What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

[WisdomTree]

How soon is soon



.

Now of course!

 

[Rev Randy]

Isn't it nice to be civil? We should just end with all these "errors" of Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy (coming soon)! Instead have a nice cup of tea and some healthy academic discussion on my "versus" threads.

Or we could all drink a fifth of knotty head gin and just beat the stew out of each other until everyone agreed with me.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Or we could all drink a fifth of knotty head gin and just beat the stew out of each other until everyone agreed with me.

Sounds inviting

 

[MrMoe]

Did you know that scripture instructs us to cover our neighbor's nakedness (which might be interpreted as sins or shame, depending on context), and not to expose it?

You're confusing judging with shaming. I think the verse you are referring to is talking about literal nakedness

But if one exposes an attempt to expose another, well, that's called seeking justice.

not if the one trying to expose is trying to expose truth and uncover potential error. Not when they are judging righteously. that would be preventing justice which the bible condemns
Do you think that all those paedophile priests that where exposed was wrong or was the efforts to hide them/move them and sweep it under the rug, seeking justice?


My question was an effort to expose the truth of the matter not expose people. That's what you don't seem to be getting

I think it may have something to do with God's desire to wash away sins, and working to expose them to condemn, slander, destroy, etc, works against Him.

Again you're confusing judging with shaming.
Jude 1:9
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

The word of God has already judged paedophiles. My question was not about condemning slandering or destroying them but to ask what happens to their power and authority when the are actively participating in sin while holding this power and authority

You asked me:

"Don't you think this is an important question roman Catholics should be asking themselves especially since it on such an important spiritual matter such as forgiving of sins?"

So, you're questioning the authority of RC priests to forgive sins because of issues surrounding pedophilia

Priest have no authority unless it's given to them by God. If their actions contradict the word of God then we have every right to judge and not keep silent.

and apparently because you think it's important for RC believers to ask themselves this question of yours.

where did I say that in my original question? I think they should since I said before it concerns important spiritual matters of forgiveness

That implies that you think they do not struggle with questions like these,

false. you are putting words in my mouth. This is not what I think at all. You are making an assumption about my intentions for asking my original question that are not true. This is most definitely a judgment of character

which in light of the controversy, is most definitely a judgment of character.

see previous answer

In other words, it's like asking "X is happening and you're not even bothered?"

Shouldn't they be bothered if someone who was active paedophile is forgiving/retaining sins? I know I would.
Anyway how you came to this I don't know since this was not my original question. My original question was:
"x is happening, so what does that mean in this instance?"

But you said:

"it's wrong to assume things about a persons character, especially someone you've never met."

So, yes, I'm applying this to you.

here is a quote from you

One lesson I'm pretty sure you have yet to learn is that people are not really very different from one another, meaning that you as a fully functional human being have the capacity to want to murder, to steal, to be unfaithful, to do anything and every bad thing that has been done, and even the things you're bringing up here

you made an assumption about me that wasn't true. You made a judgment call on my character without any evidence besides your own perceived view of my intentions for asking the original question.
What you are doing is what psychologists call mind reading (Not literally of course) it's when you second guess a persons motivations or intentions (Which are almost always negative) for doing or saying something without any evidence except your own personal perceptions.

that's why I said
"it's wrong to assume things about a persons character, especially someone you've never met."

cause you were assuming things about me. Isn't it ironic you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of which I wasn't even doing in the first place

Here we go with judgment again. FTR, I don't say "don't judge at all." Scripture says "judge not that you be not judged."

here is the verse in context:

Matt7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

it's talking about hypocritical judgment. Notice how it says, "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then" This verse expect us to judge, just not unrightously or according to appearance.

What is it with this fascination some people seem to have with judging other people?

Cause the bible commands us to, that's why. It even tells us to judge ourselves
What is it with this fascination some people have with not judging?

What's in it for you? Christ personally warned us about judgment

He warned us about judging unrightously and about judging according to appearance but not from judging righteous judgment. I don't need to post the verses again do I?

- that it's not to be taken lightly and it can get you into a lot of trouble with God.

God wouldn't taken lightly someone making presumptions about another persons motives for asking a question without evidence. That would be judging according to appearance.
How would you like it if someone made presumptions about you?
for example I can say the reason you are accusing me is cause you are anti-protesant.
you are doing the exact thing you are accusing me of which I wasn't even doing in the first place

Yes. If I walked in on my best, life-long friend molesting a child, I would be in a very awkward situation and I would be reluctant to turn on him. I might kick his face to get him off of the kid but I would be reluctant to call him out publically, have him fired, ruin his life, etc, etc.

Again you're confusing judging with shaming. Take the woman caught in adultry and Jesus own crucifixion for example

What do you suggest?

I think you already answered this question. The punishment must fit the crime.
judge righteous judgment

Did you totally miss all of the allegations of paganism and worse, or do you think it's not a big deal when directed at other Roman Catholic believers?

Do you think Catholics are the only ones with allegations thrown at them? you don't think protestants are accused of making up theology? Mormons of being freemasons and freemasons of being Satanists?
Catholics shouldn't act like the victims since they are good at making allegations too and they shouldn't try to shutdown debate by accusing those who ask questions about their beliefs of being anti-Catholic just like the supporters of gay marriage accuse those who don't support their views as being homophobic and quoting that judge not verse over and over out of context



THANK YOU Rev Randy and MoreCoffee for giving me a simple and straight forward answer

 

[Rev Randy]

Sounds inviting

Naw. while the pugilists are slugging it out we can share a bit of

 

[MoreCoffee]

Naw. while the pugilists are slugging it out we can share a bit of

What a good idea!

And then we can have some ...

 

[Nanopants]

You're confusing judging with shaming. I think the verse you are referring to is talking about literal nakedness


not if the one trying to expose is trying to expose truth and uncover potential error.

Hatred stirs up strife,
But love covers all sins.

-Pro 10:12

Not when they are judging righteously. that would be preventing justice which the bible condemns
Do you think that all those paedophile priests that where exposed was wrong or was the efforts to hide them/move them and sweep it under the rug, seeking justice?

I don't think each and every case can be generalized or held accountable to whomever wants to jump in.

My question was an effort to expose the truth of the matter not expose people. That's what you don't seem to be getting


Again you're confusing judging with shaming.

Hatred stirs up strife,
But love covers all sins.

-Pro 10:12

Jude 1:9
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

The word of God has already judged paedophiles. My question was not about condemning slandering or destroying them but to ask what happens to their power and authority when the are actively participating in sin while holding this power and authority

Ok. Then why bother mentioning pedophilia if it's not even necessarily related to the real question?

Priest have no authority unless it's given to them by God. If their actions contradict the word of God then we have every right to judge and not keep silent.

Here's what scripture says:

Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that "by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. -Mat 18:15-17

So if you've been sinned against by an RC priest, then you should take it to the RC church. I'd even understand if you went to the secular courts, but scripture doesn't give you the right to hold other believers accountable to yourself just because someone, somewhere, did something wrong.

where did I say that in my original question? I think they should since I said before it concerns important spiritual matters of forgiveness

... you just said it.

false. you are putting words in my mouth. This is not what I think at all. You are making an assumption about my intentions for asking my original question that are not true. This is most definitely a judgment of character

see previous answer

Shouldn't they be bothered if someone who was active paedophile is forgiving/retaining sins? I know I would.
Anyway how you came to this I don't know since this was not my original question. My original question was:
"x is happening, so what does that mean in this instance?"





here is a quote from you



you made an assumption about me that wasn't true. You made a judgment call on my character without any evidence besides your own perceived view of my intentions for asking the original question.
What you are doing is what psychologists call mind reading (Not literally of course) it's when you second guess a persons motivations or intentions (Which are almost always negative) for doing or saying something without any evidence except your own personal perceptions.

that's why I said
"it's wrong to assume things about a persons character, especially someone you've never met."

I never said it's wrong to assume things about a person's character. We all do. The important thing is what you do with those assumptions. For example, I am not out to smear your reputation using scandals surrounding pedophilia.

cause you were assuming things about me. Isn't it ironic you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of which I wasn't even doing in the first place

You and I both know that this is carrying over from another heated argument, where one participant felt inclined to ask you to stop treating him like an "ignorant Catholic."

here is the verse in context:

Matt7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

it's talking about hypocritical judgment. Notice how it says, "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then" This verse expect us to judge, just not unrightously or according to appearance.

Cause the bible commands us to, that's why. It even tells us to judge ourselves
What is it with this fascination some people have with not judging?

He warned us about judging unrightously and about judging according to appearance but not from judging righteous judgment. I don't need to post the verses again do I?

What would you call it when someone brings up a subject that is frequently used to slander a church and its members, which apparently isn't even necessarily related to the question being asked? Is that righteous judgment?

God wouldn't taken lightly someone making presumptions about another persons motives for asking a question without evidence. That would be judging according to appearance.
How would you like it if someone made presumptions about you?
for example I can say the reason you are accusing me is cause you are anti-protesant.
you are doing the exact thing you are accusing me of which I wasn't even doing in the first place

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Again you're confusing judging with shaming. Take the woman caught in adultry and Jesus own crucifixion for example

I think you already answered this question. The punishment must fit the crime.
judge righteous judgment

Do you think Catholics are the only ones with allegations thrown at them? you don't think protestants are accused of making up theology? Mormons of being freemasons and freemasons of being Satanists?
Catholics shouldn't act like the victims since they are good at making allegations too and they shouldn't try to shutdown debate by accusing those who ask questions about their beliefs of being anti-Catholic just like the supporters of gay marriage accuse those who don't support their views as being homophobic and quoting that judge not verse over and over out of context

If you've any videos of RC protestants forming picket lines outside of other churches, you'll have my full attention.

 

[WisdomTree]

What a good idea!

And then we can have some ...

Count me in!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Naw. while the pugilists are slugging it out we can share a bit of

What a good idea!

And then we can have some ...

Count me in!

Me too!

 

[prodromos]

Gentlemen, some of us are fasting in preparation for the Nativity. Why must you test us so

 

[WisdomTree]

Gentlemen, some of us are fasting in preparation for the Nativity. Why must you test us so

Hmm, that is a bummer... Is it okay if we dyed some water caramel colour and gave it to you?

 

[MrMoe]

Hatred stirs up strife,
But love covers all sins.

-Pro 10:12

who's hating here? Hope you are not implying me

I don't think each and every case can be generalized or held accountable to whomever wants to jump in.

I agree

Hatred stirs up strife,

But love covers all sins.

-Pro 10:12

double post

Ok. Then why bother mentioning pedophilia if it's not even necessarily related to the real question?

ok you can replace paedophile with any other transgression you like. For example adulterous affair, murder, even cannibalism. It doesn't matter,
the main point of the question remains the same.

So if you've been sinned against by an RC priest, then you should take it to the RC church.

by taking it to the church do you mean the pope? other priests? other members? you know that we are the church those who believe in Christ

I'd even understand if you went to the secular courts, but scripture doesn't give you the right to hold other believers accountable to yourself

I'm not holding them accountable to myself I'm holding them accountable to the word of god. That's the message that I was trying to make in the other thread that you don't seem to be getting

... you just said it.

I did, but I never said it in my original question

I never said it's wrong to assume things about a person's character

it's what Jesus called judging according to appearance and it is wrong

We all do.

Doesn't make it right.

The important thing is what you do with those assumptions.

assumptions about a person are wrong no matter what you do with them

for example

"Hey, that guy is speaking out against gay marriage, he must hate gays"
or
"Hey, that non catholic is asking a question relating to paedophile in the church, he must be trying to smear it"

For example, I am not out to smear your reputation using scandals surrounding pedophilia.

I didn't realize I was involved in the paedophilia scandal. But seriously if you get involved in paedophile and then others involved in the church try to cover it up, they've smeared their own reputations.


I don't know why we are even debating this point since this isn't even the point of my original question.

You and I both know that this is carrying over from another heated argument, where one participant felt inclined to ask you to stop treating him like an "ignorant Catholic."

I've been called ignorant to by a catholic too. and I wasn't treating him like a "ignorant catholic" as I explained in my response to him. I've read several comments by Catholics calling non Catholics ignorant on these forums.
I'm getting the urge to quote a phrase I've heard before. Something about a pot and a kettle
May I point out that it is you who decided to continue this argument. I was done with it.
Rev Randy and MoreCoffee answered my question adequately without complaint.
You seem to have seen the word paedophile in my original question which wasn't even the focus or the talking point of the question and taken it yet again that I am somehow trying to smear Catholics.

What would you call it when someone brings up a subject that is frequently used to slander a church and its members,

hear are some definitions of slander:

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

make false and damaging statements about (someone).


many documentaries like Deliver Us From Evil proofing for a fact that paedophile has happened and as been covered up in the church

unless you are going to accuse all the victims of making up false damaging statements. Now that would be slanderous.
Now if you are referring to slandering people who weren't involved in it in any way, for example other church members, then I can I agree that would be slanderous but from what I see that's not what's happening.

which apparently isn't even necessarily related to the question being asked? Is that righteous judgment?

it is related to the question being asked just not the focus of the question therefore was necessary.
if I had used adulterous affairs instead would you say I was judging unrighteously?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

This statement is very telling. it's interesting what people say when they are confronted with something they can't refute or don't like
it's like an atheist saying "I don't buy that a guy rose from the dead" Them not buying it doesn't make it any less true

If you've any videos of RC protestants forming picket lines outside of other churches, you'll have my full attention.

Why does it have to be videos of RC protestants. That seems highly selective. I can show you some RC's forming picket lines outside abortion clinics. (Why would they do that? and why would other churches picket the RCC? could it be their motivations are similar?)
even if I had a video of such an event I wouldn't parade it on this forum unlike you (Notice how I just made an assumption about your character. If I had meant it I would be judging according to appearance. I would be judging wrongly)

 

[Nanopants]

ok you can replace paedophile with any other transgression you like. For example adulterous affair, murder, even cannibalism. It doesn't matter,
the main point of the question remains the same.

Why though? Why not just ask the question without bringing up any controversy?

by taking it to the church do you mean the pope? other priests? other members? you know that we are the church those who believe in Christ

Those who are the church are those who are loyal to Christ, and other christians, even the ones who have sinned. Loyalty can be hard to define, but we know what it is not by a few examples in the Gospels, including Judas' betrayal and the execution of Christ by the authorities who thought to use the law to justify it.

I'm not holding them accountable to myself I'm holding them accountable to the word of god. That's the message that I was trying to make in the other thread that you don't seem to be getting

You do know that scripture says vengeance is coming upon those who don't obey the Gospel, right? All scripture may be profitable for instruction, but not all scripture can be called the Gospel.

it's what Jesus called judging according to appearance and it is wrong

According to you. If I were to judge by appearance, I would have to say you seem to be on a righteous crusade to hold the RCC accountable to the word of God, as you said, because of crimes committed, but that wasn't my conclusion.

Can we at least agree that judging others can lead a person into judgment, that condemning others can lead a person into condemnation, and that righteous judgment isn't a simple matter where just anyone can pick up the bible and start using it to accuse other believers?

Doesn't make it right.

assumptions about a person are wrong no matter what you do with them

If all you can pin me on is that I've made an assumption, then, OK, but I'd add that the assumption that I've made an assumption is itself an assumption.

for example

"Hey, that guy is speaking out against gay marriage, he must hate gays"
or
"Hey, that non catholic is asking a question relating to paedophile in the church, he must be trying to smear it"

Making observations of the facts is not the same as making a false accusation or false assumptions. In both our little debate here and in that other argument, strife was stirred up. Who dunnit? Scripture tells us that hatred stirs up strife, and that if we love Christ we'll obey His commandments to love one another as He has loved us (there's that obeying the Gospel thing again). That excludes slander even where sins have previously been committed, since love covers all sins. Further, I'd add that obeying His instruction to abstain from judgment so that you will not be judged is very beneficial in avoiding this situation.

Of course, if you don't wish to obey the Gospel, that's your choice. You can join the others who prefer to use the word of God to work against grace and mercy if you want to.

I didn't realize I was involved in the paedophilia scandal. But seriously if you get involved in paedophile and then others involved in the church try to cover it up, they've smeared their own reputations.

Just because the RCC may not feel the need to answer to people outside the church does not mean it's a deliberate cover-up (as if they're not judging controversies inside the church- matters I'm not privy to). Considering that christians have been instructed to obey the Gospel, to cover sins, not to slander, etc, I'd say that charges of a cover-up (something that implies criminal intent to commit crime and get away with it) falls dangerously close to an accusation of the Spirit of Grace Himself.

I don't know why we are even debating this point since this isn't even the point of my original question.

I'd like to know that as well. Again, why bring up any controversy if it's not necessarily related to the question you say you had in mind?

I've been called ignorant to by a catholic too. and I wasn't treating him like a "ignorant catholic" as I explained in my response to him. I've read several comments by Catholics calling non Catholics ignorant on these forums.
I'm getting the urge to quote a phrase I've heard before. Something about a pot and a kettle
May I point out that it is you who decided to continue this argument. I was done with it.
Rev Randy and MoreCoffee answered my question adequately without complaint.
You seem to have seen the word paedophile in my original question which wasn't even the focus or the talking point of the question and taken it yet again that I am somehow trying to smear Catholics.

You're free to stop arguing at any time.

hear are some definitions of slander:

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

make false and damaging statements about (someone).


many documentaries like Deliver Us From Evil proofing for a fact that paedophile has happened and as been covered up in the church

unless you are going to accuse all the victims of making up false damaging statements. Now that would be slanderous.
Now if you are referring to slandering people who weren't involved in it in any way, for example other church members, then I can I agree that would be slanderous but from what I see that's not what's happening.

Sure, ok, according to you.

it is related to the question being asked just not the focus of the question therefore was necessary.

Does not follow.

if I had used adulterous affairs instead would you say I was judging unrighteously?

It wouldn't make much sense to me, but plug in a controversial subject where slander, manipulation and other motives become possible, and then it would make more sense.

This statement is very telling. it's interesting what people say when they are confronted with something they can't refute or don't like
it's like an atheist saying "I don't buy that a guy rose from the dead" Them not buying it doesn't make it any less true

Sure, ok, according to you.

Why does it have to be videos of RC protestants. That seems highly selective. I can show you some RC's forming picket lines outside abortion clinics. (Why would they do that? and why would other churches picket the RCC? could it be their motivations are similar?)
even if I had a video of such an event I wouldn't parade it on this forum unlike you (Notice how I just made an assumption about your character. If I had meant it I would be judging according to appearance. I would be judging wrongly)

Quote me or it never happened. I don't post propaganda.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Gentlemen, some of us are fasting in preparation for the Nativity. Why must you test us so

Hmm, that is a bummer... Is it okay if we dyed some water caramel colour and gave it to you?

What does that have to do with with the OP of the thread? Just curious



.

 

[Rev Randy]

Gentlemen, some of us are fasting in preparation for the Nativity. Why must you test us so

Tis good for thou to be tested.

 

[prodromos]

Tis good for thou to be tested.

Funnily enough, Macdonalds in Greece had to add some menu items that were fasting foods during lent because they lost so much business during that period.

 

[christianmomof3]

I just saw a book advertised. It is called "The Holy Mother Mary is God". You can look it up on Amazon. They claim that the Holy Spirit is actually Mary. The authors know this because they have "received direct teachings from the Holy Mother, Jesus and the Holy Father, Saint Joseph, since 2011" and from Malachi - "Malachi also speaks for the Masterful Angels Zoroaster, Melchizedek, Quan Yin, Buddha, Moses, Jared, Zohar, Kuthumi and many others in the Great White Brotherhood/Sisterhood of Light."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I just saw a book advertised. It is called "The Holy Mother Mary is God". You can look it up on Amazon. They claim that the Holy Spirit is actually Mary. The authors know this because they have "received direct teachings from the Holy Mother, Jesus and the Holy Father, Saint Joseph, since 2011" and from Malachi - "Malachi also speaks for the Masterful Angels Zoroaster, Melchizedek, Quan Yin, Buddha, Moses, Jared, Zohar, Kuthumi and many others in the Great White Brotherhood/Sisterhood of Light."

 

[MoreCoffee]

I just saw a book advertised. It is called "The Holy Mother Mary is God". You can look it up on Amazon. They claim that the Holy Spirit is actually Mary. The authors know this because they have "received direct teachings from the Holy Mother, Jesus and the Holy Father, Saint Joseph, since 2011" and from Malachi - "Malachi also speaks for the Masterful Angels Zoroaster, Melchizedek, Quan Yin, Buddha, Moses, Jared, Zohar, Kuthumi and many others in the Great White Brotherhood/Sisterhood of Light."

Why did you mention the book? Is it something you've read? Something you think we ought to read?

It seems to be based on spurious claims about an angel named Malachi and other odd things.

Looks like a bit of new-age quackery .... I doubt I'll be buying a copy.

God bless.

 

[christianmomof3]

Why did you mention the book? Is it something you've read? Something you think we ought to read?

It seems to be based on spurious claims about an angel names Malachi and other odd things.

Looks like a bit of new-age quackery .... I doubt I'll be buying a copy.

God bless.

At first, when I read the title, and saw it was about Mary, I thought it was Catholic or Catholic inspired. The magazine article was rather vague - then when I saw the Amazon description, I realized that it is a bit off of the deep end.