Why I could personally never chose to be Catholic

[brakelite]

Which one the SDA or the catholic, divided by there religions and doctrines,

Mat_15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar_7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Col_2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

its why we have religion, people prefer there religions to Christ.

Mar_7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

God bless

I agree with your quoted verses...Sooo, which particular commandment of men that countermands good doctrine are you referring to that either BOD or I are promoting? I am sure you have one in mind, you wouldn't be just throwing verses to the wind hoping they'll hit something huh?

 

[Marymog]

Tell me. Do you hold fast to the older traditions, or new ones. Which traditions do you believe the more trustworthy, and what validates the establishment of new ones which contradict scripture and the commandments of God?


Jeremiah 6:16-19
16 Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
17 Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken.
18 Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them.
19 Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.

Luke 4:16
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Acts 28:17
17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Acts 17:2
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

I hold fast to the traditions that The Church has taught for 2,000 years. Not the 500 year tradition you hold fast to.

You keep ignoring my question

Are you a seventh day Adventist?

Curious Mary

 

[brakelite]

Are you a seventh day Adventist?

Maybe, maybe not. I well know the angst and bias/prejudice within Christendom against SDAs. So I would rather you judge me on what I write and present here, rather than by proxy through the church I affiliate with.

 

[Marymog]

Let me quote my own web site (blog) the 'about' part which explains why I use the name 'brakelite'.
Traffic can be hell. Distractions, speeding, intolerance, abuse, rudeness…and much more can make traveling from one place to another a nightmare. It can be frustrating, dangerous, confusing, fraught with near misses and worse, at times one can get lost, even never reaching the intended destination.

Which brings me to the ‘brakelite’. A bright warning light on the rear of the vehicles ahead that scream ‘hold-up’, ‘slow down’, or even ‘STOP’, but always when displayed it gives the following driver pause, and awakens one senses to seriously consider the way ahead. To evaluate the options, and choose wisely, hopefully, a safe line of travel, even if necessary in certain circumstances like a ‘detour’, turning around and going another way,.

‘Brakelite’ is the pseudonym I write under. For precisely the same reasons as described above. My hope is that as one reads my articles they will pause, consider their options, and choose wisely their way ahead. My hope and prayer is that all who read will safely arrive one day at the New Jerusalem, where we may meet by the grace of God and never more to worry over traffic jams.

God bless.

I have been using that name for 20 years on a variety of forums. My reasoning behind it hasn't changed. write what I do to make people think. Not to compel them to obey.

Hi brakelite,

Thank you for your honesty. Some on this forum seem to think their interpretation of scripture and what they write on this forum or in their blogs is The Truth. At least you are brave enough to admit that you are not infallible and that I should check my bible to see if what you write is the truth or not.

Since The Church is infallible I will take The Churches interpretation of scripture and I will continue to believe what scripture says in 1 Timothy 3:15.

When does your opinion on your blog end and The Truth begin? Or is it all just your opinion?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Maybe, maybe not. I well know the angst and bias/prejudice within Christendom against SDAs. So I would rather you judge me on what I write and present here, rather than by proxy through the church I affiliate with.

Thank you for your timely response. Are you embarrassed to admit if you are? If so, why?

Only God judges.

Curious Mary

 

[brakelite]

Since The Church is infallible I will take The Churches interpretation of scripture and I will continue to believe what scripture says in 1 Timothy 3:15.

Because we have only the church's word of it's own infallibility, its credibility is no greater than my own. Do you know who John Locke was? In 1689 he wrote "A Letter Concerning Toleration".
The only narrow way which leads to heaven is not better known to the magistrate than to private persons and therefore I cannot safely take him for my guide who may probably be as ignorant of the way as myself, and who certainly is less concerned for my salvation than I myself am". This was regarding political interference in spiritual matters, however, I would extend this to any prelate, pastor, priest, church, or an ecclesiastical body. For no-one else is going to stand by my side when I face my Maker, holding my hand and be willing to accept the responsibility for where I am going. There, before my King, I will be alone. And I alone will be held responsible for my decisions and choices in life. Even if I am deceived, it will be my own fault because within reach is the word of God. I will have no excuse. I trust only my heavenly Father...I make no man my right arm.

When does your opinion on your blog end and The Truth begin? Or is it all just your opinion?

The truth begins with scripture and ends with scripture.

Thank you for your timely response. Are you embarrassed to admit if you are? If so, why?

I have been in my present church for 23 years. If I was embarrassed, I would have left long long ago. When the trinity debate began in the 4th century, there were at first two opposing camps, with many undecided on which side to take. Athanasius and Arius were both religious leaders, one from Alexandria, the other, Arius, from Antioch. Alexandria was known for being the source of gnosticism, Antioch for sound doctrine as they were first called Christians there, and had Lucian, a well known Biblicist and teacher, leading the church. We all know how the debate went. But the only remaining evidence we have of what Arius actually believed, is in a letter now held in custody by his enemies, and possibly altered by them. We have only the word of his enemies as to what he believed. Was he right or wrong? Who really knows? But we know that many take the word of the enemy over the word of the underdog. That is what happens outside of adventism. I have seen Protestantism in general support and lie between themselves in attacking adventists, beleiving each others stories and myths, with very few going to the horse's mouth and asking directly. And even when they do that, which is rare, they tend to disbelieve the horse because it contradicts what they have previously been fed. This is typical in any war. It is how Lucifer began his rebellion in heaven. Slandering God behind His back, gossiping and lying creating confusion and doubt.
Yes, I am adventist, and most on this site know that I think. But I don't agree with everything my church currently teaches, aka the trinity. But embarrassed? no.

 

[Marymog]

Because we have only the church's word of it's own infallibility, its credibility is no greater than my own. Do you know who John Locke was? In 1689 he wrote "A Letter Concerning Toleration".
The only narrow way which leads to heaven is not better known to the magistrate than to private persons and therefore I cannot safely take him for my guide who may probably be as ignorant of the way as myself, and who certainly is less concerned for my salvation than I myself am". This was regarding political interference in spiritual matters, however, I would extend this to any prelate, pastor, priest, church, or an ecclesiastical body. For no-one else is going to stand by my side when I face my Maker, holding my hand and be willing to accept the responsibility for where I am going. There, before my King, I will be alone. And I alone will be held responsible for my decisions and choices in life. Even if I am deceived, it will be my own fault because within reach is the word of God. I will have no excuse. I trust only my heavenly Father...I make no man my right arm.

The truth begins with scripture and ends with scripture.

I have been in my present church for 23 years. If I was embarrassed, I would have left long long ago. When the trinity debate began in the 4th century, there were at first two opposing camps, with many undecided on which side to take. Athanasius and Arius were both religious leaders, one from Alexandria, the other, Arius, from Antioch. Alexandria was known for being the source of gnosticism, Antioch for sound doctrine as they were first called Christians there, and had Lucian, a well known Biblicist and teacher, leading the church. We all know how the debate went. But the only remaining evidence we have of what Arius actually believed, is in a letter now held in custody by his enemies, and possibly altered by them. We have only the word of his enemies as to what he believed. Was he right or wrong? Who really knows? But we know that many take the word of the enemy over the word of the underdog. That is what happens outside of adventism. I have seen Protestantism in general support and lie between themselves in attacking adventists, beleiving each others stories and myths, with very few going to the horse's mouth and asking directly. And even when they do that, which is rare, they tend to disbelieve the horse because it contradicts what they have previously been fed. This is typical in any war. It is how Lucifer began his rebellion in heaven. Slandering God behind His back, gossiping and lying creating confusion and doubt.
Yes, I am adventist, and most on this site know that I think. But I don't agree with everything my church currently teaches, aka the trinity. But embarrassed? no.

Dear friend,

You are an Adventist but you only believe what you teach yourself, not what your church teaches you? Why go to that church then? You believe we are all the church but you belong to a Church? How is that logical? The Catholic Church is part of the antichrist system and the men of The Church that make the doctrines/dogmas of that church are bad but the members the Catholic Church that adhere to those doctrines/dogmas aren’t bad? Is that possible? You belong to a church that has doctrines/dogmas and the men that came up with those doctrines/dogmas are right in their interpretation of scripture but the men of the Catholic Church aren’t right in their interpretation? The truth begins with scripture and ends with scripture and you, or the men of your church, have correctly translated scripture into The Truth but the men of the Catholic Church havn’t? Fasinciating. When interpreting scripture when does opinion end and dogma begin? For once you have been told The Truth, and you then deny it, you put yourself in jeapordy of damnation. Don’t you?

Your nonsensical, contradictory and non biblical beliefs that you have articulated in this forum and in your blog have me so confused I honestly don’t know what to say. Thank you for your time.

Best wishes, Mary

 

[twinc]

Dear friend,

You are an Adventist but you only believe what you teach yourself, not what your church teaches you? Why go to that church then? You believe we are all the church but you belong to a Church? How is that logical? The Catholic Church is part of the antichrist system and the men of The Church that make the doctrines/dogmas of that church are bad but the members the Catholic Church that adhere to those doctrines/dogmas aren’t bad? Is that possible? You belong to a church that has doctrines/dogmas and the men that came up with those doctrines/dogmas are right in their interpretation of scripture but the men of the Catholic Church aren’t right in their interpretation? The truth begins with scripture and ends with scripture and you, or the men of your church, have correctly translated scripture into The Truth but the men of the Catholic Church havn’t? Fasinciating. When interpreting scripture when does opinion end and dogma begin? For once you have been told The Truth, and you then deny it, you put yourself in jeapordy of damnation. Don’t you?

Your nonsensical, contradictory and non biblical beliefs that you have articulated in this forum and in your blog have me so confused I honestly don’t know what to say. Thank you for your time.

Best wishes, Mary

both you and your infallible friend are as fallible or even more so than I am, so who shall we go to - here is a good definition of an unauthorised infallible human by A.Pope= "sole judge of truth in endless error hurled the glory jest and riddle of the world"- twinc

 

[Marymog]

both you and your infallible friend are as fallible or even more so than I am, so who shall we go to - here is a good definition of an unauthorised infallible human by A.Pope= "sole judge of truth in endless error hurled the glory jest and riddle of the world"- twinc

If we are all fallible does that mean that we will never know the Truth of Scripture?

Scripture says that The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Is that not true?

Curious Mary

 

[aspen]

Maybe, maybe not. I well know the angst and bias/prejudice within Christendom against SDAs. So I would rather you judge me on what I write and present here, rather than by proxy through the church I affiliate with.

This sounds reasonable until you hold court over Catholic doctrine

 

[brakelite]

You are an Adventist but you only believe what you teach yourself, not what your church teaches you?

I believe what my church teaches, if it agrees with scripture. God will hold me responsible for any error that I accept, not my church. Why? Because ultimately, I am responsible for my own destiny. It is for me to discern between truth and error. That is why Jesus promises the holy Spirit to be their teacher.

You believe we are all the church but you belong to a Church?

No, I do not believe we are all a part of the body of Christ. Only those who have fully received Christ, repented and are following Him in obedience to His commandments. There are such in every denomination. As such grow, they will eventually learn more of the truth as it is in Christ, and some will be convicted to move away from their denomination in order to be fed wholesome spiritual food.

The Catholic Church is part of the antichrist system and the men of The Church that make the doctrines/dogmas of that church are bad but the members the Catholic Church that adhere to those doctrines/dogmas aren’t bad? Is that possible?

The Catholic Church is the Antichrist. I do not judge any individual member within that system. It is the system I condemn, nothing else, not even the leaders.

You belong to a church that has doctrines/dogmas and the men that came up with those doctrines/dogmas are right in their interpretation of scripture but the men of the Catholic Church aren’t right in their interpretation?

I have compared both church's teachings with scripture. I have chosen the SDA church to be closer. I believe the RCC is like a counterfeit note. It looks right, it feels right, but once you experience the real thing, the errors become clear and plain.

This sounds reasonable until you hold court over Catholic doctrine

I do not hold court over Catholicism more than that I do my own church. I hold my own church more accountable, because that is who I believe has received more light in regards truth. It is my church that will be judged more harshly if they practice or teach something contradictory to what God has shown them. My principle beefs with Catholicism is not so much the errors in doctrine, but in two other essential areas of faith and practice. First, as I said to Mary, I am convinced the RCC is the Antichrist. What this means is that as an institution she has replaced Christ with ritual, sacrament, saints, etc, in other words a system that instead of the person of Christ ministering on our behalf in the heavenly sanctuary, we have in the RCC a system, a copy, of the OT priesthood whereby means are introduced that intervene or interlope between the believer and his Saviour. Second, and my more urgent beef, is the historical practice which is enshrined within the institution that when opportunity is available, will persecute and punish those who choose not to submit to Papal dogma and doctrine. This has cost the lives of millions, and will cost the lives of millions more in the near future.

 

[brakelite]

Maybe, maybe not. I well know the angst and bias/prejudice within Christendom against SDAs. So I would rather you judge me on what I write and present here, rather than by proxy through the church I affiliate with.

This sounds reasonable until you hold court over Catholic doctrine

If the prejudice against Adventism was based on the behavior of Adventists, that hypocrisy and being constantly obnoxious was standard, then I could excuse it. But the bias against SDAs is more based on ignorance and lack of knowledge of their teachings...accepting the views of their enemies rather than hearing from the horse's mouth.
Bias against Catholicism is based on history. While the modern practices and pronouncements that come from the HQ of Catholicism is far different from those of the 13th century, I have found that there is also marked reluctance among most members of that faith to acknowledge that those errors that so corrupted the faith in those times still belonged to a 'true church against which the gates of hell could not prevail'. That blindness is today affecting many into thinking it couldn't happen again.

 

[Marymog]

I believe what my church teaches, if it agrees with scripture. God will hold me responsible for any error that I accept, not my church. Why? Because ultimately, I am responsible for my own destiny. It is for me to discern between truth and error. That is why Jesus promises the holy Spirit to be their teacher.

No, I do not believe we are all a part of the body of Christ. Only those who have fully received Christ, repented and are following Him in obedience to His commandments. There are such in every denomination. As such grow, they will eventually learn more of the truth as it is in Christ, and some will be convicted to move away from their denomination in order to be fed wholesome spiritual food.

The Catholic Church is the Antichrist. I do not judge any individual member within that system. It is the system I condemn, nothing else, not even the leaders.

I have compared both church's teachings with scripture. I have chosen the SDA church to be closer. I believe the RCC is like a counterfeit note. It looks right, it feels right, but once you experience the real thing, the errors become clear and plain.

I do not hold court over Catholicism more than that I do my own church. I hold my own church more accountable, because that is who I believe has received more light in regards truth. It is my church that will be judged more harshly if they practice or teach something contradictory to what God has shown them. My principle beefs with Catholicism is not so much the errors in doctrine, but in two other essential areas of faith and practice. First, as I said to Mary, I am convinced the RCC is the Antichrist. What this means is that as an institution she has replaced Christ with ritual, sacrament, saints, etc, in other words a system that instead of the person of Christ ministering on our behalf in the heavenly sanctuary, we have in the RCC a system, a copy, of the OT priesthood whereby means are introduced that intervene or interlope between the believer and his Saviour. Second, and my more urgent beef, is the historical practice which is enshrined within the institution that when opportunity is available, will persecute and punish those who choose not to submit to Papal dogma and doctrine. This has cost the lives of millions, and will cost the lives of millions more in the near future.

I read your first answer and I can't read anymore. You believe what your church teaches, if it agrees with scripture?

What you are really saying is you are always right.

I apologize for wasting your time.

Mary

 

[brakelite]

What you are really saying is you are always right.

No. I am not infallible...and neither is the church. But what is always right is the scriptures. All one needs to do is believe them. The RCC does not.

 

[rstrats]

Marymog,
re: "Scripture says that The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Is that not true?"


The trick of course is knowing which church is "The Church". Scripture calls it the "church of God" and many organizations want to claim that distinction.

 

[Webers_Home]

-

Which one of those 2 billion Christians are the pillar and foundation of truth
spoken of 1 Timothy 3:15?

"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the
household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and
foundation of truth."

Every stitch of punctuation in that passage was arbitrarily penciled in by
translators because the Greek manuscripts don't have any. Here's that
passage translated without punctuation.

"But if I should be delayed you should know how to behave in the household
of God which is the church of the living God the pillar and foundation of
truth."

The emphasis is supposed to be upon the living God rather than upon His
household. In other words: were there not a real live God, then the religious
aspects of the whole entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, would be
fantasy, i.e. it's the reality of God that gives the Bible solid footing.

NOTE: Estimates as of 2014 place the number of Christians of all denominations
world-wide at 2.4 billion.

/

 

[Marymog]

No. I am not infallible...and neither is the church. But what is always right is the scriptures. All one needs to do is believe them. The RCC does not.

Based on your logic we can't even know if we have the right 27 books of the NT scripture that you quote from.

You say the church is not infallible. Scripture disagrees with you. The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

When you state that you believe what your church teaches, if it agrees with scripture that means only YOU are the decider of Truth. Your church leaders don't know scripture...only you do. You are on a dangerous path my friend.

I believe in scripture. So do the men of the CC and your church, however, according to your logic we have to check in with you to see if we are right since you are The One who decides if what we believe agrees with scripture. Or is it only the leaders of your church, not the RCC, that have to check in with you? ;)

Mary

 

[brakelite]

Based on your logic we can't even know if we have the right 27 books of the NT scripture that you quote from.

You really believe God didn't have any influence whatsoever in securing His messages of the gospel to men?

You say the church is not infallible. Scripture disagrees with you. The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Really? According to my Bible , Ephesians 2:19-22 , the household of God, (not explicitly the RCC) is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and Jesus Himself being the chief cornerstone. And 1 Corinthians says "for other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". Now if you are considering 1 Timothy 3:15, I would suggest that you don't read too much into that. That word 'church', ekklesia, merely means a gathering of people. It does not read Roman Catholic Church. The church in Rome was not the first Christian assembly, and its precedence in the minds of Christians arose not through apostolic succession as you would attempt to claim, but through force and compulsion. The so-called apostolic succession was invented by the early fathers to substantiate their apostate hunger for power. Jesus, if He was still in the tomb, would have been rolling over groaning through His nightmares at the thought of what was developing in Rome in those early centuries; directly against His own counsel.
Luke 22:24-27
24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

When you state that you believe what your church teaches, if it agrees with scripture that means only YOU are the decider of Truth. Your church leaders don't know scripture...only you do. You are on a dangerous path my friend.

Are you suggesting that we should believe what our churches teach when they disagree with the Bible as members of the RCC do when it comes to salvation through Christ alone?

I believe in scripture. So do the men of the CC and your church, however, according to your logic we have to check in with you to see if we are right since you are The One who decides if what we believe agrees with scripture. Or is it only the leaders of your church, not the RCC, that have to check in with you? ;)

No, the leaders of the RCC do not believe in the Bible. They believe in tradition, also, and when it suits them, tradition trumps the words of scripture, even when it comes to the very laws of God Himself! Yes, I will decide who I will follow when it comes to my salvation, for you can be very very sure that no pope, bishop,, priest, or layman of whatever church is going to stand by my side before the judgment seat of Christ, hold my hand, and take responsibility for my beliefs. Mary...you are responsible for what you believe, and no other.

 

[Marymog]

You really believe God didn't have any influence whatsoever in securing His messages of the gospel to men?

Really? According to my Bible , Ephesians 2:19-22 , the household of God, (not explicitly the RCC) is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and Jesus Himself being the chief cornerstone. And 1 Corinthians says "for other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". Now if you are considering 1 Timothy 3:15, I would suggest that you don't read too much into that. That word 'church', ekklesia, merely means a gathering of people. It does not read Roman Catholic Church. The church in Rome was not the first Christian assembly, and its precedence in the minds of Christians arose not through apostolic succession as you would attempt to claim, but through force and compulsion. The so-called apostolic succession was invented by the early fathers to substantiate their apostate hunger for power. Jesus, if He was still in the tomb, would have been rolling over groaning through His nightmares at the thought of what was developing in Rome in those early centuries; directly against His own counsel.
Luke 22:24-27
24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

Are you suggesting that we should believe what our churches teach when they disagree with the Bible as members of the RCC do when it comes to salvation through Christ alone?

No, the leaders of the RCC do not believe in the Bible. They believe in tradition, also, and when it suits them, tradition trumps the words of scripture, even when it comes to the very laws of God Himself! Yes, I will decide who I will follow when it comes to my salvation, for you can be very very sure that no pope, bishop,, priest, or layman of whatever church is going to stand by my side before the judgment seat of Christ, hold my hand, and take responsibility for my beliefs. Mary...you are responsible for what you believe, and no other.

Thank you....

I would tell you what I think, debunk all your theories and give you plenty of scripture to back up everything I believe, HOWEVER, I know my beliefs will never get your blessings. After all, you are the one who approves your churches interpretations of scripture.

If you don't believe what your own church teaches you....why waste my time??? What I don't understand....If you don't believe what your own church teaches...why are you a member of it???? Why not start your own church???

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I believe what my church teaches, if it agrees with scripture. God will hold me responsible for any error that I accept, not my church. Why? Because ultimately, I am responsible for my own destiny. It is for me to discern between truth and error. That is why Jesus promises the holy Spirit to be their teacher.

Hi brakelite,

You have me VERY confused. You say that you are not infallible but you only believe what your church teaches if it agrees with scripture. You say that you don't believe any man or church is infallible. Since you are not infallible, how do you know when you are being fallible and your church is being infallible when interpreting scripture? Or vice a versa?

You also make it very clear that the Catholic Church is wrong in it's interpretation of scripture and The Catholic Church is antichrist. After all, anyone who teaches opposite of what scripture says is anti-Christ. Right??? However you also admit your own church is wrong about some of their interpretations of scripture and teaches the wrong thing based on that wrong interpretation. Does that mean your church is part of the anti-Christ system also?

Confused Mary