Diabolical takeover of the Catholic Church.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

In the 16th century, Luther and Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church for their own reasons. It was a very serious blow to the Church but it survived.

In the 18th century Lucifer stepped in, usig the freemasons as his tool. "Why break away from the outside, when we can take over from the inside". So the plan went into motion infiltrating with their priest, who became bishops, and eventually became pope.

Because of men like Pius 9th and Pius 10th, their plan was slowed down, but along came vatican two,and the opportunity was there.

They did not need one of their own to be a pope but better yet one whose mind was bainwashed by them. They got four.

Now they control the Vatican and just about the whole Catholic world.

The traditionals are doing their best to keep thhe faith, but being human and without a pope they bicker constantly. At least they offer the true Mass and sacraments.

How will we get another true pope? God holds tha amswer and we must just pray a lot. If it happens in our time that is fine, but if not let us pass on what we do have.

-- TC (Teadmill234@south.com), January 15, 2005

Answers

bump

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 15, 2005.

The current popes have destroyed the sacraments of consecration and ordination. They have gone against all the popes prior to V2. Their plan was, and is, to destroy the Catholic Church.

The following hopefully simplifies this argument – an argument which, in reality, is very simple – so that more people will internalize how it totally devastates any claim that the word “all” can validly replace “many” in the words of Consecration. This is by far the strongest argument on this particular matter.

In his famous Bull, Apostolicae Curae in 1896, Pope Leo XIII teaches:

“All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify.”

Neither "new form" meets that standard.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 15, 2005.


Why would post V2 Popes "want" to destroy the Church? What would be their motive?

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 15, 2005.

Jim;

That I do not know, and I don't have to know it. Our Lord warned us that "By their fruits you shall know them". What are the fruits of V2?

Our Lady of La Salette told us that "Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ. Worrisome words for what the church is going through right now.

If nothing else, let us pray a rosary every day for the good of the Church.When the rascals have turned to dust the Church will still be here.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 15, 2005.


the New Order are trying to do for you can't gather figs from thorns or grapes from bramble bushes and that is exactly what the Novus Ordo is a bramble bush full of thorns, bitter thorns that have pierced the sensibilities of so many Catholics. Those Brer Rabbits who have asked for this are getting exactly what they asked for. But the longer it continues and the more they call out for help, instead of being offered the true Bread of Life in the indefectable Immemorial Mass of All Ages are offered the stones of heresy and anathema, instead of being offered the fish of penance and uncompromising Faith they are offered a serpent, the very serpent that will get his head crushed by Our Lady. But until then he slithers and coils everywhere and nowhere is he more present than in today's modern Church. Thus, rather than totally solving the problem, totally eliminating the source of evil, these purveyors of Vatican II only taunt God more by stubbornly persisting in their fated course, by applying more bandages on an incurable cancer. Pretty soon even the bandaids won't stick any more. They can't. It's the slippery slope and I personally want no part of the New Order. I truly believe as time moves on more and more Catholics are coming to the same realization and affirmation of that same conclusion.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 16, 2005.


TC?

I am curious as to why you only recognize that Satan is in this Church since Vatican II?

You don't acknowledge the obvious presence of this evil from the time of the begining?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 16, 2005.


Faith;

Surely Satan has been around since the garden of eden, but the church has successfully resisted him.

He could not hurt the church from the outside, but he finally has gotten some of his disciples on the inside. The Freemasons for one.

These people do not think, (for the most part) that they are doing Satan's work. Judas did not know that but he still did it. Satan does not want his"employees" to know who the boss is. He is satisfied with the results.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 16, 2005.


Okay TC,

But that doesn't answer my question. You only seem to recognize Satan's influence into your Church since Vatican II.

What about those barbaric middle ages, when the papacy ran more like the mob?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 16, 2005.


What about those barbaric middle ages

When we treated heretics the old fashioned way...we burned them.

*sigh*

I was born way too late.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 16, 2005.


I think your Church considers you the heretic.

How to avoid heresy according to God's Word:

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Col 1:12

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 16, 2005.



Wow! that sounds like Protestantism, Faith. Oops! my interpretion running rampant.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 17, 2005.


Faith

at which point in time do you consider the Church to have become Satanic?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 17, 2005.


I don't think the Roman Catholic Church is Satanic particularly, Ian. I think there are many good Christians in that Church.

I think many of the teachings are devised by demonic influence.

Even Paul warned that this was occuring at the start.

But I think that Rome added a great deal of this false teaching to the church of Jesus Christ at the time of Constatine.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 17, 2005.


i ask you Faith because you said this: "You only seem to recognize Satan's influence into your Church since Vatican II..... What about those barbaric middle ages, when the papacy ran more like the mob?"

as you hang at least something on the behaviour of the Church or its people through time, i'm just wondering whether there is a particular event in history that you asscoiate with "Satanic influence"?

if Constantine is yr answer, fair do's. we'll take it from there.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 17, 2005.


I don't think the Protestant Church is Satanic particularly, Faith. I think there are many good Christians in that church. I think many of the teachings are devised by demonic influence.

Even Paul warned that this was occuring at the start.

But I think that The Great Reformation added a great deal of this false teaching to the church of Jesus Christ at the time of Luther.

Hmmm.....interesting.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 17, 2005.



Rod

a big Lol!!!

is there a technical term for this kind of argumentation. i think of it as a "two-wayism". i'm sure it has a technical name. Greenspun is bursting at the seams with two-wayisms.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 17, 2005.


Actually, Rod, you make a great point! When one P.D. projects one particular teaching, and the next one down the street teaches something completely contrary, at least one is based on abject heresy! And yet, they all "seem" to be based on scripture, at least some scripture!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2005.

Or, more accurately, based on someone's personal interpretation of some scripture. In many cases both of the conflicting beliefs are based on someone's personal interpretation of exactly the same scripture. And still, they see no problem, since they know their own interpretation is the correct one.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2005.

Your problem Paul,

Is that you don't recognize that by *private* the Scriptures were condemning institutionalizing the Scriptures to serve your own end.

The catholic Church has its own private interpretation of the Scripture--to which, if the faithful disagree, they are excommunicated. The same is true of the Mormon Church and the jehovah Witnesses.

On the other-hand, Jesus Himself commands us to know the Scriptures. He holds us individually accountable and expects that we can know what God is saying to us.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 17, 2005.


you're not being very ecumenical Paul.

"Inter-religious dialogue, which is part of the Church's evangelizing mission,6 requires an **attitude of understanding** and a relationship of mutual knowledge and **reciprocal enrichment**, in obedience to the truth and with respect for freedom." Dominus Iesus.

call yourself a Catholic ;-))

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 17, 2005.


Ian,

I am talking about the papacy in the middle ages.

They murdered each other to obtain that seat. Bastard sons inherired that seat from their fathers...etc. Surely you know the history.

What about when two men both claimed the seat at the same time, and then a battle broke out between them and the seat was won by the sword?

Could this possibly be the work of God? I don't think so.

Popes were both installed and deposed by imperial armies or Roman mobs! More than one pope was murdered by a jealous husband who found him in bed with his wife--hardly an apostolic succession in my mind.

Look up the history of popes Ursinus and Damasus.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 17, 2005.


faith

just asking, that's all. and thanks for yr answers.

presumably, up to some point, you are OK with the Church - and had you been alive at that time, you would have been in the Church?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 17, 2005.


I would gladly be in the early church...yes. The church I am in now looks a lot like those early days.

But in truth--the real church of Jesus Christ is not contained in any one religion on this earth. It isn't Roman or Lutheran or Calvinistic or Church of Christ or anything you could name.

I know this because His Body is a mystery--a body of true believers, whom He knows. He said we could not be divided and I believe that we are not divided--but united in Christ.

All earthly institutions are divided up and that includes the Catholic religion--even though I know that the Catholic Church would deny it.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 17, 2005.


Faith??

Are you really in that mystical body? You can sit in your church and know that your "church" does not stand divided? If that is true, than why isn't the entire body attending your Bible classes?

Are there billions of members to your church? Explain.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 17, 2005.


I do not claim that everybody in my church is a born-again Christian who belongs to Christ. Not even close!

There are both believers and non-believers in every church you could go into.

My church is not the true church of Jesus Christ in and of itself. But I am confident that it pleases God. I know that many people do come to a saving faith in our church--due to the preaching of God's Word.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 17, 2005.


"My church is not the true church of Jesus Christ in and of itself."--Faith.

I would highly recommend that you leave that church if that is a true statement, Faith. If I were to ask Kevin, Elpidio, Paul M., or Rev. Fretz the same, their answers would resound across every mountain with great certainty in their church/Church.

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 17, 2005.


Well rod.,

I understand that the true church of Jesus Christ is a called-out body of believers--and not any earthly institution on the face of this earth.

Kevin, Elpidio, Paul M., Rev. Fretz, or David for that matter--can't all be right. I suspect that non of them are right. If Christ's church is an earthly institution then He was wrong when He said that His body could not be divided. There has been nothing but division since the begining.

The only way that His words could be true--is if His church is spiritual. We are those who are born-again.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 17, 2005.


The only problem with that, Faith, is that scripture ITSELF says that the Church is the foundation and pillar of the truth!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2005.

You think that the church that Paul is describing is the Roman Catholic Church?

1 Timothy 3 Overseers and Deacons

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, selfcontrolled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap. Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:

He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 17, 2005.


Also., I think that the pillar and foundation of truth is the living God Himself. Jesus is the Rock..God is the rock.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 17, 2005.

Faith, you need to re-align your thinking according to what is revealed in scripture, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Church, Christ Jesus being the Chief Cornerstone.

You asked whether I think what you described above is the RCC? The answer is ABSOLUTELY!

The "appointments" began as recognized in Titus Chap 1, verse 5: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,

Then from the earliest recorded writings of the Church leaders, the appointments continued,

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore- knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome,Pope,1st Epistle to the Corinthians,44:1- 2 (c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:17.

"Accordingly,elect for yourselves bishops and deacons,men who are an honor to the Lord,of gentle disposition,not attached to money,honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers." Didache(c.A.D. 140),in ACW,6:24

"SEE THAT YE ALL FOLLOW THE BISHOP, EVEN AS JESUS CHRIST DOES THE FATHER, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything CONNECTED WITH THE CHURCH WITHOUT THE BISHOP. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyraens,8 (c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89-90.

NOTE: Ignatius sat directly under the tutelage of St. John the Apostle!

Glad you asked!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2005.


Gail,

you say:

You asked whether I think what you described above is the RCC? The answer is ABSOLUTELY!

How could that be?

Your priests don't marry or have families for one thing.

....Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..

You also have a funny way of capitalizing the word church even when the Scriptures do not.

There was no head church back then. There were local churches and we see in the book of Acts, how these churches should function. Today--a great many churches follow this protocol. I don't see that the Roman Catholic Church is one of them.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 17, 2005.


Who says an Overseer is a priest? Does your church have an official called an "Overseer"?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2005.

In fact, many Catholic priests are married, and none of them has more than one wife, in strict adherence to this biblical principle, which like all biblical principles was a teaching of the Church before it found its way into the Bible. The verse is not a requirement that priests be married, but rather a proscription against polygamy!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 18, 2005.

Not only that, but St. Paul himself gives very good advice when he says "it would be better that you remain like me."

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2005.

The Catholic church has priests. The newchurch has Presidents of the assembly.

Truly ,that is the new official title for what used to be called priests.

-- TC (Treadmill@south.com), January 18, 2005.


But Paul--

Your church requires celebacy. No?

So how could that be the same church Paul was addressing? The church Paul was addressing didn't practice celebacy as a rule for all priests., or overseeers as Paul refers to them.., Deacons etc...Bishops.., whatever you call leaders in a church.

The church in Paul's day looks more like the church I attend today, not the Roman Catholic Church.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 18, 2005.


That's presider, not president, and it is not an official title, but merely a description of a function. Is not the community gathered for worship an assembly? Does not the priest preside? So what's the problem??

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 18, 2005.

Faith, I don't think you answered me. Does your church have an official whose title is "Overseer"? Did he just "arrive" on the scene, appoint HIMSELF, and then find a gathering. Or did he go through a seminary and then find a church through that avenue; i.e. finding a church that would accept him after a "vote" by the congregation?

Doesn't St. Paul have a high view of celibacy even admonishing the Corinthians towards this lifestyle?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2005.


By overseer, Gail--

Doesn't Paul refer to the leaders of the church?

Obviously they didn't use the word priest?

It is still the same thing.

In my church--the leader is called a pastor.

Right now--we do not have a senior pastor. Our senior pastor was called to lead a church in Salt Lake City. Christianity is fighting a huge battle there against Mormonism.

I fail to see a reason for your questions.

Paul was a celibate by choice and admits that it isn't likely for most. He calls on the leaders to have but one wife.

It is clear that the early church did not look like the Roman Catholic Church.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 18, 2005.


And so how will you "choose" your new pastor?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2005.

We wait on God to send him to us. We will know him when he comes. He will need to meet a certain criteria of course...but it really God's call.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 18, 2005.

Is that way it was done in the N.T.?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2005.

I am sure that it must always be of God's will. Our church Elders and Deacons will choose the right man, just as they did back in the early days. It is no doubt done in a biblically correct fashion. The whole church is ultimately involved in this process as well.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 18, 2005.

Show me an instance in the N.T. where the whole congregation selected its pastor.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2005.

Pope Pius XI Because the validity of all the Sacraments in the Church rests to a great extent on the Priesthood, the revised Sacrament of Holy Orders bears close scrutiny. As with all Sacraments, matter, form and intention on the part of those receiving and administering the Sacrament is necessary for validity.

While the new rite of ordination issued by Rome contains nothing which explicity invalidates the sacrament it must be made clear that these rituals are not universally in use. This is especially true in America where each diocese and seminary is given free reign to improvise or invent the entire rite of ordination. Frequently bishops arriving to perform ordinations have no idea whatsoever of what they will be called upon to do.

The laying on of hands is frequently omitted in ordinations today even though the Church teaches that without the imposition of hands the Sacrament of Ordination is invalid. In a recent ordination ceremony on the East Coast the bishop did not lay on hands. This part of the ceremony was replaced with hand-clapping by those in attendance.

It is quite clear that in many cases neither the candidate nor the bishop intends to do what the Church intends of them. Frequently no mention is made of the character of the priesthood at ordinations. There have been ordination ceremonies where the word "priest" was never mentioned! Instead of ordaining a priest to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Order of Melchesidech we hear instead "you are now the president of the assembly", little different than if he had just been elected to the local PTA! To emphasize his role of president instead of priest, the local churches have installed a "president's chair" in front of the main altar where the tabernacle used to be. Where the priest once offered sacrifice to Almighty God, at the altar designed for that purpose, the "president" now presides over his congregation in true democratic fashion giving them equal status to himself and not daring to mention the words "Mass" or "sacrifice", and having as the object of his actions—the people, all the people and nothing but the people, with God conveniently forgotten in the chaotic shuffle.

The introduction of Modernism into seminaries has necessitated the removal of anything pertaining to transubstantiation. In fact, it is a rare thing today to find a priest ordained in the past few years who recognizes the term, much less one who can define or explain it! Transubstaniation is no longer taught because, in true Protestant fashion, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist has been reduced to a mere symbolic representation or a "memorial presence." This false notion of the Mass can easily be accepted by the most fundamental Protestant sect or even pagans. It is not uncommon to find a priest educated in the reformed seminaries, ordained under the new rite, celebrating according to the new ordo, who will openly admit that he does not believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is an undeniable fact that the validity of the orders of priests ordained under the new rite is questionable. It is increasingly difficult to find a priest who intends to do what the Church intends him to do regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Those who intend to inaugurate "presidents of the assembly" certainly have no intention of ordaining priests! A priest who has never been exposed to the Church's teachings regarding Christ's true presence in the Eucharist cannot be expected to treat the elements of his "banquet" differently than he would his breakfast, dinner or supper!

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 18, 2005.


I didn't say that the whole congregation selects the pastor, did I?

I said that the Elders do this.

The *members* of the church do take a vote in the end to approve the man chosen, or to voice their objections (there never are any) and then there will be a laying on of hands...etc.

Show Scripture that says otherwise.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 18, 2005.


TC?

Do you think that the apostolic succession would be valid when murder was committed to impose a certain person on the papal throne?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 18, 2005.


TC What are reformed seminaries? Do you mean anything after V2?

I personally know several youngish priests who believe in and can explain transubstantiation. One is a 2nd cousin of mine, a Jesuit who was ordained in the late 70's which would be "modern." The others are Jesuits in their mid 30's. They all understand and can explain it. Unless they can explain it, and only "say" they believe it--- but really, I can only take them at their word.

I have trouble believing that most priests under 50 would know less about Catholicism than me, unless your suggestion is an exageration to make a point, and I've taken it wrong. I'm often guilty of missing the point.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 18, 2005.


To Faith,

St. Paul instructs Titus in 1:5 to "appoint presbyters" and then sets for the criteria for that "appointment". There was a hierarchy being formed, Faith, and it's called "apostolic succession."

St. Clement emphasizes this "hierarchy" here:

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore- knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome,Pope,1st Epistle to the Corinthians,44:1- 2 (c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:17

Selecting a pastor through a form of democracy is not biblical.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2005.


Are you kidding Gail?

Democracy comes from the Bible!

The idea of democracy in government is actually taken from the biblical instruction on how to operate a church. America is a Christian nation and our Constitution and Declaration were drawn up by Christian men with the Bioble right at their side.

James Kennedy explains it pretty well in his book titled "What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?"

Titus 1 does not say anything that my church doesn't know and practice. It does however, not seem to be a picture of the Roman Catholic Church at all.

This really catches my attention, and it should yours as well:

1Timothy 4:1-5

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 18, 2005.


I guess you have no scriptural support, or examples from the N.T., for the way your church "votes" in pastors! Of course you wouldn't because there are none. Bishops appointed presbyters, just like how the RCC does it today!

You have no scriptures that clearly state (without your commentary) that there is a pre-2nd coming rapture.

You have no scripture to support birth control.

You have no scripture that states that the "Bible" is the "foundation and pillar of truth."

You have no scriptures that state water baptism is unnecessary or "ritualistic".

You have no scriptures that state we are saved by "faith alone".

All of this from someone who claims the Bible alone is her sole rule of faith!

Your Timothy quote is ridiculous. The RCC does not forbid its "people" to marry but regards marriage very highly, IT IS A SACRAMENT FOR CRYING-OUT LOUD! Nor does it "forbid" its "people" from eating certain foods. Please don't tell me your talking about fast days! We are commanded in scripture to fast.

I'll tell you what passage really catches my eye, and it should your's as well.

1 Corin 1:12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas, and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2005.


ooch., did I hit a sore spot? Why the ranting?

I have offered oodles of Scripture to support my beliefs--and you know it.

That's why you are mad.

You can say that I haven't, but a quick scroll down the pages will show otherwise.

We simply have differing revelation, that's all Gail.

I tried my best.

Now I need to get off this dang computer--for a time anyway.

Have a good night everyone.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 18, 2005.


TC What are reformed seminaries? Do you mean anything after V2

I have done a lot of reading concerning the new sacraments. I have one example that I can personally mention;

A seminaary in my area used to ordain an average of 60 priests per yer. (so I have read).

Last year they ordained one.

Is it that young men do not want to become priests... ho. How otherwise do the traditional seminaries ordain abundant piests.

Take the SSPV society. They have 6 priests and 1 bishop. How many in their seminary? 10. Same With SSPX. What does that say?

To me it says hat a man wants to be a priest and not a president of an assembly. He wants to be special and not paart of the crowd.

He wants to hear the words "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven. He wants to hear the words, "Receive the power to offer sacrifice".

It is not enough to tell him that it is implied since the 1968 ceremonies. He wants to hear it specicified.

-- TC (Teadmill234@south.com), January 19, 2005.


'But in truth--the real church of Jesus Christ is not contained in any one religion on this earth. It isn't Roman or Lutheran or Calvinistic or Church of Christ or anything you could name.

I know this because His Body is a mystery--a body of true believers, whom He knows. He said we could not be divided and I believe that we are not divided--but united in Christ.

All earthly institutions are divided up and that includes the Catholic religion--even though I know that the Catholic Church would deny it. '

[correct]-sdqa

'See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Col 1:12 '

[correct]-sdqa

'Is that you don't recognize that by *private* the Scriptures were condemning institutionalizing the Scriptures to serve your own end.

The catholic Church has its own private interpretation of the Scripture--to which, if the faithful disagree, they are excommunicated. The same is true of the Mormon Church and the jehovah Witnesses.

On the other-hand, Jesus Himself commands us to know the Scriptures. He holds us individually accountable and expects that we can know what God is saying to us.'

[correct again]-sdqa

'The only way that His words could be true--is if His church is spiritual. We are those who are born-again. '

[correct again,church has never had to be interpreted literally]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 24, 2005.


roman catholicism isn't as it is today isn't based on the scriptures but on subjective manmade interpretations of it...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 24, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ