The more I read the Bible and study history, it really seems like to me that the Catholic Church took the Bible and just decided to do things their way.

I made a post on here about the Passover and Easter in Bible Chat and the latest persons response just adds to my thoughts about the RCC.

I used to be Catholic but after a few years, decided the Catholic denomination was really all about the church (like the Pope and idolizing the saints and Mary) and not really central around Christ.

Is it just me that feels this way about the RCC?

Why would anyone even practice Catholicism if they truly understood and read the Bible?

While you are correct, I believe, about the Roman Catholic church - do you know a single church or denomination that is not in error? That does not teach that it is the safest church to be in and going to any other church will damage you, possibly lose you your salvation? That any other church will be in error biblically, even a church in it's own denomination?

Would anyone even join a DENOMINATION if they truely understood and read the bible? SofTy.

While you are correct, I believe, about the Roman Catholic church - do you know a single church or denomination that is not in error? That does not teach that it is the safest church to be in and going to any other church will damage you, possibly lose you your salvation? That any other church will be in error biblically, even a church in it's own denomination?

Would anyone even join a DENOMINATION if they truely understood and read the bible? SofTy.

Because the vast majority of churches are part of a denomination (not always bad), if you took that line, in most places, you wouldn't go to church! And that's not good at all......

We will never find the perfect church this side of Eternity but I believe that we should seek to find the ideal church - one that is closest to the truth. We need to have discernment to know what are the PRIMARY doctrines and seek ONLY those churches that believe and stress them (faith in the Triune God; salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone; the full deity/humanity and uniqueness of Christ; His atoning death and bodily resurrection; the inspiration, authority and sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of faith and life; the need for gospel preaching and the new birth; the need for perseverance in faith and life to be preached and practised; the need to understand and practise BIBLICALLY the ordinances of baptism and the LORD's supper; an emphasis on prayer and bible study; and the need for biblical church discipline. That may seem to some to be too exacting but I wouldn't want to be in a church that missed out any of them. It may not be wide enough for others but I would be interested to hear what others tought would be AS IMPORTANT as these things.

A church can be a biblical church and be defective in many ways - but it MUST have certain essentials for it to be a biblical church.

And for the record, I think your assessment of the RCC is 100% correct - the majority of those posting on these Forums would also agree with you.

Part of my suffering in Jesus' name is at the hands of churches that want me to reject other 'biblical' churches locally.

In agreement with all you say Mark. SofTy.

I converted to Catholicism after being in the ministry as a Southern Baptist. If you read the Early Church Fathers you will discover that what the Catholic Church believes about the Bible teaches now is what has always been taught for the last 2000 years.

What I see from non-Catholic churches is that all these different groups decide to do things their way, and when a few within those groups decide they want to do things their way they split off and create yet another group. The Catholic Church has perserved the same Doctrine for 2000 years while others have broken away and done things their own way.
hi! mac i dont believe the catholic church has had the same doctrine for the last 2000 yrs. where in gods word does it command us to do anything that your church does? such as praying to mary and having mary speak to jesus begging for our souls, forbiding men to marry. word only brother.
love yaza

One question I believe is very telling is;

Where is the authority?

In the RCC, the authority lies with the Pope, and with the hierarchy within the church.

In scripture the authority is the Lord.

The RCC has a very elaborate set of doctrines. Some are in line with scripture, many are based on the writing of men. Ideas like Mary's sinless birth and life (and life as a virgin) are in direct contradiction to scripture.

I do not see a way that one who believes scripture to be the inspired Word of God could knowingly participate in the Roman Catholic Church.

call a priest father?
a priest has power to for give sin?
2nd. we don't need a priest any more, in a way the catholic church has dicredited Jesus and the cross by these doctrines.
opinion:
catholic church=woman that rides beast

I know that there are saved christians who are catholic.
I was raised catholic,
then I read the Bible,WOW!!!!!
red lights started to flash
no more catholic for me.
saturday is the sabbath!!!
lies!!:thumbsdn:

Would anyone even join a DENOMINATION if they truely understood and read the bible? SofTy.

Of course I would. I have pastoral credentials with teh largest Pentecostal denominations in the world. With it comes accoun tability, oversight and established by-laws. Without them you have many rogue churches where heresy is rampant and false teachers proliferate

Part of my suffering in Jesus' name is at the hands of churches that want me to reject other 'biblical' churches locally.

In agreement with all you say Mark. SofTy.

Thanks, SofTy, but it's actually Nigel - Forum name comes from this site

www.9marks.org (http://www.9marks.org)

which you might actually find quie helpful, as I know you're looking to find that "ideal" church. But churches that have the "9 marks" in the UK are hard to find!

The more I read the Bible and study history, it really seems like to me that the Catholic Church took the Bible and just decided to do things their way.
The more you study the Bible, the more you will see that the RCC is false.

I made a post on here about the Passover and Easter in Bible Chat and the latest persons response just adds to my thoughts about the RCC.
I'll have to check that out..so I won't comment until I do.

I used to be Catholic but after a few years, decided the Catholic denomination was really all about the church (like the Pope and idolizing the saints and Mary) and not really central around Christ.
I was never Catholic...I was raised in the Jewish faith and grew up in a Roman Catholic neighborhood. We experienced much anti-semetism and I wanted nothing to do with "Christianity" because I thought Roman Catholicism was what "Chrisitianity" was. After I was saved in 1974, I found out who is a "Christian" and what biblical "Christianity" was....it was not Roman Catholicism!

Is it just me that feels this way about the RCC?
I don't think it's just you....true born again Christians know what Roman Catholicism is.

Why would anyone even practice Catholicism if they truly understood and read the Bible?
They wouldn't! Roman Catholicism is the antithesis of what the Bible teaches, from Genesis to Revelation!

matthew 23:9= no one is to be called father, Jesus said this.
we don't need to confess sin to a man, this pretty much denies what happend on the cross.

Well come on, let's not forget that a lot of our so-called Protestant theology is actually... Catholic. Especially that field of study known as Christology. Now sure, the church may have a lot of problems, but don't forget it did some good.

MacGyver (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=32918),

Thanks for participating in the thread, maybe you missed this, I am interested on your reply.

Thanks,

One question I believe is very telling is;

Where is the authority?

In the RCC, the authority lies with the Pope, and with the hierarchy within the church.

In scripture the authority is the Lord.

The RCC has a very elaborate set of doctrines. Some are in line with scripture, many are based on the writing of men. Ideas like Mary's sinless birth and life (and life as a virgin) are in direct contradiction to scripture........

MacGyver (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=32918),

Thank you for your reply. You are a very effective apologist for the Catholic Church.

While you and I have come to the exact opposite conclusions about this, I appreciate the thought you have applied and your willingness to share.

FWIW, I was in Catholic school from the 4th grade and went through RCIA (Rite of Catholic Initiation of Adults) after I accepted Christ in 1986. I spent 2 years in the RCC, before I was no longer able to reconcile what I found in scripture with what I heard, and experienced as a Catholic.

**Moderator Note**

This thread needs to be mindful of a couple of things.

1) Don't bash RCC people. Discuss and critique RCC doctrine and feel welcomed to explain why mainstream Protestantism rejects many RCC teachings, but don't make carte-blanche statements condeming RCC folks...love them, befriend them, care about them....and then they might be willing to listen more intentively as to why you believe differently than they do.

2) This forum's existence isn't for advancing or arguing in-favor of RCC beliefs. It's purpose is for critiquing doctrine that is contrary to mainstream Protestant beliefs, and sharing why mainstream Protestantism, from a Bibical perspective, rejects these said beliefs. So don't let it become a debate area...that's not it's purpose. If anyone wants to debate RCC vs Protestant teachings, you might want to check with The Arena (http://bibleforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=47) subforum, and its guidelines. That area might be a good fit for this type of debate. (check with the local mods there and any sticky-notes they have in that subforum first though...don't anyone go over there guns a blazin and say Dave Taylor said to come here and debate. First verify that it's OK and in accordance with their guidelines.;))

Have you noticed that when you read through Acts and the travels of St. Paul that every place he went the Church that was there looks and acts and believes things that the Catholic Church believes?

For Example: Malta - Catholic, Antioch - Catholic/Orthodox, Athens - Orthodox/Catholics, Rome - Catholic, Cyprus - orthodox/catholic, Crete - Greek/orthodox, Turkey - didn't really survive in Turkey but the Byzantine Church that evangelized from there all the way up into Russia survives - Orthodox/Catholic.

All of these Churches established by actual Apostles and have Bishops that can trace themselves to the Apostles by the laying on of hands all the way back two thousand years and have been reading the Sacred Scriptures every day of those two thousand years are all alive and well today.

The strangest thing is none of them has protesting denominations. It would seem where ever St. Paul went there is still a thriving Catholic/Orthodox Church except Turkey.

Have you noticed that when you read through Acts and the travels of St. Paul that every place he went the Church that was there looks and acts and believes things that the Catholic Church believes?
For Example: Malta - Catholic, Antioch - Catholic/Orthodox, Athens - Orthodox/Catholics, Rome - Catholic, Cyprus - orthodox/catholic, Crete - Greek/orthodox, Turkey

HHhhhmmm....Nope. None of Paul's missionary travels discuss or advance RCC beliefs like pergatory, indulgences, transubstantiation and salvation alone through the mass, dead prayer intercessors, living popes being the mediators between man and God, papal infallability, immaculate conception, Marian sinlessness and perpetual virginity and heavenly assumption, Marian co-redemptrix, confession of sins to priests and not Christ alone, adoration of manmade relics, etc...

What Paul's missionary travels do discuss, are the same teachings and doctrines that mainstream protestantism believes, and still holds true to this day, as the believers of Paul's day did. Christ, Christ, Christ, and His Word as the determining factor if something is so or not; as opposed to vain traditions of men.

But we're really glad you are reading Acts...looking to see what the churches of Paul's day taught. That's aan excellent start! (Just don't started adding extra-RCC dogma to Acts, and you'll be doing great!!!)

p.s.
one_lost_coin,
Take a minute to go back and re-read post #15 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1967757&postcount=15) before choose to reply again in this thread. If you have any uncertainty whatsoever, feel welcomed as before, to start a thread in the Chat-to-Moderators forum for more specific discussion and explanation.

HHhhhmmm....Nope. None of Paul's missionary travels discuss or advance RCC beliefs like pergatory, indulgences, transubstantiation and salvation alone through the mass, dead prayer intercessors, living popes being the mediators between man and God, papal infallability, immaculate conception, Marian sinlessness and perpetual virginity and heavenly assumption, Marian co-redemptrix, confession of sins to priests and not Christ alone, adoration of manmade relics, etc...

What Paul's missionary travels do discuss, are the same teachings and doctrines that mainstream protestantism believes, and still holds true to this day, as the believers of Paul's day did. Christ, Christ, Christ, and His Word as the determining factor if something is so or not; as opposed to vain traditions of men.

But we're really glad you are reading Acts...looking to see what the churches of Paul's day taught. That's aan excellent start! (Just don't started adding extra-RCC dogma to Acts, and you'll be doing great!!!)

p.s.
one_lost_coin,
Take a minute to go back and re-read post #15 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1967757&postcount=15) before choose to reply again in this thread. If you have any uncertainty whatsoever, feel welcomed as before, to start a thread in the Chat-to-Moderators forum for more specific discussion and explanation.Using Acts is not the best way to demonstrate what those churches believed because Luke does not go into details about that. But the writings from the Early Church Fathers do demonstrate what the Early Church believed, which is totally Catholic. We have tons of writings that go all the way back to men who were taught by the Apostles, and lo and behold they were Catholics.

Using Acts is not the best way to demonstrate what those churches believed because Luke does not go into details about that. But the writings from the Early Church Fathers do demonstrate what the Early Church believed, which is totally Catholic. We have tons of writings that go all the way back to men who were taught by the Apostles, and lo and behold they were Catholics.

Many of the ECF were Christians.

'Catholic', used in a general sense denoting the universal group of all Christians is fine.

'Catholic' used as the modern common understanding of the RCC is not what you portray it as.

Peter nor the ECF that soon thereafter followed him had no idea what a pope was, what purgatory was, what the assumption or perpetual virginity of Mary was, or many of the much later RCC originated doctrines.


p.s.
Mac, be sure to re-read post #15 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1967757&postcount=15) of this thread also, before replying if you feel compelled to reply.

Thanks DT for the encouragement in reading Acts. I have really come to enjoy reading the bible and have made it a daily habit for the past 3 years going through the entire bible each year. I just started going through my reading plan for this new year and just finished Acts yesterday. It is amazing how many things you pick up new from year to year. It has been a real joy in my life.

Here are a few other verses I have come across in my reading.

Acts Chapter 19 11: And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12: so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.

1 Cor 3:13: each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.14: If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.15: If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

John Chapter 20 23: If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

1 Corinthians Chapter 11 26: For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30: That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Romans Chapter 8 (vfps://SectionID/4755): 39: nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord...
1 John Chapter 5 16: If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.

Beautiful verses. (albeit an odd, unrelated combination of them).

Thanks for sharing them.

Many of the ECF were Christians.

'Catholic', used in a general sense denoting the universal group of all Christians is fine.

'Catholic' used as the modern common understanding of the RCC is not what you portray it as.

Peter nor the ECF that soon thereafter followed him had no idea what a pope was, what purgatory was, what the assumption or perpetual virginity of Mary was, or many of the much later RCC originated doctrines.


p.s.
Mac, be sure to re-read post #15 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1967757&postcount=15) of this thread also, before replying if you feel compelled to reply.Given the chance I could show you that you are mistaken, I'm sitting on a pile of Church Fathers writings that I can show you. But something tells me that it won't happen.

Given the chance I could show you that you are mistaken, I'm sitting on a pile of Church Fathers writings that I can show you. But something tells me that it won't happen.

I've read alot of the pre-nicene ECF, and they've not convinced me to embrace the unique teachings of the RCC yet, but maybe one day I'll venture to a RCC discussion board, and you can share your research for their historical origins there. Not interested in introducing RCC doctrinal apologetics here, on this board however...the owner has made it clear to me it is a Mainstream Protestant board of which those type of views aren't held to.

I've read alot of the pre-nicene ECF, and they've not convinced me to embrace the unique teachings of the RCC yet, but maybe one day I'll venture to a RCC discussion board, and you can share your research for their historical origins there. Not interested in introducing RCC doctrinal apologetics here, on this board however...the owner has made it clear to me it is a Mainstream Protestant board of which those type of views aren't held to.Fair enough.:thumbsup:

I used to be a roman catholic, it was by reading the bible that I took my faith off of religion, saints, Mary, pergatory and the like and followed what the bible teaches.

I used to be a roman catholic, it was by reading the bible that I took my faith off of religion, saints, Mary, pergatory and the like and followed what the bible teaches.
Amen! Praise the Lord!

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. (Galatians 5:1)

I used to be a roman catholic, it was by reading the bible that I took my faith off of religion, saints, Mary, pergatory and the like and followed what the bible teaches.

I find it rather strange when people say this. It wouldn't be very clever for the RCC to include books in the canon which people say is apposed to what it teaches.

Is it just me or wouldn't that be incredibly dumb?:hmm:

I can just imagine them sitting around deciding on the canon, and someone interjects. "But hold on, why are we including these books when they don't agree with what we teach?"

"I don't think anyone will notice, and if they do we'll just make stuff up.":lol:

the apocrapha is actually called the deuterocanical books which means that it came later. For many years it was used as inspiring books and historical books on the maccabean revolution. It wasnt till much later that they where added, around the 1600's i believe, and still it was to be taken the same, but then it was integrated in the real bible and used as divine.

The same goes for doctrine, its just continued to build up more and more junk especially after constantine which brought the idea of church as a people and tryed to change it to a building.

The same thing happened to the Jews they got so obsessed with law, that that became their religion, in fact the commentary on the Torah became more important than the Torah itself. Still true to this day, in fact many believe you can believe in any of these three by themselves and still get salvation: Torah, God, or the church.

Just like the RCC they are not gonna change because they like the RCC believe they have it right and done care to let down their pride or doctrine long enough to rexamine

the apocrapha is actually called the deuterocanical books which means that it came later. For many years it was used as inspiring books and historical books on the maccabean revolution. It wasnt till much later that they where added, around the 1600's i believe, and still it was to be taken the same, but then it was integrated in the real bible and used as divine.

The same goes for doctrine, its just continued to build up more and more junk especially after constantine which brought the idea of church as a people and tryed to change it to a building.

The same thing happened to the Jews they got so obsessed with law, that that became their religion, in fact the commentary on the Torah became more important than the Torah itself. Still true to this day, in fact many believe you can believe in any of these three by themselves and still get salvation: Torah, God, or the church.

Just like the RCC they are not gonna change because they like the RCC believe they have it right and done care to let down their pride or doctrine long enough to rexamine

I don't know where to start with this one.

From the NRSV(Catholic Edition)

The Roman Catholic canon, which was fixed by the time of the Council of Hippo in 393 and reaffirmed by the two Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419, was formally defined by the Council of Trent in 1546.

The deuterocanonical/apocryphal books were also included in the KJV bible,( in a separate section) for hundreds of years, before they were removed.

The deuterocanonical/apocryphal books were also included in the KJV bible,( in a separate section) for hundreds of years, before they were removed.

A bit misleading here.

The Apocrypha was included as jewish history, not as inspired canon, in the early KJV translations.

King James himself stated in 1616 that they inclusion of the apocrypha was not as inspired Scriptural canon.

"As for the Scriptures, no man doubteth I will believe them. But even for the Apocrypha, I hold them in the same accompt that the Ancients did. They are still printed and bound with our Bibles, and publicly read in our churches. I reverence them as the writings of holy and good men. But since they are not found in the Canon, we accompt them to be secundae lectionis or ordinis (which is Bellarmine's own distinction) and therefore not sufficient whereupon alone to ground any Article of Faith, except it be confirmed by some other place of Canonical Scripture; concluding this point with Rufinus (who is no Novelist, I hope) that the Apocryphal books were by the Fathers permitted to be read, not for confirmation of doctrine, but only for instruction of the people." refrence (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1616james1.html)

My church is in the Protestant tradition, and I'm happy with that. I think Luther and the Reformation took the right track in splitting off from the RCC.

Yet many of the Christian writers who have helped me most have been Catholics. :hmm:

Though I don't agree with them on many doctrines, I have great respect and love for my Catholic and Orthodox brethren.

I was a Catholic from the time of my infant baptism up until I was 15, when I became an atheist who had an intense interest in Satanism/Occultism (despite being a committed non-theist). I tried going back to the RCC when I was 20, but after two weeks couldn't do it, and was an agnostic who periodically dabbled in Satanism (Anton LaVey variety, humanistic philosophy centered around man's carnality and the individual's self-created destiny) up until I was saved at 23.

I find it rather strange when people say this. It wouldn't be very clever for the RCC to include books in the canon which people say is apposed to what it teaches.

Is it just me or wouldn't that be incredibly dumb?:hmm:

I can just imagine them sitting around deciding on the canon, and someone interjects. "But hold on, why are we including these books when they don't agree with what we teach?"

"I don't think anyone will notice, and if they do we'll just make stuff up.":lol:

Actually that is precisely what did happen.Not with the inclusion of books per se, but certainly with regards to church authority over interpretation of scripture and the teaching of traditions that contradicted the scripture.

And the excuse used for differing practice by the RCC as opposed to what is taught in scripture is the claim that the traditions as taught by the church take precedence over God's word. The council of Trent confirmed this, and used the observance of Sunday and protestants acceptance of Sunday as evidence that tradition supersedes even God's commandments, something with which Luther and his contempories could not argue.

Catholicism is pure wrong. Bible calls it "Satan's replacement Church" (in Rev 17/18 - hence catholics reverse matt 16:18).

I wrote extensive articles "exposing" their doctrines, I'm still writing more of course:
Peter isn't the rock: http://christkeep.com/articles/peter_myths.html
Praying to saints exposed: http://christkeep.com/articles/praying_to_saints_exposed.html
Peter wasn't in rome: http://christkeep.com/articles/1peter513.html
Eucharist exposed: http://christkeep.com/articles/eucharist_exposed.html

The reason why catholicism is *bad* is because it's works salvation which nullifies the cross and renders you unsaved, hence Matthew 5:20 (i.e. earning your way to heaven through sacraments and rituals - thus distracting you from the bible and you never grow in the Word and remain a SPIRITUAL BABY).

The Catechism is also the most heretical thing you'll ever read, pure garbage like this:


841 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/4/X2.HTM) The Church (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/K.HTM)'s relationship (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/H4.HTM) with the Muslims (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/4/9L.HTM). "The plan (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/8D.HTM) of salvation (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/3G.HTM) also includes (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/OM.HTM) those who acknowledge (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/X3.HTM) the Creator (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/7D.HTM), in the first place (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/6F.HTM) amongst whom are the Muslims (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/4/9L.HTM); these profess (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/WD.HTM) to hold (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/VL.HTM) the faith (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/1C.HTM) of Abraham (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/FM.HTM), and together with us they adore (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/1/6H.HTM) the one, merciful (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/PS.HTM) God (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/7.HTM), mankind (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/VD.HTM)'s judge (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/Z0.HTM) on the last day (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/42.HTM)
Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM)


Catholics also (58% of them) believe in evolution and say muslims "worship the same God - but ignorantly." Yeah, no, Christ isn't "allah," sorry.

I prefer Christians like King James or Edward de Vere - you can learn a lot of good things (King James quotes lots of verses in his writings too, doesn't state things in air - and also expounds on information that has been lost today in modern times). Some Catholics have good stuff - but too ecumenical and doesn't get down to the truth! King James/ de Vere weren't afraid to write about the truth:

"holy-water (whereby the Devil mocks the Papists)" - King James, Daemonologie
"long prayers, and much muttering and murmuring of the conjurers; like a Papist priest, dispatching a hunting Mass" - King James, Daemonologie
"To be so straightly drawn together, and yet feel no pain; I think it is so contrary to the quality of a natural body, and so like to the little transubstantiate god in the Papists’ Mass, that I can never believe it" - King James, Daemonologie
"And therefore as in the time of Papistry, our fathers erring grossly, and through ignorance, that mist of errors overshadowed the Devil to walk the more familiarly amongst them" - King James, Daemonologie
"the Admiral in France [Gaspard de Coligny] was an eyesore or beam in the eyes of the papists" - Edward de Vere, letter to William Cecil, 1572

Catholics always state things that aren't in the bible, and to support this practice, they simply LOCK their followers into believing that you must be subject to the pope otherwise you're not "interpreting" things correctly, like this:

*Attend Mass every week. To deliberately miss Mass on Saturday vigil or on Sunday, is a mortal sin.
*Go to Confession at least once a year if in mortal sin. A mortal sin is a sin against any one of the Ten Commandments. The CCC has distinct references to mortal and venial sins.
See, they have to refer to the catechism because the bible doesn't include any of their silly doctrines. The catechism came WAY after the bible - God never authored it, no apostles never wrote it - just a bunch of priests with *dagon* hats. (they don't add that CHRIST is the sabbath, so there are only 9 commandments in action - so they live like old testament Jews too - being under the CURSE of the law that Christ removed in Galatians 3:13).

PS:
Martin luther said it was MANDATORY to be baptised in order to be saved, and also mocked the bible (like Jonah and Esther) saying it "could use improvements." King James on the other hand said we're ONLY saved by faith, and, that the bible is infallible (otherwise you're not a Christian in all honestly):

"and that in the Scriptures (which must be an infallible ground to all true Christians)" - King James, Daemonologie
"that since we could not be saved by doing, we might, at least, be saved by believing." - King James, Basilikon Doron

Most of the problems with the RCC stem from early adherents attempting to synchronize certain philosophies with the church. For instance, Aquinas - although incredible - attempted to synchronize Aristotle with Church doctrine. Though there's nothing wrong in relying on philosophy, but at some point we have to say a certain philosophy is wrong. The RCC, in some instances, failed to accomplish this early on, thus leading to some erroneous doctrines.

There's other complications as well, but that is the most predominate one.

Aquinas - although incredible - attempted to synchronize Aristotle with Church doctrine. Though there's nothing wrong in relying on philosophy, but at some point we have to say a certain philosophy is wrong.

Yes you are right on the dime! King James knew there were good philosophers, and those who are profane:

"Read the Prophets, and likewise the books of the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, written by that great pattern of wisdom Salomon, which will not only serve you for instruction, how to walk in the obedience of the Law of God, but is also so full of golden sentences, and moral precepts, in all things that can concern your conversation in the world, as among all the profane Philosophers and Poets, ye shall not find so rich a storehouse of precepts of natural wisdom, agreeing with the will and divine wisdom of God." - King James, Basilikon Doron
Edward de Vere was a poet , you could say he invented many English words and set the prose for the King James Bible (I'm not going to get into that - Catholics defrauded de Vere heavily), but, de Vere called King James the "true shephred of Christ's flock," so, here we have a distinguish between truth/fiction.

It's also important to note that, King James sought a large distinction between poetry and Bible. He didn't confuse the two:

"...and many words of God, confusedly wrapped in; they blindly glory of themselves, as if they had by their quickness of ingine, made a conquest of Pluto’s dominion, and were become Emperors over the Stygian habitacles." - King James, Daemonologie
[King James was explaining the nature of conjurers and what they do; one attribute is CONFUSING the Words of God within their pagan practices: that is what Aquinas was doing, Aquinas could have learned a thing or two from King James...]

I like how Edward de Vere put it:


"For truth is truth, though never so old, and time cannot make that false which was once true." - Edward de Vere"

between truth/fiction.

It's also important to note that, King James sought a large distinction between poetry and Bible. He didn't confuse the two:


I agree with most of your statements about the RCC. I was baptized a catholic like most of my family. The Lord Jesus brought me out(and my brother) by sovereign acts of Grace. However, I am a bit confused about your references to King James in this and other threads. You seem to have him on some pedestal. It's almost as if you think he was an infallible church authoritarian instead of a somewhat despotic king.:confused

I agree with most of your statements about the RCC. I was baptized a catholic like most of my family. The Lord Jesus brought me out(and my brother) by sovereign acts of Grace. However, I am a bit confused about your references to King James in this and other threads. You seem to have him on some pedestal. It's almost as if you think he was an infallible church authoritarian instead of a somewhat despotic king.:confused

Can you elaborate on what you mean by, "The Lord Jesus brought me out?"

I find that a strange statement because i had exactly the opposite experience.

I also feel this way, and in the new testament, the book of Romans, is that basically speaking to the roman catholic religion?

I also feel this way, and in the new testament, the book of Romans, is that basically speaking to the roman catholic religion?
Ah, no. Paul was writing to the group of believers in Rome during his lifetime, long before there was anything resembling a Roman Catholic Church.

For instance, Aquinas - although incredible

I just found this, Thomas Aquinas wanted to do a LOT MORE than synchronize pagan beliefs:

[Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 11, A. 3, 4]: ‘. . . they [heretics] deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. . . . much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. . . . after the first and second admonition, . . . if he [the heretic] is yet stubborn . . . [the Church] . . . by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.’
Titus 3:10 doesn't say to KILL people! It says to avoid them... Oh my... Aquinas was a very backwards fellow who couldn't read the Bible if it hit him, nothing but ecumenicalism wrapped up in hatred.

I agree with most of your statements about the RCC. I was baptized a catholic like most of my family. The Lord Jesus brought me out(and my brother) by sovereign acts of Grace. However, I am a bit confused about your references to King James in this and other threads. You seem to have him on some pedestal. It's almost as if you think he was an infallible church authoritarian instead of a somewhat despotic king.:confused

I highly admire King James - simply because his accuracy with scriptures, and, the truth he says which no one ever reads anymore. It takes a lot to authorize a standard Bible like the AV 1611.

King James was not despotic... he was very JUST and wise with ruling - people distort and deform what he did.
I again quote from Daemonologie:


“Judges ought indeed to beware whom they condemn: For it is as great a crime (as SALOMON saith,) To condemn the innocent, as to let the guilty escape free.”

James knew the merits of judging improperly... Many don't realize the events that occured then - the Jesuits like to distort it all (which is why he calls them pernicious vermin).

Yet many of the Christian writers who have helped me most have been Catholics. :hmm:


I love Madame Guyon and I think her revelation of the cross supersedes any since the Apostle Paul.
I have also read Molinos and Fenelon but I just have to mention that although all three were devout catholics the church persecuted them heavily.


Can you elaborate on what you mean by, "The Lord Jesus brought me out?"

I find that a strange statement because i had exactly the opposite experience.


When i was in the catholic church I had no relationship with God at all. No one in my family did. We went to mass on sundays(sometimes) and then did whatever we want. I meet a young christian on Ft lauderdale beach when I was down there partying one night. I heard the gospel of salvation by faith and gave my life to God. Since that time I have understood that I don't need a priest or a pope to confess my sins to. I confess them directly to Jesus. This has resulted in an amazing relationship between he and I . I love him with my whole heart and I know he feels the same way towards me. It's pretty awesome.
Now perhaps you can share your opposite experience?

I just found this, Thomas Aquinas wanted to do a LOT MORE than synchronize pagan beliefs:

Titus 3:10 doesn't say to KILL people! It says to avoid them... Oh my... Aquinas was a very backwards fellow who couldn't read the Bible if it hit him, nothing but ecumenicalism wrapped up in hatred.

Have you read his Summa. Though I am highly critical of Aquinas' attempt to synchronize Christianity with Aristotelian philosophy (Scholasticism), he also had quite a bit of good things to say. Though I see him as the beginning of the divide between nature (reason) and grace (unreasonable), and I do agree that he adopted many nonChristian beliefs, I don't think we can just throw him away. He says quite a bit of good as well.

I highly admire King James - simply because his accuracy with scriptures, and, the truth he says which no one ever reads anymore. It takes a lot to authorize a standard Bible like the AV 1611.

What truth was that? I mean, I read his translation almost everyday and I have whole books of the bible memorized in that translation. Is there something else you are referring to? Do you mean the Basilicon Doron or the Daemonologie?


King James was not despotic... he was very JUST and wise with ruling - people distort and deform what he did.
I again quote from Daemonologie:

James knew the merits of judging improperly... Many don't realize the events that occured then - the Jesuits like to distort it all (which is why he calls them pernicious vermin).

Sir Walter Raleigh might disagree with you but perhaps you are right, "despot" is too strong a word. I just struggle with anyone who rights a whole treatise on the "divine rights of kings"

When i was in the catholic church I had no relationship with God at all. No one in my family did. We went to mass on sundays(sometimes) and then did whatever we want. I meet a young christian on Ft lauderdale beach when I was down there partying one night. I heard the gospel of salvation by faith and gave my life to God. Since that time I have understood that I don't need a priest or a pope to confess my sins to. I confess them directly to Jesus. This has resulted in an amazing relationship between he and I . I love him with my whole heart and I know he feels the same way towards me. It's pretty awesome.
Now perhaps you can share your opposite experience?


It's a long story, basically one part of it was that i was instinctively espousing very profound Catholic ideas and theology without ever having read official Church teachings from a very early age.

I was debating with Latin speaking seasoned Catholics and was proving them wrong from official Church teachings without ever havn't read them. I remembered thinking of Luke12:12 when i discovered them.

It's a long story, basically one part of it was that i was instinctively espousing very profound Catholic ideas and theology without ever having read official Church teachings from a very early age.

I was debating with Latin speaking seasoned Catholics and was proving them wrong from official Church teachings without ever havn't read them. I remembered thinking of Luke12:12 when i discovered them.


What kind of catholic ideas?

What kind of catholic ideas?

We were arguing about the nature of the Church, and i said it was comparable to the mystery of the Trinity. I was told to stop making stupid comparisons, then i found the same comparison in the Second Vatican Council. Regarding contraception i was in agreement with the RCC from a very early age, and read what i had already believed in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which my father just happened to get, even though he is not religious.

What truth was that? I mean, I read his translation almost everyday and I have whole books of the bible memorized in that translation. Is there something else you are referring to? Do you mean the Basilicon Doron or the Daemonologie?
Sir Walter Raleigh might disagree with you but perhaps you are right, "despot" is too strong a word. I just struggle with anyone who rights a whole treatise on the "divine rights of kings"

King James wrote more than just BasiliKon Doron and Daemonologie.
Note: Greek doesn't have a "c," so Basilikon should be spelled with a K.
One particular writing I enjoy was King James' meditation on Revelation, and also the speech at the hampton court. I wish to obtain his numerous letters; which is a task I shall endure later. Alot of the lies I read on the internet conflict with eachother and are plain ridiculous (some people say King James was a catholic, a jesuit, a freemason, a homosexual, a rosicrucian, and the list goes on) - James in his writings refutes all of this. Daemonologie is very well written, I am astounded at the wit.

Raleigh brought TOBACCO into England! Raleigh LIED to King James and created the myth "el dorado" that we're so accustomed to. James did give Raleigh many chances, and finally, Raleigh attacked a Spanish outpost (withouth the King's consent) and placed the alliance with Spain in peril, so Raleigh was ultimately executed in the end - it was the Spanish who demanded his execution, not King James.

James wrote "a counterblaste to tobacco" to give some insight to how bad it was.