Roman church errors and inventions

May have been started by Jesus but somewhere down the line error creeped in and now is being held as truth even though the truth of scripture shows the error men have tried to twist the scripture to fit the error..

May have been started by Jesus but somewhere down the line error creeped in and now is being held as truth even though the truth of scripture shows the error men have tried to twist the scripture to fit the error..

Click to expand...

Where's "somewhere down the line"?

AmericanCatholic said:

Where's "somewhere down the line"?

Click to expand...

Can't wait to hear the answer to that

Reve 11:3 and I shall be giving to-the two Witnesses of Me and they shall be prophesying days a thousand, two hundred, sixty having-been-about-cast/peri-beblhmenoi <4016> (5772) sackcloth.

Reve 7:13 And answered one out of the elders saying to me "these, the ones having-been-about-cast/peri-beblhmenoi <4016> (5772) the robes, the whites, who-any they-are and whence they came"? [Revelation 11:3]

LittleLambofJesus said:

Can't wait to hear the answer to that

Click to expand...

Me too

about the time the church blended roman religion in with christianity and called it truth..

AmericanCatholic said:

Where's "somewhere down the line"?

Click to expand...

That would be 15 seconds after Pentecost

I'm a Protestant, not a Restorationist.

I don't believe that ANY denomination was EVER the communion of saints/mystical union of all believers/one holy catholic church. Therefore, I don't believe there was EVER a time when a specific, singular denomination was infallible/unaccountable and whoever heard IT heard Jesus. It is MY view that the church is, was and ever will be the communion of all believers - past, present and future, not any denomination (including the RCC which self-claims to have been The Church since 30 AD or the LDS which claims to be the restored Church since 1820 at the latest). I accept the believers who are officially registered in congregations that legally are affiliated with the RCC or LDS as members of the church but that has nothing to do with any insittutional denomination.


Restitutionalism accepts that the Church is a denomination - an ultimately infallible/unaccountable, absolutely authoritative institution. But that such became apostate at some point and had to be restored. Restitutionalism is most obviously identified with the LDS (although there are MANY Restorationist denominations around the world). Since Protestants reject this ecclesiology, we reject restorationism. The Protestant position is that the communion of saints was NEVER an infallible/unaccountable denomination - and never will be.



Those of us who were "Sunday School Junkies" (and have the perfect attendence ribbons to prove it, lol) know how it "works." God creates His people. God leads His people. They NEVER follow infallibly and often follow horribly. So God calls up a judge or prophet (I'm named for one of these people God called up) who corrects His people and brings them better "on course." PEOPLE are called. PEOPLE are lead. PEOPLE are corrected. No infallible/unaccountable denomination. Ever. God raises us His "reformers" who repeatedly point people to the word of God, "Thus says the Lord." They don't direct people to themself, they don't seek power and glory.



Sorry for the bit of diversion....



Pax


- Josiah




.

AmericanCatholic said:

Where's "somewhere down the line"?

Click to expand...

Not so hard to find.

...from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Pelagius & Pelagianism:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

"

1. Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
2. Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
3. Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
4. The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
5. The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
6. Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.

On account of these doctrines, which clearly contain the quintessence of Pelagianism,..."

All that amounts to a doctrine of "Free Will" by denying the nature & scope of Original Sin, leaving man with the "redeeming quality" of free will which he employs to make salvation an effective personal reality.
The article in The Catholic Encyclopedia makes this explicitly clear a little further on in the article:
"Pelagius, having won the good-will of the assembly by reading to them some private letters of prominent bishops among them one of Augustine (Ep. cxlvi) -- began to explain away and disprove the various accusations. Thus from the charge that he made the possibility of a sinless life solely dependent on free will, he exonerated himself by saying that, on the contrary, he required the help of God (adjutorium Dei) for it, though by this he meant nothing else than the grace of creation (gratia creationis). Of other doctrines with which he had been charged, he said that, formulated as they were in the complaint, they did not originate from him, but from Caelestius, and that he also repudiated them. After the hearing there was nothing left for the synod but to discharge the defendant and to announce him as worthy of communion with the Church. The Orient had now spoken twice and had found nothing to blame in Pelagius, because he had hidden his real sentiments from his judges. "

Later,...
"...the pope developed the Catholic teaching on original sin and grace, and excluded Pelagius and Caelestius, who were reported to have rejected these doctrines, form communion with the Church until they should come to their senses."
Finaly...

"Pursuant to the papal command, there was held on 1 May, 418, in the presence of 200 bishops, the famous Council of Carthage, which again branded Pelagianism as a heresy in eight (or nine) canons (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed., 1908, 101-8). Owing to their importance they may be summarized:

1. Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
2. New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
3. Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
4. The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
5. Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
6. Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
7. The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
8. The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
9. Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a "middle place" (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the "kingdom of heaven" and from "eternal life".

These clearly worded canons, which (except the last-named) afterwards came to be articles of faith binding on the universal Church, gave the death blow to Pelagianism; sooner or later it would bleed to death. "

Notice #5 & how it is confirmed by 1Cor2:14
14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


"It was not until the Second Synod of Orange (529) that Pelagianism breathed its last in the West, though that convention aimed its decisions primarily against Semipelagianism. "

Semi-Pelagians tried to soften the destruction Free Will doctrine causes to the Original Sin doctrine explicitly stated in Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
with "Semi-Pelagianism" that preserves the free will by redefining the word "dead" in Eph 2:1 as "sick" or "diseased" & placing the origin of faith in man instead of crediting it as a gift of God:
Eph 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
The flip flop from declaring it heresy to making it orthodoxy was completed at The Council of Trent where "co-operative grace" was term given the works gospel and confusing the concepts of salvation & justification was employed to effect the switch.
CANON 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."


Scriptural refutation:

1. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3:20).
2. "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 3:24).
3. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28).
4. "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3).
5. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).
6. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8).
7. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost," (Titus 3:5).

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

Click to expand...

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.

Click to expand...

*emphasis mine

This "supreme and universal power" and definitions that are irreformable and do not need consent from the rest of the Church are the biggest errors.

Quoted from Here.

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.

Except that The Holy Ghost is the vicar of Christ.

Rick Otto said:

Except that The Holy Ghost is the vicar of Christ.

Click to expand...

The Holy Ghost is God. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all One God and so they are not the vicar of itself. That is like saying me, myself and I. That me is the vicar of myself. Kind of silly huh?

JacktheCatholic said:

The Holy Ghost is God. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all One God and so they are not the vicar of itself. That is like saying me, myself and I. That me is the vicar of myself. Kind of silly huh?

Click to expand...

Nah. What's silly about it?

LittleLambofJesus said:

Nah. What's silly about it?

Click to expand...

Simple. If you do not believe Jesus left someone in charge while he is away then just say no one is in charge.

JacktheCatholic said:

Simple. If you do not believe Jesus left someone in charge while he is away then just say no one is in charge.

Click to expand...

I'll say it: Jesus left no ONE in charge - and certainly not me.
Which is where we differ from the RCC and LDS, both of which dogmatically insist that itself is in charge (exclusively, infallibly, unquestionably).

It's a conflict between the extreme individualism, institutionalism and authoritarianism of the RCC and LDS, with the humility and community of Protestantism.

Jesus gave us His Holy Scriptures, His Holy Spirit, and each other.
He never so much as even mentioned the Roman Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (each of those self-claims to the contrary) or the Bishop in Rome or the Council of Twelve.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

CaliforniaJosiah said:

I'll say it: Jesus left no ONE in charge - and certainly not me.

Click to expand...

I know that is what you believe and what you want to believe. Imagine if you discovered you are wrong.

But the facts remain that the church has always had a hierarchy and when Jesus left for Heaven he left Peter in charge. Simple as that.

"He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

JacktheCatholic said:

Simple. If you do not believe Jesus left someone in charge while he is away then just say no one is in charge.

Click to expand...

So Peter is the comforter Jesus said that He'd send when He left?



Hope you're having a good day Jack.
Things looking up in the job search?

JacktheCatholic said:

The facts remain that the church has always had a hierarchy and when Jesus left for Heaven he left Peter in charge. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

1. No, it's not a fact. It's a self-claim.

2. Let's pretend it's true. As you know, Peter's dead. Thus, your own position must be that the church is now without any authority at all and has been for 1,941 years. I find the Protestant position more biblical and reasonable.



Here's the difference in our positions:

1. Individualism (limited to myself alone, exclusively) vs. community.
2. Authoritarianism and egotistical self claims vs. accountability.
3. Looking to self vs. looking to God's Scriptures and the church.

Jesus pointed US to God's Scriptures (over 50 times!) and promised US His Holy Spirit. He commanded US to not 'lord it over each other as the gentiles do.' He never so much as even mentioned any Pope in Rome or the Catholic Denomination. For anything. About anything. Not once. Nope.











.

It's a conflict between the extreme individualism, institutionalism and authoritarianism of the RCC and LDS, with the humility and community of Protestantism.

Click to expand...

Ho ho ho. Some humility and community...

MamaZ said:

about the time the church blended roman religion in with christianity and called it truth..

Click to expand...

And when and how is that?

Maybe you should try researching history instead of believing what anti-Catholics tell you.