Roman church errors and inventions

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well isn't this a fun thread.

.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Good Day,

The Roman church still pretending to have authority of the apostles...



"But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles...Whence it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone....For as a heretic may not lawfully ordain nor lay on hands, so neither may he baptize, nor do any thing holily or spiritually, since he is an alien from spiritual and deifying sanctity....And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen [bishop of Rome], that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans' custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles." (in Cyprian's Letter 74:6-7, 74:19)

In Him,

Bill

That quote is probably made up, given that that is not a valid citation of Cyprian's works.

 

[mont974x4]

It's a way of ensuring that the marriage is sacramental. I don't see what your complaint in really about- seeing how Catholics can marry protestants outside of the Church.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church is not some denomination that is run by men. It is the Church created by Jesus Christ Himself. The authority of the Church comes by succession from the apostles. Leaving the Catholic Church is a very big deal, because it is a willing participation in the protestant reformation and a rejection of the Catholic Church.

We are not protestants where it isn't a big deal which denomination you belong to. People who say it is an issue of money- as if we were some megachurch where they pastors are rich really need to take a look at the clergy. Priests and bishops don't make much money- and they aren't interested in it. It's about Christ and salvation.

The rcc is a denomination made by, and run by, men. As evidence we need look no further than the incorporation of pagan practices into "Tradition".


Leaving the rcc, or any denomination, is not a rejection of Christ. Leaving the rcc is not a big deal, accept to rome because they lose power when the people come to the truth. It must really hurt the popes feelings when people won't obey the unam sanctum because they come to teh truth of knowing salvation does not come at the price of bondage to the pope.



You'll have to show me where marriage is called a sacrement in Scripture. It is a holy union of a man and a woman and it is sacred. However, it is between the bride, the groom, and God. The pope (and his representatives) plays no roll whatsoever, and he doesn't need to,for it to be a sacred union.



And lastly, the rcc has been all about power and influence since its inception. Part of that has been through pilfering ther people by such acts as selling indulgances, or writing checks as penance. So, yes, money is a huge part of the issue.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

"[...] bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?" - De Unitate Ecclesiae, Saint Cyprian of Carthage 251 A.D.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But is this a dogma or doctrine of the Church, or just pastoral advice? The Papacy has made few pronouncements exercising the infallibility it claimed in 1871; which kind of makes one wonder why it was needed.

IMHO, because infallibility = unaccountability.
It underpins the foundational requirement of the denomination toward all that all accept whatever it currently says "with docility" for when it speaks, Jesus speaks (CCC 87, etc.). Accountability must be dismissed. This dogma helps accomplish that.




.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The rcc is a denomination made by, and run by, men.

That would important for you to believe as a protestant, but that doesn't make it true.

As evidence we need look no further than the incorporation of pagan practices into "Tradition".

Such as? The fact that you are using the word 'practices' with 'Tradition' tells me you don't really understand what Holy Tradition is.

Leaving the rcc, or any denomination, is not a rejection of Christ. Leaving the rcc is not a big deal, accept to rome because they lose power when the people come to the truth. It must really hurt the popes feelings when people won't obey the unam sanctum because they come to teh truth of knowing salvation does not come at the price of bondage to the pope.

You can't come to the truth by leaving the Church, considering the Church teaches the fullness of truth as given to her by the apostles.
I don't see how anyone can honestly say you can come to the truth by becoming a protestant- as there are 30,000 denominations and thousands of different doctrines and theories.

You'll have to show me where marriage is called a sacrement in Scripture. It is a holy union of a man and a woman and it is sacred. However, it is between the bride, the groom, and God.

I agree with that. A sacrament is what we call a means of receiving grace.

The pope (and his representatives) plays no roll whatsoever, and he doesn't need to,for it to be a sacred union.

I never said anything about the pope having a role in marriage.

And lastly, the rcc has been all about power and influence since its inception. Part of that has been through pilfering ther people by such acts as selling indulgances, or writing checks as penance. So, yes, money is a huge part of the issue.

Considering that Jesus created the Church, I beg to differ.
The Church has never sold indulgences and no one can be asked to write a check as penance. 500 years ago there were a few priests that abused the system and violated what the Church believe by telling people they could give money for indulgences.

This is stuff that occurred in isolated incidents 500 years ago and people go on and on about as if it were in any way a relevant thing against the Church.

How many protestant pastors are obsessed with money? How many preachers talk about tithing and the need to give more and more? It's hiliarious to here protestants go on about what a few priests did 500 years ago when so many of their pastors drive luxury cars and live in mansions. Turn on any of those protestant-Christian tv channels right now and tell me they aren't interested in making money.
How many priests do you know? They don't care about money, it has nothing to do with it. If they wanted to make money they could leave the Church and make a lot more as pastors in protestant churches.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You can't come to the truth by leaving the Church, considering the Church teaches the fullness of truth as given to her by the apostles.
I don't see how anyone can honestly say you can come to the truth by becoming a protestant- as there are 30,000 denominations and thousands of different doctrines and theories.

Greetings SA. I just happen to be a non-Catholic catholic Christian. Neither Roman Catholicism or any other denomination has a lock on it.

Just make sure you have enuf oil in yer lamps for when the Bridegroom comes

Matt 25:10 Of coming away yet of them to purchase, came the Bridegroom and the prepared ones entered with Him into the marriage-festivities, and is locked the door.
11 Subsequently yet are coming also the rest of the virgins saying "Lord! Lord! open Thou! to us"
12 The yet answering He said "Verily I am saying to ye not I have known ye"

Reve 15:8 And is being-filled-full/repleted the Sanctuary of smoke out of the Glory of the God, and out of the power of Him. And no-one was able to be entering into the Sanctuary until should be being finished the seven blows/stripes of the seven messengers. [Matthew 12:29]

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Greetings SA. I just happen to be a non-Catholic catholic Christian. Neither Roman Catholicism or any other denomination has a lock on it.

Just make sure you have enuf oil in yer lamps for when the Bridegroom comes

Protestants who called themselves 'Catholic' was a way for them to reject the Church and still convince themselves they were adhereing to the Creed- that was the defintion of what it meant to be Christian since the earliest centuries of the faith.

The name was created by the Catholic Church and applied to all those in communion with each other, with the See of Rome as the center.

I know it is important for you to try and apply the word to yourself- because it helps to validate your understanding of what the "Church" is. An understanding that was created by the reformationists as a way to get around what they were doing.

What Augustine said still holds true today:

"We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).

 

[seeker777]

You can't come to the truth by leaving the Church, considering the Church teaches the fullness of truth as given to her by the apostles.
I don't see how anyone can honestly say you can come to the truth by becoming a protestant- as there are 30,000 denominations and thousands of different doctrines and theories.

Cradle Catholic, I've left after 33 years. I have never felt better and I know that I have made the right decision.

I simply do not believe that a hierarchical, bureaucratic and political organization is necessary, nor required for an individuals salvation.

Imagine, the Church claiming that a Catholic is in a state of mortal sin for having married in a Protestant Church without dispensation?!

Imagine a Church declaring ' Outside the Church their is no salvation'. Boy, that must have kept millions coming back for centuries!

Imagine the Church deciding that a man can turn directly to God for forgiveness of what the Church considers venial sins and the same Church declaring that a Catholic MUST confess mortal sins to a priest in order to receive Gods forgiveness!

So, if you miss Mass without just cause, at best your in a state of grave sin and at worst your in a state of mortal sin. The only remedy in order to receive the promises of Christ...is to confess to a Catholic Priest.

I wonder who got to make up all of these rules. I wonder who got to decide that a Catholic must fast for one hour prior to receiving the Eucharist and if they don't, and receive the Eucharist, they commit a mortal sin!

Who made that rule up? Why not 45 minutes, why not one hour 10 minutes and 14 seconds? Give me a break!!!

So many rules, the forest can't be seen for the tree's. The problem starts when an average Catholic actually starts asking why in relation to all of the rules....the answers are most unsatisfying.

 

[mont974x4]

SA,
I have read enough to know what "holy tradition" is, it is all those little extra unbiblical rules and practices that rcc preaches as truth.

By definition, the rcc is a definition. Of course, you'd have to be a rcc apologist avoiding facts to to deny that.


The rest of your post is just more typical roman propaganda.

BTW, I think its in your book of tobit that talks about buying your way out of hell. Gee, I wonder why rome decided to pretend that book is Scripture?


Sorry, but I never said there weren't bad protestant leaders. In fact, in appropriate threads I have slammed them as much as I slam the unbiblical teachings of your denomination.

Thankfully, most of the ones I have served with have been humble men.

Money and greed are not denominational issues, they are human issues...and your denomination is not immune.

You would have to either bought the roman bait hook line and sinker or be a very poor student of history to think the rcc han't been about money and power.

But, I digress, this thread is about specific errors of rome. How about the unbiblical practice of "meatless Fridays"?

NASB
Col 2:16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--
Col 2:17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,
Col 2:19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.
Col 2:20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
Col 2:21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"
Col 2:22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
Col 2:23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Protestants who called themselves 'Catholic' was a way for them to reject the Church and still convince themselves they were adhereing to the Creed- that was the defintion of what it meant to be Christian since the earliest centuries of the faith.

The name was created by the Catholic Church and applied to all those in communion with each other, with the See of Rome as the center.

I know it is important for you to try and apply the word to yourself- because it helps to validate your understanding of what the "Church" is. An understanding that was created by the reformationists as a way to get around what they were doing.

What Augustine said still holds true today:

"We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).

Before the birth of Jesus and for centuries after, "catholic" was a popular ADJECTIVE meaning "whole" "general" "universal" "all-embracing." That original meaning is still the primary meaning, and is the meaning in the Creed and by virtually all non-RCC's.

At some point, the adjective "catholic" (as well as the adjective "orthodox" meaning "traditional, correct, true") came to be almost interchangeable in common use. And in time, especially after the 4th century, came to be associated with denomination(s). Eventually, especially after the flurry of mutual excommunications, "Catholic" (as a proper noun, NOT as an adjective) came to be associated with those congregations and bishops in communion with the Bishop in Rome, whereas "Orthodox" came to be associated with all the rest.

Thus, the original, primary and for centuries only meaning of "catholic" was as an adjective meaning "universal, whole, general, all-embracing" and did NOT refer to a denominational institution. When translating the use of the adjective, it is improper English grammar to capitolize it (adjectives are not capitolized in English). The same is true for the adjective, "orthodox."




There are at least two denominations with the legal proper name of Christian. They are legally named "The Christian Church." IMHO, it would be wrong to assume that every use of the word "Christian" prior to the incorporation of those denomination was a reference to one or both of them and no other.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

SA,
I have read enough to know what "holy tradition" is, it is all those little extra unbiblical rules and practices that rcc preaches as truth.

Sorry, but whatever you read about Holy Tradition doesn't seem to know what they are talking about. It has nothing to do with rules or practices.

By definition, the rcc is a definition. Of course, you'd have to be a rcc apologist avoiding facts to to deny that.

You haven't presented any facts. You just skipped over my entire post.
You made an accusation that was adding pagan practices, but didn't explain those.
You clearly showed you don't even know what Holy Tradition is.
You accused the church of making people write checks for penance, but that can't and doesn't happen.
You accused clergy of being interested in money, but you referred to isolated incidents 500 years ago that were clear violations of Church teachings... while totally ignoring how obsessed modern protestantism is about money.
I can't think of how many times I've been to a protestant service and heard about how we should keep giving and giving. Anyone can turn on a tv right now and find a protestant channel and they'll be asking for money.
They tell people God will bless them and give them 10x more money then what they gave. So who is really obsessed?

The rest of your post is just more typical roman propaganda.

Such as? I mean, tell me of anything that is wrong with my post. I don't think you will though. I don't think you really know much about the Church at all- you just have some weird issue with it.

BTW, I think its in your book of tobit that talks about buying your way out of hell. Gee, I wonder why rome decided to pretend that book is Scripture?

You do realize that Tobit was considered scripture by Christians until the protestant reformation?
It was actually part of the Jewish canon. Tobit was considered scripture from after the Babylonian exile until the destruction of the Jewish temple.
Look it up. it was considered canon by the jewish people, while Jesus walked the Earth.
And no- Tobit doesn't talk about buying your way out of hell.
And if you think Catholic believe that you can buy your way out of hell, you really know nothing about what we believe.
Once you go to hell, there is no way out.

You would have to either bought the roman bait hook line and sinker or be a very poor student of history to think the rcc han't been about money and power.

How many priests do you know? Do you think they are interested in money and power?
The Church hasn't been about money and power. You are obsessing about a few figures who abused their power hundreds of years ago.
Whereas, right now, today- so much of protestant christianity is about megachurches and money.

But, I digress, this thread is about specific errors of rome. How about the unbiblical practice of "meatless Fridays"?

How it that unbiblical? All you did was quote part of scripture that really have nothing to do with that.

 

[seeker777]

This error really opened my eyes and was instrumental in my leaving.

The error deals with 2 Cor. 5:18

And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."42 The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."43

Now, I have to say that I was shocked to read that the RCC actually tries to take a position that 2 Cor.5:18 is about priests hearing confessions and granting absolution. The Church makes the clear claim that this passage actually gives them their ministry of reconciliation.

I've debated with Catholics on other boards, and because they can see the words ' ministry of reconciliation', they automatically conclude that the passage must be talking about Catholic confession.

It truly is astounding that this claim is made, as the passage is so clearly speaking only of the apostles going out, spreading the good news of the gospels and imploring people to be reconciled to God. How should the people be reconciled to God, well the passage says how, through Christ Jesus.

The apostles were entrusted with the message of reconciliation! The message, meaning, spread the gospels, spread the good news, be reconciled to God through Christ Jesus!

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Before the birth of Jesus and for centuries after, "catholic" was a popular ADJECTIVE meaning "whole" "general" "universal" "all-embracing." That original meaning is still the primary meaning, and is the meaning in the Creed and by virtually all non-RCC's.

Josiah- all you are saying is the obvious fact that Catholic means universal in Latin and Greek. You are acting like you are saying something profound. Everyone knows the word means.

That is why it was applied to the Catholic Church. There was the Church of Rome, the Church of Corinth, et cetera.

If you want to discuss the content of my post- go for it. But don't create a post about the meaning of the word catholic in common Greco-Roman usages.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Protestants who called themselves 'Catholic' was a way for them to reject the Church and still convince themselves they were adhereing to the Creed- that was the defintion of what it meant to be Christian since the earliest centuries of the faith.

The name was created by the Catholic Church and applied to all those in communion with each other, with the See of Rome as the center.

Greetings SA. I believe the Roman See and His Denomination are in error on Revelation. What say thou to that?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263327
Early ECFs and Queen/Babylon in Revelation

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Cradle Catholic, I've left after 33 years. I have never felt better and I know that I have made the right decision.

I simply do not believe that a hierarchical, bureaucratic and political organization is necessary, nor required for an individuals salvation.

Neither does the Church believe that is absolutely necessary.

Imagine, the Church claiming that a Catholic is in a state of mortal sin for having married in a Protestant Church without dispensation?!

The Church doesn't and never has proclaimed that. The Church actually can't.

Imagine a Church declaring ' Outside the Church their is no salvation'. Boy, that must have kept millions coming back for centuries!

Actually, that was proclaimed by a pope five hundred years ago and most people don't know what it means.
It means there is no salvation apart from the Church. It means Buddha, Muhammad and your own good works can't save you.
People will often try and twist it to mean "Unless you a member of the Catholic Church, you are going to hell". But those are completely different words, aren't they? And that's not what is said.

Imagine the Church deciding that a man can turn directly to God for forgiveness of what the Church considers venial sins and the same Church declaring that a Catholic MUST confess mortal sins to a priest in order to receive Gods forgiveness!

Actually, not even that is technically true.

So, if you miss Mass without just cause, at best your in a state of grave sin and at worst your in a state of mortal sin. The only remedy in order to receive the promises of Christ...is to confess to a Catholic Priest.

Actually, confession involves Jesus, not the priest.

I wonder who got to make up all of these rules. I wonder who got to decide that a Catholic must fast for one hour prior to receiving the Eucharist and if they don't, and receive the Eucharist, they commit a mortal sin!

Who made that rule up? Why not 45 minutes, why not one hour 10 minutes and 14 seconds? Give me a break!!!

Actually, that is a discipline decided by the Church.
The apostles determined that one must make some penance before receiving communion. It was up to each Church to determine how this is done- in the Roman Church, it is done by fasting one hour prior to receiving.
It is not automatically a mortal sin just because you messed up.

So many rules, the forest can't be seen for the tree's. The problem starts when an average Catholic actually starts asking why in relation to all of the rules....the answers are most unsatisfying.

The Catholics that leave generally do so because they don't like the rules and aren't seriously interested in the answers. I mean, anyone could have told you that the one hour fast was determined at Vatican II. All these 'rules' are pretty simple and straightforward.

The real reason most Catholics leave is because they don't want to go to confession, Church every Sunday or there is some sin they want to commit.

 

[seeker777]

You seriously think that the Church teaches that a Catholic without dispensation, who marries in a protestant Church has a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church?

Your seriously going to make me go and retrieve multiple Catholic sources that prove this is absolutely the case.

Let me know if you disagree and I will then prove you absolutely wrong.

I'll wait for your response.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

This error really opened my eyes and was instrumental in my leaving.

The error deals with 2 Cor. 5:18

And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."42 The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."43

Now, I have to say that I was shocked to read that the RCC actually tries to take a position that 2 Cor.5:18 is about priests hearing confessions and granting absolution. The Church makes the clear claim that this passage actually gives them their ministry of reconciliation.

Where is the Catholic Church claiming this passage "gives them their ministry of reconciliation?"

I've debated with Catholics on other boards, and because they can see the words ' ministry of reconciliation', they automatically conclude that the passage must be talking about Catholic confession.

It truly is astounding that this claim is made, as the passage is so clearly speaking only of the apostles going out, spreading the good news of the gospels and imploring people to be reconciled to God. How should the people be reconciled to God, well the passage says how, through Christ Jesus.

The apostles were entrusted with the message of reconciliation! The message, meaning, spread the gospels, spread the good news, be reconciled to God through Christ Jesus!

And I would agree with you. The Church doesn't believe confession/reconciliation is based on a passage in 2 Corinthians.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

You seriously think that the Church teaches that a Catholic without dispensation, who marries in a protestant Church has a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church?

Your seriously going to make me go and retrieve multiple Catholic sources that prove this is absolutely the case.

Let me know if you disagree and I will then prove you absolutely wrong.

I'll wait for your response.

You seem to be combining a few things here.

This:
"a Catholic without dispensation, who marries in a protestant Church has a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church?"

is not the same as this:
"Imagine, the Church claiming that a Catholic is in a state of mortal sin for having married in a Protestant Church without dispensation?!"

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Greetings SA. I believe the Roman See and His Denomination are in error on Revelation. What say thou to that?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263327
Early ECFs and Queen/Babylon in Revelation

I never saw a response from the Spirit Antis on this post.