Roman church errors and inventions

[E.C.]

Lack of fasting.

 

[ScottBot]

Lack of fasting.

What are you talking about. Catholics practice fasting and abstinence during Lent. It may not be identical to the Eastern Churches tradition of fasting, but we do it nontheless.

I only say this as a former EO and now practicing Catholic. I can comment on both sides of the fence because I've lived on both sides.

 

[squint]

http://christianforums.com/t6870283-protestant-errors-and-inventions.html

Ok, what is sauce for the goose........List errors and inventions/traditions invented by the Papacy aka Roman catholicism.

One of mine would be the way Roman catholicism looks at the eucharist.

LLOJ [still waits on chopsticks]

Many churches start out with good intentions and wind up as businesses LLoJ. It's all about maintaining the system.

IF the "churches" actually spoke The Truth, there would be NO ONE in them other than followers of Christ...

The Truth will always offend what is IN MANKIND, and therefore they cannot be TOLD The Truth NOR can mankind LISTEN to The Truth.

So I wouldn't be too hard on the RCC...it's just their "business organisation" and mankind tends to get attached to these types of systems for "day to day" business operations like births, confirmations, weddings, anniversaries and then "funerals." These things are a part of LIFE. I can't really say they are unnecessary...but

it is UNrealistic that you will hear much in the way of scriptural fact about mankind and what we are all constructed OF, because THAT will OFFEND...

Soooo...in the light of THEIR reality, any "church" system, why would we want to disrupt their proceedings? They are needed. And why wouldn't THEIR adherents stand up for THEIR system? It's "natural" for them to do so just as it is natural for mankind to "fight" for their countries...when threatened.

Where I draw my lines in these matters is when "churches" condemn other churches, which as we can see does PROMOTE NEW BUSINESSES...and we certainly can't be against THAT...can we? They do after all have ONE common doctrine don't they???

That's RIGHT...! The SINGLE COMMONALITY amongst the "churches," their ONE COMMON DOCTRINE...the ONLY ONE common doctrine...is that if you DO NOT ADHERE to their rules, YOU WILL FRY ALIVE FOREVER...

If you actually thought about that presentation, that SINGLE DOCTRINE around which nearly ALL of their other doctrines stem...is to KEEP THEIR CUSTOMERS...They "sell" ABSOLUTION, not just in the RCC, but in ANY "church." They put up THAT DOCTRINE...and then they SELL ABSOLUTION...

Now some of the customers won't really care...no, make that MOST of the customers won't really care about THAT presentation, except the more "sincere" adherents because THEY want to be assured that their hide is not going to suffer THAT FATE...No. Most of the customers are there for the day to day operations of births, catechisms, weddings, anniversaries, and DEATH rituals. I can't really find fault for any of that. After all THAT is part of LIFE. Even Jesus attended a wedding reception. Even Jesus went to The Temple.

When Jesus went to The Temple however, He didn't find much there in the WAY OF TRUTH...and sorry, neither do I. I kinda think Jesus didn't even EXPECT to find much TRUTH there in The Temple. Nope. He did find some "business" going on...and some PROTECTORS of THAT BUSINESS....people who STOOD UP for their SYSTEMS....resisted Him OPENLY...and FIERCELY:

John 11:48
If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

So you see LLoJ...the RCC or any "business" that is involved in day to day ops certainly can't allow ALL MEN to believe in Him...the only ones who are allowed to believe are those who ADHERE to their particular organizations DOCTRINE...because THAT is the FORCE they use to keep their CUSTOMERS...and if you don't buy into ANY "churches" system...they will DAMN YOU TO BURN ALIVE.

Now granted, the Jews of the N.T. did NOT have that particular doctrine to hold their customers in CHECK...and perhaps they should have instituted THAT particular doctrine. In fact they STILL don't have that doctrine. The Islamics have that doctrine. The Christians have that doctrine. But the Jews still don't, and perhaps that is why their business system continues to suffer the numbers lag and gets persecuted by the others? Even the Hindu's and the Buddhists have instituted ENDLESS but alas temporary LIFE CYCLES. They are doing quite well with that format.

When it came to TRUTH however...that is really a completely DIFFERENT subject...at least it was for JESUS.

When The Truth Arrives...there comes DIVISIONs...and voila...yet ANOTHER business is formed...

One of these days we might actually GET THE PICTURE here...but until THEN I am actually GLAD that "they" keep DIVIDING! I don't really WANT "them" to UNIFY...

Genesis 11:7
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

You see LLoJ...that REALITY is part of the PROOF of what still goes on...and that REALITY is FROM GOD...a literal CONFIRMATION of what God DOES to "them."

And it even FOOLISH to expect OTHERWISE! Not just for the RCC, but for ANY business.

Luke 17:1
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come

And that my friend, you can TAKE TO THE BANK!

enjoy!

squint

 

[Catholic Christian]

...IF the "churches" actually spoke The Truth, there would be NO ONE in them other than followers of Christ...

And who decides what the Truth is? You? Don't say the Bible, because if the Bible was so clear, you protestants would not be divided into thousanfs of sects.

What is the purpose of all the New Testament epistles? To correct errors and give instructions. That was the functions of the Church leaders at the time - the apostles - and it still is the function today of their successors. You do not instruct them; they instruct you. Christ promised them the Spirit of truth in John 16:13. If you read it in context, this promise was only to the apostles, not to all the disciples, This gift is transmitted through the laying on of hands (2 Tim 1:6).

And as the successors of the apostles carry this gift, so too the successor of Peter carries the gifts unique to Peter. Thats it, and thats all.

 

[squint]

And who decides what the Truth is? You?

That's part of my observation of scripture Terry. IF Jesus said it is IMPOSSIBLE that offences NOT come...then HE is RIGHT...and we certainly SEE the results of the offences. So is that MY truth?

NO.

And I feel perfectly comfortable coming to a truthful answer on that BECAUSE of Word advisement that it IS impossible that offences would NOT come, which His "disciples should" learn from...

Don't say the Bible

Please don't fault me for reading.

, because if the Bible was so clear, you protestants would not be divided into thousanfs of sects.

Nor would the EOC and the RCC...bingo bango bongo...It's just a fact Terry. DIVISIONS are A GUARANTEE, and for which I am THANKFUL because it is FORETOLD...That in itself is a validation of GOD's reality into our present world in REAL time...You may or may not agree but we certainly can't dispute the reality of that WORKING of TRUTH.

What is the purpose of all the New Testament epistles?

That is where we begin to reflect again, our mutual conditions...

To correct errors and give instructions.

Another "guarantee" that you will perhaps never grasp is that eventually we will all reflect DIFFERENTLY down to the LAST MAN...and again, WHY there is DIVISION.

That was the functions of the Church leaders at the time - the apostles -

But you see THEY TOO had continual disputes amongst themselves. It's not like it's a NEW thing. Their wranglings are open and for all to see. Paul divided with the legalists. Barnabus abandoned Paul. Peter stood condemned at Antioch...etc etc. So if you DO NOT see that, what do you want me to say...it simply COMES with the territory...

and it still is the function today of their successors. You do not instruct them; they instruct you.

Then they should start with the fact observed above and HONOR THAT FACT. To pretend that they have A LOCK on these things is somewhat ridiculous when they can't even see what's in front of their noses. They should WELCOME what is stated by Jesus as IMPOSSIBLE...and hold UP that FACT...as it's simply A FACT that is GUARANTEED in scripture...

Christ promised them the Spirit of truth in John 16:13.

It's certainly a TRUTH that Jesus' Word brings DIVISION. He promised that in MANY ways. Why would any of us fear that fact of TRUTH via "the Spirit?"

If you read it in context, this promise was only to the apostles, not to all the disciples, This gift is transmitted through the laying on of hands (2 Tim 1:6).

Well again...we will certainly divide over that observation as well. There are more fundamental teachings on the "reasons" for DIVISIONs that are LARGELY NEGLECTED by ALL churches...but of course to GO THERE will EMPTY the pews because of the FACT of DIVISION.

So instead, the churches have largely relegated to scare tactics and various forms of "authority" for which the RCC is Queen. The divisions however were transpiring rather rapidly LONG before the RCC came along...like at the Tower of Babel as previously noted. And it is quite foolish to expect otherwise and for "reasons" that are disclosed by Jesus OUR Lord...but as stated, those reasons are NOT going to be heard in the PEWS.

And as the successors of the apostles carry this gift, so too the successor of Peter carries the gifts unique to Peter. Thats it, and thats all.

Terry, Peter was like any of us. He had sin indwelling his flesh which same is OF THE DEVIL...and that is a well known fact that you will NEVER hear in the RCC...NOR will you be able to accept that fact, NOR will they be able to TELL you that.

But that IS the reason that God keeps us ALL divided, and for THAT WORKING OF GOD, I am thankful. There should be no COALESENCE apart from the TRUTH of that disclosure...cause when there IS...we'd all understand who are real enemies are...and we'd stop condemning our fellow man to be burned alive.....to keep our "systems" intact.

The day that the churches get together UNDER THAT COMMON DOCTRINE would be ONE SORRY DAY for humanity. So I am as stated, GLAD for the fact of DIVISIONs. They are A PROMISE and A WORKING of God Himself.

enjoy!

squint

 

[TraderJack]

Scholasticism
Filioque
Papal Supremacy
Immaculate Conception

assumption of mary

submission to the pope of Rome being absolutely neccessary for salvation

penance to atone for sins committed after baptism

auricular confession

sacerdotal sacramentalism

meritorious works for the attainment of salvation

the whole Roman system of justification

 

[TraderJack]

What is the purpose of all the New Testament epistles? To correct errors and give instructions.

That's why we True Catholics turn to the Scriptures to correct the errors of Rome and give instructions to the church of Rome and it's adherants.

 

[Hentenza]

Friendly reminder to do not turn this thread into personal attacks or I will send each of you to your room without dinner and take away the computer. Of course, the thread then will be closed for cleaning.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by terryobrien80
And who decides what the Truth is? You?

That is the same thing "Pilate" asked.

Rotherham) John 18:38 Pilate saith unto him--What, is Truth? And, this saying, again, went he out to the Jews, and saith unto them,--I, find in him, not a single fault

Reve 19:11 And I saw heaven, set open, and lo! a white horse, and, he that was sitting thereon, [[called]] Faithful, and True;
13 and arrayed with a mantle sprinkled with blood, and his name hath been called--The Word of the God/YHWH.

 

[jckstraw72]

Tradjerjack-- im fairly certian they dont teach meritorious works for salvation

 

[Mary of Bethany]

assumption of mary

submission to the pope of Rome being absolutely neccessary for salvation

penance to atone for sins committed after baptism

auricular confession

sacerdotal sacramentalism

meritorious works for the attainment of salvation

the whole Roman system of justification

TJ,

why do you think auricular confession is wrong - do you think it's completely wrong to confess to another person, or is it something more particular?

And what do you mean my "sacerdotal sacramentalism", and why do you think it's wrong?

Thanks!

Mary

 

[Catholic Christian]

If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).

But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).

The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20).

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).

Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).

These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.

Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim

 

[Philothei]

what is the point of this thread?...

Like the RC can do something now about the errors?

In the end like all these threads it becomes a thread of RC bashing......

??

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

Well isn't this a fun thread.

I was thinking it's kind of like thowing stones at a sleeping dog. Daring, but not exactly the wisest way to get it's attention.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I was thinking it's kind of like thowing stones at a sleeping dog. Daring, but not exactly the wisest way to get it's attention.

Hmm. Never thought of the Roman church as a "dog" before.

LLOJ [goes to get a dog biscuit instead of stones]

 

[E.C.]

What are you talking about. Catholics practice fasting and abstinence during Lent. It may not be identical to the Eastern Churches tradition of fasting, but we do it nontheless.

I only say this as a former EO and now practicing Catholic. I can comment on both sides of the fence because I've lived on both sides.

As have I, fellow fence-jumper!


What I was having in mind was the overall leniency with fasting. In my opinion, it seems that since Vatican II Roman Catholic fasting has taken a downturn both in "how often" and effectiveness.

 

[E.C.]

Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim

Forgive me for tuning down the size; makes it easier on everyone's eyes.

Actually, you are wrong on that point. See both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church.

The last liturgical change we EO's have had was around 1,600 years ago with the shift from the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The only noticeable differences between the two are a litany or two taken out. St. Basil's DL I believe is about two to two and a half hours while St. John's DL is about 90 minutes.

Whereas Catholicism, you have the Novus Ordo after the 1960's, the Latin Mass of pre-Vatican II days as well as too many liturgical rites to count ranging in name from Ambrosian to Sarum.

 

[TraderJack]

TJ,

why do you think auricular confession is wrong - do you think it's completely wrong to confess to another person, or is it something more particular?

Confession to others of our sin is appropriate, and Biblical.

In the Didache we see the public confession of sins, as John the Beloved taught, "confess your sins, one to another".

It's not the confessing to a pastor itself that is a problem, but that Rome went way past that, by taking the concept of penance which the early church used as a disciplinary measure and means of restoring of restoring those who lapsed during persecutions, often times with them being penitents for 7 years before being restored to communion, or those who excommunicated for heresy or grevious sin, and made it part of their system, whereby auricular confession and doing penance atones for sins committed after baptism.

And what do you mean my "sacerdotal sacramentalism", and why do you think it's wrong?

I'll get back to this one, it will be a long one and I don't have the time right now to address it with the attention it truly requires.

 

[TraderJack]

what is the point of this thread?...

Like the RC can do something now about the errors?

Sure it can do something about them.

Rome can issue a formal decree that renounces the following:

Lateran IV

Unam Sanctum

Trent

Vatican I

Vatican II

the papacy

the Marian dogmas

the dogma of papal infallibility

auricular confession and penance

sacerdotal sacramentalism

purgatory

indugences

transubstantiation

and admit that the Roman religion was built upon the deceptions and frauds of forgeries invented during the dark ages

For starters.

 

[TraderJack]

But above many things, the main cause is the fact that the pope of Rome changed things without the approval of an Ecumenical Council. He added the word which went against the first canon from the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I in 381:

Abrogated: to put an end to.

When the pope added the Filioque, he essentially put an end to the Creed that was agreed upon in Nicea and Constantinople; both of which never had the Filioque in the Creed.

Exactly, it was the unilateral alteration of the Nicene Creed by Rome, doing so apart from an Ecumenical Council and in direct obstinance to and violation of the expressed and clear prohibition of both the canons of Nicea I and Chalcedon that was a major cause of the rift, though some argue, correctly in my estimation that when the Modalist heretics Zephyrinus and Callixtus I tried to apply Matthew 16:18 directly to themselves, thus declaring themselves to be supreme rulers of the Church, thus sending Rome down it's own separate path, it laid the seeds for ensuing centuries of the development of the Roman church as a separate and distinct religion.