Understanding LEGALISM (general)
You said: "Tell me If your authority told you to sing praises to satan would you submit in fear of rejecting Christ’s Kingdom, that may sound bizarre but it is happening in your headquarters, Vatican city."
I am not exactly sure what you are referencing, but I do not agree with everything that has ever come out of the mouth of every pope... pope's are fallible and subject to error. The dogma is what I believe to be infallible. Going so far as stating that the Vatican is "singing praises to satan" demands some sort of justification, though.
You wrote: "The book by Charles E. Newbold, Jr is not selective; he is addressing all churches with a warning against falsehood within. He quoted what Lillie said or rather Lillie’s testimony, take note what Lillie actually said. “At that time the Catholic church did not encourage its members to read the Bible. That was left to the priests." Notice that she was talking about a time in the past, and if you still think that is bologna, then you need to check your history books.
And no there was no “deliberate dishonesty” as you put it!"
My mistake... he didn't note that Lillie predated the Gutenberg Press.
Re: the quotes that you supplied from the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, etc... I was already well aware of the history. The Bible was forbidden to lay persons, as it should have been... and should have remained. If the true Church has remained throughout history, then it was the true Church which kept the sacred writings from being distorted by the masses... or "kept from the people" as the non-Catholics prefer to say. If the true Church did not exist, then what business do you have considering their writings sacred Scripture? Unless you mean to suggest that the true Church spent its first 250 + years devoid of writings? Those writings were preserved by the same Church which wrote them and later determined them to be authoritative. Without the protection which the Scriptures deserve, we've got people over here cherry picking the Bible to suggest that a Church without clergy would be something to consider, that they themselves are fit to interpret the Scriptures (yet all of the people like you who subscribe to this theory cannot come to agreement on the meaning of these Scriptures). Meanwhile, you have leadership within the Church prescribed throughout the New Testament. You've got those outside of the place of leadership petitioning to these leaders to explain the Scriptures to them, acknowledging that they cannot interpret them on their own without guidance (Acts 8:31)... why? Because the Holy Spirit set certain men apart for a specific work (ex. Acts 9:15; 13:2; 13:4). When others went out "without authorization" from the Church (Acts 15:24), they were reprimanded and a council was held to solve the damage done. The fact that this sounds very Catholic will likely only cause you to attack my character and throw out a verse suggesting that I'm blinded rather than defend your stance with diplomacy like a man.. but that's a risk that I'm willing to take. Can you be sure that you speak for the Holy Spirit? Those who were ordained were (Acts 15:28).
You said: "No religious institution on earth has as much to fear about its members reading the Bible as the catholic church"
The Church urges us to read the Bible. In fact, I remember quite clearly a priest telling us one Sunday that though the Scriptures were meant only to be read to the masses (which should need no defense if you have, in fact, read from your Bible), they are now public and we must go home and read it to defend it against those who (wittingly or not) alter it. You have made these claims as though Catholics are discouraged from reading before.. the only thing that you are proving by doing so is that you are too irresponsible to fact check yourself. Your inability to fact check is sealed by the fact that you post the supposed letter to Pope Pius III that Catholics and anti-Catholics alike dismiss as a phony (which is likely why you may find it in Paris' Library rather than the Vatican's. You know, where Catholic documents are preserved).
You mocked my statement about covering the Bible (minus genealogies) in Mass over the course of three years. I made a mistake. I now remember that someone pointed this mistake out to me once in the past, as well.. maybe this time it will stick. On the other hand, I'm glad that you do acknowledge that the Bible is read to the masses.
You said: "WHAT!!! Do your superiors teach you that Christ had sins??? (Run Fezik run...) Hebrew 4:15 “This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet He did not sin.”........No Fezik, He had no sins, He never sinned!!!!"
Did I say that Christ had sinned? No. It is the Protestant doctrine which demands that Christ was tainted, though tainted by original sin. Apparently God wasn't too careful preparing for the birth of Christ in the Protestant world. What I stated was that Christ was sinless. I meant only to imply that living according to the flesh produces a sinful nature while, using Christ as my example, living according to the Spirit keeps one from sin. The article, though it does acknowledge spiritual guidance which leads to obedience, discourages legalism on the grounds of what he deems as feeling guilt unnecessarily.
You said: "Here we go again, so is this another teaching from your Roman catholic church dictators? Let me try to get my head around this statement. If a sex deprived Roman catholic priest sexually interferes with a child, are you saying that God is pleased with him, maybe even a smile toward him? What sort of nutty teaching are they polluting your mind with?"
I was disagreeing with those who are against legalism... stating that we are capable of displeasing God. Why don't you pull your dictionary back out and look up "despite". It is not in the Catholic Church that you will find the 'once saved, always saved' doctrine, though I understand your confusion as you are quite clearly not familiar with Catholic teaching. That doctrine came about immediately after the Reformation... that's what happens when the Scriptures fall into the wrong hands.
You wrote: Fezik>>” You should feel guilt when you willingly disobey the Spirit.” LOL, now your trying to shift guilt on me, when I’m just the messenger."
It was rhetorical. We should all feel guilt when we disobey the Spirit. You don't?
You are a messenger, alright.
I asked The Lord how much He loved me
He stretched out His arms and said, "this much"
Then He died for me