Re: Purgatory?

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:46:26 -0500, "Cracker !  :+D"
<<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:28:17 -0500, Joseph Geloso
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote the following funny stuff in Usenet
>News'Froups! :
>
>>>
>>>Hardly. If I wanted to be a roman catholic, I would have joined the
>>>romish denomination.
>>
>>There you go again -- that's insulting. It is not "the romish
>>denomination," it is the Catholic Church, or Catholicism if you
>>prefer. 
>>
>Well, I found your comment about 'you would be a roman catholic'
>offensive, to be perfectly honest, Joseph.

That is only because of your attachment to your sect. If you were only
interested in the truth, it would not offend you to hear it told.

>I want no part of being a roman catholic.
>And since it IS roman, how is 'romish' offensive?

Because that is not the Church's name, nor is it the religion's name.

>And you ARE just another denomination.

Not "just another" one. The name "Roman Catholic Church" denoted the
still undivided Church. While you may be a member of her if you were
properly Baptized, it is nowhere near the truth to say one
denomination is as good as any other. The unity of the Church subsists
in the Roman Catholic Church. You receive only part of her doctrines,
and reject the rest. You received from her the Gospel message, and the
Word of God, and the life of prayer, and the Sacrament of Baptism if
you carry it out according to its proper form. But there are a good
many other things that you discard, probably because you do not yet
trust God enough to know that He would never allow His Church to go
astray, for the sake of His Name.

>>The weight of Biblical evidence is for the Catholic position.
>>
>Which Bible? 

Your Bible will do just fine, for now.

>The Bible the RC denomination uses?

That one would work too, except that you do not yet trust God enough
to accept all the canonically accepted books as canonical.

>The words 'roman catholic' and 'pope' are not evein IN the Bible!

Neither is the word "Bible." So what?


>>>As for the ROCK, Jesus Christ IS THE ROCK.
>>
>>I know, I saw it in your sig line ;-) But you know that the name
>>"Peter" means Rock, and you also know that Our Lord spoke to Saint
>>Peter about this, and made him certain promises that did not apply to
>>the other Apostles.
>>
>Sorry, but Peter had no more authority than any of the other
>disciples.

Our Lord did not give the keys to Saint Andrew, nor to Saint James,
nor to Saint John, nor to any other Apostle except Saint Peter.

>
>>> And this entire world will
>>>be destroyed, so where would any rock you refer to be left standing?
>>
>>God's Church will not be destroyed, and the Rock -- who is now John
>>Paul II -- is in the Church. The Church is founded on him, in fact.
>>
>You class your 'pope' as THE ROCK ????

No, I don't do that. Jesus did that.

...

>Sorry, but I must politely agree to DISAGREE on that.

Be as polite as you like. I have told you the truth, plain and simple.
If you are seeking the truth, you will find it.


>Well, Joseph, I am sorry to dissapoint you, but there is no way you
>will convince me that the Roman catholic religion is unbiblical.

I would convince you that it is *not* unbiblical, nor unreasonable,
and if you were not already prejudiced against her, you might receive
that truth.


>The only reason I am posting agani catholicism here is because there
>are so darned many RC's in the Baptist group, and many of them
>insisting that EVERYTHING said against the doctrines and teachings of
>it are 'lies'.

That is in fact the case. They are lies. Whether they have their
origin in the sins of pride of Luther, Calvin, et al, or in Satan, or
even in the sins of pride of someone here on the newsgroup, the fact
is, they are lies, and sins against faith. 

I only tell you the truth. What you do with that is up to you.