Isaiah's Wake Up Call To Christians Today

[Lily]

You mean in how Roman Catholicism provides many doors in approaching God in prayer such as to the departed saints by the way each saint is designated for a certain crisis with some kind of assurance for answered prayer if one prays to that particular saint?

Not sure there if you want me to say what I mean or if you want me to say what you mean
No, only jesting with you
Actually, I didn't have the RCC in mind when I made that last post but I shall be honest and open with you seeing as you've asked me.

It was a problem for me yes. " Something " just wasn't sitting right with me about good works buying you the ticket in. Oh I believe it helps when you show your fruits but only in the way that thats just the normal progression as Scripture teaches us. Not doing good works for good works sake.

Even as a younster, all the Holy days of obligation were just an excuse to have a day off school. I never really understood it.
I knew I understood God's word, was just the doctrine I never understood and something always told me that that misunderstanding was God on my shoulder.
I always felt angry that I would be made to feel so guilty by teachers if I admitted I hadn't gone to mass that day and just had the day slobbing around. Something always made me think " should I be feeling guilty ? why do I feel I have to lie to my teachers just so I won't get a telling off ? "

Mary was always the biggest stumbling block for me. Total respect to the Lady's memory but even from a very early age I couldn't understand why I was praying to a dead woman but Lord help me if I ever said that

[Steveg]

Paraih,

Are you saying that although the Holy Spirit is God we shouldnot worship him?

Are you saying that the Father is the only one that we should worship, and that we should not worship Jesus either?

Steve

[Steveg]

As much as Romans Catholicism would like to praise itself for keeping out heresey; it may serve as a deflection and a false sense of security as if they were successful in keeping all hereseys out. Sense hereseys has abounded other than the ones RCC were known to keep out, and yet the RCC hardly mentions anymore throughout history even though history has pointed out cults, one would think a devout catholic would take pause... especially when the RCC turns a blind eye to the evolution theory by stating that they see nothing wrong with it that would challenge the beliefs in the RCC, and yet I knew a fellow classmate whom was catholic that left the catholic religion and believing in God through Jesus Christ and the Bible for Buddhism only to suffer a thief breaking through as he began hearing voices and being tormented mentally by them from practising yoga or meditation. Strangely enough, the buddhist, his mentor, could not help him. The Lord was able to use me to debunk the evolution theory to him, but eventually, his footsteps wandered back to the RCC, even though he admitted that he did not know what he was doing, but at that time, he was still suffering from hearing voices and had not been delivered yet.

I can't see the point of this except to slag off the Catholic Church with no justification.

Which leads to why some leading catholic theologians are trying to build a rapport of ecumenicalism towards Buddhism as an acceptable practise where there are even a book by a RCC priest in endorsing it. With the RCC having an ecumeincal drive with establishing an accord with all religions of the world, even Islam, how is it that the RCC can be seen as keeping out heresey when they even had Pope John Paul stating that even those that do not believe in Jesus Christ but lead just lives may enter into the Kingdom of Heaven? Of course, many catholics raised alot of inquiries and protests by which the Pope redoubled and reaffirmed the necessity of Roman Catholicism to her followers.

More slagging off the Catholic Church with no evidence except vaguely "some leading catholic theologians" and "a catholic priest"

If you are going to attack the Catholic Church in this was please supply some evidence and citations not just general accusations.

[Onesiphorus]

Steveg ,you are out of order here
because you are not in line with scripture believing christians you have no right to contradict unless you can endorse your posts with scripture and not with Romanist tradition and make believe .So please refrain outside of the RCC in name calling such as referring to Pariahs posts as gibberish and error ,as i can produce historical evidence that explains why the catholic movement commenced anti reformation action including the creation of the Jesuit movement solely to combat the freeing from Rome

[Steveg]

i can produce historical evidence that explains why the catholic movement commenced anti reformation action including the creation of the Jesuit movement solely to combat the freeing from Rome

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue regarding the Council of Nicea.

[Steveg]

Steveg ,you are out of order here
because you are not in line with scripture believing christians you have no right to contradict unless you can endorse your posts with scripture and not with Romanist tradition and make believe .

Of course I have the right to contradict when someone is in error. Pariah did not understand what an Ecumenical Council was and he admitted it.

Facts are not "Romanist" traditions and I would ask you not to be so insulting by using that term.

[inquisitive]

Romanist is a very derogatory term as has been mentioned many times on these forums, as the user of this word, knows fine well, as is stated in the dictionary. I think that term is 'out of order' in being used over and over again, and is simply overlooked as it is staff that is using it....in comparison to the term protestant being used, which is not stated in the dictionary as a derogatory term...romanist most certainly is! Why are things regarding the catholic church being so overly discussed outside of the RCC forum, is it so that people can use these terms so loosely and get away with it? I agree with steve myself

[Pariah]

Pariah you are in error.

I said that "there was only one Church at the time of Council of Nicea."
How does that imply that I did not know what an Ecumenical Council was?

I continued "How could there be an ecumenical drive?". It is possible I took the word ecumenism in that sentence in a different way to that which you are using.

If there was only one church at the time, then why the necessity to unite all the churches by the Nicene creed? Why have the Council of Nicea at all?

Yes, you can point out the heresey meant by the creed to keep out, but it still points to the matter of uniting all the churches to be of one mind and yet by doing so, have mistakenly broadened the way in the worship place to include the Holy Spirit when the indwelling Holy Spirit does not seek that singularly worship at all. So you cannot say that there was no ecumenical drive and by the scriptures: Matthew 7:13-27 You cannot say that no false doctrine crept in which scriptures says is the result of ecumenicalism when they look to a means to unite which was being done by the creed and henceforth by the creed, false prophets came into all those churches.

So there was an ecumenical drive seeking compliance with the church at Rome.

What does the Bible says in how we are the children of God? Galatians 3:26

But yet the RCC wants to act like it knows better by using a creed to be identified as the children of God or more precisely, as complying with the RCC.

From Wikipedia

I took ecumenism in the narrower sense of "referring to a greater cooperation among different religious denominations", whereas you seem to be taking it in the broader sense of interreligious dialogue.

I can apply it in both ways now. Do you deny the ecumenical drive of the RCC with other religions of the world while at the same time trying to unite with all the christian denomenations for a "greater understanding" among brethrens?

So again, RCC is still doing what they had set out to do at the Council of Nicea.... the only difference is... it is no longer hiding behind the pretense of keeping out heresey.

Either was says nothing about my understanding of what an Ecumenical Council is.

Do reassess your stance again. Official statements and obvious purpose do not always coincide. Kind of like words saving face for the actions initiated, but if you really look at the RCC, you will see that the mask has been dropped. Its ecumenical drives makes it the false prophet for what it is.

The question is.. do you seek the praise of men or of God?

Do you seek to defend the pride in your church and what you are engaged in or do you seek to do the will of the Father?

You know the gospel, Steveg, but yet you cannot seem to see that what you are defending is considered by the Bible as labouring in unbelief. Hebrews 4:1-11

What is the good fight? Defending your church or your faith in Jesus Christ?

[Steveg]

If there was only one church at the time, then why the necessity to unite all the churches by the Nicene creed? Why have the Council of Nicea at all?

Yes, you can point out the heresey meant by the creed to keep out, but it still points to the matter of uniting all the churches to be of one mind and yet by doing so, have mistakenly broadened the way in the worship place to include the Holy Spirit when the indwelling Holy Spirit does not seek that singularly worship at all. So you cannot say that there was no ecumenical drive and by the scriptures: Matthew 7:13-27 You cannot say that no false doctrine crept in which scriptures says is the result of ecumenicalism when they look to a means to unite which was being done by the creed and henceforth by the creed, false prophets came into all those churches.

So there was an ecumenical drive seeking compliance with the church at Rome.

Ecumenical Councils are called to address some issue of relevance to the whole Church. In the early Church this was genrally doctrine as they were the issues that come up. Later Councils, like the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, were sometimes pastoral.

This is not what is meant by ecumenism by any normal definition. To say that sorting out true doctrine from heresy is an "ecumenical drive" is nonesensical.

[Steveg]

I
But yet the RCC wants to act like it knows better by using a creed to be identified as the children of God or more precisely, as complying with the RCC.



I can apply it in both ways now. Do you deny the ecumenical drive of the RCC with other religions of the world while at the same time trying to unite with all the christian denomenations for a "greater understanding" among brethrens?

So again, RCC is still doing what they had set out to do at the Council of Nicea.... the only difference is... it is no longer hiding behind the pretense of keeping out heresey.



Do reassess your stance again. Official statements and obvious purpose do not always coincide. Kind of like words saving face for the actions initiated, but if you really look at the RCC, you will see that the mask has been dropped. Its ecumenical drives makes it the false prophet for what it is.

The question is.. do you seek the praise of men or of God?

Do you seek to defend the pride in your church and what you are engaged in or do you seek to do the will of the Father?

You know the gospel, Steveg, but yet you cannot seem to see that what you are defending is considered by the Bible as labouring in unbelief. Hebrews 4:1-11

What is the good fight? Defending your church or your faith in Jesus Christ?

No I am not labouring in unbelief and it is insulting to accuse me of that just because you don't agree with Catholic teaching.

And yet again you make general accusations with no quotations and citations.