|
Post by genesda on Mar 17, 2004 6:31:17 GMT -5
THE ACCEPTED ROMAN CATHOLIC CREED Creed of Pope Pius IV (1559-1566) To the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Pius IV added the fourteen points listed below. The largest "Catholic Encyclopedia" pkmtyolped by the ecclesiastical censors and to be found in the central public libraries of New York and Los Angeles says: "Profession of faith drawn up after the Council of Trent by Pius IV, whose public recital has always been required by Aspirants before their promotion to ecclesiastical offices." 1. I most firmly admit and embrace Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions, and all other constitutions and observations of the same church. The only apostolical and ecclesiastical truths are found in the scriptures. All others are just man made traditions. [/color] 2. I also admit the Sacred Scriptures according to the sense which the Holy Mother Church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, nor will I ever take or interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Do you believe the above? If so, then my point about you believing what Rome tells you is absolutely correct. [/color] 3. I profess, also, that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and for the salvation of mankind, though not all are necessary for every one; namely, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders, cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. Rc beliefs only, so how does this apply to all denominations? [/color] 4. I receive and admit the Ceremonies of the Catholic Church, received and approved by the solemn administration of all the above said Sacraments. It WOULD BE PROPER to say that this is referring to the ROMAN catholic church. [/color] 5. I receive and embrace all and every one of the things which have been defined in the Holy Council of Trent, concerning original sin and justification. Again, this would be the ROMAN CATHOLIC council of Trent. [/color] 6. I profess, likewise, that in the pkmtyolm is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiary sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the holy sacrament there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; and there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Church calls transubstantiation. Again, only ROMAN catholics believe this, by the way, which is a false beliefs. [/color] 7. I confess, also that under either kind alone, whole and entire, Christ and a true Sacrament are received. 8. I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Again, false beliefs which YOU as a Roman catholic are required to believe, if you are a true Rc. [/color] 9. Likewise, that the saints reigning together with Christ are to be honored and invoked; that they offer prayers to God for us and that their relics are to be venerated. More false doctrines. [/color] 10. I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ and the Mother of God ever-Virgin, and also of the other saints, are to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be given them. Satan has done well to get people to follow his directives rather than God's.. [/color] 11. I also affirm, that the power of Indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. Really? Where did Jesus these "indulgences" as described by Rome? [/color] 12. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic and Apostolical Roman Church, the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Bishop, the successor of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ. Did you swear to this? [/color] 13. I also profess and undoubtedly receive all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canons and General Councils, and particularly by the Council of Trent; and likewise, I also condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever, condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church. There you have it. All others contrary to Rome are ***ed. Notice, you are required to judge me, which the bible forbids. [/color] 14. The true Catholic faith, out of which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess, and truly hold, I, _____, promise, vow, and swear most constantly to hold and profess the same, whole and entire, with God's assistance, to the end of my life and to procure as far as lies in my power, that the same shall be held, taught, and preached by all who are under me, or are entrusted to my care by virtue of my office, so help me God and these Holy Gospels of God. Council Trid. apud Bullas, p. 381, et esq., Romae, 1564 The above translation is given by Charles Butler, an ardent English Roman Catholic, in his work "The Book of the Roman Catholic Church" p. 5 which work is listed as "ZMX pv 1" in the New York Central Public Library. The above 14 points constitute a mild statement of Roman Catholic errors whose number is legion. This is from the 1500's before Rome lost it's power over the world. When that power is restored, these same doctrines wil;l resurface. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 17, 2004 6:39:58 GMT -5
www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.htmlI. Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins. complete misinterpretation of what Jesus meant. [/color] John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. Gen. 2:7 - the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. This is the only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place. are you trying to say there is a comparrison here? [/color] John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear. LOL! Not mind readers?? Why didn't Jesus give them that power needed to see into man's "heart"? That's what Jesus used in order to decalre a man's sins are forgiven. Men lie, so the (false) priest doesn't know if the sinner is lying or not. Do you think it was Jesus' intentions to give the power to forgive to those who have no way of knowing the sincerity of those who are asking forgivness? I think not, and the whole notion of this is preposterous [/color] Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men." Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles' successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors? Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth. Jesus was BOTH man and God. Don't even go there. Man has no authority to forgive sins and that's why the Jews wanted to stone Him. For a man to claim to forgive sins is blasphemy, and this blasphemy is constantly committed in the Rcc. [/color] Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors. Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church. John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ's ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an "indulgence"). 2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as "in persona Christi"). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins. 2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ampkmtyolbadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance. James 5:15 - in this verse we see that sins are forgiven by the elders in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man's authority to forgive sins on earth. 1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness. Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others. II. The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must confess our sins to one another (to our confessors), not just privately to God. Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today. Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist). 1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses. 1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another. Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution. 2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin). Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other. Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse. Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly. 1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness. Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved). Nice try, but you've only convinced Rc's of this. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 17, 2004 7:02:45 GMT -5
I wouldn't get too worked up about Mel's interpreptation of the Bible. If he is a true sedavacanist, their worldview of protestantism (including the SDA) is nothing short of it being heretical. Ecumenism is not part of their vocabulary. As for what Mel believes, I'm glad to see that you admit that the Roman church considered ONLY Rc's as people who could be saved, just as the past popes have declared. You've confirmed what I've been saying all along and have been said to "distort" what Rome taught. [/color][/quote] You really do need to pay attention. A true sedavacanist does not accept the Vatican Council II which allows for Ecumenism and that salvation is available to ALL. A true sedavacanist is considered to be a schismatic and is hence not speaking for the present state of the Roman Catholic Church.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 17, 2004 8:25:30 GMT -5
THE ACCEPTED ROMAN CATHOLIC CREED Creed of Pope Pius IV (1559-1566) 2. I also admit the Sacred Scriptures according to the sense which the Holy Mother Church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, nor will I ever take or interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Do you believe the above? If so, then my point about you believing what Rome tells you is absolutely correct. [/color] this was due to the fact the majority of the people could not read and therefore could not then know the word of God, unless hearing from someone else. they were basically giving them an outsource of people to trust from whom the Word could be shared. in other words, don't go to your neighbor for they may not be telling you the truth and since you can't read you've no way to refute or prove otherise. now that we are over 500 years PAST that -- we're able to question, study and learn all we want - since we are now an "educated" society. This is from the 1500's before Rome lost it's power over the world. When that power is restored, these same doctrines wil;l resurface. [/color][/quote] i'm sorry you feel that way. i'm thankful that the problems and those issues were int he 1500's and not my time. i hate to burst your bubble but the reality is the Rcc is growing in their faith, not reverting. that's the wonderful thing about history - working to overcome and not make the same mistakes twice.
i'm very perplexed by the fact you seem to think you can judge (not in that way) people and issues of the past with today's mentality. that's foolish gene. you can not take the past and judge by today's standards.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 17, 2004 8:37:52 GMT -5
This is from the 1500's before Rome lost it's power over the world. When that power is restored, these same doctrines wil;l resurface. [/color][/quote] As unlikely as this would ever happen, IF this were ever to occur, let me categorically state that I will be amoung the first to stand-up against it.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 17, 2004 8:39:16 GMT -5
I'm a little short on time right now. The only reason I'm home right now, instead of at the nursing home with Grandma and Poppa Ed is that my best friend needed me to watch her little long enough to take her mom to the doctor. :'(Poppa Ed looked so much better yesterday.....he was eating and even had a piece of his favorite candy. Today I brought him some more of the Andes Mints......but he was sort of out again. Partly from the morphine, and partly from the dying process. Being a hospice Volunteer, and having gone through this with another friend 1 1/2 years ago.......I know the routine very well. There are times I wish I could "unlearn" things. my prayers are with you for peace an strength - you are in a very noble arena with hospice. God be with you!Never heard of a married priest/divorced priest in rcc. although only about 180 married and i'm not sure the number of the divorced. it's not just the divorce though - he did get teh annullment. it's actually a priest (who offered pkmtyolm this morning actually!) and he has two grown boys. his ex wife was not Rcc. it took him a long time and spent 9-10 yearsprior tp making the committment to the priesthood, with various missionary work. he was recently contacted by his ex to come visit her in the hospital where she was very ill -- he preformed the anointing of the sick which it a prayer service. he was very moved by her request and the folks around got a kick when they would reply - of that's my ex wife/husband!Thanks......Spring Break is not a very happy one............ Ronda no ronda, it doesn't sound like it is... however, just think of this as your own Cross, you own walking with Christ along His path. you're certian;y surrounded by the suffereings. I will keep you in my prayers fro the strength and courage to "keep your chin up". God love you, Godbless you, God keep you!
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 17, 2004 8:40:25 GMT -5
As unlikely as this would ever happen, IF this were ever to occur, let me categorically state that I will be amoung the first to stand-up against it. i might beat you to it but you easily curtail my standing until you stood first - i'll go second, no problem see you there
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 17, 2004 8:46:45 GMT -5
But, it also stated that the households BELIEVED......an infant does not have the cognitive capacity to believe in that fashion. Ronda but the household/parents are promising to entrust the child to our Lord completely and teach him/her and train them in the ways of the Lord. they are placing the child, the gift they believe they received from God, making a committment to God that they will raise this gift in the fullest of faith. ronda, if i'm remembering correctly you have no children, neither do i. i've raised many but none of my own. if i would be so blessed to have a child i would do everything within my power and prayer to deidcate myself fully to giving that child all the love that God will grant me. to teach them in word and example in the ways of our Lord. i would want to entreat the child with God, commit that child to God and thereby promising myself to aid the child in every aspect of knowing and loving the Lord God Almoghty with all their might. if i die prior to the child being of the age of reason and it falls away from any teachings - i would know that God will still be with the child and will not let it suffer. the child would come back to God.
|
|
|
Post by AuntRonda on Mar 17, 2004 10:17:45 GMT -5
AR, No matter how old my children were, they were members of our household. When I had them baptized, I believed and was promising God that I would raise them in God's Word and was renewing my baptism. Later when they were older they recieved their confirmation which was accepting Jesus into their hearts and being baptized with the Holy Spirit. Since you did not address Realist's statement on Paul stating that baptism replaced circumcision are we to assume that you do not agree with that since infant's were circumcised? Just wondering. Blessings, Ann I see circumcision as more of a health issue now days. As to baptism replacing it.........I would need to re-read those scriptures in context. Ronda
|
|
|
Post by AuntRonda on Mar 17, 2004 10:37:51 GMT -5
no ronda, it doesn't sound like it is... however, just think of this as your own Cross, you own walking with Christ along His path. you're certian;y surrounded by the suffereings. I will keep you in my prayers fro the strength and courage to "keep your chin up". God love you, Godbless you, God keep you! Hmm, that does put this in an interesting perspective. I'll be headed over to the nursing home as soon as maintainence gets here to repair a continously running bathtub facuet....... And fixed my AC. Ronda
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 17, 2004 11:09:17 GMT -5
I see circumcision as more of a health issue now days. As to baptism replacing it.........I would need to re-read those scriptures in context. Ronda AR, I agree, circumcision today is a health issue, however, at the time of the Jesus and the apostles, it was not. It was theological. Blessings and Luck Happy St. Patrick's Day, Ann
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 17, 2004 11:24:15 GMT -5
www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.htmlI. Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins. complete misinterpretation of what Jesus meant. [/color] In your opinionJohn 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. Gen. 2:7 - the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. This is the only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place. are you trying to say there is a comparrison here? [/color] John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear. LOL! Not mind readers?? Why didn't Jesus give them that power needed to see into man's "heart"? That's what Jesus used in order to decalre a man's sins are forgiven. Men lie, so the (false) priest doesn't know if the sinner is lying or not. Do you think it was Jesus' intentions to give the power to forgive to those who have no way of knowing the sincerity of those who are asking forgivness? I think not, and the whole notion of this is preposterous [/color] You will have to ask Jesus that question, however, it is Jesus forgiving the sins, not the priest so he does not need that power, as we have explained to you numerous times.Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men." Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles' successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors? Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth. Jesus was BOTH man and God. Don't even go there. Man has no authority to forgive sins and that's why the Jews wanted to stone Him. For a man to claim to forgive sins is blasphemy, and this blasphemy is constantly committed in the Rcc. [/color] We know that Jesus was both man and God, the author of this site did not say he was not, you must have just assumed that was what he was saying. As for man claiming to forgive sins, any priest will tell you that no man can forgive sins, only God can, as we have posted from the cathechism for you before.Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors. Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church. John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ's ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an "indulgence"). 2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as "in persona Christi"). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins. 2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ampkmtyolbadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance. James 5:15 - in this verse we see that sins are forgiven by the elders in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man's authority to forgive sins on earth. 1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness. Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others. II. The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must confess our sins to one another (to our confessors), not just privately to God. Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today. Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist). 1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses. 1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another. Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution. 2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin). Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other. Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse. Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly. 1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness. Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved). Nice try, but you've only convinced Rc's of this. [/color] [/quote] gene, You asked for biblical proof....voila. Now you speak for all non-catholics? Blessings and Luck, Happy St. Patrick's Day, Ann
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 17, 2004 11:27:12 GMT -5
i might beat you to it but you easily curtail my standing until you stood first - i'll go second, no problem see you there I'm there with ya all the way...save me place in line!!!! (as I know we will not be the only ones!)Blessings and Luck Happy St. Patrick's Day, Ann
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 17, 2004 13:32:35 GMT -5
I'm there with ya all the way...save me place in line!!!! (as I know we will not be the only ones!)Blessings and Luck Happy St. Patrick's Day, Ann wouldn't that be something - i mean to be in a line and find out we were standing together... sorry in a rather weird mode...
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 17, 2004 13:40:16 GMT -5
Hmm, that does put this in an interesting perspective. I'll be headed over to the nursing home as soon as maintainence gets here to repair a continously running bathtub facuet....... And fixed my AC. Ronda it was actually something my dad and i would talk about. for 13 years my grandma had fairily health and then her last 6 months were sheer agony. my dad -- her son-in-law - was pretty much a primary care giver. he went every morning before work - even in the snow and cold of winter to prepare breakfast and treat her leg (open and gangarous wounds). he'd go bacck at dinner if my mom couldn't. he would often run to change the tape on the TV or to adjust her in a comfortable position or if she fell or whatnot... toward the end of her time here she lived in my mom and dad's living roomn on a hospital bed. he actually worked with the hospice folks and created these weird "custom bandages" to help with her sores. no matter how hard we tried, bedsores were present constantly due to her system shutting down. we've talked at great detail about how he could do things (which i'm sure you know have to be done to/for a person which aren't fit to type) i mean she wasn't even HIS mom. he said it was a cross he had to bare - he saw it as a gift from God -- a special task that God put before him. God knew that my dad could do it and make things better for her. it also helped with the other things that my mom was taking care of which were also pretty stressful and often another elderly family member in need of care. but anyway, that's where the idea came from. look as it as a blessing. i believe that although a cross is painful and/or difficult it IS a gift. it's a way for God to work through us and a way for us to see just how strong He made us.
|
|