Why are Catholics so bad?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Meanwhile, due to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings, and the attacks on science, the word "Catholic" became a dirty word centuries before.

-- I'm sorry Aspen. You were desperately trying to detract from this statement, but failed miserably.
Care to try again? You might get lucky this time.

I left out the part about the abuses by Priests "spreading the Gospel" in Central and South America via the Spanish and Portuguese using threats and abuse and the tens of thousands that have been molested (and are still being molested) by Priests today the world over.

Can't make it much easier for you....
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Earlier in this thread, I posted a numerical lengthy list of RCC teachings which directly conflict with the Word of God. So far there have been few Catholics who contested that post.

I replied to your post saying:

It could be quite interesting to discus James' list one by one, but I suspect that will not happen in any sensible way.

Skimming though this thread it seems to have deteriorated past the point of being salvageable.

Have you raised any of these issues one by one for serious discussion? I haven’t noticed that.

These sorts of lists are a mixture of spurious points, misunderstandings of Catholic teaching, faulty logic and misappliance of scripture and personal opinions. In my experience people who post such lists have no interest in a serious discussion. They just want to throw rocks at the Catholic Church. Perhaps you are different but you cannot serious expect a sensible discussion on such a rag-bag of 83 claims, which seem to have no explanation of why you think there is a problem or evidence to back that up.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-- I'm sorry Aspen. You were desperately trying to detract from this statement, but failed miserably.
Care to try again? You might get lucky this time.

I left out the part about the abuses by Priests "spreading the Gospel" in Central and South America via the Spanish and Portuguese using threats and abuse and the tens of thousands that have been molested (and are still being molested) by Priests today the world over.

Can't make it much easier for you....

How snide.....

As long as you continue your vain attempt to separate yourself from the sin committed by the Christian Church, while benefiting from all of the sound doctrine, along with the very canon of scripture you hold up as your authority; how am I supposed to take you seriously? It is not as if Protestants became saints after they rebelled against their church, they started killing each other - when they were not too busy replacing Catholic Tradition with their own - oh right, you are probably one of those Protestants that denies being a Protestant.....when will the denial end?
 

Axehead

New Member
May 9, 2012
2,222
205
0
We just don't want to waste our time!

There's just as much conflict in Protestant teachings anyway!

Why defend Protestant teachings that conflict with the Word of God? Does anyone here want to do that? I hope not.

Let's stand on God's Word alone and compare RCC or whatever religious institution to it. There is nothing to fear.

By the way, will the RCC do away with Auricular Confession and just let the people confess their sins directly to God?

Axehead
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Why defend Protestant teachings that conflict with the Word of God? Does anyone here want to do that? I hope not.

Let's stand on God's Word alone and compare RCC or whatever religious institution to it. There is nothing to fear.
It depends what you mean by God's Word. If you mean scripture alone (especially the cut down Protestant version) then I would disgree.

If you mean ALL of God's word, written and oral, then you have a point.

By the way, will the RCC do away with Auricular Confession and just let the people confess their sins directly to God?

Axehead

They can and do at Mass. Confession to a priest is not just about having sins forgiven. However that's off topic (whatever the topic is :huh: )
 

Axehead

New Member
May 9, 2012
2,222
205
0
It's kind of a "stacked deck", since only one religious institution on earth defines what is the "oral" word or not. But, I understand why you would not just want to limit yourself to God's written Word. Most of your dogmas come from oral tradition without any corroboration of the written Word.

The RCC has their own "private interpretation.

Axehead
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
It's kind of a "stacked deck", since only one religious institution on earth defines what is the "oral" word or not. But, I understand why you would not just want to limit yourself to God's written Word.

Oral Tradition is biblical.

Scripture alone is unbiblical.

The apostles were given ALL their doctrines orally by Jesus. He wrote nothing down for them.

Most of your dogmas come from oral tradition without any corroboration of the written Word.

The RCC has their own "private interpretation.

Axehead

No Catholic doctrine contradicts the written word of God

No written word of God contradicts Catholic doctrine, only faulty Protestant private interpretations.

Since Catholic doctrine and the written word of God comes from the same source it is not surprising there is no conflict.
 

Axehead

New Member
May 9, 2012
2,222
205
0
Oral Tradition is biblical.

Scripture alone is unbiblical.

The apostles were given ALL their doctrines orally by Jesus. He wrote nothing down for them.



No Catholic doctrine contradicts the written word of God

No written word of God contradicts Catholic doctrine, only faulty Protestant private interpretations.

Since Catholic doctrine and the written word of God comes from the same source it is not surprising there is no conflict.

Wow! I never realized that!! I'm so glad you cleared that up for me.

Let's have a group hug.

grouphugg6.gif
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Earlier in this thread, I posted a numerical lengthy list of RCC teachings which directly conflict with the Word of God. So far there have been few Catholics who contested that post.

As I said earlier, it’s a rag bag of claims, many of which make no sense.

But let’s a have a go at a few of them - one at a time

Here is the first one:


73. Crucifix displaying Christ forever on the cross

What is wrong with displaying Jesus on the cross?
Jesus on the cross displays God’s love for us more than anything else.
“Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die. God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.” (Rom 57-:8)

Paul considers it a key part of his teaching.

“but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, (1Cor 1:23)

“For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1Cor 2:2)

“For through the law I died to the law, that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:19)

“O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” (Gal 3:1)

Good one that - we publicly portray Christ crucified like Paul did. :)

“But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me” Gal 6:14)
 
Oct 22, 2011
408
11
18
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As I said earlier, it’s a rag bag of claims, many of which make no sense.

But let’s a have a go at a few of them - one at a time

Here is the first one:


73. Crucifix displaying Christ forever on the cross

What is wrong with displaying Jesus on the cross?
Jesus on the cross displays God’s love for us more than anything else.
“Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die. God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.” (Rom 57-:8)

Paul considers it a key part of his teaching.

“but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, (1Cor 1:23)

“For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1Cor 2:2)

“For through the law I died to the law, that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:19)

“O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” (Gal 3:1)

Good one that - we publicly portray Christ crucified like Paul did. :)

“But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me” Gal 6:14)

Thanks for the reply, Mungo. You make a valid point here.

The crucifixion of Christ is undoubtedly at the crux of the gospel message of salvation but it should be rightly recognized as occurring in the past tense. There's certainly nothing wrong with reflecting upon the terrible price the Christ paid on the cross to atone for the sin of mankind. Point #73 may not be the strongest of arguments but there is often a morbid fixation that some Catholics seem to have with the process of crucifixion. A case in point, is the many re-enactments of the crucifixion and self-flagellation or crawling on their knees in certain Latin-American RCC churches. The symbol of the empty cross, IMO, focuses more upon the glorious resurrection aspect of Christ and His now present position on the right hand of God Almighty. The cross has now been transformed from an extremely brutal form of death to a glorious emblem of eternal life which all believers have in Christ Jesus.

Now would you care to address any of the other 81 critical points that were posted? I will admit that some of those points have more merit than others. And some are just as valid criticisms of Protestant churches and Christianity in general.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Thanks for the reply, Mungo. You make a valid point here.

The crucifixion of Christ is undoubtedly at the crux of the gospel message of salvation but it should be rightly recognized as occurring in the past tense. There's certainly nothing wrong with reflecting upon the terrible price the Christ paid on the cross to atone for the sin of mankind. Point #73 may not be the strongest of arguments but there is often a morbid fixation that some Catholics seem to have with the process of crucifixion. A case in point, is the many re-enactments of the crucifixion and self-flagellation or crawling on their knees in certain Latin-American RCC churches. The symbol of the empty cross, IMO, focuses more upon the glorious resurrection aspect of Christ and His now present position on the right hand of God Almighty. The cross has now been transformed from an extremely brutal form of death to a glorious emblem of eternal life which all believers have in Christ Jesus.

Now would you care to address any of the other 81 critical points that were posted? I will admit that some of those points have more merit than others. And some are just as valid criticisms of Protestant churches and Christianity in general.


There are certainly cultural differences.
In Portugal for example Christ on the cross is often depicted in quite a bloody state which we tend not to do here. But perhaps we could argue that we sanitise the awfulness of the crucifixion.

But on to another point:

76. Apocryphal books incorporated into the Bible by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.
I presume that you mean the OT books that we call the Deuterocanonical books (a modern term) - Tobit Judith etc.
These books were taken into the canon from the beginning when to Church adopted the Greek LXX version of the OT. This was the version most commonly used by Jews at the time.
They were removed by Martin Luther.

The big question is – by what authority did Martin Luther remove books from the canon of scripture?

As the Council of Trent said:
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

The “old Latin vulgate edition” refers to the translation produced by St. Jerome at the beginning of the 5[sup]th[/sup] century.
That there were some disputes about these books is undeniable but in practice they were widely accepted and quoted from.
Pope Damasus I made a decree in 382 which listed all the books as Catholics now have them. These were confirmed by the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

The Orthodox include all these books and they split from the Catholic Church in the Great Schism of 1054, almost 500 years before Trent.

So the idea that the Council of Trent introduced them is simply not true.

No comment on that one so far, so let's try another.


38. Boring repetitive masses w/ two glossed over scriptures

That’s a very personal opinion. And it’s wrong on several counts.

Firstly boredom. We do not go to Mass to be entertained but to worship God. Anyone who finds worshipping God boring needs to look at their heart. The Mass is not all about me and what I want. It is about God, worshipping him and receiving what he wants to give us (himself in the Eucharist).

Secondly there are not two scriptures in the Mass, glossed over or otherwise.

At a Sunday Mass there are four readings from scripture. At a weekday Mass there are three.

The readings are carefully chosen so that over the cycle (3 yr for Sunday, 2yr for weekdays) the congregation hear a wide selection of texts from all the books of the Bible.

At Mass we also pray the “our Father” which is straight from scripture.

In addition there are many prayers and acclamations that come straight from scripture. For example we proclaim with the angels at Bethlehem “Glory to Gods in the highest, and peace to men on earth” (Lk 2:14); with John we affirm that Jesus is the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (Jn 1:29); we cry out with the four living creatures before the throne “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord, God almighty” (Rev 4:8).

At Sunday Mass there is always a sermon on one of the scripture readings. Where I go to Mass during the week there is also a sermon on one of the readings.

Admittedly the quality varies (though I am very fortunate in hearing excellent sermons) but the scriptures are not “glossed over”.



And I think we can wrap up another two:

51. Burying St. Joseph's idols to sell real estate

That’s hilarious. Where did you get that from?

I’d put that on a par with this one I came across from the Lord’s Witnesses website:
“Hot cross buns are baked for Mary in most Roman Catholic churches”



82. Sedevacantist Catholic factions & conspiracies (Anti-popes since 1958 A.D.)

Sedevacantists are not Catholics. They have left the Catholic Church so I don’t see why you have included them in a list of errors in Catholic teaching.

Any comments? Shall I go on to some more?
 
  • Like
Reactions: aspen

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Eze 20:18 But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols:
Eze 20:19 I am the LORD your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them;

or

Heb_12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Do we have to keep reminding Him. Jesus is no longer on the cross, He died " once" and for all, He does not die daily neither is He on the cross anymore. Neither is He reborn at christmas and he does not die every easter. It is finished.

In all His Love
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Do we have to keep reminding Him.


I don't think Jesus needs reminding, but perhaps we do.


Jesus is no longer on the cross, He died " once" and for all, He does not die daily neither is He on the cross anymore.

My daughter is not getting married every day but I still have a picture of her in her wedding dress on my mantlepiece.
 

lawrance

New Member
Mar 30, 2011
738
19
0
Wearing the Cross is nothing but a trinket of deceit.

The Cross with Jesus on it, is the only Cross to have as it is what we are on about, it is Christ crucified by Sin.
Some don't like the Jesus on the cross ? maybe it's because of the reality of the truth is to hard to swallow.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
And so on to another from James Forthwright's list.

3. Roman Church traditions taking precedence over Bible as God's Word Mar_7:13 Rom_10:17 Gratian's assertion that "the holy Roman Church imparts authority to the sacred canons but is not bound by them".

Gratian?

There was no Pope Gratian so do you mean Emperor Gratian (375 – 383)?

If so what is the relevance of anything he said to what the Church teaches?

What does the Catholic Church actually teach?
"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith." (Catechism of the Catholic Church para 86 - my emboldening)
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
James seems to have lost interest in his list of Catholic teaching error so I'll just finish with these:

Many of these lists of “Catholic errors” circulate on anti-Catholic web sites. They turn up in one form or another and Catholics are expected to spend a lot of time researching and refuting them. Many of the “errors” come, directly or in modified form, from the “Boettner List”, as do many of James'.

Loraine Boettner was a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In 1962 he published a book called Roman Catholicism which has become a major source for anti-Catholic evangelicals. In it he lists 45 “Roman Catholic Heresies and Inventions".
Wayne A Ariss produced comments for each one. Below are six from James' list that come almost word for word from the Boettner list, with the actual Boettner list entry and Mr Ariss’ comments in red:

7. Rosary Beads / repetitive prayer or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090 A.D. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans.

24. The Rosary, mechanical praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit....1090.
The Rosary had a long and slow development, going back to knots tied in cords and holes drilled in pieces of wood, both dating from the 300's AD. The current prayer, and system of a crucifix and 59 beads, appears to be the result of the devotion as it was practiced in the 12th century; in this state of evolution, it was popularized by St. Dominic Guzman (1170-1221) and later by Alan de Rupe, around 1470 [47].
Peter the Hermit was one of the popular promoters of the 1st Crusade. Along with Walter the Penniless, he helped organize volunteers for the Crusade in 1096, and died in 1115, but there is no body of evidence indicating that he "invented" the Rosary devotion as it is presently known [48].
[47] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, "Rosary", pp 184-186. Matthew Bunson, Encyclopedia of Catholic History. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1995; "Rosary", pg 733.
[48] Bunson, pp 653-654.


You say “Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans.”

Prove it.


13. Transubstantiation of the Eucharist was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year 1215 A.D.

27. Transubstantiation, proclaimed by pope Innocent III....1215.
As a concept, transubstantiation can be traced back at least to Tertullian, who states "He took bread, offered it to His disciples and made it into His body by saying, 'This is My body'" (Against Marcion 212 AD); likewise Cyril of Jerusalem says "Once at Cana in Galilee by a mere nod He changed water into wine; should it now be incredible that He changes wine into blood?" (Catechetical Lectures [Mystagogic], 350 AD) [55].
As a term, transubstantiation was first used by the theologians Magister Roland about 1150, Stephen of Tournai about 1160, and Peter Comestor about 1170 [56]; this terminology was then used by the 1st Lateran Council in 1215, which is apparently where Boettner got his date from. As can be seen, however, Boettner is off by anywhere from 865 to 1003 years in the first instance, and anywhere from 45 to 65 years in the second.
[55] Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp 381-382.
[56] ibid., pg 379.


14. Adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius in the year 1220 A.D.

29. Adoration of the wafer (Host), decreed by pope Honorius III....1220.
The implication here, of course, is that Catholics worship a piece of bread. Catholics do not worship bread, they worship Jesus Christ, Whose flesh and blood the bread has beome. The fact that Christians considered the bread and wine to be transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ can be found as far back as Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote in his Epistle to the Romans (110 AD), "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ...and for drink I desire His Blood" [59].
As for the practice of perpetual adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, the first recorded instance took place in 1226, although the practice did not become widespread until the 15th century [60]. From these examples it seems that Boettner erred more than 1000 years one way and about 200 years the other way.
[59] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 22.
[60] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, "Adoration", pg 153.




17. Immaculate Conception - Pope Pious IX (1854 A.D.)

40. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, proclaimed by pope Pius IX....1854.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary (meaning the doctrine that she was conceived free from stain of original sin) goes back at least to St. Ephraim of Nisbis, who wrote in 370 AD that Mary was "immune from all stain...no spot...nor any taint" could be found in her [78]. Various other Patristic Fathers also described Mary in like terms---St. Ambrose said she was "free from all stain of sin"; Severus of Antioch said she was "pure from all taint"; Sophronius of Jerusalem called her "pre-purified"; Andrew of Crete called her the "pure and Immaculate Virgin"; and Theognastes of Constantinople said she was "conceived by a sanctifying action" [79].
Pius IX officially defined this existing doctrine and declared it to be a dogma in his bull Ineffabilis Deus in 1854 [80]---but as with many things Boettner misinterprets, Pius did not invent the Immaculate Conception; it existed as a concept more than 1400 years before 1854.
[78] Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary. Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1993; pg 40.
[79] ibid., pg 40.
[80] ibid., pg 41.


56. Infallible papal ex cathedra pronouncements, In 1870, the First Vatican Council proclaimed the dogma of papal infallibility

42. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council....1870.
The concept of Papal infallibility has been around for a long time. The letter of Pope Clement I to the church in Corinth in approximately 80 AD issues instructions to that church, and Clement makes it clear that he is to be obeyed [83]; likewise, Irenaeus in Against Heresies (180 AD) states that all churches must conform to the church of Rome and be in agreement with it [84]. Augustine, in Against the Pelagians (420 AD) quotes a letter from Pope Innocent I, and declares, "Rome's reply has come; the matter is closed" [85].
As a last example, Peter Chrysologus, the Archbishop of Ravenna, wrote to Eutyches in 449 AD, "We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try causes on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome" [86]. These examples more than suffice to show that the 1st Vatican Council merely defined the doctrine of Papal infallibility; as a concept it pre-dated the council by nearly 1800 years, and was not "invented" in 1870, despite what Boettner tries to imply.
[83] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 12.
[84] ibid., pg 90.
[85] ibid., Vol. 3, pg 142.
[86] ibid., pg 268.



18. Assumption of Mary with Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII in 1950 A.D.

44. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascention into heaven shortly after her death), proclaimed by pope Pius XII.....1950.
As with the cases of the Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility, Boettner tries to give the impression that the Assumption of Mary is something that the Vatican "invented" in recent years. While the Assumption was admittedly a gradual development within the belief of the Church, the fact is that the concept pre-dates its definition by better than 1300 years.
The first explicit reference to this doctrine is from Gregory of Tours (d.593), who states in his letter Libri miraculorum that Mary's body was borne to heaven after her death; other references come from Germain of Constantinople, Andrew of Crete, and John Damascene, who mentions in his Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary (c.745 AD) that three days after Mary's death, her coffin was opened, to reveal empty grave wrappings, but no trace of her body [88]. Although all of these references date from the 8th century, liturgical feasts in honor of the Assumption began to appear in Christian churches in Syria and Egypt during the 6th century; in Gaul in the 7th century; in Rome by the 8th century; and were universally celebrated by the whole of East and West by the 13th century [89].
[88] Romero, pg 282.
[89] Miravalle, pp 52-53.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thanks Mungo - great information!
 

Axehead

New Member
May 9, 2012
2,222
205
0
Ok, let's just see how much of Roman Catholicism is "oral tradition" or from the Scriptures.

10 dollars for each question where you can show me Scriptural proof.

Can someone prove to me from the Bible:

1. Where Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church instead of HIS CHURCH. (read Matt 16:18)

2. That the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church today, are the same teachings as those of the primitive Apostolic Church which was the Biblical Christian church?

3. That there is no salvation outside of the Church of Rome? (Read Acts 4:12, John 14:6)

4. That UNREPENTANT sinners such as thieves, assasins, adulterers, backbiters, deceivers, blasphemers, idolaters, etc, can belong to the Church of God? (Read Eph 5:5, Rev 22:15).

5. Can you prove from the Bible that Peter was the first Pope?

6. That he exercised the office of Pope in Rome for 25 years?

7. That he was the visible head of the Christian church? (Matt 20:26-28, 1 Peter 5;1)

8. That he received from the Lord the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Christian church?

9. That these prerogatives were then transmitted by Peter to the Bishops of Rome as his successors down to the present day?

10. That Peter ever asked or accepted gifts of money "to gather unto himself a treasury of silver and gold" to be called the Treasury of St. Peter", or "Peters Pence"? (Read Acts 3:6, 8:20) http://www.vatican.v...history_en.html

11. That Peter ever accepted worldly honors such as to be borne about on the shoulders of men on the "sedia gestatoria", the kissing of his feet and many other honors used by pagans? (Read Acts 10:25-26)

12. The the word "Pope" is in the Bible, except its synonym as the anti-Christ. (Read II Thes. 2:3-12; Rev 17:1-10

13. That the Pope of Rome is the successor of St. Peter.

14. That the Pope is the Vice-gerent of God upon earth and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. (Read II Thess 2:3-12)

15. That the Pope is infallible (Rom 3:4, 10, 23).

16. That the Pope ought to be called "Holy Father." (Read Matt 23:9, John 17:11)

17. That the Pope can canonize saints, i.e. make saints out of persons long since dead, some of whom were criminals (Read II Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1, and Col 1:2)

18. That the Pope ought to have temporal power with soldiers and armed guards and have political sway over all the nations of the earth (Read John 18:36).

19. That the Pope can excommunicate churches and individuals, release entire peoples from being subject to kings and republics and place whole nations under ban.

20. That the Pope can proclaim a Holy Year every twenty-five years with the promise of special indulgences and remission of sins to those who go to Rome to visit certain churches there. (Isa 1:12-17)

Scripture Truth Society

Axehead
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Axehead,

Most of your questions are asking Catholicism to measure up to Protestant standards. The Catholic Church is not Protestant , it has been around for 1500 years longer than Protestantism.

It would be just as silly to demand that England measure up to American standards.
 

Axehead

New Member
May 9, 2012
2,222
205
0
Hi Aspen,

You don't really have to view my questions as comparing between Protestant standards.
I am trying to get a sense of how much of the RCC's dogma/doctrine comes from ORAL TRADITION or the Magisterium and how much actually comes from the Scriptures (Bible).

Should I assume that the questions I asked referring to the Pope are all from oral tradition and not from the Bible? Now, I will ask some questions about priests, the mass and the host and if you could tell me if any of them can be supported by the Scriptures I would be grateful.

So, whoever proves by the New Testament that:

ABOUT PRIESTS

1. Jesus instituted a hierarchy of priests for HIS Church as a special class, separate from the people, except the Apostles who were to preach the Gospel.

2. That God instituted any other than Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors (Bishops, Elders), Teachers and Deacons

3. That bishops, deacons and priests cannot marry, and that a priest though unmarried, should be called "Father."

4. That the priest is a very powerful person; "more powerful than the angels, more than the saints, more than the Virgin Mary; even more than Jesus Christ himself, for Jesus Christ has to obey the priest's bidding; and the priest is second only to Almighty God.

5. That the bishops and presbyters ought to say Mass and hear the confessions of the people, and that the people would go to the priests to confess their sins at least once a year.

6. That Jesus instituted cardinals or any order of monks, nuns, monsignors, abbots, etc.

7. Where does Jesus (or His Apostles) recommend that people separate themselves from society to do penance and become monks, or that women be cloistered in convents and be forbidden to speak with or even to see their own parents?

ABOUT THE MASS

8. That the Mass was instituted by Christ.

9. That Jesus or the Apostles said Mass.

10. That Mass is a sacrifice and a daily repetition of the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross.

11. That the Mass is identical with the Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper.

12. That it is a mortal sin not to go to Mass on Sunday and other feast days.

13. That the Mass can be said for money at various stipulated prices.

14. That the Mass can be said for the benefit of the living who pay for having it said, in order that they may receive divine favors, have their sins forgiven and an easier access into heaven when they die.

15. That the Mass gives repose to the souls of dead people who are supposed to be burning in Purgatory.

ABOUT THE HOST

16. That the wafer and not bread and wine was used by Jesus when He instituted the Lord's Supper.

17. That the wafer in the hands of the priest is changed into the real body, soul and DIVINITY of our Lord.

18. That the Living Christ said to be in the host can be eaten, locked up in the tabernacle or carried about by the priest anywhere he pleases.

19. That the consecrated host or wafer, even if broken up into a thousand pieces, each such particle contains the entire body of Jesus Christ alive.

20. That the priest alone is to partake of the consecrated wine at the communion, but the same is to be denied to the people who receive only the wafer. (The Roman Catholic church has since changed this position and now permit its people to partake).


The Catholic Church says that its three authoritative sources for Faith and Practice are: The "Magisterium", the "Holy Scriptures" and "Oral Tradition".

Here are 40 questions so far. How many of these 40 questions are from Oral Tradition or the Magisterium and how many can be proven as taken from the Scriptures?

Thank you,
Axehead
 
Status
Not open for further replies.