The Catholic Roots of Human Rights

[Dave...]

From your link

It is the purpose of this essay to show the evidence for the inauthenticity of this statement, and to show also what Cardinal Hosius really did have to say about anabaptists in his writings.

I decided to check all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters for references to the Anabaptists. The section in his "Opera Omnia" entitled "Liber Epistelarum" contains all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters, 277 in total, written in Latin. I have read through all of these letters, and in only 12 of them (letters XXVIII, XLI, XLIII, CV, CXVI, CXXVIII, CXXIX, CXXXIV, CL, CLVII, CLVIII, and CLX) is there any mention of the Anabaptists. In none of them is to be found the statement cited at the top. To all intents and purposes, this statement appears to be a fake.

Why would he write about someone that didn't exist in his time as you claimed earlier?

 

[stray bullet]

From your link

It is the purpose of this essay to show the evidence for the inauthenticity of this statement, and to show also what Cardinal Hosius really did have to say about anabaptists in his writings.

[quote:31e56]I decided to check all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters for references to the Anabaptists. The section in his "Opera Omnia" entitled "Liber Epistelarum" contains all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters, 277 in total, written in Latin. I have read through all of these letters, and in only 12 of them (letters XXVIII, XLI, XLIII, CV, CXVI, CXXVIII, CXXIX, CXXXIV, CL, CLVII, CLVIII, and CLX) is there any mention of the Anabaptists. In none of them is to be found the statement cited at the top. To all intents and purposes, this statement appears to be a fake.

Why would he write about someone that didn't exist in his time as you claimed earlier?[/quote:31e56]

I don't understand what you mean. The Anabaptists were created in the 16th Century.

 

[Dave...]

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

From your link

It is the purpose of this essay to show the evidence for the inauthenticity of this statement, and to show also what Cardinal Hosius really did have to say about anabaptists in his writings.


Quote:
I decided to check all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters for references to the Anabaptists. The section in his "Opera Omnia" entitled "Liber Epistelarum" contains all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters, 277 in total, written in Latin. I have read through all of these letters, and in only 12 of them (letters XXVIII, XLI, XLIII, CV, CXVI, CXXVIII, CXXIX, CXXXIV, CL, CLVII, CLVIII, and CLX) is there any mention of the Anabaptists. In none of them is to be found the statement cited at the top. To all intents and purposes, this statement appears to be a fake.

If Cardinal Hosius was President of the Council of Trent in 1524, and writing about anabaptists, how could your statement be true?

Stray bullet wrote:

I don't understand what you mean. The Anabaptists were created in the 16th Century.

 

[Andrew07]

bibleberean, is that a real pic and how in the world do they explain an upside down cross??
Here is a pic of the pope kissing the koran
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-pope-kissing-koran.jpg
And another one http://www.come2jesus.com.au/popeandmary.jpg, kind of weird?

 

[bibleberean]

bibleberean, is that a real pic and how in the world do they explain an upside down cross??
Here is a pic of the pope kissing the koran
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-pope-kissing-koran.jpg
And another one http://www.come2jesus.com.au/popeandmary.jpg, kind of weird?

That is a real picture.

Catholics explain the upside down cross by saying it represents the cross that the apostle Peter was supposed to have been crucified on.

The story is that Peter did not believe he was worthy to be crucified in the same manner as Jesus and requested that he be crucified upside down.

We have no way of knowing if that story is true or not.

The Pope according to Rome is a succesor to Peter.

However the upside down cross is really a satanic symbol.

Check this out...

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/anti5.htm

These symbols are always rationalized away.

Rome is buried in Satanic rituals and Babylonian symbols.

 

[stray bullet]

The upside-down crucifix is a satanic symbol.

The upside-down crucifix is a symbol of the Apostle Peter. Ever seen the Scottish flag? Saint Andrew was crucified sideways and this "X" is now on the Scottish flag, which was incorporated into the British flag.

The story of Saint Peter being crucified upsidedown was also recorded in the Acts of Peter, which was an agnostic text from the first centuries AD.

Bibleberean, I don't understand why you continue to repeat these things when we've showed they aren't true. As a Christian, don't you feel it is the right thing to only go around saying what you know is true, that way you don't spread myths and rumors?

 

[stray bullet]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/anti5.htm[/url]

These symbols are always rationalized away.

Rome is buried in Satanic rituals and Babylonian symbols.

Such as?

We've been using the upside-down cross as a symbol of Peter for 2000 years. How on earth did we get it from a book and poetry written recently? This is really silly.

Gay people use the rainbow now too, doees that mean the Christian symbol of the rainbow now has to be done away with?
The gays can't have our rainbow, given to us by God as a sign, no more than satanist can have the upside-down cross, which should be an upside-down crucifix.

 

[stray bullet]

From your link

It is the purpose of this essay to show the evidence for the inauthenticity of this statement, and to show also what Cardinal Hosius really did have to say about anabaptists in his writings.

[quote:7c3d5]I decided to check all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters for references to the Anabaptists. The section in his "Opera Omnia" entitled "Liber Epistelarum" contains all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters, 277 in total, written in Latin. I have read through all of these letters, and in only 12 of them (letters XXVIII, XLI, XLIII, CV, CXVI, CXXVIII, CXXIX, CXXXIV, CL, CLVII, CLVIII, and CLX) is there any mention of the Anabaptists. In none of them is to be found the statement cited at the top. To all intents and purposes, this statement appears to be a fake.

Why would he write about someone that didn't exist in his time as you claimed earlier?[/quote:7c3d5]

"Cardinal Hosius meant by the term „Anabaptist“ a general term for any kind of re-baptizing sect. We see the proof of this in his assertion that the Donatists were Anabaptists. But we know, of course, that the Donatists had completely different beliefs from modern day Baptists (or even 16th century Anabaptists.). For example, they only believed in re-baptism for those Christians who had apostasized under persecution and later returned. Thy did not say infant baptism was wrong, they did not day baptism must be by immersion only, they did not say baptism was merely a symbol. So it is absolutely wrong for modern-day Baptists to suggest that Cardinal Hosius testifies to their existence at the time of Augustine!!!"

 

[stray bullet]

Furthermore, besides the statement never existing anywhere, no Catholic cardinal would ever suggest, as his statement did, that the Catholic Church was 1200 years old. That's a modern fabrication of history that fictional works like Trail of Blood assert, but it baseless. Ever Cardinal knows and believes that the Church started in 33AD with Jesus Christ and Peter. We have a direct lineage from Peter.

Even the Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran churches recognize that Peter the Apostles established the Roman See, called the Vatican today. It is these people that have been tricked by people that have been proven to be not telling the truth, that believe that the Catholic Church was created in the 4th Century by Rome.

No baptist or protestant or non-Catholic church today claims to be of the true successor of Peter through a lineage.

 

[Andrew07]

Not trying to be antagonistic but I have a question, can you explain please the following, (I would really like to know, before I make a judgement)

1.dont Catholics say that the pope is infallible or sinless?
2.How could Peter be the first Pope when he was married and other things?
3.Why is Mary almost worshipped and even in the statues of her it looks like Jesus is holding her up and He is underneath her, and I even saw one with horns sticking out of the side, lol, what in the world is that all about if not satanic? These are real questions I would like to hear an explanation to if you please like I said not trying to judge until I hear both sides of it and I appreciate your willingness to answer, thank you!

I did not read all the stuff you guys wrote but I will probably tommorrow, sorry if the answer is in what you already wrote.

 

[stray bullet]

Not trying to be antagonistic but I have a question, can you explain please the following, (I would really like to know, before I make a judgement)

No one will think you are being an antagonist
Unfortunately, some people here have copied and pasted anti-Catholic propaganda over and over again. I've taken the time to explain it to them and refute the myths and lies in them, but they just keep up with the same old things, so I lose my patience at times, with them.

1.dont Catholics say that the pope is infallible or sinless?

The Pope is far far from sinless and is not infallible. However, God has given men the ability to be infallible, to speak for God. We generally consider these instances the apostles when they wrote their respective parts of the bible. However, God didn't just give this gift for the first generation, it has been available in every generation, because we haven't been left orphans.
The Pope can, in times of need, clarify matters by speaking Ex-Cathedra, from the Chair of Peter. These decrees are the things he can write which are infallible. You can think of him like an apostle, because he is the successor of Peter and fills his role in our generation. We believe in an apostolic church because we follow this generations apostles.

2.How could Peter be the first Pope when he was married and other things?

There are no requirements for celibacy for the Pope.
Celibacy was sought after by the clergy because it allowed themselves to dedicate their lives to the study and will of God, rather than the hassles of marriage and families. They must also be willing to give their lives, which many of our priests have done, even Peter himself. This is not an ideal situation for married men, so celibacy is sought.

3.Why is Mary almost worshipped and even in the statues of her it looks like Jesus is holding her up and He is underneath her, and I even saw one with horns sticking out of the side, lol, what in the world is that all about if not satanic? These are real questions I would like to hear an explanation to if you please like I said not trying to judge until I hear both sides of it and I appreciate your willingness to answer, thank you!

Mary is not worshipped, but we find her life something to look up to and aspire to because she gave into the will of God fully and rose our Lord and Savior as a child. She is the mother of Jesus, just think about how much Jesus loves her and how much He appreciates our respect for her.

I'm not sure about the pieces of art you described. Mary holding onto Jesus would serve as a reminder that even though she was His mother, she needed Him to save her too.

 

[notapseudonym]

To add to stray bullets answers:

The Pope, by himself without the Magistarium, has only declared 2 things infallibly. All ither times it was the Magistarium (bishops in unison with the Pope as the teaching body of the Church) that has made infallible statements.

Celibecy is not doctrenal, it is practoral. I now a priest who is married. He was Evengelical, got married, converted and is now a priest. But a Pope could come along and abolish this practice -- highly unlikely.

We give the saints dula, or honor, we give Mary hyper dula, or higher honor, and we give God Latra, or worship and praise that only God can be given.

 

[DivineNames]

Would you say that humans do not have rights though?

Perhaps we humans have rights, or perhaps its "nonsense upon stilts" as Bentham said.

Even if we do have rights, could we determine what they are?

Some people are going to be completely convinced that an unborn child has the right to life. Some people are going to be completely convinced that a woman has the right to have an abortion.

I assume that we can't prove either position, so doesn't talk about 'rights' become meaningless?

 

[Cure of Ars]

Would you say that humans do not have rights though?

Perhaps we humans have rights, or perhaps its "nonsense upon stilts" as Bentham said.

Even if we do have rights, could we determine what they are?

Some people are going to be completely convinced that an unborn child has the right to life. Some people are going to be completely convinced that a woman has the right to have an abortion.

I assume that we can't prove either position, so doesn't talk about 'rights' become meaningless?

It's based in natural law. Let me quote C.S. Lewis;

EVERY ONE HAS HEARD people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: "How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?"--‘That’s my seat, I was there first"--"Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm"--"Why should you shove in first?"--"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"--"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that some thing has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law--with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are color-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced! If they had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the color of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Creeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put Yourself first. selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It’s not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong--in other words, if there is no Law of Nature--what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, 1 apologize to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:

I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money--the one you have almost forgotten-came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done--well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behavior to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it--and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much--we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so--that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behavior that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

http://www.bible-reading.com/mere_ch1.html

 

[bibleberean]

The Catholic church is a lying church. It's followers under a spell of witchcraft. It's leadership corrupt and it's doctrines satanic.

The Catholic church is anti-christ.

It is a spiritual harlot and curses all who do stand up to her antibiblical practices eternal damnation. (it has no such power)

This is not a church which is rooted in freedom but a tyrannical church who would suppress every God given human right as it's bloody, corrupt and insidious history attests.

These are direct quotes from the Council of Trent and Vatican II anyone who says it is anti Catholic propaganda instead of the words of the harlot is either deceived or a liar.

Council of Trent

"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema." (ibid., p. 52 -- Seventh Session, Sacraments In General, Canon 4)

Every Christian who does not believe that The Sacraments of the RCC is necessary for Salvation is cursed forever according to their meaningless anathema's.

Again Council of Trent

"If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema." (ibid., p. 80 -- Thirteenth Session, Chapter VIII, Canon 6)

For centuries the RCC murdered, tortured, and seized the lands and property of anyone who would not worship their "cracker god".

For hundreds of years genuine Christians died at the hands of the ghoulish henchman of the Popes rather than participate in the blatant idol worship of the RCC.

Behold Rome's god!

This is not a church that loves temporal or spiritual freedom but a church of intrigue, satanism and superstition.

It has a false gospel another Jesus and another Spirit....

It's Eucharistic worship is rooted in paganism...

It is rooted in Baal worship...

How important is it to understand that Roman Catholicism is not Christian?

The salvation of souls is in the balance!

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

It is like spitting in the face of Christ to believe Catholic doctrine which states His one time sacrifice was not sufficient to save us.

It is to spit on the graves of the millions of martyrs who dies at the hands of the cruel tyrannical Popes and authorities to lie in bed with this apostate church!

No compromise and no apologies!

 

[Andrew07]

More questions like I said just trying to sift out the truths and untruths don't see this as an attack, because I really do not know what the Catholics believe (probably mostly from hearsay), on the outside it does not look too good to me but who knows maybe I am seeing things incorrectly.

1. does not the catholics believe Mary was sinless and had no other sons and daughters
2. do they believe they are the only ones who can go to heaven and that you have to go to mass or what I call a service to be saved (saved by works rather than grace?)
3. what about ALL the molestings (and probably many more hidden) the doesn't this prove something is MAJORLY wrong? I have heard they just move these priest to another place kind of like to quit things down, but they are still priests and hold the same positions and are most likely have access to kids, I feel that they should be stripped of any title they hold for such monstrous deeds against children!! maybe if it was something else like stealing or something but molestations against children?
4. what about all the popes get up (and looks like very costly clothes) are we not as chrittians supposed to be humble sure Aaron and sons were wearing stuff like this but definitely not Peter or Paul or any of the other apostles

 

[Cure of Ars]

More questions like I said just trying to sift out the truths and untruths don't see this as an attack, because I really do not know what the Catholics believe (probably mostly from hearsay), on the outside it does not look too good to me but who knows maybe I am seeing things incorrectly.

I can understand why things don’t look good from the outside. All I ask is for a fair hearing of the truth and you definitely have this attitude.

1. does not the catholics believe Mary was sinless and had no other sons and daughters

The answer is yes. To read the Catholic perspective go here

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp

http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/marian7.html

2. do they believe they are the only ones who can go to heaven

Catholic do not believe this.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Outside the Church there is no salvation
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

that you have to go to mass or what I call a service to be saved (saved by works rather than grace?)

This is not totally true. Salvation, Biblically speaking, is like an inheritance that is gained by a slave child that is adopted by a rich father. There is nothing that a slave can do to earn the privilege of being a part of the family and there is no amount of work that would be able to earn the inheritance that is mine as being a member of the family. It is totally a free gift. But being in a family there are responsibilities. The father gives responsibility depending on the ability of each child and he also gives the means for the child to do the work. The child cannot say that I do not need to do work and I do not have to obey and please the father. Work (by grace) is required to remain in the family and there are sins that could exclude someone from the family if that family member does not repent from sin and is not sorry for the sin committed. Biblically speaking one can forfeit their inheritance and although the father will always have love for his children he will not force them to be a part of the family.

So to sum up, no amount of work can earn the right to be in the family and no amount of work can earn the inheritance. But if one does not do the work, by God’s grace, a child in the family they will forfeit their inheritance.

The Bible talks about two types of systems. One saves the other one does not. On system is the system of the slave that tries to obligate God to give him salvation by his good works. These works Paul calls “works of the law†but these works cannot save because it is impossible to make God a debtor to a slave. This system does not have God's grace.

The other system is the system of grace through faith in Christ. Through faith in Christ we enter into the family of God and gain the inheritance of salvation. But by grace "faith working through love" is needed to remain in the family.

3. what about ALL the molestings (and probably many more hidden) the doesn't this prove something is MAJORLY wrong? I have heard they just move these priest to another place kind of like to quit things down, but they are still priests and hold the same positions and are most likely have access to kids, I feel that they should be stripped of any title they hold for such monstrous deeds against children!! maybe if it was something else like stealing or something but molestations against children?

I do not deny that there is a problem. But it resides in the Catholic Church in America and American society as a whole. The Catholic Church in other areas does not have this problem. The Catholic Church in America is infected with modernism and a lack of courage. Catholic’s need to stop being sell outs when it comes to their faith. The devil is active and Catholic (myself included) need to wake up and realize that we are at war. It’s not pretty but I am going to fight the good fight. Here is a link that explains the situation.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 5412.shtml

4. what about all the popes get up (and looks like very costly clothes) are we not as chrittians supposed to be humble sure Aaron and sons were wearing stuff like this but definitely not Peter or Paul or any of the other apostles

This really has not been a problem with the past two popes. The popes really do not own anything. All they own belongs to the Church.



There is a lot more to be said for each of your questions. Please ask them one at a time so that we can have more of a discussion.

 

[stray bullet]

The Catholic church is a lying church. It's followers under a spell of witchcraft. It's leadership corrupt and it's doctrines satanic.

How is the Church lying? How is the church's doctrines satanic?

It is a spiritual harlot and curses all who do stand up to her antibiblical practices eternal damnation. (it has no such power)

Nothing the Church does contradcits the bible.

These are direct quotes from the Council of Trent and Vatican II anyone who says it is anti Catholic propaganda instead of the words of the harlot is either deceived or a liar.[/quote]

You didn't say what was wrong with the statements of the Council of Trent.
In fact, the only liar and propagandist here is you for continuing to repeat the things we've already show is false.

For centuries the RCC murdered, tortured, and seized the lands and property of anyone who would not worship their "cracker god".

For hundreds of years genuine Christians died at the hands of the ghoulish henchman of the Popes rather than participate in the blatant idol worship of the RCC.

Try Reading John 6, Jesus said "This is my Body", was Jesus lying? That's what you're implying.
The Catholic Church has not murdered anyone for not being Catholic.

Behold Rome's god!

This is not a church that loves temporal or spiritual freedom but a church of intrigue, satanism and superstition.

It has a false gospel another Jesus and another Spirit....

It's Eucharistic worship is rooted in paganism...

It is rooted in Baal worship...

How important is it to understand that Roman Catholicism is not Christian?

The salvation of souls is in the balance!

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

It is like spitting in the face of Christ to believe Catholic doctrine which states His one time sacrifice was not sufficient to save us.

What on Earth are you talking about? None of those things are rooted in pagan worship, it is rooted in Jesus Christ, the last supper and communion.

None of our doctrine say more needed to be done to save souls than His sacrifice.

 

[stray bullet]

I really like how you have two arms and a circle and that proves it is rooted in Baal worship.

Ever read the bible, bibleberean? How about John 6, "This is my body". I guess Jesus was just pulling their leg?

How do you explain the bible when it said people were getting sick from receiving communion unworthily? Since when do you get sick by receiving a cracker in a sinful state?

The Eucharist is the Body of Christ, just as Jesus said it did. Now, you may have your own liberal interpretation of it, but I'll believe what the bible says, not what I want it to say. I'll also listen to the wisdom of the apostles that said it is the Body of Christ and you can't take it unworthily.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Leviticus 23:10-11 NLT
"to give these instructions to the Israelites: "When you arrive in the land I am giving you and you harvest your first crops, bring the priest some grain from the first portion of your grain harvest. (FIRSTFRUITS)
On the day after the Sabbath, the priest will lift it up before the LORD so it may be accepted on your behalf.



So much for this, erm, "Pagan origin."
The lift offering was to be conducted once per year under the Old Covenant on Nisan 16. Jesus, being the firstfruits from the dead, is our lift offering every day.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

As it is written: Study to show yourself approved