Roman church errors and inventions

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, any church.

I can find something nice to say about any church. For one thing if it is Christian then they are people that believe in the same God as me. That has to count for something.

If I were to start I guess it would be Pentecostal. I love how they have a strong community and spend lots of time worshipping God and that they want proof of being of God and not the devil.

Thanks JtC. Good post

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Thanks JtC. Good post

Why thank you kind sir.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Why thank you kind sir.

Anytime JtC. I haven't seen you around lately.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Shameless bump

Original OP:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7291830/
Protestant errors and inventions

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]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Roman church errors and inventions

Hmmmmm, let me think on that one..................................................................................................

Okie dokie. Take your time bro

 

[Dorothea]

Bringing up a contentious thread, eh, LLOJ? Too many threads on the errors of Protestants, so this has been bumped, perhaps? Well, whatever floats your boat (as you say). I'm going to exit stage left.

 

[Zeena]

Christian Forums - Where Christian Community Meets Faith

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]

The theory of 'Original Sin' has not been mentioned as yet, has it?

 

[Sphinx777]

Original sin is, according to a doctrine proposed in Christian theology, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt by all humans through collective guilt.

Those who uphold the doctrine look to the teaching of Paul the Apostle in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 for its scriptural base, and see it as perhaps implied in Old Testament passages such as Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3.

Some Christians do not accept the doctrine indicated by the terms "original sin" or "ancestral sin", which are not found in the Bible. The doctrine is not found in other religions, such as Judaism, Hinduism and Islam. Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.

The prevailing view also in Eastern Orthodoxy is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. Orthodoxy prefers the term "ancestral sin", which indicates that "original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam." An important exposition of the belief of Eastern Christians identifies original sin as physical and spiritual death, the spiritual death being the loss of "the grace of God, which quickened (the soul) with the higher and spiritual life". Others see original sin also as the cause of actual sins: "a bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matthew 7:17, NIV), although, in this view, original and actual sin may be difficult to distinguish.

 

[Zeena]

Most Christians who profess to believe in the doctrine of original sin are ignorant of exactly what its teachings really are. They are ignorant of the fact that the doctrine has not always existed. They are ignorant of the fact that it evolved, that it had its roots in a heathen philosophy, and that it was made a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church in the 5th century A.D. They are ignorant of the fact that it is only a theory, and that there is really not one but several differing theories that have evolved and come down to us in the church. They are also ignorant of the fact that the Bible passages used as proof-texts for this doctrine have been taken out of context and tortured into teaching a doctrine that is completely foreign to the Bible. Finally, they are ignorant of the fact that the doctrine of original sin is an evil doctrine that corrupts Christian practice, blackens the character of God, excuses sin in the sinner, contradicts the Bible, makes Jesus a sinner, harms the cause of Christ, and stumbles professing Christians into hell. And it is this ignorance of Christians concerning these facts that helps to protect and perpetuate the doctrine of original sin.

Source --> ARE MEN BORN SINNERS? THE MYTH OF ORIGINAL SIN: TABLE OF CONTENTS

****

Many Christians who profess to believe in the doctrine of original sin do not know what it teaches. Even more Christians are ignorant of its history and origin: that it had its roots in a heathen philosophy, that it has evolved, and that it was made a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church in the fifth century A.D., primarily by the influence of Augustine.

ibid.

**************

1. The Augustinian Theory. This is also called the Theory of Adam's Natural Headship and the Realistic Theory. This theory was formulated by Augustine in the fifth century A.D. The Augustinian Theory affirms that, by virtue of organic unity, the whole human race existed in Adam at the time of his transgression. It says that Adam's will was the will of the species, so that in Adam's free act, the will of the race revolted against God, and the nature of the race corrupted itself. All men existed as one moral person in Adam, so that in Adam's sin we sinned, we corrupted ourselves, and we brought guilt and merited condemnation upon ourselves.

2. The Federal Theory. This theory is also called the Theory of Condemnation by Covenant and the Immediate Imputation Theory. It had its origin with Cocceius in the 17th century A.D. According to this theory, God made a covenant with Adam, agreeing to bestow upon all his descendants eternal life for his obedience, but making the penalty for his disobedience to be the condemnation of all his descendants. Since our legal representative or federal head did sin, God imputes his sin, guilt, and condemnation to all his descendants. It was thought that this theory was necessary because of the problem in the Augustinian Theory of accounting for the non-imputation of the subsequent sins of Adam and less remote ancestors for if real existence in Adam explained our responsibility for his first sin, why should not real existence in Adam and in subsequent ancestors make us guilty for those sins, too?

3. The Theory of Mediate Imputation. This theory is also called the Theory of Condemnation for Depravity. This is the theory formulated by Placeus in the 17th century A.D. Placeus originally denied that Adam's sin was in any way imputed to his posterity. But when his first view was condemned by the Synod of the French Reformed Church in 1644, he published this later view. According to this view, all men are born with a depraved nature and are guilty and condemnable for that nature. They are not viewed as being guilty because of the sin of Adam, as in the Federal Theory. Instead it is the corrupted nature which they inherit from Adam that is sufficient cause and legal ground for God to condemn them.

ibid.

*******

 

[Thekla]

The prevailing view also in Eastern Orthodoxy is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. Orthodoxy prefers the term "ancestral sin", which indicates that "original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam." An important exposition of the belief of Eastern Christians identifies original sin as physical and spiritual death, the spiritual death being the loss of "the grace of God, which quickened (the soul) with the higher and spiritual life". Others see original sin also as the cause of actual sins: "a bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matthew 7:17, NIV), although, in this view, original and actual sin may be difficult to distinguish.

Just a bit of a correction; the EO teaches that all men are born mortal and into a fallen world, a consequence of the Fall. We have inherited mortality, and are born into a "harsher world". This means we are more likely to sin.

What is said above re: the EO does not make sense to me.

 

[Secundulus]

Just a bit of a correction; the EO teaches that all men are born mortal and into a fallen world, a consequence of the Fall. We have inherited mortality, and are born into a "harsher world". This means we are more likely to sin.

What is said above re: the EO does not make sense to me.

Like a lot of other things, this looks like we teach the same thing, or at least the same effect on fallen man, but simply disagree over the name.

 

[Zeena]

Like a lot of other things, this looks like we teach the same thing, or at least the same effect on fallen man, but simply disagree over the name.

If that's so then why the East-West shism over it?

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence"). Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418

Great Schism: Information from Answers.com

Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy which together make up Eastern Christianity, acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind (see also traducianism), but never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[31] The act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed the reality of this present age of the cosmos. The Greek Fathers emphasized the metaphysical dimension of the Fall of Man, whereby Adam's descendants are born into a fallen world, but at the same time held fast to belief that, in spite of that, man remains free.[2] Instead of accepting the Lutheran interpretation of Augustine's teaching, Orthodox Churches accept the teaching of John Cassian, which rejects the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally (see also semi-Pelagianism).

ibid.

Eastern Orthodoxy

The Orthodox Church in America makes clear the distinction between "fallen nature" and "fallen man" and this is affirmed in the early teaching of the Church whose role it is to act as the catalyst that leads to true or inner redemption. Every human person born on this earth bears the image of God undistorted within themselves.[40]

In our Tradition there is no such thing as fallen nature. There are fallen persons, but not fallen nature. The implication of this truth is that we have no excuses for our sins. Do Not Resent, Do Not React, Keep Inner Stillness, 2-3
​

ibid.
​

 

[Secundulus]

If that's so then why the East-West shism over it?

The schism wasn't because of that.

Even the strongest theological issue, the filioque, has been largely agreed to amongst the heirarchy of the Churches.

The Pope leaves it out when worshipping with the EO and certain high ranking EO Bishops have agreed that the disagreement is largely a matter of semantics and the difference of words in Greek and Latin.

 

[Secundulus]

If that's so then why the East-West shism over it?

Also, the Catholic Church also rejects Total Depravity.

 

[Thekla]

Well ... there is the present concern that the filioque has led to a distortion in ecclesiastic understanding (ie, an imbalance in the way the Church is understood and lived, as the Church is - to some extent - an 'icon' of the Trinity).

 

[Secundulus]

For the most recent developments on talks between East and West on the Filioque, see this article. It's Wikipedia, but I think the info is reliable.

Filioque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not irreconcilable unless people simply want it to be.

 

[Thekla]

For the most recent developments on talks between East and West on the Filioque, see this article. It's Wikipedia, but I think the info is reliable.

Filioque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not irreconcilable unless people simply want it to be.

The present western view of the Pope's role is thought to arise in part from the filioque; the present discussions thus include both the filioque and the position of the Pope.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The present western view of the Pope's role is thought to arise in part from the filioque; the present discussions thus include both the filioque and the position of the Pope.

I would think that is where the EOs and Protestants are in major agreement

What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope - Page 82 - Christian

quote: The Pope would renounce his Roman Catholicism and become Orthodox. There is nothing that would cause the Church as a whole to join with him.

 

[Secundulus]

The present western view of the Pope's role is thought to arise in part from the filioque; the present discussions thus include both the filioque and the position of the Pope.

Of course.

If it is God's will, then both sides will find a way to bridge both disagreements and animosities.

From what I have read in various places in the past couple of years, bridging disagreements will be much easier than bridging animosities.

 

[Thekla]

Of course.

If it is God's will, then both sides will find a way to bridge both disagreements and animosities.

From what I have read in various places in the past couple of years, bridging disagreements will be much easier than bridging animosities.

God bless both