Just trying to make clear that the Holy Ghost doesn't "belong" to organized religion(s).
I don't know why you presume I believe such a thing to begin with.
Scripture has many things in it which are all meant to teach us about God.... blah blah blah
Sorry, but you're doing it again. Not paying to what I said, but instead preaching.
Please be aware, Mormons are woefully ignorant about the meaning of the Bible. I know you think that isn't so, but it is so.
What I said was, she scriptures are prophecy. I had in mind the phrase that is used often in the NT to name the Hebrew scriptures: the law and the prophets.
Of course not everything is prophetic, but what is, is. And we were discussing prophecy not history. You changed the subject.
Scripture is not all prophecy. God is NOT scripture. Scripture can help us find God and learn about God; it is NOT God.
The prophecies from God in the Scriptures are the WORD OF GOD. God's Word is not something that is separate from Him, no more than your word is separate from you. If you give your word, is it binding or not? Is it yours or not?
I never said the RCC or Catholics have exclusive access to God. That would be a Mormon belief. I'm not Mormon.
Your quotes are in regards to the Catholic Church, not the world.
IOW, the RCC is making the claim that they have received power from God to direct by counsel and to command by laws, and to coerce and compel the delinquent and contumacious by external and salutary penalties.
You are reading Canonical Law(s). You can think of Canonical Law as the counterpart to the Mormon's Church Handbook of Instructions.
[The above is in direct opposition to what Peter taught:
"1 Peter 5:1-3 (KJV)
5 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock."[/i]
Well this is always a conundrum for Mormons, isn't it? A claim that Christ's Church failed while all the while, pointing out where it hasn't. i.e., you just pointed out the continuity of the priesthood. Please tell me you don't believe your Mormon priesthood holders don't have oversight.
In the Catholic Church, it is an oversight of service. Our Bishops are the successors to the Apostles, and are our shepherds. Their oversight is in the way that Jesus gave oversight to Peter: "FEED MY SHEEP".
Even the RCC’s demand that a person MUST accept the Trinity Dogma or a person cannot be saved is an example of constraint over what a person is allowed to believe in order to be saved.
the doctrines of the Trinity because they convey truth. Your attempt at demonizing all things Catholics aside, let me step you through the conversion process:
- a person comes to a Catholic Church and says "hi, I would like to learn what Catholicism teaches"
- they are taught, freely, no one chains them inside of a church a forces them to listen. A person can leave anytime they like. No one will guilt them into coming back. It is the Holy Spirit who converts people.
- instructions for most people takes 9-12 months. Some people take less time, if they are coming from mainstream Protestantism. Some take more, as a personal choice. I've known people who have stayed in the instructional process of conversion for three years or more.
- the process defines baptism as occurring for most at the Easter Vigil (the night before Easter Sunday). A person CHOOSES to be baptized. No one coerces anyone to become baptized.
- people who convert come to an understanding and acceptance, of all Christian teaching including the Trinity, by the Holy Spirit. No ne forces anyone to believe anything they don't want to believe. If a person doesn't believe, well then, they choose to not be baptized, right?
They have become lords over God’s heritage! Incredibly, the RCC still admits that the Trinity Dogma is a mystery which cannot be comprehended! Yet they insist you accept this Dogma, which mystery cannot be comprehended, in order to be saved. In fact, if a person refuses to accept this incomprehensible mystery, the RCC, as well as most Protestant denominations, proclaim that person is not a Christian.
The Catholic Church clearly teaches that Christ died for ALL. It is clear teaching that even a person who never heard of Jesus Christ in their entire lives will be judged according to what they understand about God, and how they live what they understand. So even the most remote cannibal will be judged, and can be judged to live with God in heaven. This is only possible because of Jesus Christ!
Christ's Church exists for the sole purpose of bringing people to Salvation. So in a supernatural sense, any who come Salvation do so through His Church. Even those who are not Catholic.
The pope is distinguished by the use of the tiara or triple crown. At what date the custom of crowning the pope was introduced is unknown. It was certainly previous to the forged donation of Constantine, which dates from the commencement of the ninth century, for mention is there made of the pope's coronation. The triple crown is of much later origin.
The above is completely inconsistent with teachings and examples set in the Bible. If ANYONE should be allowed to wear any type of crown, I would think that Christ alone would/should be given this honor.
Good Lord, I wish you would read something that has all the responses to these very old Protestant accusation.
You are assuming first that because someone wears a crown that they are doing with the intent of usurping Jesus Christ. That is your assumption, because that is how you want to view the Catholic Church. No Catholic assumes or believes the Pope is above Christ. Christ is King.
The kissing of the pope's foot — the characteristic act of reverence by which all the faithful do honour to him as the vicar of Christ — is found as early as the eighth century. We read that Emperor Justinian II paid this respect to Pope Constantine (708-16) (Anastasius Bibl. in P.L., CXXVIII 949). Even at an earlier date Emperor Justin had prostrated himself before Pope John I (523-6; op. cit., 515), and Justinian I before Agapetus (535-6; op. cit., 551). The pope, it may be added, ranks as the first of Christian princes, and in Catholic countries his ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body.
Before discussing the “kiss”, let’s look at: “The pope, it may be added, ranks as the first of Christian princes, and in Catholic countries his ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body.”
This is in complete opposition to Jesus’ teaching:
Matthew 22:17-22 (KJV) (Jesus’ words are bolded; the other words are from the Pharisees)
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
Additionally, we have been taught to submit to governments, employers, even slaves were told to submit to their masters. Nowhere did the church establish a civil government. The only “government” created was within the church for the purpose of delegating responsibility so that there would be order among the members. And at that, those put into leadership roles were to serve the members; not to be served BY the members. Yet the RCC, in their desire to have supremacy not only over the souls of mankind, but also to have supremacy in governing the earth, has made itself to be both a spiritual and temporal government. Even the Vatican is in its own earthly principality; something which it lost for a while, and then had returned to them. (And you say there is no evidence of Apostasy? This is actually a fulfillment of prophecy.)
Now, let’s look at the “kiss”. Again I will use a teaching of Peter’s to show that the RCC is in complete opposition to what was taught. Also, I will include a passage from John’s Revelation.
Acts 10:25-26 (KJV)
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
Note that Peter has taught he is a man like any other man; he has also taught that he is an Elder, just like the other Elders. In fact the noun “Pope” translates into “Father”. Jesus taught us to call none Father but His Father. It was okay to call our paternal parent “father” (with a small “f”). This is yet another RCC tradition which is in complete opposition to Jesus’ teaching. Now let’s look at the passage in Revelation:
Revelation 19:10 (KJV)
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.[i]
So, why, when even Peter did not allow anyone to worship him, and John was not allowed to worship an angel, do the Popes allow themselves to be worshipped? Do they think they are superior to Peter? Or perhaps it is an issue of pride and lust for the power they have given themselves? Since church leaders are supposed to be servants to the members of the church, why does the Pope desire to be worshipped at all?
NO ONE IS WORSHIPPING THE POPE. I swear, you'd see someone shaking the Pope's hand and find some scripture to come up with that says we shouldn't shake the Pope's hand and doing so is an offense to Jesus Christ.
Catholics love our Pope, why do you think this is for the sake of the Pope? We love our Pope because he is a sign of God's love in the world. God didn't leave us without our shepherds. The Pope is just one Bishop, that of Rome. People love the Pope because of what God has done for us. Kissing him is showing our understanding of what Christ has down for us, through His Church. God showers his love on the world. The Pope is for us, a sign of God's love.
Another subject which greatly disturbs me can be found here (again from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning baptism):
[i]The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (Against Heresies 2.22): "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God — infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (On the Soul, Book III) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Epistle 28) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ," St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."
Now, I would ask you, hasn’t the RCC, by making such doctrine, taken away the free will of an infant who cannot yet make or even understand his own choices? Additionally, yet another teaching of Peter’s is in complete opposition to this RCC doctrine:
2 Peter 2:14 (KJV)
Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
Peter even goes to say that those who do this have gone astray.
Imagine yourself to be the mother of a child who dies before a Priest can baptize him/her. The mother has been taught by the RCC that their infant cannot be saved; but will spend eternity in hell. How many mothers have suffered with this erroneous teaching, agonizing over their infant; not only because it died and the mother was unable to raise it, but because she has the additional knowledge it is going to spend eternity in hell? Now try to reconcile this with a loving and merciful God. And what happened to the free will of the infant who was not yet able to exercise any? Do you honestly believe that God would eternally damn a child who is not yet able to exercise understanding? What about those who are hindered in other ways, such as mental retardation, who cannot understand well enough to make free will choices? The RCC damns them as well should they not be baptized before they die.
Most certainly we'll never agree on infant baptism. So, I'll only let you know that we believe baptism is how a person is made new, in Jesus Christ. Baptizing our children is one of the most joyous occasions for the parents and family. They are given the gifts of the Holy Spirit at the baptism, that can help them to grow strong in their faith. It is the responsibility of the parents and godparents to raise a child in their faith. When they are of an age where they can understand and consent, they receive more formal church training, and then are fully received into the Church with Confirmation and Eucharist.
If you will read your NT more carefully, you will see that baptism replaces circumcision. Do you think the Israelites were forcing their children into something? We don't. Think of it this way. When the Hebrews crossed the river to the promised land, did they leave their young children, including infants, behind until they could make that crossing decision for themselves?
The crossing of the river is one of those Bible events that prefigures baptism. We see no reason to keep our children from the gifts of God.
On the other hand, the Mormon idea of children somehow losing the Kingdom of God because they turned 8 years old, and all of the sudden baptism is necessary, is problematic.
Hi, I've read that entry in the old encyclopedia before. It doesn't say what you are saying. You've applied an erroneous interpretation to it.
Did you see the links which Frank gave??? BTW, please note that the Original Catholic Encyclopedia has had many alterations and complete sections deleted from it; so it does not compare well with the modern version.[/quote]
Yes, I am Catholic, I know about the encyclopedia. It is called the "old" encyclopedia for a reason. It was written before Vatican II, and so does not have current information.
I believe wholeheartedly that the RCC has erred in many of its interpretations. All one has to do is compare the Bible with their interpretations. In fact, I have noticed that in many, many instances in the Catholic Encyclopedia the RCC does not make references to scripture at all to explain where they got their dogmas. Rather they reference creeds, councils, etc. Thus, there is no connection at all to scripture; nor can they be reconciled with scripture.
You should dig deeper. But also, as I've already stated, Catholicism is not sola scriptura. Jesus established a Church, and gave to it the gift of the Holy Spirit in order that it could be guided. Scripture and Sacred Tradition are not at odds, they are the two legs of revelation.
It is your interpretation that is at odds.
This is not my teaching. It is Jesus’ teaching directly from the Bible.
You are teaching Mormonism, not Christianity.
I have never once referred to the teachings of the LDS Church. I have used only the Bible and what it teaches. You know nothing about me. It may interest you to know that even though I am LDS (though I was raised Lutheran), I do not believe the LDS Church has all Truth, nor is she the only path to take on our journey returning to God, nor does she have all of the answers, nor do I believe you have to be a member of the LDS Church in order to be saved.
Doesn't matter. You have Mormon written all over your posts.
I have shown you only a few examples from the Catholic Encyclopedia which disagree with your assessment. However, I do not think you are an ignorant person. Rather, the RCC has had 2000 years to perfect their methods. They do not tell members everything; nor do they teach from the pulpit what can be found in such resources as the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Catechisms are not in harmony with the Bible. If a member of the RCC wants to really see what their beliefs look like, much time and effort is required.
Seriously, can I tell you one more time that you are ignorant of Catholic teaching. You have your own idea going of what it is or what it isn't but you haven't grasped it, at all. Please, at least read something that has already gone over these very old Protestant claims. There's a few hundreds years worth of response to them. Two more modern books are "Catholics for Dummies" or "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott Hahn (or anything by Scott Hahn for that matter.)
It is not my opinion. I have been studying other religions for many years. It is the institutions of religion and their leaders which fail their members.
No doubt! Christ's Church is like Christ Himself. Fully human (us) and full divine (Jesus). Humans fail, Christ does not. He is there to lift us up. That is the whole message of the Cross.
Fortunately, God does not have the same concern about those who love Him and keep His commandments, as the various institutions have about their followers. God will count our righteousness in accordance to our faithfulness to what we believe is True; even if we are wrong.
The LDS Church seems to be unique in that the lay person is extremely involved with everything in the Church; and that it is actually a way of life. As such, it can appear that rigid conformation is required. It can be quite consuming; and members can be downright uncharitable when they think another member is not “pulling their weight”. However, I have seen the same type of offensive judgment going on in all churches….it is a weakness of mankind.
Yes, I agree.
It can just appear more intense in the LDS Church for the very reason that every active member is called upon to participate. The purpose is to help us grow through experience; it is not to overwhelm us. However, it can easily become overwhelming. This does not mean that you cannot find a great deal of Truth in the Church.
God does not want us to become discouraged; no matter the cause. I would guess that you left the Church because you more than likely were faced by conflicting actions of members who had taken things too far through their own misunderstandings. On top of that, Bishops and others can get carried away when handing out callings; I don’t believe that they are always in-tuned with the Holy Ghost when doing so. They are as fallible as the next person. This is very stressful and can create unimaginable anxiety in someone who needs to be nurtured. When they feel they are not being understood, or that they are being abused by the system, the next step is naturally disillusionment. But not until many, many years later, if ever while in this estate, can they begin to see that this is what was happening. Meanwhile, to try to heal from their experiences, it is only natural to start blaming Joseph Smith or the other Prophets. It is easy to then succumb to anti-LDS positions. Even, as in your case, to become an Atheist.
I think that LDS like to simplify those who have left, in terms like this that they can understand. It is much more complex. My exit started when I was very young. I remember thinking "what?" as young as third grade. By the time I was in my teens, I didn't believe any of what I was being taught. Was going to church just to please my parents. As soon as I was old enough to move out on my own, I left Mormonism for good.
It wasn't the people. I have very good memories of the people. Of course there are instances I remember of sketchy behavior and belief, but that isn't what defines my Mormon experience.
I could never believe in the Mormon God. I spent a few years after I left trying to figure out how to maintain a belief in God. The moment I had the idea that I didn't have to believe in God at all, was a giant relief. I had never felt so happy about a decision in my young life, to that point.
Like you, I studied many religions, as an interest in "belief systems", including circling back around to Mormonism. I was curious in a way to see if it was possible for me to believe it, after so long away. It isn't. I find it hard to understand how anyone can be Mormon. I'd have to put my brain on a shelf in order to be a Mormon.
encourage you to not close your mind and heart to only what the RCC is teaching you.
You should listen to your own advice.
I sincerely believe the RCC institution has strayed. And I present my reasons as to why I believe this.
Your reasoning is flawed. You think you are showing me something I didn't know. Hello. I was raised LDS, which means I raised to understand the RCC as the great and abominable church. I clearly remember whole Sunday school lessons that went through the exact same things you have posted.
When I approached Catholicism, I did so with a clear mind. I started from scratch, as though I had never even heard the word "God" in my life. I had to unlearn a lot of my Mormon upbringing, and there were times I was so floored by what I learned about Catholicism, compared to what I had been taught, and other times I was so angry at Mormonism, for the lies it had taught me.
God pulled me through. It was a struggle, which I can place squarely on the lies of Mormonism.
This is only true of some dogmas. There are other dogmas you must accept. If they did not make this clear to you before you were baptized, then they were not practicing their own beliefs.
Certainly, as a Catholic, there are teachings that must be accepted to be a Catholic. There are teachings that must be accepted to be a Mormon. Why is it that Catholic teachings that must be accepted are forced, but Mormon teachings that must be accepted are not forced?
Don't you have to believe Joseph Smith is a prophet to be a Mormon? Don't you have to believe in an anthropomorphic God. GOD FORBID, you believe God is Triune. You couldn't be a Mormon then, could you?
You go on and on about the Mormon church letting you be free to accept truth. But you can be sure, I can see your chains. You are free to accept anything as truth AS LONG AS IT IS NOT CATHOLIC.