Profession of Catholic Faith

[AnnaM]

Profession of Catholic Faith

Promulgated solemnly by Pope Pius IV and the Council of Trent

● I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church uses; namely:

● I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in

● one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten not made, of one substance (consubstantial) with the Father, through whom all things were made;

● who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

● He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, died, and was buried; and

● He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven;

● He sits at the right hand of the Father, and He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there will be no end.

● And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who equally with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified; who spoke through the prophets.

● And I believe that there is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

● I confess one baptism for the remission of sins; and I hope for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.  Amen.

● I resolutely accept and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and the other practices and regulations of that same Church.

● In like manner I accept Sacred Scripture according to the meaning which has been held by holy Mother Church and which she now holds.  It is Her prerogative to pass judgment on the true meaning and interpretation of Sacred Scripture.  And I will never accept or interpret it in a manner different from the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.

● I also acknowledge that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and that they are necessary for the salvation of the human race, although it is not necessary for each individual to receive them all.

● I acknowledge that the seven sacraments are: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of the seven, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be repeated without committing a sacrilege.

● I also accept and acknowledge the customary and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of these sacraments.

● I embrace and accept each and every article on Original Sin and Justification declared and defined in the most holy Council of Trent.

● I likewise profess that in Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God on behalf of the living and the dead, and that the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is a change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood; and this change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.

● I also profess that the whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received under each separate species.

● I firmly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful.

● I likewise hold that the saints reigning together with Christ should be honored and invoked, that they offer prayers to God on our behalf, and that their relics should be venerated.

● I firmly assert that images of Christ, of the Mother of God ever Virgin, and of the other saints should be owned and kept, and that due honor and veneration should be given to them.

● I affirm that the power of indulgences was left in the keeping of the Church by Christ, and that the use of indulgences is very beneficial to Christians.

● I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and...

● I unhesitatingly accept and profess all the doctrines (especially those concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching authority) handed down, defined, and explained by the sacred canons and ecumenical councils and especially those of this most holy Council of Trent (and by the ecumenical Vatican Council I).  And at the same time:

● I condemn, reject, and anathematize everything that is contrary to those propositions, and all heresies without exception that have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church.

● I, N., promise, vow, and swear that, with God's help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold.  With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects or those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it.  So help me God and His holy Gospel.

Most Holy Family Monastery, 4425 Schneider Rd., Fillmore, NY 14735

[Catholica]

Profession of Catholic Faith

Promulgated solemnly by Pope Pius IV and the Council of Trent

● I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church uses; namely:

● I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in

● one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten not made, of one substance (consubstantial) with the Father, through whom all things were made;

● who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

● He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, died, and was buried; and

● He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven;

● He sits at the right hand of the Father, and He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there will be no end.

● And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who equally with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified; who spoke through the prophets.

● And I believe that there is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

● I confess one baptism for the remission of sins; and I hope for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.  Amen.

● I resolutely accept and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and the other practices and regulations of that same Church.

● In like manner I accept Sacred Scripture according to the meaning which has been held by holy Mother Church and which she now holds.  It is Her prerogative to pass judgment on the true meaning and interpretation of Sacred Scripture.  And I will never accept or interpret it in a manner different from the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.

● I also acknowledge that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and that they are necessary for the salvation of the human race, although it is not necessary for each individual to receive them all.

● I acknowledge that the seven sacraments are: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of the seven, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be repeated without committing a sacrilege.

● I also accept and acknowledge the customary and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of these sacraments.

● I embrace and accept each and every article on Original Sin and Justification declared and defined in the most holy Council of Trent.

● I likewise profess that in Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God on behalf of the living and the dead, and that the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is a change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood; and this change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.

● I also profess that the whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received under each separate species.

● I firmly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful.

● I likewise hold that the saints reigning together with Christ should be honored and invoked, that they offer prayers to God on our behalf, and that their relics should be venerated.

● I firmly assert that images of Christ, of the Mother of God ever Virgin, and of the other saints should be owned and kept, and that due honor and veneration should be given to them.

● I affirm that the power of indulgences was left in the keeping of the Church by Christ, and that the use of indulgences is very beneficial to Christians.

● I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and...

● I unhesitatingly accept and profess all the doctrines (especially those concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching authority) handed down, defined, and explained by the sacred canons and ecumenical councils and especially those of this most holy Council of Trent (and by the ecumenical Vatican Council I).  And at the same time:

● I condemn, reject, and anathematize everything that is contrary to those propositions, and all heresies without exception that have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church.

● I, N., promise, vow, and swear that, with God's help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold.  With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects or those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it.  So help me God and His holy Gospel.

Most Holy Family Monastery, 4425 Schneider Rd., Fillmore, NY 14735

What about this Canon of Vatican Council I?

If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

[AnnaM]

The canon from Vatican I condemns those who deny "that Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church."  This, as we have seen, does not mean and cannot mean that we will always have a Pope.  That is why it doesn't say that "we will always have a Pope."  Everyone admits that we didn't have a Pope...when Antipope John Paul II died.  So what does the canon mean?

In understanding this canon we must remember that there are schismatics who hold that St. Peter himself was given the primacy over the universal Church by Jesus Christ, but that the primacy over the universal Church stopped with St. Peter.  They hold that the Bishops of Rome aren't successors to the same primacy that St. Peter had.  They hold that the full-blown force of the primacy doesn't devolve [descend] to the Popes, even though they succeed St. Peter as Bishop of Rome.  Again: the "Orthodox" schismatics would admit that the Bishops of Rome are successors of St. Peter in a certain way because they succeed him as Bishops of Rome, but not successors with the same jurisdictional primacy over the universal Church which St. Peter held in his life.



This is the heresy that is the subject of the canon above.  This heresy – which denies that a Pope is the successor of St. Peter in the same primacy perpetually (that is, every time there is a Pope until the end of time, he is a successor in the same primacy, with the same authority St. Peter possessed) – is precisely what this canon condemns.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, [Canon]. "If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema." (Denz 1825)

When one understands this he clearly sees the meaning of this canon.  This is emphasized at the end by the words "or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy" let him be anathema.  The canon is not declaring that we will have a Pope at all times or that there won't be gaps, as we clearly have had.  The meaning of the canon is clear from what it says.  It condemns those who deny that Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy – that is, those who deny that every time there is a true and lawful Pope until the end of time he is a successor in the same primacy, with the same authority that St. Peter possessed.

Quoted from VaticanCatholic.com

[Catholica]

The canon from Vatican I condemns those who deny "that Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church."  This, as we have seen, does not mean and cannot mean that we will always have a Pope.  That is why it doesn't say that "we will always have a Pope."  Everyone admits that we didn't have a Pope...when Antipope John Paul II died.  So what does the canon mean?

In understanding this canon we must remember that there are schismatics who hold that St. Peter himself was given the primacy over the universal Church by Jesus Christ, but that the primacy over the universal Church stopped with St. Peter.  They hold that the Bishops of Rome aren't successors to the same primacy that St. Peter had.  They hold that the full-blown force of the primacy doesn't devolve [descend] to the Popes, even though they succeed St. Peter as Bishop of Rome.  Again: the "Orthodox" schismatics would admit that the Bishops of Rome are successors of St. Peter in a certain way because they succeed him as Bishops of Rome, but not successors with the same jurisdictional primacy over the universal Church which St. Peter held in his life.



This is the heresy that is the subject of the canon above.  This heresy – which denies that a Pope is the successor of St. Peter in the same primacy perpetually (that is, every time there is a Pope until the end of time, he is a successor in the same primacy, with the same authority St. Peter possessed) – is precisely what this canon condemns.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, [Canon]. "If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema." (Denz 1825)

When one understands this he clearly sees the meaning of this canon.  This is emphasized at the end by the words "or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy" let him be anathema.  The canon is not declaring that we will have a Pope at all times or that there won't be gaps, as we clearly have had.  The meaning of the canon is clear from what it says.  It condemns those who deny that Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy – that is, those who deny that every time there is a true and lawful Pope until the end of time he is a successor in the same primacy, with the same authority that St. Peter possessed.

Quoted from VaticanCatholic.com

Interesting.  So how, in your estimation, is the next pope to be elected?

[AnnaM]

I have no opinion on that matter, only that we are not promised a next pope.

[Catholica]

I have no opinion on that matter, only that we are not promised a next pope.

What?  I thought that there would be perpetual successors.  Doesn't that mean that there will be a successor alive at the end?

[AnnaM]

Clearly you didn't understand all that was just posted about the primacy.

[chosenone]

Much of that isn't even Biblical Anna.

[Catholica]

Clearly you didn't understand all that was just posted about the primacy.

The anathema from Vatican I also says that it is the Roman pontiff which has primacy.

Why not answer the question I asked?  Here it is again:

I thought that there would be perpetual successors.  Doesn't that mean that there will be a successor alive at the end?

[AnnaM]

Here's why:  Yes, what Christ instituted in St. Peter (i.e., THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY) must endure always until the end of ages.  What is the Office of the Papacy?  The Office of the Papacy is the office of St. Peter which is occupied by every true and lawful Bishop of Rome.  This means and guarantees that every time there is a true and valid occupant of the Office he is endowed by Christ with infallibility (in his authoritative and binding teaching capacity); he is endowed with supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church; and he is the visible head of the Church.  That remains true for every true and lawful occupant of the Papal Office until the end of time. This doesn't mean that the Church will always have such an occupant, as Church history and more than 200 papal vacancies prove, nor does it mean that Antipopes reigning from Rome are an impossibility (such as Antipope Anacletus II, who reigned in Rome from 1130-1138). Quoted from VaticanCatholic.com

Do you understand now?

[Catholica]

Here's why:  Yes, what Christ instituted in St. Peter (i.e., THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY) must endure always until the end of ages.  What is the Office of the Papacy?  The Office of the Papacy is the office of St. Peter which is occupied by every true and lawful Bishop of Rome.  This means and guarantees that every time there is a true and valid occupant of the Office he is endowed by Christ with infallibility (in his authoritative and binding teaching capacity); he is endowed with supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church; and he is the visible head of the Church.  That remains true for every true and lawful occupant of the Papal Office until the end of time. This doesn't mean that the Church will always have such an occupant, as Church history and more than 200 papal vacancies prove, nor does it mean that Antipopes reigning from Rome are an impossibility (such as Antipope Anacletus II, who reigned in Rome from 1130-1138). Quoted from VaticanCatholic.com

Do you understand now?

But now we have no way of electing "another" valid pope, do we?

[Helen]

Wow....I'm sure glad I only have to depend on Jesus for my salvation and not the RC church!

[Catholica]

Wow....I'm sure glad I only have to depend on Jesus for my salvation and not the RC church!

What makes you say that?

[Helen]

all of the arguing going on and so many being declared 'anathema' by the RC church.  I'm sure I'm declared anathema according to Anna, but I know my Lord and that is what counts.  He gave me a new birth through His precious Holy Spirit and I am His.  That is everything.

[Catholica]

all of the arguing going on and so many being declared 'anathema' by the RC church.  I'm sure I'm declared anathema according to Anna, but I know my Lord and that is what counts.  He gave me a new birth through His precious Holy Spirit and I am His.  That is everything.

And you feel that there is less arguing between people who believe as you do?  That there are less people who believe as you do who effectively are declaring others as anathema, if not so formally?

Anathema is biblical.

[Helen]

My husband has been invited to present his work and to preach in a variety of denominations.  We do not get involved in their squabbles.  It is Jesus who saves, and at the end of the day, that is the most important thing.

In addition, however, it is God who judges.  We are forbidden to judge the condition of a person's heart -- and declaring someone anathema is doing just that.  Judge words and actions, yes -- all our legal systems are based on that!  But the position of someone with the Lord is not ours to know or to judge.

[Catholica]

My husband has been invited to present his work and to preach in a variety of denominations.  We do not get involved in their squabbles.  It is Jesus who saves, and at the end of the day, that is the most important thing.

Your husband's work is science, not theology.  His squabbles are with that realm, a realm that, in the end, saves no one. 

You fully admit that all sorts of people have squabbles, so I don't understand why that particular issue makes you glad to not be Catholic.  That doesn't make any sense.

The question you need to answer is how Jesus saves.  If he saves through the Catholic Church, and that is how He intends to save mankind, then you should in no way be happy to not be in the Catholic Church.  And if you knew the intimacy which you can experience with God within the Catholic Church, you wouldn't call what you are right now "happy".

In addition, however, it is God who judges.  We are forbidden to judge the condition of a person's heart -- and declaring someone anathema is doing just that.  Judge words and actions, yes -- all our legal systems are based on that!  But the position of someone with the Lord is not ours to know or to judge.

Anathemas judge teachings, not people.  When people read anathemas, they judge themselves.  And it is clear that you have judged yourself as being anathema. 

Anathema essentially means "out of communion", not infallibly damned to hell.  The Catholic Church makes no infallible statements about whether an individual is damned.  We fully acknowledge and teach that God is the judge of individual salvation, just as we believe he is the Revelator of truth which was given to us unto our salvation.  And that Truth is important, every bit of it.  If you reject any part of it, then you are in heresy, and heresy puts you in danger of damnation because it leads you astray and deprives you of true communion with God.

For example, say that I with all my heart believe that Jesus saves everyone, regardless of what they do.  And so with that in mind, I go off into a life of debauchery and sin.  Does my belief that Jesus saves even those in manifest sin actually mean that I will be saved?

Another example, say that Jesus taught that only those who are "born again" are saved, and so I interpret that as I must go walking around in a giant diaper and baby bonnet my entire life.  Because one must become like a child to enter the king of heaven.  Meanwhile I am never baptized, but I do poop myself a lot.  Am I saved?

Believing in heresy, therefore, puts you in danger of never attaining to salvation.  Even small heresies, less ridiculous than these, can lead people to believe that they are saved when they are not.

Do you believe that Jesus would have done something about that problem?

[chosenone]

Wow....I'm sure glad I only have to depend on Jesus for my salvation and not the RC church!

Amen. Although according to Anna I expect we are not saved. Thank God we know we are.

[Helen]

Catholica, if you check our website under "Scripture" you will find my husband's field is very much involved with theology.  When he preaches in churches, it is NOT about science -- well, a couple of times he has referred to scientific material which shows Scripture is correct.
http://www.setterfield.org/GSRiscripture.html

You say Jesus saves through the RC church.  Paul said all we have to do is believe and confess.  Given the fact that the RC church is at odds with the Bible in this area as in so many others, we choose Bible.  How does He save?  Through HIS power and love and HIS works.  Not through any 'church.'  It's a personal thing between a person and Him.

As far as intimacy with God goes, it's hard to get more intimate than to be indwelt by His Holy Spirit, which is what Paul says marks those who are His (Romans 8).

Happy?  That comes and goes.  But what I do have, from Him, is deep peace and joy which nothing can mess up.

I have not judged myself as being anathema (which is a Greek word meaning accursed).  You are honestly bizarre there.  I belong to Christ.  I am His.  If you, or Anna, or the RC church does not like the simplicity of my faith, that is not my problem.

And if you think being born again means walking around in diapers, it is VERY clear you have no idea about what Jesus meant.  Reference Paul's statements about some believers still needing milk, etc. 

If you have been born again, you would know exactly what it meant and how stunning a change it is.

[Catholica]

Catholica, if you check our website under "Scripture" you will find my husband's field is very much involved with theology.  When he preaches in churches, it is NOT about science -- well, a couple of times he has referred to scientific material which shows Scripture is correct.
http://www.setterfield.org/GSRiscripture.html

We already know that Scripture is correct.  And the people that he preaches to probably already believe that as well. 

The problem is not whether scripture is correct; the problem is that some people are very wrong about what the gospel actually is, especially when they try to decide for themselves what it is from scripture, to their own destruction, so says Peter. 

I don't have the time (or, frankly, the desire, no offense) to read all that your husband has written.  It seems (from what little I read) that he is trying to recover (using archaeology or anthropology) an understanding of why people believed what they believed, i.e. the context.  It is a noble undertaking.  The more truth you find the more it will lead you to the Catholic Church.

I would suggest he start studying the early Christian Church and tell us about that.  What they believed and what not.  It seems that there is a hole in his chonology, somewhere between the OT and Mormonism/Calvinism.

You say Jesus saves through the RC church.  Paul said all we have to do is believe and confess.  Given the fact that the RC church is at odds with the Bible in this area as in so many others, we choose Bible.  How does He save?  Through HIS power and love and HIS works.  Not through any 'church.'  It's a personal thing between a person and Him.

As far as intimacy with God goes, it's hard to get more intimate than to be indwelt by His Holy Spirit, which is what Paul says marks those who are His (Romans 8).

That is what you think. It is true that God lives within the heart of the believer.  However it is also true that our own sin makes it so that his light darkens the windows of that light like a stain.  You would enjoy reading St. Theresa's "Interior Castle".  Though for all who believe, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is a very intimate connection that cannot be made from your position.

Happy?  That comes and goes.  But what I do have, from Him, is deep peace and joy which nothing can mess up.

No offense, but in the posts I have read from you on this forum, you don't seem to have that deep peace.  You are often perturbed and often react harshly and defensively, which is a reaction that often stems from fear or frustration.  But I could be wrong.

I know that I have some peace but that my personal peace could be greater.  That is because I read the lives of the saints, and can see to what amazing heights God has helped them attain, and also what true peace looks like.

I have not judged myself as being anathema (which is a Greek word meaning accursed).  You are honestly bizarre there.  I belong to Christ.  I am His.  If you, or Anna, or the RC church does not like the simplicity of my faith, that is not my problem.

That is only one definition of being anathema.  The definition of anathema in terms of Catholic usage is one of being cut off from communion, or outside of communion with...  In other words, you don't believe that you are in communion with the Catholic Church.

And if you think being born again means walking around in diapers, it is VERY clear you have no idea about what Jesus meant.  Reference Paul's statements about some believers still needing milk, etc.

If you have been born again, you would know exactly what it meant and how stunning a change it is.

You either miss my point completely or you are completely avoiding my point.   My point is that a person can authentically believe that their beliefs are correct and they can believe that they are saved, but that doesn't make them saved necessarily, does it?

[chosenone]

Catholica, if you check our website under "Scripture" you will find my husband's field is very much involved with theology.  When he preaches in churches, it is NOT about science -- well, a couple of times he has referred to scientific material which shows Scripture is correct.
http://www.setterfield.org/GSRiscripture.html

You say Jesus saves through the RC church.  Paul said all we have to do is believe and confess.  Given the fact that the RC church is at odds with the Bible in this area as in so many others, we choose Bible.  How does He save?  Through HIS power and love and HIS works.  Not through any 'church.'  It's a personal thing between a person and Him.

As far as intimacy with God goes, it's hard to get more intimate than to be indwelt by His Holy Spirit, which is what Paul says marks those who are His (Romans 8).

Happy?  That comes and goes.  But what I do have, from Him, is deep peace and joy which nothing can mess up.

I have not judged myself as being anathema (which is a Greek word meaning accursed).  You are honestly bizarre there.  I belong to Christ.  I am His.  If you, or Anna, or the RC church does not like the simplicity of my faith, that is not my problem.

And if you think being born again means walking around in diapers, it is VERY clear you have no idea about what Jesus meant.  Reference Paul's statements about some believers still needing milk, etc. 

If you have been born again, you would know exactly what it meant and how stunning a change it is.

The thing is that it IS so simple. Beautifully and amazingly simple. Its only man who complicates salvation beyond all measure which is incredibly sad, as it must stop so many from wanting or having that close and intimate relationship with our Father.

[Helen]

Catholica -- fear?  no.  Frustration -- oh yeah.  Especially when you make statements about my husband and/or his work and are doing so out of ignorance and then tell me you have no desire to correct that ignorance. 

Study church history?  We have.  Extensively.  And that is one reason we are so willing to say that the Roman Catholic Church is an amalgam of Christianity, paganism, and the Roman legal system.  Did you know that one of the titles of Constantine and emperors before him was "Pontifex Maximus"?  In order to make Christianity seem palatable to the Roman citizens, who were using to worshiping idols, the statues were simply renamed -- with names of saints.  The RC virgin Mary can be traced back to Semiramis, wife of Nimrod.  In Babylon, in Egypt, in Greece, in most ME countries, the goddess-mother was worshiped with the child in her arms.  It is exactly what is seen in the RC church today.  That little round cracker you take in the Eucharist?  Exactly the same as the cracker the folk took to worship the sun god -- had to be round.

Jesus BROKE the bread. 

I know my history.  Not just the early church history, but ancient history as well, long before Christianity.  I used to teach it. 

Did you know that the Melchite section of the Council of Nice state the three persons in the Trinity were the Father, the Virgin Mary, and Messiah, their Son?  It was stated by Father Newman that there was a throne above God's -- belonging to Mary.  That is blasphemy.  (reported in the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, July, 1852, p. 329 and in Newman's "Development", pp 405-406).

I know enough to know the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the church Christ established.

[Catholica]

Catholica -- fear?  no.  Frustration -- oh yeah.  Especially when you make statements about my husband and/or his work and are doing so out of ignorance and then tell me you have no desire to correct that ignorance. 

I never said that I have no desire to be corrected.  I go by evidence.  I didn't see anything on the site you pointed me to about the early Church.  At all!

Study church history?  We have.  Extensively.  And that is one reason we are so willing to say that the Roman Catholic Church is an amalgam of Christianity, paganism, and the Roman legal system.

But have thus far been unwilling to substantiate it.

Did you know that one of the titles of Constantine and emperors before him was "Pontifex Maximus"?

Yes, I knew that.  So what?

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a104.htm

In order to make Christianity seem palatable to the Roman citizens, who were using to worshiping idols, the statues were simply renamed -- with names of saints.

Evidence?

The RC virgin Mary can be traced back to Semiramis, wife of Nimrod.

Evidence?

In Babylon, in Egypt, in Greece, in most ME countries, the goddess-mother was worshiped with the child in her arms.  It is exactly what is seen in the RC church today.

We don't worship Mary.  The fact that she is depicted with a child in her arms is something common with all of humanity.  That's what a mother does.

That little round cracker you take in the Eucharist?  Exactly the same as the cracker the folk took to worship the sun god -- had to be round.

Ours doesn't have to be round.

Jesus BROKE the bread.

So does the Catholic priest.  I received a piece of the broken host just last Sunday.

I know my history.  Not just the early church history, but ancient history as well, long before Christianity.  I used to teach it. 

Good for you.  Try not to let it get to your head.

Did you know that the Melchite section of the Council of Nice state the three persons in the Trinity were the Father, the Virgin Mary, and Messiah, their Son?

Evidence?

It was stated by Father Newman that there was a throne above God's -- belonging to Mary.  That is blasphemy.  (reported in the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, July, 1852, p. 329 and in Newman's "Development", pp 405-406).

This is not Catholic teaching, however.  Some rogue nutjob priest says something 150 years ago, that means what exactly?

I know enough to know the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the church Christ established.

Your beliefs about the Catholic Church are based on lies.

[Helen]

Here's a little bit, Catholica:

Demeter is a Goddess of many festivals but most important, the Thesmophoria, which fell in late October. She became St. Demetrios, a masculine warrior saint, whose festival day is 10/26.

Aphrodite became St. Aphrodite, of which there are several, all with saints' tales that tell how she became a "repentant whore."

Many Catholic Saints are "votive saints", that is, their names were copied off votive offerings for Pagan Gods, especially altars and statues which were still standing in Rome in the fourth century AD.

The Roman God Mars was originally a God who guarded wheat fields. He became St. Martin (esp. St. Martin-in-the-fields). Although March is the month associated with Mars (it was the beginning of the military campaigning season in Roman times), the major festival for him in Christian times now usually falls in February, called Mardi Gras "Great Mars." (The French word "mardi" for "Tuesday" is after the Roman god Mars).

The Roman God Quirinus became St. Cyrinus, of which there are various "equestrian warrior saints" such as St. Cyr in France, and St. Quirina, mother of St. Lawrence. The element quir- means (or was understood to mean) 'horse.' These saints were very popular and widely worshiped in the Middle-Ages, in France, Holland and also eastern Christian countries.

The Roman gods known as the Lares became St. Lawrence, esp. St. Lawrence beyond-the-wall. The Lares were field Gods who protected the grain growing in the fields. In Italian, he became St. Lorenzo beyond the Walls, meaning outside of the walls of the city, for which there is still a church in Rome, with many "daughter" churches which developed from it.

The Roman Goddess Venus became St. Venera (with a feminized ending to her name since -us looks like a masculine ending in Latin). She had a major church in Rome in early Christian times, but that didn't last long.

The Roman Gods known as the Gemini, who were protectors of sailors in Roman Pagan times, became the Sanctos Geminos, with a number of forms in the various Christian religions. Santiago de Compostela, (St. James in English) became the protector of pilgrims during the Middle Ages. Forms of St. James all seem to be christianized from various forms of the Proto-Indo-European God *Yama. This God was repeatedly christianized in most of the Indo-European language groups.

Not all Christian saints came from Roman and Greek Pagan deities. Ahura Mazda, a major God in Zoroastrian religion became Ador Ormazd (Saint Ahura Mazda) in the early Syriac Christian church.

that's a fast, easy to find list.  But there are lots more.

[Helen]

Here is an excellent summary of the origin of the Roman Catholic church.

http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

[mclees8]

We know that a lot of things true can not  be proven with evidence yet we know that is true just the same. It is always the way in forums such as this this that truth can be resisted simply on a call for evidence. It happens in legal courts every day. This is why I stay away from making claims that can be dismissed by simply saying,  Prove it.

I like to use biblical truth and contrast which is usually left with no answer because what is contrasted is true and cannot be denied. 

One contrast they cannot deny is that the early church under the apostles never sought personal ambitions or called attention to them selves as authority such as what you stated about their religious political ambitions and then parading their authority like peacocks on display.  They want to say their church was from Peter and yet peter would never sit as one of them. They say they have history on their side and I say prove it by showing us the contrast.

Helen please do not be discouraged because of how Catholics choose to resist what you and I can truly see as the truth. The guilty walk out of our courts daily.  As sad as it is,  it as it is.

Ball is in your court Catholica.

[Catholica]

Here's a little bit, Catholica:

Demeter is a Goddess of many festivals but most important, the Thesmophoria, which fell in late October. She became St. Demetrios, a masculine warrior saint, whose festival day is 10/26.

So you are telling me that a female Greek goddess of fruit bearing and harvest was adopted as a male warrior saint, a Christian martyr.  Right.  And the feast of Thesmophoria was a moving festival, as opposed to a static day as the feast of St. Demetrios.  The question we should ask ourselves is why the early Christians would adopt Demeter as a saint and turn her into a warrior male.  It makes no sense at all.

Demetrios was probably a fairly common name in Greece.  The connection of the two doesn't go much beyond that.  The fact that his feast day is October 26th may be quite arbitrary, for all I can tell.  And in the ancient calendar that would have been November 9th or thereabouts.

Aphrodite became St. Aphrodite, of which there are several, all with saints' tales that tell how she became a "repentant whore."

The only St. Aphrodite that I could find was a "virgin martyr": http://full-of-grace-and-truth.blogspot.com/2009/09/forty-virgin-martyrs-and-their-deacon.html  A virgin martyr is about as far from "repentant whore" as you can get.

Your source listed this one, but you somehow failed to copy it:

Nike was picked up as Saint Nicholas, who was extremely popular wherever shipping was important. He is the patron saint of Russian, Holland and Germany, all on the north sea coast.

Laughable! Nicholas was a well documented real person, a Catholic bishop who took part in the First Council of Nicea.   Shipping... guffaw!

Many Catholic Saints are "votive saints", that is, their names were copied off votive offerings for Pagan Gods, especially altars and statues which were still standing in Rome in the fourth century AD.

The Roman God Mars was originally a God who guarded wheat fields. He became St. Martin (esp. St. Martin-in-the-fields). Although March is the month associated with Mars (it was the beginning of the military campaigning season in Roman times), the major festival for him in Christian times now usually falls in February, called Mardi Gras "Great Mars." (The French word "mardi" for "Tuesday" is after the Roman god Mars).

St. Martin-in-the-fields is another name for St. Martin of Tours, bishop of Tours.  His life was recorded by a contemporary.  Sulpicious Severus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_of_Tours  His feast day, by the way, is November 11th, which is nowhere near Mardi Gras.  Basically the only fact you have here is that March was named for Mars and Tuesday was named for Mars and Mardi Gras contains the word "Tuesday" from the French "Fat Tuesday" which has nothing to do with St. Martin but rather with the day which people could feast (Carnivale) before entering into the fasting discipline of Lent (hence the word "fat", one would eat rich fatty foods to prepare for the fast).

What a bad source you have picked.  And this source, by the way, lists none of his original sources.

The Roman God Quirinus became St. Cyrinus, of which there are various "equestrian warrior saints" such as St. Cyr in France, and St. Quirina, mother of St. Lawrence. The element quir- means (or was understood to mean) 'horse.' These saints were very popular and widely worshiped in the Middle-Ages, in France, Holland and also eastern Christian countries.

The Roman gods known as the Lares became St. Lawrence, esp. St. Lawrence beyond-the-wall. The Lares were field Gods who protected the grain growing in the fields. In Italian, he became St. Lorenzo beyond the Walls, meaning outside of the walls of the city, for which there is still a church in Rome, with many "daughter" churches which developed from it.

The Roman Goddess Venus became St. Venera (with a feminized ending to her name since -us looks like a masculine ending in Latin). She had a major church in Rome in early Christian times, but that didn't last long.

The Roman Gods known as the Gemini, who were protectors of sailors in Roman Pagan times, became the Sanctos Geminos, with a number of forms in the various Christian religions. Santiago de Compostela, (St. James in English) became the protector of pilgrims during the Middle Ages. Forms of St. James all seem to be christianized from various forms of the Proto-Indo-European God *Yama. This God was repeatedly christianized in most of the Indo-European language groups.

Not all Christian saints came from Roman and Greek Pagan deities. Ahura Mazda, a major God in Zoroastrian religion became Ador Ormazd (Saint Ahura Mazda) in the early Syriac Christian church.

that's a fast, easy to find list.  But there are lots more.

I only took a brief look at the rest of these.  They are equally nonsense.  All of this stuff was the desperate attempt of someone to connect the two together.  They probably took a list of Gods and tried to compare names, and then claimed they were "connected".  There is obviously no scholarship whatsoever by the author.  I can hardly justify treating this complete nonsense fabrication with more time.

I'd like to see your "lots more".  But perhaps use a more scholarly source next time, otherwise you risk wasting everyone's time.

[Helen]

Catholica, there's tons about the RC religion that doesn't make sense.  But that's the way it is.

[BlackSepulcher]

Catholica, there's tons about the RC religion that doesn't make sense.  But that's the way it is.

Protestants don't make sense. Most of you just run in circles and grandstand, and Catholics are mostly left to themselves to share rational theology. 

[Helen]

"Most" Christians aren't even on the forums!  And, in the long run, we know we can depend on Christ Jesus for our salvation.  That's the foundation.  I don't think you will find any Protestant or other Christian non-Catholic arguing about that -- and that's the most important point.

[Catholica]

Catholica, there's tons about the RC religion that doesn't make sense.  But that's the way it is.

It all makes sense to me.  Every single bit of it.  It all fits together in such a beautiful harmony that I believe it could only be from God.

[AVZ]

Catholica, there's tons about the RC religion that doesn't make sense.  But that's the way it is.

It all makes sense to me.  Every single bit of it.  It all fits together in such a beautiful harmony that I believe it could only be from God.

Talk to Anna for a minute and see how much "beautiful harmony" there is in your denomination.

[HRoberson]

Catholica, there's tons about the RC religion that doesn't make sense.  But that's the way it is.

It all makes sense to me.  Every single bit of it.  It all fits together in such a beautiful harmony that I believe it could only be from God.

That sounds like every Calvinist.

Of course it also sounds like me, so I'm not sure what that demonstrates except that you're happy with your preferences.

[Catholica]

Catholica, there's tons about the RC religion that doesn't make sense.  But that's the way it is.

It all makes sense to me.  Every single bit of it.  It all fits together in such a beautiful harmony that I believe it could only be from God.

Talk to Anna for a minute and see how much "beautiful harmony" there is in your denomination.

I find it disturbing when people take joy in witnessing division.

[AVZ]

No I am not having joy in division, but I do welcome that fact that it so appears that the thing you accuse Protestants off is happening in your own group a well.
And why should I not? It seems that the greatest argument against the apostasy in the present day RCC is coming from within Catholicism itself.