How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?

Valletta said:

The Catholic Church teaches that all Catholics are born again through the sacrament of Baptism and are initially saved through Baptism so the concept of being "born again" would typically not come up in school:

Peter 3:20-21 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. RSVCE

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is heavily based on the Bible, if you go through it you will see how heavenly referenced is the Bible.
The intimate relationship we have with Jesus is through prayer and through the Holy Eucharist:

I. The Eucharist - Source and Summit of Ecclesial Life​

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."134 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."135

Part Two Section Two The Seven Sacrements Of The Church Chapter One The Sacraments Of Christian Initiation Article 3 The Sacrament Of The Eucharist I. The Eucharist - Source And Summit Of Ecclesial Life

www.vatican.va

The books of the Bible are considered differently than you think of them. In the early centuries there were differences in what books could be used for readings at the mass, and through a long process that spanned centuries the 73 books of the Bible were chosen and decided upon in the late 300s. Thus the books of the Bible are liturgical books. Most of those texts are used as readings at the Catholic mass where the priest would typically give a homily on a reading or readings. An average Catholic doesn't memorize those books by chapter and verse.

Click to expand...

boughtwithaprice said:

To my Protestant brethren.


Here are the Pope’s monthly intentions for the month of June as published by the US conference of Catholic Bishops. These were written by Francis, but as far a I can tell they are not revised by Leo XIV. He will publish his in 2026.

June​

That the world might grow in compassion
Let us pray that each one of us might find consolation in a personal relationship with Jesus, and from his Heart, learn to have compassion on the world.



Given that Our Lord said a house divided against itself cannot stand, and Satan does not cast out Satan, what are your best arguments against the Catholic Church? What basis would you use to call the Catholic Church evil, assuming that you do so?

I only want to reach understanding and am not here to insult you or lord myself over you, I only want to know

To my Catholic and Orthodox brethren, I ask that you merely listen. If you wish to post in this thread, please message me directly before you do. This thread is to allow the case to be made and their evidence presented. We can evaluate it when fully heard

Click to expand...

Daldie said:

Popes, rather than being of any benefit whatsoever, merely utter platitudinal rhetoriic, of which this is but one.

Click to expand...

boughtwithaprice said:

Thank you. I understand your point, but if you look at it from Valletta’s perspective, angles are pure spirit with a mind and a will. The sound of our singing the Psalm can reach them as an invitation to praise God.
Revelation 8 shows us the prayers of the saints going up to God as incense
1 Tim 2:1 tells us to make all prayers, supplications and intercessions for all men.

Philippians 2 tells us to esteem all others as better than ourselves, and also at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, those in heaven, on earth and under the earth.

You are keeping people honest, as there are some Marian and saintly devotions which can drift to the superstitious. If kept in proper humility, I do not see prayers to Mary and the saints as being scripturally prohibited or sinful

John wrote his gospel and the Apocalypse (revelation). In his gospel, he knew very well that he was beside the cross with Mary, yet he did not identify himself by name, he said the disciple whom Jesus loved, Behold thy mother. In Revelation 12, he refers to believers as the seed of the woman, who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. We know Mary is the enemy of Satan prophesied in Genesis 3:15. There is some debate over whether it is her or her seed which crushes the head of Satan. In Genesis her seed is Jesus, in Revelation her seed is the Church, the head of whom is Jesus. Mary is the queen in Psalm 45 at the right hand of Jesus in gold of Ophir

I pray to Mary as Jacob came to Rebecca before he received the blessing from Isaac. Jacob was loved by God, but still needed to be prepared to receive the blessing. The Bible gives us stories and images to teach us spiritual truths.
Mary had a closer relationship with God than any other human ever will. She was created by the Father to be the enemy of Satan, she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirt, she bore the Son of God, nursed Him at her breast, and He was subject to her for thirty years. John the Baptist merely heard her voice and was declared the greatest man to ever live by Jesus Himself

God did not come to Earth to Lord His glory over us. He had the lowliest of births and lived in poverty and was without sin.
One of the commandments is to honor our father and mother. God is not a politician who has rules for thee and not for me. He honors His mother, and we honor God by honoring her

It is right to point out superstition or ascribing power to Mary she does not have. She will never go against the will of God, yet we see her as so full of grace to have perfect humility.
We humble ourselves by referring to her as mother. Jesus tells us unless we become as little children, we will not enter the kingdom of heaven

Click to expand...

Valletta said:

Do not underestimate the power of prayer.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

The Catholic Document "The Faith Explained" makes a very powerful argument for the change of the Sabbath.
The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues two key points.

1965 -- first published 1959
(from "The Faith Explained" by Leo Trese page 243

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...​

​

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...​

​

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"​

Click to expand...

Daldie said:

Good grief! You have been victimized by the lie. For Christians, the Sabbath has been put to bed (Galatians 4:9, 10, Colossians 2:16). READ GOD'S WORD THE BIBLE DAILY

Click to expand...

Freth said:

I agree. Read God's word daily. Let's look at what scripture says.

John had something to say about, "the lie."

1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.​

What is the fourth commandment again? The Sabbath commandment.

According to Jesus, the Sabbath is still binding for man.

Mark 2:27-28 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.​

​

According to Jesus, the Sabbath is still being observed at the end of time.

​

Matthew 24:20-22 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.​

​

Jesus concerning all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.​

​

Jesus, in His Revelation concerning the commandments of God, which includes the Sabbath commandment.

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.​

​

The disciples kept the Sabbath post-crucifixion (see Acts). If it had been "put to bed" as you say, Paul would not have kept the Sabbath, "as his manner was," and taught others. Peter was also among them.

Acts 17:2-3 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.​

​

Colossians 2:16 context is clearly seen when you look at verses 14 and 17, and Hebrews 10, and this has been shown many times over on this forum website.

What does the Catholic Church have to say about the Sabbath (before it goes on to venerate Sunday)?

Catholic Catechism:

2168 The third commandment of the Decalogue recalls the holiness of the sabbath: "The seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD."92​

​

2169 In speaking of the sabbath Scripture recalls creation: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."93​

Conclusion

The Sabbath was not, "put to bed," by Jesus, nor the apostles. The Sabbath was made for man. Jesus is still Lord of the Sabbath. Paul, the very apostle you credit with this very act (of putting the Sabbath to bed) kept the Sabbath. How then can his words be misunderstood concerning the Sabbath? They can't.

Click to expand...

Postvieww said:

All I can say here is that when the Catholics I have been exposed to have almost no knowledge of the scriptures after having been raised in the Catholic Church and schools, something seems out of kilter.

Click to expand...

concretecamper said:

Hang around this forum a bit and you will see most non Catholics display their ignorance of Scripture. Sure, they can memorize chapter and verse, but they have no idea what it means.

Click to expand...

boughtwithaprice said:

I had an interesting discussion with an Adventist preacher this weekend at my father-in-law’s memorial. He said that Jerome mistranslated metanoia in the Latin Vulgate as “do penance”, and it had to be corrected by Wycliffe and the Lollards as, “repent” which means a change of mind. This was before Martin Luther and he said was the basis for the whole reformation.
It was interesting because we both seemed to want to come to the truth of the word. He made the argument that works cannot save, which I said was why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees who concentrated in outward works, but their hearts ignored the weightier matters of the law according to Matthew 23. He said that the translation should concentrate on the change of mind apart from works or faith alone.
He agreed that saving faith results in works but still denied the need to do penance. I thought about Scripture and agreed that there has to be a change of heart to repentance as to avoid the dead works of the Pharisees. Jesus however did not condemn the works of the Pharisees, only their lack of faith when he makes the point that the Pharisees should have had a heart for weightier matters of the law and still not have left their other good works undone. Without faith, they are dead works
Scripture also describes dead faith in addition to dead works. Dead faith is mere belief not resulting in works. We have the example of Jesus telling his hearers that not everyone that says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but those that do the will of my father. To the Church in Laodicea, he tells them not to rely on their faith alone or mental ascent. They say I am rich, well fed, and have need of nothing, but they do not realize that they are miserable blind poor and naked. We have the example of the foolish virgins who go to meet the bridegroom without oil, the man who tries to enter the marriage supper of the Lamb without a wedding garment, and the foolish talent recipient who buried his talent instead of putting it to use, and the cursed fig tree upon which Jesus found no fruit, cursed it and it immediately died. Metanoia is not faith alone

I agreed that metanoia involves a change of heart or a change of mind. What is that change of mind? It’s not believing in Jesus, but actually believing Jesus. If you love me, keep my commandments.

I’ll repeat myself but the best example I could think of is sins of lust. The world tells us that sexual desire is a need and we must have an outlet. Repression of sexual desire allegedly leads to neurosis and judgmental behavior. Some Christians agree with this assessment, which is why they have been deceived into allowing contraception. People argue that there is nothing wrong with contraception, but it does play into the world’s lie that sex is for pleasure only.
The Bible says to flee fornication and anyone that commits it, sins against his own body. The world tells us sex is good for mind and body, scripture says it’s a sin. Jesus says if we even look at a woman with lust in our heart, we have committed adultery in our heart, scripture says that no adulterers will enter the kingdom of heaven. Think
Why do we become neurotic, because we believe the world and strive to obey God at the same time. We see many examples, Jimmy swaggart spoke loudly against pornography while he himself was seeing prostitutes. One of the most common sins among conservative Catholic men is pornography. They will abstain for a while , but like a dog returning to vomit or a sow returning to wallowing in the more, they can’t give it up.
I thought why is this? Who shall deliver us from this body of death. My answer to prayer came in the teaching on contraception. Jesus calls us to deny ourselves and die to sin. Scripture says that friendship with the world is enmity with God
It was if God was saying to me, how can you believe the world that sex is for pleasure and advocate for contraception, while you claim to mortify your flesh and follow me?
I was cut to the heart. I saw that the Catholic Church was right in that contraception is sin in that it prevents metanoia. I realized that sexual intercourse is for the procreation of children, and women, including my wife do not exist solely for my pleasure.
When thoughts of lust come, I immediately think, do I want a child? If it’s no, I have no
Business thinking about sex. If the thoughts become too intense, I would imagine a baby crying and thoughts of responsibility took their place. I did not come to this on my own, but it was by the grace of God. It was metanoia and it has been six years, and the sin that so easily would beset me is gone. I do not merely say I believe in Jesus and keep the double minded thinking of the world. My change of heart actually changed my behavior by the grace of God, to whom belongs the glory

I was able to have a very good conversation with this Adventist minister and evangelist and we examined the word of God together. He agreed that faith must be followed by works, and I agreed that metanoia begins with a change of heart and not works only
When I checked Catholic teaching, the Church does teach that we need perfect contrition in that we repent because we love God and not just do works in an attempt to avoid punishment. It is a grave error to say that the Catholic Church teaches that we perform works to earn heaven. We believe God first and works follow

Click to expand...

boughtwithaprice said:

What is the basis for your remarks? Where in scripture does it say she is a bread crumb?

The Son of God, Creator of all things, actually came forth from her body and was subject to her for thirty years, yet you speak of her as trash

How do you expect honor from God, when you disgrace His mother so?

To disagree with Catholic teaching is one thing, but to choose contempt, and glory in it, is another. You should rethink your postion

Click to expand...

JSRG said:

I feel I should point out that if this was his claim, that Jerome mistranslated metanoia (μετάνοια) as do penance and "it had to be corrected by the Wycliffe and the Lollards as, "repent"", then that seems to me to be simply wrong.

If Wycliffe was the one who corrected the mistranslation to mean repent, then why did he make that same supposed mistranslation? The Wycliffe New Testament (translated from the Latin) quite consistently translated metanoia as penance. I used a concordance to look up every instance of metanoia in the New Testament, then looked up how Wycliffe rendered those verses. Have a look. He repeatedly used penance. So how in the world did Wycliffe "correct" this alleged mistranslation if he was clearly following it?

Now we turn to the Latin Vulgate itself. Every instance of metanoia in the Greek New Testament, I believe, is translated as poenitentia (variant spelling of paenitentia) in the Latin. Metanoia means repentance. And paenitentia... means repentance. This is not a mistranslation, obviously, to translate a word into a word that means the same thing. Also, Jerome didn't translate the New Testament part of the Latin Vulgate. He just edited already-translated Gospels, and didn't do anything with the rest of the New Testament (which were edited by unknown people). The translation was the Old Testament, where he translated directly from the Hebrew into the Latin, rather than translating from the Greek Septuagint (translated from the Hebrew) as prior translations into Latin did. Anyway, it looks like translating metanoia as poenitentia was done in the translations prior to Jerome, as earlier Latin writers quote the applicable verses using that word (e.g. Tertullian, writing in Latin and quoting Matthew 3:8 in Against Hermogenes, uses that word--clearly this was not from Jerome, who was not even born at that point).

So no issues with the Latin Vulgate on this. But wait, someone might say. Maybe the Latin Vulgate is cleared, but what about translations from it? Doesn't the Douay Rheims Bible--the most notable translation of the Latin Vulgate--say "penance" in these cases? Shouldn't it use repentance? Well, while paenitentia can mean repentance, it can also mean penance in the normal English sense (an act of self-punishment used as an outward sign of repentance). However, I would submit that this is not the result of them choosing the wrong meaning from the Latin, but rather that they translated accurately in the Douay Rheims (in both the original translation from around 1600 and the better-known revision by Challoner around 1750). This is because of the time they were translated.

In modern English, the word penance, aside from its usage in the "Sacrament of Penance", means, as my dictionary nicely explains, "voluntary self-punishment inflicted as an outward expression of repentance for having done wrong." However, penance can also mean simple repentance or regret without inherently implying the aforementioned definition. This meaning has fallen out of use, however, to such an extent it isn't listed in the dictionary I just cited. But the Oxford English Dictionary does offer as one of its definitions "Repentance, penitence; amendment of one's life. Now rare." The Douay Rheims translation(s) were done well in the past, when this meaning was more frequently understood. I suppose they could have still used repentance, but given the word penance literally comes from paenitentia, it makes sense to render it as penance if it still shared the same meaning. As noted, since then that meaning has fallen out of favor, but I notice that more recent translations from the Latin Vulgate, such as the Knox Bible or Confraternity Bible (both from the mid 20th century), use "repentance", keeping up with the shifts in the English language. For comparison, the Douay Rheims (again, circa 1750) rendered Matthew 3:8 as "Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance." The Knox Bible a renders it "Come, then, yield the acceptable fruit of repentance" and the Confraternity Bible (well, one of them, I think there are several versions) says "Bring forth therefore fruit befitting repentance."

One can, of course, assert that proper repentance involves penance anyway, as you argue--but even if one wants to draw a distinction between the two, I don't think there's any mistranslation here.

Click to expand...

Daldie said:

For the record, Mary is in Heaven getting ready to share in the judging work along with 143,999 others taken from the Earth (either after their death or upon their death). No small deal!

Click to expand...

Postvieww said:

Can you name the other 143,999 with chapter and verse? Never mind I will settle for scriptural proof that Mary is one.
2 Timothy 4:1
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Sorry, I don’t believe judgment will be a job for Mary!

Click to expand...

Jerry N. said:

I don’t believe that Mary will judge either, but what do you make of Matthew 19:28?

Click to expand...

Postvieww said:

My question would be is that referring specifically to the twelve apostles and not to every follower of Christ throughout the church age?

Click to expand...