman Catholic religion, Pat De, So wouldn’t you say we would know. So you should ask yourself “what person would tell such a lie to me?” So who lies to you, Pat De?

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by jlhargus
JL: According to Paul there are two ways to discern. [1Cor11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.] Those receiving unworthily did not DISCERN the Lord’s body. Since they didn’t DISCERN the Lord’s body, they had to DISCERN it was not the Lord’s body. There are two ways to discern either it is the Lord’s body or it is not the Lord’s body. Who discerned incorrectly and ate and drank damnation to himself? Those who did not discern the Lord’s body. By the way do you deny you belong to Calvary Chapel or Vineyard Outreach?

JL: So your answer is? You discern it is NOT the Lord’s body.

JL: So the answer is yes, you are Calvary Chapel.

JL: I see you can’t defend your position, NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY, so you try to deflect from that fact, with a silly comment.

Scripture is quite clear on the topic and I cannot help you cannot understand what Jesus and Paul has said because you have no ability to separate the spiritual from the fleshly at the appropriate times in Scripture. Only God can open the eye to the truth of His Word. The Gospel is so simple; yet so hard to reach and grasp, just as He said it would.

JL: Yes scripture is quite clear on the topic. If you discern it is NOT the Lord’s body, then you are among those Paul said, eats and drinks UNWORTHLY. That’s QUITE CLEAR. It can get any more clear. 1Cor11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY.

 

[jlhargus]

JL: Christ was not a literal door, Jn10:9, Christ was not a literal vine, Christ was not a literal lion. Ask yourself, did any one misunderstand when Christ used any of the above metaphors, or any of the others he used. How many said, “how can this man be a vine?” How many complained, these are hard sayings who can hear them? How many FOLLOWED HIM NO MORE, when he said these things? NONE.

Because they understood perfectly, he was speaking symbolically. Christ never held a door in his hands and said, this IS my body, Christ never took a cup of water or a vine in his hands and said, this IS my blood. Christ did take bread in his hands and said, this IS my body, Christ did take a cup of wine in his hands and said, this IS my blood.

When Christ said in Jn6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and THE BREAD that I WILL GIVE IS MY FLESH, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 THE JEWS therefore strove among themselves, SAYING, HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT? [THE CROWD, of Jewish unbelievers, who followed him because they were fed with the loaves and fish, questioned HOW? because they clearly understood his meaning to be literal. Had I been there I would have thought he meant to eat and drink his blood after he died.]

[Jn6:53 Then JESUS SAID unto them, VERILY, VERILY, I say unto you, EXCEPT YE EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON man, AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, and MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED.] Jesus states it more strongly, making it even more clear, MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. It was a hard saying, because they understood perfectly. His meaning was literal, not symbolic. A symbol would not have been A HARD SAYING, but an easy saying to accept.

Jn6:60 MANY therefore OF HIS DISCIPLES, when they had heard this, SAID, THIS IS A HARD SAYING, WHO CAN HEAR IT?] Now a second group, his DISCIPLES, are finding it a hard saying and murmured, questioning HOW.

Jn6:61 When JESUS knew in himself that HIS DISCIPLES murmured at it, he SAID unto them, DOTH THIS OFFEND YOU? [It would have offended and disgusted me, not knowing HOW, I was to eat his body and drink his blood. That’s why he gives his flesh and blood to eat under the appearance of bread and wine. It does not offend or disgust, it looks, feels, smells, tastes, as bread and wine. We know HOW now. We recognise him in the breaking of bread, as those on the road to Emmaus did, Lk24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, HE TOOK BREAD, and BLESSED it, AND BRAKE, and GAVE TO THEM. 31 And THEIR EYES WERE OPENED, and THEY KNEW HIM; and he vanished out of their sight. Lk24:35 And THEY TOLD what things were done in the way, and HOW HE WAS KNOWN of them IN BREAKING OF BREAD.]

Jn6:63 IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH; THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: THE WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they ARE SPIRIT, AND they are LIFE. 64 But THERE ARE SOME of you THAT BELIEVE NOT. For JESUS KNEW from the beginning WHO they were that BELIEVED NOT, and WHO SHOULD BETRAY HIM. 65 And HE SAID, Therefore said I unto you, that NO MAN CAN COME UNTO ME, EXCEPT it were GIVEN unto HIM OF MY FATHER.

[Some say Jn6:63 proves Christ was speaking symbolically. Yet it was AFTER saying this, so called symbolic meaning, many of **HIS DISCIPLES, not just the crowd, walked no more with him. Why would his disciples leave if Christ confirmed a symbolic meaning? They left because they knew and took him, at his WORD, literally. Our Lord says, “no man can come unto me, EXCEPT given him OF MY FATHER”. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, not the flesh. Thinking in a carnal (flesh) mind one cannot see, as our Lord says, [Jn6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that EVERY ONE WHICH SEETH THE SON, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.] How do we see our Lord if not in the breaking of the bread? By faith taking him at his literal WORD. We recognise him in the breaking of bread, as those on the road to Emmaus, by the Spirit of God. It is the Spirit who reveals divine truths it is not discerned by the carnal mind.

Jn 6:66 FROM THAT TIME MANY OF HIS DISCIPLES WENT BACK, and WALKED NO MORE WITH HIM.] First the CROWD, then MANY of his DISCIPLES followed him no more. This AFTER the so called symbolic verse, Jn6:63, that would make no sense at all. Christ then turns to the twelve apostles.

Jn6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, WILL YE ALSO GO AWAY? [Our Lord was not willing to water down his literal statement for anyone, not the crowd, not his disciples and not even the twelve apostles. Not even if he had to ascend back to heaven, [Jn6:61 When JESUS knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he SAID unto them, DOTH THIS OFFEND YOU? 62 WHAT and IF YE shall SEE THE SON of man ASCEND up WHERE HE WAS before?]. Peter seems to have taken it, as a literal hard saying, not knowing HOW Christ’s flesh is food indeed and his blood drink indeed. Yet Peter accepted by that faith which is the gift of God, believing and trusting in whom Christ revealed himself to be.]

Jn6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, LORD TO WHOM SHALL WE GO? THOU HAST THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE. 69 And WE BELIEVE and are sure that THOU ART that CHRIST, the SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 70 JESUS ANSWERED them, HAVE NOT I CHOSEN YOU TWELVE, and ONE OF YOU IS A DEVIL? 71 HE SPAKE OF JUDAS ISCARIOT the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. [The early Church Fathers saw this as the time Judas, no longer walked with Christ.]

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by jlhargus
JL: Tee Hee, in other words NO RELIABLE SOURCE, thanks for admiting it’s FALSE.

It is not false but for your sake it is so you are welcome.

JL: It’s obvious your source is NOT RELIABLE and you know it, otherwise you would post it.

 

[vwtaylorii]

***But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! *** from Galatians 1

Accursed = anathema = a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction

Another Gospel? Hellbound

Yes, a person is doomed to destruction if they don’t repent for what they done. Paul is not condeming anybody when he use the word “anathema” or “accurse.” He will be going against Jesus teaching we He said don’t pass judgement on your brother (Mt 7: 1-5). Only God can pass judgement, not humans. He also used “anathema” in 1 Cor 12: 3 and 16: 22 when a person does not love Jesus, but that doesn’t mean they can turned and love Him before they die.

Why would Paul condemn a person to hell knowing he doesn’t have the right to cast judgement?

 

[vwtaylorii]

Accept that and deny Calvin and Luther on the same basis? Pleae. It was a common Jewish idiom and from verse 60 onward Jesus makes it clear as new glass; but you must have the right lenses on to see the truth.

Jn 6: 63- The Spirit gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. If you are using this verse to back up your claim, you have just disrespected Jesus Christ death. It is a shame you think His flesh is of no avail when it was His flesh that redeemed the whole world. Way to go :dts:. What the verse is really saying is that you can’t use human reasoning to understand a teaching from God. You must have the Holy Spirit to help you understand to what God is teaching. Besides, the bread of life discourse ended on verse 59. The rest of the chapter was during a different time.

“Trogo” was not a common Jewish idiom when somebody was speaking about eating symbolically or metaphoricly. If Jesus was talking in symbolic terms, He would have stayed with the greek word “phago” in verses 54-58. Look up your greek words because it is obvious you don’t know them. If Jesus, or anybody during that time period, is saying eat their flesh metaphoricly, He will be waging on people. That is how the Jews understood Jesus.

On top of that, Jesus would not keep repeating himself when He sees confusion amongs the disciples. When the disciples said it was a hard teaching to understand in verse 60, Jesus would have cleared up the confusion.

In addition, Jesus said in verse 55, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” The KJV (probably the only English translation you recognize) goes even further and said, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” The greek word used for “true” or “indeed” is Alethos- meaning truly, in reality. By the way, Luther believed that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ:bounce:

If Jesus was speaking symbolicly, why did He say His flesh is TRUE FOOD and His blood is TRUE DRINK?

 

[Pat_De]

What does that is very “gospel of me” mean? That is a syntactically disordered sentence.

The Gospel to a Catholic is the Good News of God. Nothing more, nothing less!

Catholics do not work their way to salvation, Pat. I am saddened that in your days as a Catholic you were not well catechized.

What you abhor is a figment of your own imagination–that is, a pornographized version of Catholicism.

You have gulped down the “porn” version of what the Catholic church is and bought it for the truth.

You despise something that doesn’t even exist. Just like a man who devours porn has attached himself to the grotesque and perverted image of a woman that doesn’t actually exist.

Sadly, you have no idea what the Church you were baptized into actually teaches. :sad_yes:

You are correct in this respect; it depends on the Catholic you ask. To answer the question to the topic is Prevat II the answer is yes and post Vat II the answer is yes and no because "separated brethren, yet affirm Trent, so we will have our cake and eat it to and no one will make any distinctions within our church. The disagreements over the changes of the liturgy is well known within Catholic circles, so the church that has never changed is always changing. That’s religion and not Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

 

[PRmerger]

You are correct in this respect; it depends on the Catholic you ask.

Well, yes. If I had asked you when you were a Catholic you would not have been able to answer nary a question about Catholic teaching with any eloquence.

If you ask the average Clueless Catholic Joe in the Pews what the Immaculate Conception is he’ll tell you, “It’s when Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit.”

Same goes for your fellow non-Catholic Christians sitting in their pews. Ask them “what does this Bible verse mean?” and you’re likely to get 30,000 different responses.

 

[PRmerger]

To answer the question to the topic is Prevat II the answer is yes and post Vat II the answer is yes and no because "separated brethren, yet affirm Trent, so we will have our cake and eat it to and no one will make any distinctions within our church.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been the constant teaching of the Church. It was taught pre-VatII and affirmed in VatII.

The disagreements over the changes of the liturgy is well known within Catholic circles, so the church that has never changed is always changing.

The Church is never changing? Who says that? Could you please provide documentation that deals with this, specifically where it says that the Liturgy can not every change?

That’s religion and not Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Please show me how you can have Jesus and not have a relationship (i.e. religion) with Him. It’s nonsensical.

 

[Pat_De]

Please provide your source for a teaching of the Church that says we are to “worship statues”. Have you been reading another "pornographized’ article about Catholicism, Pat?

Try the real thing, not the porn version. You’ll like it!

[SIGN1]Not a single Catholic worships a statue.[/SIGN1] I daresay if you go to any Catholic church and ask the average Joe Catholic, even the most clueless one, *“Pssst! Hey, Joe! See that statue of Mary over there? Do you worship that?” *Even Clueless Joe is going to say, “Um…no. That’s ridiculous!”

Worship and adoration, latria, are reserved for God alone. Veneration, honor, respect are due to all who proclaim the name of the Lord worthily.

In fact, in your private email to me you said this, (I am quoting verbatim, bold mine), which sounds like you also have a very high veneration for some earthly person, not God. Why do you get to elevate this fallible pastor, yet deny Catholics the same right to venerate saints in heaven?

I feel sorry for you to have to bend down so low to make a non-point tells me who your father is. In the context of 1 Tim 5:17 which states "The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching." This is and was the context, which I made clear. Now you know why I wanted to speak privately and not a topic that creates division, which you agreed to and now are bringing public. This further proves my point above and you should be ashamed of yourself and your conscience, if you have one, should be convicting you as you read this.

As far as the Catholic teaching on dulia, hyperdulia and latria; you can look it up for yourself and see if I am not 100% correct and there are many Catholics who openly admit they worship, especially Mary the Mother co-medoatrix of the CC, but chose the word venerate, which by definition is worship and they will agree it is the same and that it is taught in the CCC. When read Catholic resources they carefully you will see the play on and with semantics as it is carefully crafted, which is why Catholics, such as yourself are embarrassed, confused and/or ashamed to admit that if it is black and white and has a pungent smell it is a skunk and not a raccoon.

But this is not a topic I care to get into since so many are sensitive to the subject and many will find it offensive which help neither the hearer or the speaker. You have NO permission to violate me.

(Permission has been granted by Pat De to share this in this post here)

NOT!!

 

[Tomb54]

Why did Christ not then set the literal example as He did on everything; except this?

Actually He did state it you just refuse to believe His words

 

[Tomb54]

Since the Bible says the church has yet to be revealed; then without that specific knowledge you reasoning is flawed.

Since Jesus says He established the Church where are you getting that He has not revealed it yet? Are you saying you have some inside information that the early church never had?

 

[Pat_De]

To: Anyone and/or no one: I was on page 8 trying to catch up, but PRMerger has violated a privacy agreement we had outside the walls of the forums and has not kept her/his word; therefore I am no longer responding to anyone on this thread because I not interested on being in this thread any longer and the question on the actual topic has been answered in a variety of ways and numerous ways as well. I love the Catholic people, but I do not care for religion nor do I care for dishonesty and need to cool off least I should be brought into sin.

 

[Tomb54]

I suggest the writing of the apostles and of Jesus…just a thought :0

I took your suggestion and found that your bible must be different than what Jesus and the Apostle taught because your bible does not say (as the Holy Spirit Guides me) what yours says. So now who is right? Is the Holy Spirit telling you one thing and telling me just the opposite? Or are you going to tell me that you are more special in God’s eyes than me therefore you are more right than I am?

 

[momtoo]

Perhaps we could all say a prayer for Pat De to recover/resolve the medical issue she has stated she is having. Good luck, Pat De, and God Bless.

 

[Tomb54]

Scripture is quite clear on the topic and I cannot help you cannot understand what Jesus and Paul has said because you have no ability to separate the spiritual from the fleshly at the appropriate times in Scripture. Only God can open the eye to the truth of His Word. The Gospel is so simple; yet so hard to reach and grasp, just as He said it would.

And you are? The Bible also says that you should listen to your bishop because scripture is hard to interpret on your own. Do you go to your bishop do you have a bishop? Do you have a world wide church as Jesus said His Church would be. Or was Jesus wrong?

 

[PRmerger]

To: Anyone and/or no one: I was on page 8 trying to catch up, but PRMerger has violated a privacy agreement we had outside the walls of the forums and has not kept her/his word; therefore I am no longer responding to anyone on this thread because I not interested on being in this thread any longer and the question on the actual topic has been answered in a variety of ways and numerous ways as well. I love the Catholic people, but I do not care for religion nor do I care for dishonesty and need to cool off least I should be brought into sin.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY Pat De: (bold mine) Send me the link through this forum email and I will send you a response** and you can share as you wish** for I do not plan to be here much longer; there is no point for me to be here and I have concluded that God probably would rather have me spend my time doing other things.

 

[Tomb54]

I feel sorry for you to have to bend down so low to make a non-point tells me who your father is. In the context of 1 Tim 5:17 which states "The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching." This is and was the context, which I made clear. Now you know why I wanted to speak privately and not a topic that creates division, which you agreed to and now are bringing public. This further proves my point above and you should be ashamed of yourself and your conscience, if you have one, should be convicting you as you read this.

As far as the Catholic teaching on dulia, hyperdulia and latria; you can look it up for yourself and see if I am not 100% correct and there are many Catholics who openly admit they worship, especially Mary the Mother co-medoatrix of the CC, but chose the word venerate, which by definition is worship and they will agree it is the same and that it is taught in the CCC. When read Catholic resources they carefully you will see the play on and with semantics as it is carefully crafted, which is why Catholics, such as yourself are embarrassed, confused and/or ashamed to admit that if it is black and white and has a pungent smell it is a skunk and not a raccoon.

But this is not a topic I care to get into since so many are sensitive to the subject and many will find it offensive which help neither the hearer or the speaker. You have NO permission to violate me.

NOT!!

You are wrong on the Mary thing as you are on most things to do with Catholics. I will ask what did Jesus think of His mother? Did He love her? Did He obey her? Was she special to Him? We as Catholic are to imitate Jesus so how we treat Mary reflects this.