Papal Address Confirming Evolution

[Knox]

Knox, you have no info to back up your assertion that the catholic doctrine hasn't changed much.

Get serious. Back up your assertion that it HASN'T!

Since you don't understand the Holy Spirit, you haven't a clue what Luther is talking about, in which case, your no authority on what saves a person.

That's a pretty big leap in judgement on your part, isn't it?Besides, I'll wager I know quite a bit more about Luther and the reformation than you do!

As far as billions of people being catholic, Christ said that few will enter the kingdom. Many will say they preached in His name and cast out demons in His name but the owner of the house will say He never knew them. If the majority of people believed in Christ, then Christ would have told a lie. But so far, your argument bears out even more that He's telling the truth.

Once again, you have spectacularly missed the point.
You stated that you have known more Catholics who have admitted that their doctrine kept them from pursuing a personal relationship with Christ than any other denomination. Then you wondered what the reason might be. I suggest that it may be because there are many many many more Catholics!

[John the Baptist]

5020,

Now I don't know about THAT. I haven't seen anything yet in this thread that really proves it has nothing to do with Christianity.

**********
Hi, John here:
It is kind of hard for one to teach 'ONLY BELIEVE' as requirements for salvation & then 'knock' out all others that are 'believing'?? Catholics included, huh? Sounds brain d-e-a-d to the Word of God! See Eze. 9.

I agree with you [on that] part! It is the 'height' of hipocrisy, huh? Then too, we see some judging the motives of the heart to-boot! And these are saved Christian's???

OK: No, BOTH ARE IN THE SAME SPIRITUAL BED TOGETHER of Rev. 17:5 with caps of '...AND ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH'. And yes, we are talking of the denominations alone, for we know NO individuals knowledge & motives! God does, see Rev. 18:4!

---John

[Heidi]

Knox, I've backed up my assertion in many posts. I have not heard any info from you that the doctrine has changed.

You're the one who asked who Luther was to be telling someone about faith. If you knew, then why did you ask the question? I doubt that you know more about Luther than I do, but this isn't a competition, or is that what you think it is?

And you missed my point. Proportionally, fewer catholics are saved than the evangelical churches in which having a personal relatioship with Christ is a requirement of being a member.

I have seen much less evidence given for the beliefs of the Atheists than the Christians have given as proof of God's existence. The Atheists still answer questions with questions. How much criteria do atheists need as proof of God's existence? It has to be spelled out to them, much like spoon-feeding a child. Even children understand more than they do.

[Tibby]

Tibby, you said the you researched and found that the catholic church was the true church (whatever that means.) Since I don't know you well, I didn't know what you meant by that. I elaborated on it. What do you mean by the catholic church is the tru church?

My father and I begin to read the writings of the Early Church fathers. I figure, hey, they compiled, they must have some good things to say. And most of that they said is both inline with Catholic Doctrine and the Bible. In our search, we stumbled upon what is called the Convergence movement. We have always held a special place on our hearts for the Catholics, because that is where we came from, but left, thanks to protestant lies (which I've been battling for sometime even before I rejoined the Catholic Church). So, unlike the other protestants who have been trained from birth to believe the Catholics are evil, we didn’t hold anything against them. We tough of them as little off, of course, but we still believed they had good in them, no more of less then any other Denomination. Then after reading the Church Fathers, it is like a light came on, and we realized for the first time that Catholicism is the church we have been searching for. Well, that is an EXTREMELY condensed version of my journey to Catholicism.

Tibby, I apologize for misreading the name on the post about my time on this website.  As far as being attacked, I feel your whole post was an attack. Especially the part about the good job other people did with me and Sunodino.

Ah, what you call an attack, I call a defense.

Why are you people asking us for evidence? We know what we believe, we are not trying to make you leave Protestantism. You are the ones on the offensive. You are the ones who need to back your claims up. We have nothing to prove.

When will you people stop fighting this war? The Reformation is over. Just let it GO. Catholics have.

[Heidi]

And what you call an attack, we call a defense. I defend Christ, not any church in particular. I think all churches are as corrupt as the human beings in them. However, I have heard so many times that catholicism is a religion instead of a denomination. I've heard that about the Lutherans too. I haven't heard any other denomination referred to as a religion except those 2. When I ask people what religion they believe in, most of the catholics i've asked respond, "I'm a Catholic" instead of "I'm a Christian." That loyalty to the church can sometimes replace loyalty to Christ.

Tibby, if you're born again, I'm glad to meet a born again Christian who's still in the Catholic church. When I use the term "born again" to a catholic, I've always gotten a funny look. In fact, I can honestly say there hasn't been one Catholic I've  said that to who hasn't given me that look. If you're born again, then you would be the first Catholic i've met who is and still attends the catholic church.  On the other hand, it is a pre-requisite of the E-Free churches to be born again. That is not a pre-requisite of other protestant or Catholic churches. Therefore, you're going to find more born again Christians in the E-Free churches. That's not to say that there aren't scriptural errors in the E-Free church either. It just depends on what the most important aspects of Christianity are. I believe salvation is first and foremost.

[Knox]

Knox, I've backed up my assertion in many posts. I have not heard any info from you that the doctrine has changed.

No, you haven't. The RCC hasn't been involved in the selling of indulgences for 4 or 500 years! Can you show that that is not true?

You're the one who asked who Luther was to be telling someone about faith. If you knew, then why did you ask the question? I doubt that you know more about Luther than I do, but this isn't a competition, or is that what you think it is?

Do you have any idea what a rhetorical question is?

And you missed my point. Proportionally, fewer catholics are saved than the evangelical churches in which having a personal relatioship with Christ is a requirement of being a member.

Er, this is a new point. You haven't made this baseless unprovable claim before.

I have seen much less evidence given for the beliefs of the Atheists than the Christians have given as proof of God's existence. The Atheists still answer questions with questions. How much criteria do atheists need as proof of God's existence? It has to be spelled out to them, much like spoon-feeding a child. Even children understand more than they do.

Er, why do you keep bringing up atheism?

[Heidi]

Again, Knox, you answer questions with questions instead of giving intelligent answers. One must assume that you don't have any.

[Saved_4ever]

No, you haven't. The RCC hasn't been involved in the selling of indulgences for 4 or 500 years! Can you show that that is not true?

HAHA I guess because they renamed a few things it's all better now.  Just make sure you toss your money in the bucket or don't come to church.  Also toss some money in the bucket and light a candle and ask Mary to help out and it's all good.  

Jason is fairly new to the Christian faith, he has lived lost life, and recently found Christ. He has been in this one Church all his Christian Life. This Church told him that Catholics are all Pagans, condemned to Hell.

You're quite the story teller aren't you tibby?  It's a good thing I decided to check this thread else your false claims would be thought true.  I NEVER told you my church taught me that nor is it my belief.  The RCC is pagan and the truth is far from them.  I give no credance to the "supposed" early church fathers, them all being catholic (go figure it lines up with your doctrine).  It does not however line up with the bible, the ONLY authority I look to.  

When have I ever said all catholics are damned to hell?  Do you enjoy making up lies?  I give no real credance to Luther either as he was no one worth listening to, as he had no problems killing baptists for "rebaptising (ana-baptists)" his followers.

There is one mediator and that is Christ no "dead saint" can do anything for you.  Living ones can pray for you but that is much different than those who are sleeping.  If they are sleeping they can't be doing much else now can they?

Anyhow carry one with the same old garbage.  I have yet to meet a catholic who believes they don't have to work their way to heaven or better yet those that don't even believe in hell.  They are much fewer, but they have been piking up during my visitation.

[Saved_4ever]

Corpus would you like some pictures of  catholic clergy with Hitler and the gang?  Of course knox here hasn't even heard of the inquisition apparently.









etc etc....

[ebia]

I give no credance to the "supposed" early church fathers, them all being catholic (go figure it lines up with your doctrine).  It does not however line up with the bible, the ONLY authority I look to.  

So who do you think compiled the bible?  

[ebia]

Again, Knox, you answer questions with questions instead of giving intelligent answers. One must assume that you don't have any.

I would have though answering questions with questions has a very good biblical precedent.

[Corpus]

5020,

Your lack of knowlege about the Vatican's involvement in the holocaust is not our problem.  Instead of blatantly denying the truth, do a little bit of research.  I guess ignorance is bliss.

My lack of knowledge is not your problem??? How about instead of blatantly assuming the truth, we demonstrate some evidence. Is it typical to expect the accused to prove their innocence?

It's pretty easy Corpus.  If you said that, I would do research and prove that to be untrue.  Unfortunately, you're blissfully wallowing in your ignorance as if that makes it untrue.

Needing to prove casual and unsubstantiated accusations wrong hardly qaulifies as a useful means of my time. I'm sorry if you feel I'm "blissfully wallowing in my ignorance," but I am after all waiting to be educated. In other words, I'm waiting for people to do more than simply cast aspersions about others. Let's try a bit more civility in our comments shall we? The anonymity you enjoy on a forum like this enables you to be quite frankly rude. It's hardly Christian.

[Heidi]

We don't need to research, Corpus, because we're satisfied with the information we have. If you're not, then it is up to you to do reseach. If you want it proven to you, then find the evidence. If you don't want to find out what's true, then don't do the research.

[Knox]

Oh please, about those pictures. Hitler WAS the leader of Germany, after all. I'm sure similar photos can be found with clergy members of any Christian denomination present in Germany. What is the implication supposed to be? That the Christian clergy were aware of, or even endorsed, Hitler's policy of genocide?

PS Those pictures came from a site that spends considerable bandwidth mocking the Bible.

[Corpus]

And so, here we go...

On April 28, 1935, four years before the War even started, Eugenio Pacelli gave a speech that aroused the attention of the world press. Speaking to an audience of 250,000 pilgrims in Lourdes, France, the future Pius XII stated that the Nazis "are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult."[iii] It was talks like this, in addition to private remarks and numerous notes of protest that Pacelli sent to Berlin in his capacity as Vatican Secretary of State, that earned him a reputation as an enemy of the Nazi party.

The Germans were likewise displeased with the reigning pontiff, Pius XI, who showed himself to be a unrelenting opponent of the new German "ideals"—even writing an entire encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge (1937), to condemn them. When Pius XI died in 1939, the Nazis abhorred the prospect that Pacelli might be elected his successor.

Dr. Joseph Lichten, a Polish Jew who served as a diplomat and later an official of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, writes: "Pacelli had obviously established his position clearly, for the Fascist governments of both Italy and Germany spoke out vigorously against the possibility of his election to succeed Pius XI in March of 1939, though the cardinal secretary of state had served as papal nuncio in Germany from 1917 to 1929. . . . The day after his election, the Berlin Morgenpost said: ‘The election of cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.’ "[iv]

Former Israeli diplomat and now Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide states that Pius XI "had good reason to make Pacelli the architect of his anti-Nazi policy. Of the forty-four speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler’s doctrines. . . . Pacelli, who never met the Führer, called it ‘neo-Paganism.’ "[v]

A few weeks after Pacelli was elected pope, the German Reich’s Chief Security Service issued a then-secret report on the new Pope. Rabbi Lapide provides an excerpt:

"Pacelli has already made himself prominent by his attacks on National Socialism during his tenure as Cardinal Secretary of State, a fact which earned him the hearty approval of the Democratic States during the papal elections. . . . How much Pacelli is celebrated as an ally of the Democracies is especially emphasized in the French Press."[vi]

Unfortunately, joy in the election of a strong pope who would continue Pius XI’s defiance of the Nazis was darkened by the ominous political developments in Europe. War finally came on September 1, 1939, when German troops overran Poland. Two days later Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Early in 1940, Hitler made an attempt to prevent the new Pope from maintaining the anti-Nazi stance he had taken before his election. He sent his underling, Joachim von Ribbentrop, to try to dissuade Pius XII from following his predecessor’s policies. "Von Ribbentrop, granted a formal audience on March 11, 1940, went into a lengthy harangue on the invincibility of the Third Reich, the inevitability of a Nazi victory, and the futility of papal alignment with the enemies of the Führer. Pius XII heard von Ribbentrop out politely and impassively. Then he opened an enormous ledger on his desk and, in his perfect German, began to recite a catalogue of the persecutions inflicted by the Third Reich in Poland, listing the date, place, and precise details of each crime. The audience was terminated; the Pope’s position was clearly unshakable."[vii]