Vatican exposures: Catholic ATS members? What say you?

all I've really learned of it was from like grammar school in social studies... We are taught that the founders got away from the British church-state.

later I learned people abuse the knowledge that you are free only to enslave people...

but it didn't destroy the knowledge as has been tried more than a few times.

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

cool I am looking now... definition says "Father" pronounced like pop/popa.

Only Jesus is our father on this side of the pond...

"Pope" is from the same Latin root that we get "poppa" from. He was the leader of a Christian faction in Rome that merged with the Roman Empire under Constantine in the 300's, establishing the Roman Catholic Church and "Holy Roman Empire". Then the secular political Empire died out, leaving the religious political Empire, which covered most of Europe at the time, under various kings. The Pope claimed "overlordship" over all of the secular kings, making it a secular Empire under a religious veneer.

That period of time was called "The Dark Ages", for good reason.

We got rid of our kings over here, and eventually most of Europe followed suit. Now the Pope presides over Vatican City in Rome, which is actually an independent country - but not very large. the Pope still claims overlordship of various places that he doesn't actually physically control, the last vestiges of the Old Roman Empire.

Think of it as a series of colonies, each encompassing the grounds of a Roman Catholic Church, attempting to exert influence into the surrounding (secular and independent) areas.

An example of the Catholic attempts to exert influence over secular areas is the espousal and promotion of "Liberation Theology" in Central America - an effort that got God only knows how many thousands of people killed permanently dead, of which I was nearly one.

Another example is colbe's support and promotion of Rick Santorum, solely on the basis of his religious views. Santorum may be the best of a bad bunch, but I personally wouldn't vote for him BECAUSE of his religious views - he hasn't quite grasped the separation of Church and State, which seems to have also been problematic for Europe lo those many years ago in the Dark Ages and the era of the Holy Roman Empire.

Render unto Caesar those things which belong to Caesar, and unto God those things which belong to God.

A really smart guy said that a very long time ago, a couple of hundred years before the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, a.k.a. the "Holy Roman Empire"..

reply to post by nenothtu


I suppose it is tradition at this point but still serving purpose for sure planting the seeds of the great mystery.

they may continue I suppose even though we are beyond all that jazz now...

Originally posted by cloudyday

I would be curious if the Catholic Church officially believes that the bread and wine/juice in non-Catholic churches is Jesus. They seem to use the Creed issue to avoid confronting this question. But I think the Catholic church tries harder than others to have answers for questions. I hear the wisecrack about "crackers and juice" from Catholic lay people but I'm curious if that belief goes all the way to the top. I know my Orthodox priest believed in the "crackers an juice" theory, but I assume he extended that to the Catholics as well as Protestants. Another Orthodox priest I asked said essentially that only the Orthodox church has the grace for communion.

It's an important question, because it's very hard to believe these things. Especially when we have the Catholics and Orthodox with very similar beliefs and practices each claiming to be the Church. It makes me doubt both churches.

edit on 28-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

I agree that it is a hugely important question and I'll do some research to get you an official, more fleshed outl answer. I am concerned, however, that it is off topic. Unless Wildtimes says it's ok to continue the discussion here, I'll pm you the follow up.

Yes, the Catholic Church believes that the Eucharist in non-Catholic churches is not actually transubstantiation. I believe (but keep in mind that I'm not speaking for the Church) that they do recognize it as symbolic and valid in that respect.

I believe that the reason for this is that the Catholic Church believes that it is the only religion that has true apostolic succession and Catholic Priests (and Bishops, Cardinals, etc.) are the only legitimate successors following in the form of Acts.

Eric

Originally posted by EricD

Originally posted by cloudyday

I would be curious if the Catholic Church officially believes that the bread and wine/juice in non-Catholic churches is Jesus. They seem to use the Creed issue to avoid confronting this question. But I think the Catholic church tries harder than others to have answers for questions. I hear the wisecrack about "crackers and juice" from Catholic lay people but I'm curious if that belief goes all the way to the top. I know my Orthodox priest believed in the "crackers an juice" theory, but I assume he extended that to the Catholics as well as Protestants. Another Orthodox priest I asked said essentially that only the Orthodox church has the grace for communion.

It's an important question, because it's very hard to believe these things. Especially when we have the Catholics and Orthodox with very similar beliefs and practices each claiming to be the Church. It makes me doubt both churches.

edit on 28-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

I agree that it is a hugely important question and I'll do some research to get you an official, more fleshed outl answer. I am concerned, however, that it is off topic. Unless Wildtimes says it's ok to continue the discussion here, I'll pm you the follow up.

Yes, the Catholic Church believes that the Eucharist in non-Catholic churches is not actually transubstantiation. I believe (but keep in mind that I'm not speaking for the Church) that they do recognize it as symbolic and valid in that respect.

I believe that the reason for this is that the Catholic Church believes that it is the only religion that has true apostolic succession and Catholic Priests (and Bishops, Cardinals, etc.) are the only legitimate successors following in the form of Acts.

Eric

O.k. PM is fine too. I think you've answered the question for me very well. I assumed that must be the Catholic position. Orthodoxy isn't as orderly as Catholicism, but as far as I can tell that is a mirror image of their opinion. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't think Jesus would allow himself to be limited the way that would limit him.

reply to post by EricD

Unless Wildtimes says it's ok to continue the discussion here, I'll pm you the follow up.

No!
Wait, Eric, it's perfectly okay.....we're trying (I'm hoping) to have an intellectual conversation here regarding the 'established post-Jewish religious institution that is the Roman Catholic Church.'

Thank you , though, for the respect. I expected this thread to be flamed into oblivion, and, frankly, I'm delighted that it hasn't. These are hugely important issues, and they need to be addressed, publicly.

The Holy Eucharist is true.

All other forms of non-Catholic communion remain what they are, bread and wine or oh my,....juice and crackers.

And talk of respect. Good Lord. You show no respect for Catholicism WH, this thread is another trash of the faith.

It is you who are going to have to change.

In my last post I wrote "WH"....I meant the OP, wildtimes.

This prophetic is appropriate, a prophecy to help prepare our brothers and sisters in Christ for divine events not far off. Our Lord has always wished we believe the same.

It's going to happen, no more division. Alleluia.


The messenger is Denise Mears

March 28, 2012

ft111.com...


ONE KING OF ONE KINGDOM

Oh my children who have said that you are of this one and another of that one. What man has divided I will bring together In My Name. Until you see as I see and know of which I am speaking, you will remain as a spoil that has been divided of your own accord. Do not assume or contemplate that what man has devised is of My plan. I AM King of all kings and Lord of all lords. I am of one Spirit and one Kingdom....

Come out from among them and be separate and whole unto Me. Why would you remain in a place that has become detestable in My sight. Lazarus was a man of My heart yet he experienced death. The grave clothes were removed and he walked in newness of life. I waited until the death of his flesh was complete and brought forth new life. I will be glorified in the raising of My people for I have groaned in knowing that so many sleep. Be raised now in this life for I am in you and you are in Me.

“Then you shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken it and performed it,” says the LORD.’” Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “As for you, son of man, take a stick for yourself and write on it: ‘For Judah and for the children of Israel, his companions.’ Then take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel, his companions.’ Then join them one to another for yourself into one stick, and they will become one in your hand.” “And when the children of your people speak to you, saying, ‘Will you not show us what you mean by these?' say to them, 'Thus says the LORD GOD: “Surely I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will join them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand.”’ They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. Then they shall be My people, and I will be their God.”
Ezekiel 37: 13-19; 23...

reply to post by EricD

I believe that the reason for this is that the Catholic Church believes that it is the only religion that has true apostolic succession and Catholic Priests (and Bishops, Cardinals, etc.) are the only legitimate successors following in the form of Acts.

Where does it mention any of that in Acts?

reply to post by colbe


You should perhaps read those again, and test the Spirits as you go. I read the entire page, and it appears those messages are leading you directly away from Catholicism and into God's Kingdom, as I've been saying.

I am truly glad that you will be happy with what you get and where you find yourself in the end, If your water fountains which dispense your Living Water have signs that say "Catholics Only", you won't see me there - I'll find somewhere else to be happy.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by colbe

 

You should perhaps read those again, and test the Spirits as you go. I read the entire page, and it appears those messages are leading you directly away from Catholicism and into God's Kingdom, as I've been saying.
I am truly glad that you will be happy with what you get and where you find yourself in the end, If your water fountains which dispense your Living Water have signs that say "Catholics Only", you won't see me there - I'll find somewhere else to be happy.

neno,

I am glad at least you accept Protestant prophetic. You're positive about the link to the Protestant messages from Heaven, what a surprise.

The message says what it says even if you deny.

To others, notice the last line below...Jesus is speaking about the Eucharist. How do you abide in Him and He in you?


ONE KING OF ONE KINGDOM

Oh my children who have said that you are of this one and another of that one. What man has divided I will bring together In My Name. Until you see as I see and know of which I am speaking, you will remain as a spoil that has been divided of your own accord. Do not assume or contemplate that what man has devised is of My plan. I AM King of all kings and Lord of all lords. I am of one Spirit and one Kingdom....

Come out from among them and be separate and whole unto Me. Why would you remain in a place that has become detestable in My sight. Lazarus was a man of My heart yet he experienced death. The grave clothes were removed and he walked in newness of life. I waited until the death of his flesh was complete and brought forth new life. I will be glorified in the raising of My people for I have groaned in knowing that so many sleep. Be raised now in this life for I am in you and you are in Me. ...


John 6:57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

reply to post by colbe

And talk of respect. Good Lord. You show no respect for Catholicism WH, this thread is another trash of the faith.

It is you who are going to have to change.

Respect, colbe, is something earned, not demanded. The RCC shows me no respect. Why should I respect something that considers me to be a heretical sinner?

The RCC furthermore, shows no respect to the fact that Jesus wanted people to embrace everyone, equally, to share, to be humble, to understand that we as human beings need to have universal care for one another. That's what Denise is talking about, colbe.

I am presenting the negative side of the Roman Catholic Church, which is not deserving of respect.

I understand that you are shaken by these things, colbe, I do. I understand that it is an integral facet of your worldview, that without it you are terrified...I know it is shooting holes in the very fabric of what you hold to be absolute truth.

Funny, your last dictum.

"It is you who are going to have to change."

You know what my inner Spark -- the indwelling Holy Spirit -- tells me? Every day?
This:
It is you [human beings, here and now, who see beyond the dogma of exclusive religion] who are going to have to change the way society thinks about differences among cultures and separatism and races.

And so I am doing my best. One morning at a time. One post that might plant that seed that helps the world to unite, in peace, and harmony, and plenty, for the GOOD OF ALL. What I type, colbe, is at times disrepectful, and at times chastising, and at times points out the emptiness of some notions of some persons who don't get it at all.

You are ordering people around based on imaginings of these "seers"...
I am attempting to point out that the Emperor is naked.

I think the question of what "the Church" means is important to the topic of this thread, because many Catholic scandals result from this. The priest in the Catholic view is essential to sacraments like communion. There is etiquette about how to greet a priest and the parishioners call him "Father". It makes parents more likely to trust their children around a priest. It makes the child more likely to think it is o.k. to be molested by "Father". It makes people more likely to believe the priest instead of the child's parents. It makes the Catholic hierarchy more likely to cover up the abuse to avoid tarnishing the image of the priesthood of "the Church".

In addition if "the Church" means the Catholic Church, then to some degree non-Catholics are outsiders. Catholics can sit around and pat each other on the back for being Catholic. "I thank you, Lord, that I'm not like that Episcopalian. I go to confession every Saturday. I have my holy water and my rosary beads. Lord, please help those poor misguided Episcopalians see the error of their ways and become Catholics" instead of "Lord, have mercy on me a sinner."

Aside from the ridiculousness of humans defining "the Church" and all the even more ridiculous implications of this definition, being a member of "the Church" inevitably creates pride. The Catholic or Orthodox who takes pride in being Catholic or Orthodox is probably more likely to find condemnation in communion than a Protestant that doesn't carry that baggage.

reply to post by colbe


Colbe,

I said "test the spirits" not that I believe it's a prophecy. As a matter of fact, one generally "tests spirits", if I recall correctly what my Pentecostal friends used to say, when the words uttered are suspect.

Of course the message "says what it says" - but what, exactly, does it really say? Who does it come from, based upon the internal evidence of what was said in it? Not necessarily "the message" but the way it was put together, the words used to convey it. I have my answer after reading them, but you must find your own, after a diligent search of what exactly was really said there, and whether or not it was actually necessary to say it - so necessary that God would send a prophet to have it said.

Has it already been said? In that way? How many entities are speaking there? Those are things you need to decide for yourself. I won't take your "prophetess" away by speaking against her, I just ask you to examine the "prophecy" closely, and ask questions until you get answers.

I learned more about "prophecy" from a "pagan" who asked a simple question of an alleged prophet than I learned from Pentecostal preachers who just blindly accepted the "prophecy" and the prophet simply because it was in their doctrine. That simple, yet profound question was "Your God speaks in 16th century English to 20th century listeners?".

"Test the Spirits", test the message, and see where it may lead you before just accepting it.

Your reference to "eating flesh and drinking blood" in reference to an indwelling was answered on the day of Pentecost in Acts. The Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost, not in the Upper Room where the words were spoken and the ceremony performed. The Last Supper was an act of faith, a statement of allegiance, not an actual cannibal feast, and that faith was rewarded at Pentecost.

I eat potatoes and I east steak - neither of those things "live in me", nor do I "live in them" however. One must understand the spiritual nature of spiritual things. Not everything is true in a literal sense. This is why Jesus taught in parables so often.

reply to post by wildtimes


Disrespect as shown in calling people out as "heretics" and "sinners" is a thing of the world, and it has gone on forever. It went on in the days of Christ the same as it does now. Look at the abuse he took for hanging out with "sinners and publicans", and the punishment meted out to him for his "heresy" at the insistence and instigation of the Sanhedrin, and the hands of the Romans.

One would think that a Christian, bearing the name of Christ, would handle such matters as closely to the way he did as they could. So then one must ask, just how did Christ handle sinners and heretics? The woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, the Gadarene Demoniac, the thief on the cross next to him... did he preach any of those into hell as "sinners" and "heretics"? Nope.

He did, however, treat them in a vastly different manner that the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the religious "establishment" of his day.

There's a lot to be learned from that difference in treatments as to just who was a "sinner" and a "heretic" worth saving.

Originally posted by cloudyday
I think the question of what "the Church" means is important to the topic of this thread, because many Catholic scandals result from this. The priest in the Catholic view is essential to sacraments like communion. There is etiquette about how to greet a priest and the parishioners call him "Father". It makes parents more likely to trust their children around a priest. It makes the child more likely to think it is o.k. to be molested by "Father". It makes people more likely to believe the priest instead of the child's parents. It makes the Catholic hierarchy more likely to cover up the abuse to avoid tarnishing the image of the priesthood of "the Church".

In addition if "the Church" means the Catholic Church, then to some degree non-Catholics are outsiders. Catholics can sit around and pat each other on the back for being Catholic. "I thank you, Lord, that I'm not like that Episcopalian. I go to confession every Saturday. I have my holy water and my rosary beads. Lord, please help those poor misguided Episcopalians see the error of their ways and become Catholics" instead of "Lord, have mercy on me a sinner."

Aside from the ridiculousness of humans defining "the Church" and all the even more ridiculous implications of this definition, being a member of "the Church" inevitably creates pride. The Catholic or Orthodox who takes pride in being Catholic or Orthodox is probably more likely to find condemnation in communion than a Protestant that doesn't carry that baggage.

That was probably the most profound thing I've read in days, so I had to repeat it by quoting.

It comes a lot closer to "prophecy" than the prophecies I've read of late. Whether it was meant to or not, it speaks on God's behalf to remind people of things they've lost sight of in a way that they can comprehend, and which relates Current actions to ancient ones that they profess to detest.

I don't believe the actual Church has a denomination - none has ever been named by God as "the True Church", so I have to continue believing that the membership of the True Church will be found all over, not in any one place to any degree of exclusion, and that they are the entire body of believers.

In other words, I believe if the Church is ever "taken up", they will be snatched out of the midst of all Christian denominations, and will not include the entirety of any one denomination, nor exclude member of any..

Denominations in my mind are nothing more than a bunch of people rooting for their team, and trashing the other teams. They are latter day Pharisees, Catholic and Protestant alike.

Joseph of Arimathea wasn't a bad guy, but he ran with a bad crowd. Do you suppose God kept him out of Heaven on that account?

Double post.

I hate this touchy mouse.

Is that a "hate crime" to say that?

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by colbe

 

Colbe,

I said "test the spirits" not that I believe it's a prophecy. As a matter of fact, one generally "tests spirits", if I recall correctly what my Pentecostal friends used to say, when the words uttered are suspect.

Of course the message "says what it says" - but what, exactly, does it really say? Who does it come from, based upon the internal evidence of what was said in it? Not necessarily "the message" but the way it was put together, the words used to convey it. I have my answer after reading them, but you must find your own, after a diligent search of what exactly was really said there, and whether or not it was actually necessary to say it - so necessary that God would send a prophet to have it said.

Has it already been said? In that way? How many entities are speaking there? Those are things you need to decide for yourself. I won't take your "prophetess" away by speaking against her, I just ask you to examine the "prophecy" closely, and ask questions until you get answers.

I learned more about "prophecy" from a "pagan" who asked a simple question of an alleged prophet than I learned from Pentecostal preachers who just blindly accepted the "prophecy" and the prophet simply because it was in their doctrine. That simple, yet profound question was "Your God speaks in 16th century English to 20th century listeners?".

"Test the Spirits", test the message, and see where it may lead you before just accepting it.

Your reference to "eating flesh and drinking blood" in reference to an indwelling was answered on the day of Pentecost in Acts. The Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost, not in the Upper Room where the words were spoken and the ceremony performed. The Last Supper was an act of faith, a statement of allegiance, not an actual cannibal feast, and that faith was rewarded at Pentecost.

I eat potatoes and I east steak - neither of those things "live in me", nor do I "live in them" however. One must understand the spiritual nature of spiritual things. Not everything is true in a literal sense. This is why Jesus taught in parables so often.

edit on 2012/3/29 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

neno, it's not worth it to speak to you,

You say one thing and come back to reply, I meant something else.
tee...hee. Reject and excuse all you want...

Jesus said "This is My body."

Your disagreement and protest holds no water. History shows the Apostles, the first Christians believed in the Real Presence.

reply to post by colbe


colbe....I am sorry man but what is going on? You remind me of some of the Catholics I know personally - good people deep down, but they place WAY too much emphasis on the eucharist and believing eating Christ is the only way into heaven and making fancy penances and other such nonsense.

Do you not read your Bible colbe? Do you not know that living a Christ like life, and helping others, and spreading the Gospel and having faith, is the key to heaven? I have never once receieved a Catholic eucharist, nor made a Catholic confession, and I am going to be in Paradise with you.

Colbe, cmon man, the Church is NOT infallible, and you KNOW it. I was born Catholic and recently stopped going to the Catholic church after I got involved in Catholicism, after I realized the entire Catholic church is based on lies - basically the lie that Hell is a place of eternal sadistic torment by a cruel unloving god, and also that the only way into heaven is to buy your way into heaven through the Church.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by colbe

 

And talk of respect. Good Lord. You show no respect for Catholicism WH, this thread is another trash of the faith.

It is you who are going to have to change.

Respect, colbe, is something earned, not demanded. The RCC shows me no respect. Why should I respect something that considers me to be a heretical sinner?

The RCC furthermore, shows no respect to the fact that Jesus wanted people to embrace everyone, equally, to share, to be humble, to understand that we as human beings need to have universal care for one another. That's what Denise is talking about, colbe.

I am presenting the negative side of the Roman Catholic Church, which is not deserving of respect.

I understand that you are shaken by these things, colbe, I do. I understand that it is an integral facet of your worldview, that without it you are terrified...I know it is shooting holes in the very fabric of what you hold to be absolute truth.

Funny, your last dictum.

"It is you who are going to have to change."

You know what my inner Spark -- the indwelling Holy Spirit -- tells me? Every day?
This:
It is you [human beings, here and now, who see beyond the dogma of exclusive religion] who are going to have to change the way society thinks about differences among cultures and separatism and races.

And so I am doing my best. One morning at a time. One post that might plant that seed that helps the world to unite, in peace, and harmony, and plenty, for the GOOD OF ALL. What I type, colbe, is at times disrepectful, and at times chastising, and at times points out the emptiness of some notions of some persons who don't get it at all.
You are ordering people around based on imaginings of these "seers"...
I am attempting to point out that the Emperor is naked.

edit on 29-3-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

wildtimes, we are all sinners, the Church isn't accusing you of being a sinner. And your word "heretic", another word is needed.

God the Holy Spirit is not "telling" you to attack the faith.

You can protest and reject the RCC, God gave you free will. It's not wise, everything you know of Christ has come from the Catholic Church. God wants you to become Roman Catholic, everyone in Heaven is Roman Catholic. Soon, by Heaven's time, God is going to show you, me, every soul on the earth.

I believe in Christ's words given the Apostles, all of them so you saying I am "shaken" and "terrified" are not true. I wish the same for you, pray about it. Anti-Catholic threads and writings are a dime a dozen.

And this is a discussion form, I am not "ordering" anyone around.

You're learning, you didn't us a poddy mouth in this reply. Very good.