How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?
- By Amo2
- Denomination Specific Theology
- 322 Replies
My word isn’t final, but the scriptural evidence is overwhelming and I’ve mentioned some of it in a great number of threads, but in the case of both the Landmark Baptists and SDAs, their Memorialist sacramental theology disagrees with a plain reading of John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 and the other Institution Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels, and their rejection of the tradition of the early church clashes with 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and so on,
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
The quoted and emphasized words of Christ above conclusively state our exact sentiments concerning our Holy Communion services. All priesthoods or ecclesiastics set up for the purposes of supposed transubstantiations, are of extra biblical teaching, practice, or institution. Nothing in any of the scriptures you referred to rather than quoted, contradicts the spiritual application of our Lord being the bread of life, or the New Covenant being established with and by the blood of Jesus. To the contrary, these spiritual truths fulfill many Old Covenant types and symbols, as addressed in some of the scriptures you referred to.
and of course the idea taught by SDAs that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is St. Michael, a created archangel, clashes with John 1:1-18 and lacks any scriptural support. In other words, to arrive at the anti-sacramental interpretations of the Eucharist and at the idea that Christ our True God is the Holy Archangel Michael requires multiple instances of non-literal interpretation of Scripture which is non-obvious, which contradicts the SDA idea that the interpretation of Scripture advocated by Ellen G. White is the only obvious interpretation (and for this reason SDAs insist they are not only sola scriptura but the most sola scriptura denomination, adhering to what other Protestants call nuda scriptura, which in a sense they are if we regard the writings of Ellen G. White which SDAs interpret as inspired as part of their scriptural canon, which would be logical insofar as an inspired prophecy should be in scripture, since scripture consists of inspired books, but SDAs really don’t want to do that because this would cause their denomination to alienate prospective members who might be understandably perturbed by the addition of numerous extra books of Scripture, but in effect, insofar as these writings, which are believed to be inspired, control SDA interpretation of Scripture, they are effectively and virtually, if not literally, a part of the SDA canon, exerting a gravitational pull on the denomination in the same way the Magisterium exerts a gravitational pull on Roman Catholicism.
Wow, that was a mouthful. Though highly inaccurate. SDA's do not believe Jesus Christ was a created archangel. Any more than we believe He was or is a loaf of bread because He may be referred to as the bread of life. Or was just a man because one of His titles is the Son of man. Or a lion as in the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and so on and so forth according to the many titles applied to our Savior. SDA's clearly and conclusively teach that the Lord Jesus Christ is from and to eternity. No beginning, no end. Always has been, and always will be. God in verity. We believe Michael was the pre-incarnate Christ, because of the divine attributes applied to Him, and even title of angel attributed to Him in holy scripture as well. Not that He was an angel, but was and is considered the head angel by the angels, just as all in Christ now consider Him the head of humanity as well. The highest Human being of all, who is God. As He was and is God to the angles also. Only we now have the completely undeserved exalted position of being literal blood relations to God Himself in and through Christ Jesus our Lord. Mercy and grace beyond comprehension, all glory to God. Amen.
Nor did such thoughts or teachings arise by the mouth or pen of Ellen G. White, but was believed and taught by many Protestants and others before her. As the vast majority of SDA teachings are or were. Emphasis in the following quotes is mine.
The Rabbinical traditions about Michael are very numerous. They oppose him constantly to Sammael, the accuser and enemy of Israel, as disputing for the soul of Moses; as bringing the ram the substitute for Isaac, which Sammael sought to keep back, etc., etc.: they give him the title of the "great high- priest in heaven," as well as that of the "great prince and conqueror;" and finally lay it down that "wherever Michael is said to have appeared, there the glory of the Shechinah is intended." It is clear that the sounder among them, in making such use of the name, intended to personify the Divine Power, and typify the Messiah (see Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr. i. 1079, 1119, ii. 8, 15, ed. Dresd. 1742). But these traditions, as usual, are erected on very slender Scriptural foundation. A. B ( Smiths Revised Bible Dictionary)
ARCHANGEL
This world is only twice used in the Bible, #1Th 4:16 Jude 1:9. In this last passage it is applied to Michael, who, in #Da 10:13,21 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish nation, and in #Re 12:7-9 as the leader of an angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant. ( American Tract Society Bible Dictionary)
"The archangel" (#Jude 1:9). Probably also the unnamed archangel of #1Th 4:16 is Michael. In the Old Testament he is mentioned by name only in Daniel. He is "one of the chief princes" (#Da 10:13), the "prince" of Israel (#Da 10:21), "the great prince" (#Da 12:1); perhaps also "the prince of the host" (#Da 8:11). In all these passages Michael appears as the heavenly patron and champion of Israel; as the watchful guardian of the people of God against all foes earthly or devilish. In the uncanonical apocalyptic writings, however, Jewish angelology is further developed. In them Michael frequently appears and excretes functions similar to those which are ascribed to him in Daniel. He is the first of the "four presences that stand before God"—Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel or Phanuel (En 9:1; 40:9). In other apocryphal books and even elsewhere in En, the number of archangels is given as 7 (En 20:1-7; Tobit 12:15; compare also #Re 8:2). Among the many characterizations of Michael the following may be noted: He is "the merciful and long-suffering" (En 40:9; 68:2,3), "the mediator and intercessor" (Ascension of Isaiah, Latin version 9:23; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Levi 5; Da 6). It is he who opposed the Devil in a dispute concerning Moses’ body (#Jude 1:9). This passage, according to most modern authorities, is derived from the apocryphal Assumption of Moses (see Charles’ edition, 105-10). It is Michael also who leads the angelic armies in the war in heaven against "the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan" (#Re 12:7 ). According to Charles, the supplanting of the "child" by the archangel is an indication of the Jewish origin of this part of the book.
The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in #Re 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn’s BD).John A. Lees (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)
Apart from the above, I seem to recall many years ago while examining the writings of the "Church Fathers", I found that some or at least one of them believed Michael the archangel to be Christ as well. I need to find that again, if or when I do, I will of course share the source. In any case, the belief is not of SDA origin. Nor are the writings of Ellen G. White to determine scriptural teaching at all, but rather to be judged themselves by the same, as EGW herself identified them as the highest authority and final word over all others.
The main problems with your above assertions are of course, that they have and continue to be highly contested, and are in fact not well scripturally supported. Which is why no doubt you prefer to refer to the scriptures, than quote and closely examine them. Nor care anything for very large volumes of historical record which contradict your own chosen accounts or simply claimed narrative. There is no charity in covering up or lying about the facts of history, which hopefully none of us want repeated.The difference of course is that the role of the tradition of the early church, from which the Magisterium is mostly derived, with a few exceptions which have caused the Orthodox to not be in communion with the Roman Catholics, is expressly prescribed by 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Another Scriptural problem (and this is by no means an exhaustive list) relates to truth and charity. Insofar as some SDAs and Landmark Baptists say extremely unkind things about the Roman Catholics, which also lack historical evidence or credibility (for example, the preposterous claim that the Roman Catholics killed 120 million people in the Middle Ages, a figure greater by around 35 million than the population of Western Europe at the time and four times higher than the highest estimated number of casualties of the Plague (30 million), which would be the largest genocide in history and one which is completely lacking in historical and archaeological evidence, is scripturally uncharitable.
As Christians, we have a duty to the Truth, but even moreso to Charity, so when we are making claims that are demonstrably inaccurate about casualty numbers inflicted by a denomination, this is a violation of both precepts, and one we ought to be aware of (when you’re talking about a mortality rate three times higher than the number of people Stalin, considered the most lethal dictator in history, is believed to have killed both intentionally and as a result of his disastrous attempt at agricultural collectivization) that should be a red flag.
Upvote
0
