No longer a Roman Catholic

[Catholic_Dude]

therealgoodnews:

Catholic dude,
You can’t see how religion seperates christians? Your very religion has fought wars and killed millions of other christians right up to this present day. Why do they do this? Because although catholics and protestants both beleive that Jesus is the son of God and our saviour, they are seperated due to the man made doctrines that are part of each religion. And you don’t see how that’s evil? We can’t even have peace between christians in this world never mind pagans. The only important thing is Jesus, everything else is irrelevant. But surprise, surprise, Jesus is what all christian religions have in common, so why are men so focused on the little things that seperate us. Because religion is a tool of Satan. How happy Satan must be when he sees christians killing each other over such stupid trivial things. As far as ITim 2:4, please show me where God desires all men to be saved. The scripture says he WILL have all men be saved. Verse 6 states that Jesus gave himself a ransom for who? For ALL to be testified in due time. So Paul is saying that all men will be saved and that Jesus gave himself so that ALL will be testified, not necessarily in this life, but in DUE TIME. I have hundreds others that you can try and dispute if you’d like. You show your true colors when you say “who cares about doing good if you’re saved no matter what” Are you kidding me!!! So you’re saying that the only reason you live a good life is to escape the fires of hell? Well I live a good life because I want to please God and living a good life is a benefit for me and the people around me. It shouldn’t matter if were all saved or not, living a good life is still important.

Ok, so you avoid the part where Timothy has the authority to denounce heresy? You avoid the parts where Jesus says stuff like “I never knew you”. ok.
The only separation is protestants like yourself parading around. The truth is all nations have blood on their hands, maybe not us here and now, but generations back we all have been part of detestable crimes. You didnt invent the Bible, it came to you through those very people you condone, that doesnt mean that the Bible’s message is tainted, it means men are men and all men sin.
What is your take on this:
Matt18:

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Why does Jesus list the church as the last option? What is the church in your mind? Remeber Jesus never told anyone to pick up the Bible if there is a problem.
Matt7:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So what is Jesus saying here? That everyone is going to heaven? It doesnt look like it.

lets see the hundreds of verses you have for me to dispute, even 2 or 3 is fine for now.
When I said “who cares about doing good” that is a very valid question, Im not saying I would take up arms, Im saying how do you explain to someone to live a good life and then turn around and tell them anything goes, because in the end your fine. I also asked if it was A FREE RIDE? You said yourself that so called Christians are attacking eachother, why do you care if all those guys are going to be saved in the end?

And about 1Tim2:4, what translation are you using? I used the KJV and it says “Who will all men to be saved”. You said " The scripture says he WILL have all men be saved." I looked up “will” in the dictionary and one of the defs said “desire”. If you really knew the Bible you would know that Christ died for all and that God doesnt want anyone to not go to heaven, but the that there will be people who wont go to heaven. Why does Jesus say:
Matt12:

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

So if someone does this they are still going to Heaven?

 

[therealgoodnews]

Yes cestusdei that scripture of 2Thess 2:15 most certainly is in my bible, but like many of today’s christians you throw around scripture without knowing what the truth behind it is. The greek word translated traditions is paradosis which refers to the traditional Jewish laws. In Matt 15 the Pharisees asked Jesus why his desciples were not following the traditions of the law by not washing their hands before they eat. Jesus chastised them by saying “Why do you follow your own teaching and disobey God’s command” He used the example of respecting your father and mother but if you have something that would benefit them and offer it to the lord instead of your parents you are really not following God’s traditions by trying to follow them. It’s confusing but let me explain it this way. Paul taught the Thessalonians to keep the traditions of the law (not of men) but only because they were “babes in Christ”. The law was the stepping stone to Jesus if you will. In no way did he mean to hold on to the traditions of men by that scripture, because there are 20 other scriptures where Jesus warned about following the traditions of men. This is how religions get started, one man reads a scripture and before studying it like Paul taught, they form an opinion and branch off with a new philosiphy. The bible does not contradict itself, you just need to do what Paul admonished Timothy to do and “rightfully divide the word of truth.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Fr. Ambrose,

You said:

Originally Posted by oat soda

it is absolutely true that those who die in a state of original sin are damned.

This WAS the teaching of the Popes but not any longer.

I think you need to get with the program and quit falsifying what Catholicism teaches, and stick to explaining your particular version of Eastern Orthodoxy. You really want us to believe you know more about Catholicism than Catholics? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Pope John Paul II teaches: “The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).” (CCC 406).

Doesn’t sound like it’s changed any.

No one can enter heaven without being washed from original sin, either sacramentally (normative), or extra-sacramentally. This is a *de fide *dogma of Catholicism.

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *4th Edition (1960):

The Union Councils of Lyons and Florence declared that … the souls of those who die in mortal sin or merely in original sin descend immediately into hell. D 464, 693. “Illorum autem animas, qui in mortali peccato vel cum solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere”] (pg. 475) …

“The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be acheived in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood… Other emergency means of baptism for chidren dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents of the Church (vicarious baptism of desire–Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire–H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering–H. Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.” (pg. 114)

This was Catholic teaching in 1960, citing pre-Trent sources as early as Cardinal Cajetan. If you have evidence that the popes no longer teach this, please provide it, otherwise, “Begone, Satan” (Matt 4:10).

 

[therealgoodnews]

Catholicdude,

You pose good questions and I’m glad because you could choose to say “You’re wrong and I’m outta here” but you remind me of myself when I would ask the very same questions, so for that thank you. Now I’ll try to tackle each question individually. Regarding Matt 18: No Jesus never told anyone to pick up a bible because the whole bible had not been completed. The “bible” if you will was the good news that came out of the mouth’s of the apostles because being annointed with the holy spirit guaranteed that they were preaching the truth. You asked “What is the church in my mind?” The church back then were the disciples of Jesus going two by two into peoples homes and spreading the good news as they were commanded. They did not meet in fancy buildings or have lavish ceremonies, they just shared in the lord’s supper and taught the good news of Jesus Christ. That is how I worship to this day, in people’s homes breaking bread and reading and studying scripture. That is how the ministry of Jesus started and only when men and money and religion get involved does the true church get corrupt and watered down. When you ask about Matt 7 you are getting into subjects which I’ve studied for quite some time and I don’t know if you’ll understand my answers but here goes. Not everyone will inhereit the kingdom of God at first that’s true, but who are these people that Jesus is speaking of? Are they unbeleivers? It doesn’t seem so because they tell Jesus that “in your name we spoke God’s message, by your name we drove out demons” It seems like these people are actual Christians. But Jesus tells them “Get away from me you wicked people” Why would Jesus tell people who preached in his name to get away from him. Because these people are today’s “christians” who think they know the truths of Jesus but are going to be surprised when he reveals that they never knew him. Now where do they go? They have to be purified by God’s cleansing fire before they are allowed access into the kingdom because nothing impure can enter. This fulfills Isiah 26:9 “When your judgements are in the earth, the inhabitants of the earth WILL LEARN RIGHTEOUSNESS” These people will be made pure and then God will pour out his spirit so that “EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue shall confess (not just say but confess) that Jesus is lord.” Phil 2:10 And the only way to confess Jesus is lord is by the power of the holy spirit. Next are you trying to tell me that there are things that God wishes or desires that wont come to pass? God says all that I purpose I will do. The correct translation is Will not desire. It is only man who incorrectly translates the will of God and turns it into a tiny weak wish. Imagine an all powerful soverign creator wishing for something!!! Who does he wish to? Stop putting God on the level of puny man. As for your last question about blaspheming against the holy spirit, this one confused me once too, until I found the proper translation. The King James incorrectly translates or should I say leaves out an important phrase. It stops at “shall not be forgiven”, but the correct translation from the greek goes on to say “in this age or the age to come.” Many bibles add this last phrase and they should because it’s in the original greek manuscripts. We are living in a present age, there will come a millenial age, and then at the white throne judgement ALL will be forgiven and saved, even blasphemors of the holy spirit. Hope I answered your questions.

 

[therealgoodnews]

its just dave,

you call Fr Ambrose Satan yet it’s you who beleive that our loving, forgiving, merciful God will burn newborn babies forever and ever with no end. Look inside my friend.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

itsjustdave1988:

Fr. Ambrose,
I think you need to get with the program and quit falsifying what Catholicism teaches, and stick to explaining your particular version of Eastern Orthodoxy. You really want us to believe you know more about Catholicism than Catholics? You should be ashamed of yourself.

There are times when it is obvious that I know more about historical Catholicism than much younger Catholics who have not made a study of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II. So I am not ashamed. Why should people be ashamed of what they know?

Pope John Paul II teaches: “The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).” (CCC 406).

Doesn’t sound like it’s changed any.

Such an eminent Catholic scholar as Fr Robert Taft of the Pontifical Oriental Institute has said that an honest examination of the historical records shows that there has been a change of teaching on original sin and on the fate of unbaptized infants and of non-Catholics. I shall see if I can locate his article.

This was Catholic teaching in 1960, citing pre-Trent sources as early as Cardinal Cajetan. If you have evidence that the popes no longer teach this, please provide it, otherwise, “Begone, Satan” (Matt 4:10).

If you have the interest, there are one or two threads in the Non-Catholic Religions section which address exactly this point, and show how the Popes no longer teach such things.

By the way, it is very serious to address a priest, or anybody for thast matter, with “Begone, Satan” and especially when what we are discussing is historical fact. Do you try and end all your debates by condemning your opponents to hell?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

therealgoodnews:

–Regarding Matt 18: No Jesus never told anyone to pick up a bible… The Bible was not compiled as we know it today until long after the original 12 were dead, so who were the lucky men assigned with the task?
The “bible” if you will was the good news that came out of the mouth’s of the apostles because being annointed with the holy spirit guaranteed that they were preaching the truth. So now that they are dead how can I be assured who is preaching the truth? How did the truth get to us today?

–The church back then were the disciples of Jesus going two by two into peoples homes and spreading the good news as they were commanded. They did not meet in fancy buildings or have lavish ceremonies, they just shared in the lord’s supper and taught the good news of Jesus Christ.
So when Paul writes a letter to Corinth or Rome, etc he is really only writing to 2 people going door to door? There was a lot more than just the Lord’s Supper, there were things like Baptism as well. And as for teaching, there had to be a way to pass on the truth when the 12 died. There are many references to Bishops, deacons, etc, while they were mere humans they did hold positions of authority.

–That is how I worship to this day, in people’s homes breaking bread and reading and studying scripture. That is how the ministry of Jesus started and only when men and money and religion get involved does the true church get corrupt and watered down.
What about the wine? Also about reading the scriptures in peoples homes, how do you justify not being in a fancy building with men and money. So would you hold a service in a cardboard box if that was someones home? What about taking up a collection, helping the needy? What if someone disagrees with you, or worse yet you dont understand a passage, who decides whats what?

–When you ask about Matt 7 … Not everyone will inhereit the kingdom of God at first that’s true, but who are these people that Jesus is speaking of? … It seems like these people are actual Christians. But Jesus tells them “Get away from me you wicked people” Why would Jesus tell people who preached in his name to get away from him. Because these people are today’s “christians” who think they know the truths of Jesus but are going to be surprised when he reveals that they never knew him.
I guess I dont understand you. How were they todays Christians? So again, how does one make sure that they are hearing the truth from someone concerning Christ? There has to be clear cut ways like this:

Matt25:
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me… 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Do you do any of these things? The CC does these things every day all over the world, and it uses money and men to see God’s will being done.

–Now where do they go? They have to be purified by God’s cleansing fire before they are allowed access into the kingdom because nothing impure can enter. …
So is it a free ride? In the end we are in no matter what? Even if we lead people away from Christ on purpose we are still fine?

The correct translation is Will not desire. It is only man who incorrectly translates the will of God and turns it into a tiny weak wish. Imagine an all powerful soverign creator wishing for something!!!
Could you tell me a few of the other verses that you said you had?

As for your last question about blaspheming against the holy spirit … We are living in a present age, there will come a millenial age, and then at the white throne judgement ALL will be forgiven and saved, even blasphemors of the holy spirit.
Im still in a rut here. You cant go out and tell people they are going to heaven no matter what, then there is no need to tell them about God, why break you back to go out and preach? All through the Gospels Jesus makes it very clear that being a Christian is the hardest thing to do in life, and getting to heaven is a life long task. In the end there is no need to read the Bible if what Jesus said means nothing at the end of the day.

 

[reen12]

Whoa! Please!

I started this thread and I’m asking all recent
participants to consider where this thread has
headed.

From my own perspective, I sat back and watched
as poster after poster was, in my book, “baited.”
For heaven’s sake, stop, will you?

I know it is difficult not to reply, but don’t you think
that sometimes the virtue of prudence might clear
it’s throat and say: “I say there…”
Take it to another thread, is my suggestion.

And, yes, Father Ambrose, I can well believe that you
are more versed in RC theology, pre-Vatican II, than many.
I’ve sat here and heard people who have been Catholics for
forty years saying: I never heard of such and such
a thing…and I, closer to age 60, think: Of course
you haven’t! You may not even have been born when
Fr. Ambrose and I were reading theology.
You may not even have* seen* a 1950’s Baltimore
Catechism.

Look, it boils down to:
sola scriptura, sola fides and sola something else I can’t recall
or
tradition, scripture, magisterium
or
denying ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia
Where Peter is, there is the Church.

Period. Amen.

The one thing about just praying at the Western Wall
is that none of the “boils down to” positions apply.
Someone suggested that I may have lost my sense
of humor. How could I, will all of the spectacles
life provides!
[was it *sola gratia?]

Whatever you want to do, you’ll do, I know that.
In any case,
Peace on earth to men [and women] of goodwill,
reen12

 

[therealgoodnews]

The reason it’s important to spread the good news to people even though all will be saved is because God uses people as a tool to spread his word. There are defenite advantages to being a “firstfruit” beleiver as Jesus called us. A true firstfruit beleiver will take part and rule with Jesus for a 1000 year period while the unbeleivers will not be raised until after the millenium. Beleivers will not have to go and stand before the white throne judgement of God, they will gain access to the kingdom right away. Remember I never said it would be a cake walk to be wicked and unrepentant. God will deal with and punish sin harshly but it’s not going to be forever and it’s not going to be to punish it’s going to be for change. The correct translation of Mat 25:46 is “the righteous shall go into life eonion, while the wicked shall go into chastisement eonian”. Notice the word is not punishment it’s chastisement, which in greek is paideia which means disciplanary correction to bring about change. God is a father and must chastise his children, but like an earthly father he does it for our own good so that we may learn righteousness. aS FOR THE SCRIPTURES YOU ASKED ABOUT, WHICH SCRIPTURES DID YOU WANT?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Fr. Ambrose,

You have often falsified Catholic teaching, which is also a serious matter. If you would cease presuming to teach Catholics the belief of Catholicism, then perhaps you wouldn’t seem adversarial (satanic) with respect to the Catholic faith. Do you see what I mean? If you don’t, try to think how absurd it would be for me, a Catholic, telling you, an Eastern Orthodox, what it is Eastern Orthodox teach. That would be pretty absurd, no?

Nonetheless, please provide the proof of your assertion. Not what Fr. so and so says, as that isn’t compelling. Tell me when and what Pope John Paul II said that shows that he teaches contrary to the Council of Orange and the Council of Trent, which he cited in his Catechism.

 

[reen12]

Dear Dave,

If you would cease addressing a priest of the Orthodox
church in what I consider an unseemly and presumptious
fashion, I would be grateful.

And, to use an expression from an old Charlie Chan
movie: “Truth speaks from any chair.”

Adding a God Bless at the end of your post, when
you have addressed him in a fashion open to all
to evaluate, gives me a sense of vertigo.

reen12

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You may not even have been born when
Fr. Ambrose and I were reading theology.

Perhaps not. But between Fr. Ambrose and I, I am the one who quoted from Catholic sources of dogmatic theology and Pope John Paul II’s catechism.

The teaching on original sin, according to the catechism, is one that is described by the Council of Orange and Council of Trent. You may be older, but I’m pretty sure none of you were born during these councils. And just because your older, that doesn’t ensure that you have a clue about Catholicism, especially if you are not Catholic.

Do you know what these councils teach on original sin?

I’m simply astonished as to why non-Catholics, Fr. Ambrose just being one of many, come to this forum and presume to tell Catholics what the Catholic Church teaches. It’s ridiculous. If non-Catholoics would stick to telling us what their church believes, I will refrain from telling you what your Church teaches. To do otherwise, in my view, is to be adversarial to the Catholic faith, which all political correctness aside, is the work of one force and it ain’t holy.

Now, I have no problems when non-Catholics come here to ask questions, in an honest attempt to better understand Catholicism. And if there’s something they don’t quite understand, given something else they read elsewhere, and they’d like it clarified, that’s perfectly fine. But I think by now it’s obvious what the difference is between questions of a seeker and accusations of an antagonist. Fr. Ambrose shows no signs of being the former, and every sign of being the latter.

 

[therealgoodnews]

Dave,

The biggest problem with the catholic religion is that you depend on men for answers and not God. This is what God has to say about men. “There is NOONE who is righteous, NOONE who is wise or who worships God. ALL have turned away from God, they have ALL gone wrong, NOONE does what is right, not even ONE. Their words are full of deadly deceit, wicked lies roll off their tongues.” Rom3:10 Are you sure you want to trust men for your answers?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

reen12:

If you would cease addressing a priest of the Orthodox
church in what I consider an unseemly and presumptious
fashion, I would be grateful.

I’m sorry if I’ve offended your sensibilities, but if Jesus could refer to Peter as Satan due to his adversarial role, then I don’t see where I’ve used the term inappropriately.

 

[cestusdei]

real,
So you ignore some verses because you don’t like them? Paradosis means “Tradition” ie. something handed over. See II Thess. 2:15, 3:6, and I Cor. 11:1. You pick and choose verses out of context. Typical. The fact is the Bible is paradosis. It is written Tradition given to you by the Church you despise. You drink from a well you did not dig. And I see no reason to accept your interpretation over that of the Church founded by Christ himself. I have also explained to you what the Church teaches about salvation. You choose to reject it. That’s fine. You prefer heresy. You will find out soon enough that you are not the Pope. Vade Retro Draco!

 

[reen12]

Dear Dave,

I stand by what I have written to you,

reen 12

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

itsjustdave1988:

I’m sorry if I’ve offended your sensibilities, but if Jesus could refer to Peter as Satan due to his adversarial role, then I don’t see where I’ve used the term inappropriately.

Are you Jesus? If you can say to the thief on the cross: “This day you shall be with me in paradise” or to the woman taken in adultery: " your sins are forgiven" or to the damned on the last day: “depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire” then you may have the right to tell a Christian to “get thee behind me, Satan.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

you who beleive that our loving, forgiving, merciful God will burn newborn babies forever and ever with no end.

I will presume that you know best about what YOU believe, if you presume that I know best what it is that I believe.

I don’t believe God will burn newborn babies forever and ever with no end. Nor does the Catholic Church teach this, if you bothered to find out more about what it is that you obviously disagree with.

The following questions are worthy of your research before you will be very effective at all in convincing Catholics of your “mastery” of Catholic doctrine:

1. Does the Catholic popes or councils teach definitively or did they ever teach definitively that all babies that have been born and died without sacramental baptism, have no extra-sacramental means of sanctification? If so, which papal pronouncement or councilar decree taught this?
2. Does the Catholic Church teach that an infant might be sanctified in the womb, extra-sacramentally, if that be God’s will?
3. Hasn’t the Catholic Church taught that John the Baptists was sanctified in the womb, as it says in Scripture? The Blessed Mary was sanctified in the womb too, according to Catholic doctrine, right?
4. Didn’t Cardinal Cajetan teach vicarious baptism by desire for dying infants in the 1500s prior to the Council of Trent? If so, was he teaching heresy? If heretical, why wasn’t he condemned by the Church?
5. Wasn’t pre-Vatican II (in fact pre-Tridentine) theology exactly as I described it from Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which was first published in 1952?
6. Is there a difference between poena damni and poena sensus in Catholic theology? If so, what is it?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Fr Ambrose:

Are you Jesus? If you can say to the thief on the cross: “This day you shall be with me in paradise” or to the woman taken in adultery: " your sins are forgiven" or to the damned on the last day: “depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire” then you may have the right to tell a Christian to “get thee behind me, Satan.”

When you prove your assertion, I will happily apologize. Which pope taught that the teaching on original sin according to the Council of Orange and the Council of Trent is no longer Catholic teaching? If you cannot, then you are the one who spreads falsehoods regarding the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

***paradosis ***according to the Protestant source, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

paradosis
“a handing down or on” (akin to paradidomi, “to hand over, deliver”), denotes “a tradition,” and hence, by metonymy, (a) “the teachings of the rabbis,” interpretations of the Law, which was thereby made void in practice, Matt. 15:2,3,6; Mark 7:3,5,8,9,13; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8; (b) of “apostolic teaching,” 1 Cor. 11:2, RV, “traditions” (AV, “ordinances”), of instructions concerning the gatherings of believers (instructions of wider scope than ordinances in the limited sense); in 2 Thess. 2:15, of Christian doctrine in general, where the Apostle’s use of the word constitutes a denial that what he preached originated with himself, and a claim for its Divine authority (cp. paralambano, “to receive,” 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3); in 2 Thess. 3:6, it is used of instructions concerning everyday conduct.