What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

[Standing Up]

Glad you ask!
Nice list and thanks!

Thanks.

Just the tip of the iceberg floating away.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Glad you ask!

​

Nice list and thanks!

Thanks.

Just the tip of the iceberg floating away.

I tend to agree..........

.

 

[Standing Up]

Like the list in Protestant errors, not everyone will agree on these. Feel free to suggest others.
The latest is that RC does not believe anyone but it can understand the bible.


1) Eucharist Adoration (the worship of the bread, rather than God).
2) Accepting bad theology from those who contradict scripture (devotions to "sacred" hearts, worship of angels).
3) Accepting "regenerative" baptisms of heretical groups as on par with Christian baptism.
4) Maintaining the clergy/laity split, rather than promoting the biblical priesthood of believers.
5) Believing Christ died on Good Friday.
6) Believing Christ rose in the night or at sunrise Easter Sunday.
7) Maintaining more than 66 books of the bible as inspired (God breathed).
8) Believing there is salvific information necessary for Christians apart from the bible.
9) Maintaining that Jesus Christ was not born in the normal human way (with afterbirth), thus ending virginity. Subsequently there was the substituting of “Mary” as the Great Goddess myth of Artemis/Diana.
10) Believing there is another way to God besides Christ (the Roman Church sums up this belief Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.) .
11) Ignoring tradition that ties directly to scripture.
12) Defining "apostolic succession" as anything other than "teach the same" as apostles.
13) Believing Peter assigned anyone at Rome his authority (1 Peter 5:1-3 Peter calls the elders of Asia Minor and gives them the same authority (feed His sheep)).
14) Assumption of Mary as a salvific belief.
15) Immaculate conception as a salvific belief.
16) Sacerdotal sacrament.
17) Works necessary to maintain salvation.
18) Submission to the Roman Church’s Pope as salvific (unam sanctam and lumen gentium, confirming same doctrine)
19) Purgatory.
20) Transubstantian.
21) Ignoring Council decisions.
22) Failing to discern the Body of the Lord, calling them communities, rather than churches (or The Church).
23) Infallibility.
24) Failing to understand the Roman Church is a denomination.
25) The Roman Church pretends the authority of apostles (Firmilian 256ad).
26) RC believes neither EO, OO, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, etc can interpret the Word of God (bible/tradition).
100 (ccc)The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.
27) reserved

 

[SwordFall]

1) Eucharist Adoration (the worship of the bread, rather than God).

False

2) Accepting bad theology from those who contradict scripture (devotions to "sacred" hearts, worship of angels).

According to people who think the pope is the Devil.

3) Accepting "regenerative" baptisms of heretical groups as on par with Christian baptism.

Baptism is pretty straight forward, it cleanses you of Original Sin. This is made abundantly obvious by the equally abundant necessity of everybody needing to be baptized pretty much everywhere from start to finish in the NT, the same exact people later deemed saints and eating good fruit in Paradise.

Do the math. God doesn't have people do things in vain, baptism is a bonafide supernatural rite.

4) Maintaining the clergy/laity split, rather than promoting the biblical priesthood of believers.

False

5) Believing Christ died on Good Friday.

I don't think you even have a day, you just figure Friday is wrong because the Church said it.

6) Believing Christ rose in the night or at sunrise Easter Sunday.

Same as above

7) Maintaining more than 66 books of the bible as inspired (God breathed).

Same as above

8) Believing there is salvific information necessary for Christians apart from the bible.

Do you even lift, bro?

9) Maintaining that Jesus Christ was not born in the normal human way (with afterbirth), thus ending virginity. Subsequently there was the substituting of “Mary” as the Great Goddess myth of Artemis/Diana.

Paranoia from protestant theologians. In reality, there is no connection, and if you really brushed up on your mythology, you'd realize the same.

10) Believing there is another way to God besides Christ (the Roman Church sums up this belief

I'm sure Hitler, who is by your belief in Heaven, will appreciate my blasphemous self in Hell for disagreeing. I mean, who am I to such a wonderful man?

11) Ignoring tradition that ties directly to scripture.

Or, the one's that don't. Like Scripture Alone.

12) Defining "apostolic succession" as anything other than "teach the same" as apostles.

Yeah, there is a definitive difference between what is true and what you want to be true.

13) Believing Peter assigned anyone at Rome his authority (1 Peter 5:1-3 Peter calls the elders of Asia Minor and gives them the same authority (feed His sheep)).

Wonder what they're doing nowadays.

14) Assumption of Mary as a salvific belief.

False.

15) Immaculate conception as a salvific belief.

False.



I can't even go any further. It's too easy, thanks for the punching bag though, you all have been especially nerveracking lately with your blind shooting, basically conjuring ideas against the Church until one or two maybe lands

 

[MrMoe]

Given that He was constantly being judged by His opponents as recorded in the Gospels, leading up to His execution, and that He warned us about judging others, I sincerely doubt your interpretation. Secondly, Moses himself gave instruction to judge justly, though if you want to neglect the fact that God is just, I won't stop you.

Firstly, it's not my interpretation, it's the interpretation of those who translated those bibles, secondly, where have I neglected that God is just? I'm the one who's been giving you all these scriptures on judging righteously and how not to judge. The phrase where Jesus says "judge not" which you keep taking out of context is from his parable on hypocritical judgement. He wasn't telling us not to judge, only not to judge hypocritically. I've been telling you this in my last few posts

Maybe, though 1 Cor 2:7,8 seems to say that not everyone who studied the word knew what the Apostles knew, else they would not have crucified Christ.

Here is 1 Corinthians 2:4-16

I highlighted some key verses

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
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.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

These verses tell me that anyone who has the holy spirit of God (Christians) can gain Godly wisdom and discernment. nowhere can I see that it says it is exclusive to some believers and not to others. It may have been true back before Jesus death and resurrect but it's not true now.

Wait...

wait for what?

What are you confused about? I was agreeing with Root Of Jesse when he said: "When Christ says not to judge, he's speaking of hearts, not actions. We cannot see inside hearts."

Are you sure?

yes

You did notice the word "if", being a component of a proposition, at the beginning of the sentence, right?

Yes I noticed it

If you know anything about propositional logic, you would know that a proposition is not an accusation (because it is not an assertion- the word "if" indicating that I was elaborating on only a possibility), therefore your claim that I accused you of making the assumption that I've made an assumption, is incorrect, and is itself a false accusation.

This is what you said:
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.

I noticed the "if" but I also noticed the word next to it. "all".

In other words your saying: If the only thing you can pin on me is that I made an assumption, then, ok.

if the word "all" wasn't there it would sound like a propositional statement to me

by saying "If all" you are actually removing all other options. It's like saying " If all I have is this pen" Now that can also be a seen as a theoretical statement, but if you add "then, OK" to the end of that sentence which is a statement of confirmation then it's no longer theoretical.

My question to you now is: If it was a propositional statement, why did you make it?

I prefer to choose my battles, and I prefer to debate with those who value intellectual honesty.

Yes I made an assumption. I want you to prove my assumption wrong.

You said:
I believe putting people in danger of imprisonment for selfish motives is wrong.
I asked you for an example.
you made I claim now I want you to back it up. What is so intellectually dishonest about that?
Like I have said, only God knows our true motivations and intentions so I can only make an assumption on your motives for not answering my question. I want you to prove my assumption wrong. I proved you wrong on the assumption you made about me.

You said, the punishment must fit the crime, and I agreed. If the punishment does fit the crime then in the end it doesn't really matter if it was for selfish reasons. That person will be judged by God. Rom 2:1

Pride is the Achilles' heel of God's own adversaries, and I'm inclined to believe that their decisions don't really matter much at all, at least in His eyes, except in the sense that what they're doing to others is wrong.

Gods word doesn't stop being God's word just because it comes out of the mouth of a hypocrite. The verse you just gave me shows that.

Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. -Rom 2:1

the judgment still stands but the person judging has also condemned himself for being a hypocrite.

Are you practicing what you preach?

Yes I judge or try to judge myself all the time. I hate hypocrisy like you. I've judged someone on something before and realized I was doing something similar, so I was being a hypocrite, but thank God for the scriptures for showing me my error

 

[Albion]

I can't even go any further. It's too easy, thanks for the punching bag though, you all have been especially nerveracking lately with your blind shooting, basically conjuring ideas against the Church until one or two maybe lands

It's true that that list is quite a hodge-podge of actual innovations, trivialities, and beliefs or practices that are an issue only if you're SDA.

And when it's the latter, there's an additional problem--crediting the RCC with all Christian beliefs and authority prior to the Reformation while simultaneously criticizing them. Doing that reinforces the RCatholic claim to having been the only church during the first millennium or so--which ought to be one of the leading "errors" to make the list instead!

 

[Standing Up]

5) Believing Christ died on Good Friday.
​

SF: I don't think you even have a day, you just figure Friday is wrong because the Church said it.

6) Believing Christ rose in the night or at sunrise Easter Sunday.
​

SF: Same as above

SU: Thur, 14, Passover
Fri, 15, first day feast of unleavened bread
Sat, 16, first fruit

The early church observed that 3 day and 3 night sequence as it floated through the week. Rome, however, fixed it to good Friday and sunday sunrise.

 

[Standing Up]

10) Believing there is another way to God besides Christ (the Roman Church sums up this belief
​

SF: I'm sure Hitler, who is by your belief in Heaven, will appreciate my blasphemous self in Hell for disagreeing. I mean, who am I to such a wonderful man?

SU: You've misunderstood your denomination. They're saying other religions have a way to God, exclusive of Christ.

 

[Standing Up]

3) Accepting "regenerative" baptisms of heretical groups as on par with Christian baptism.
​

SF: Baptism is pretty straight forward, it cleanses you of Original Sin. This is made abundantly obvious by the equally abundant necessity of everybody needing to be baptized pretty much everywhere from start to finish in the NT, the same exact people later deemed saints and eating good fruit in Paradise.

Do the math. God doesn't have people do things in vain, baptism is a bonafide supernatural rite.

SU: Again you've misunderstood your group. Rome accepted baptisms of Marcion, Valentinus, etc. Rome said they don't need to be baptized in the Christian church.

 

[MKJ]

That is one weird list.

 

[Standing Up]

That is one weird list.

You probably agree with #26, no? But maybe not #9?

 

[squint]

Like the list in Protestant errors, not everyone will agree on these. Feel free to suggest others.
The latest is that RC does not believe anyone but it can understand the bible.


1) Eucharist Adoration (the worship of the bread, rather than God).
2) Accepting bad theology from those who contradict scripture (devotions to "sacred" hearts, worship of angels).
3) Accepting "regenerative" baptisms of heretical groups as on par with Christian baptism.
4) Maintaining the clergy/laity split, rather than promoting the biblical priesthood of believers.
5) Believing Christ died on Good Friday.
6) Believing Christ rose in the night or at sunrise Easter Sunday.
7) Maintaining more than 66 books of the bible as inspired (God breathed).
8) Believing there is salvific information necessary for Christians apart from the bible.
9) Maintaining that Jesus Christ was not born in the normal human way (with afterbirth), thus ending virginity. Subsequently there was the substituting of “Mary” as the Great Goddess myth of Artemis/Diana.
10) Believing there is another way to God besides Christ (the Roman Church sums up this belief Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.) .
11) Ignoring tradition that ties directly to scripture.
12) Defining "apostolic succession" as anything other than "teach the same" as apostles.
13) Believing Peter assigned anyone at Rome his authority (1 Peter 5:1-3 Peter calls the elders of Asia Minor and gives them the same authority (feed His sheep)).
14) Assumption of Mary as a salvific belief.
15) Immaculate conception as a salvific belief.
16) Sacerdotal sacrament.
17) Works necessary to maintain salvation.
18) Submission to the Roman Church’s Pope as salvific (unam sanctam and lumen gentium, confirming same doctrine)
19) Purgatory.
20) Transubstantian.
21) Ignoring Council decisions.
22) Failing to discern the Body of the Lord, calling them communities, rather than churches (or The Church).
23) Infallibility.
24) Failing to understand the Roman Church is a denomination.
25) The Roman Church pretends the authority of apostles (Firmilian 256ad).
26) RC believes neither EO, OO, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, etc can interpret the Word of God (bible/tradition).
100 (ccc)The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.
27) reserved

Claiming exclusive rights to all scripture and interpretations.

Claiming imperfect bodies of individuals of their sect derive the only truthful conclusions.

Claims of authority in logic sequences that are patently illogical.

Will stay away from observations of the more severe nature of their actions in real life, but 'isolating' those things from their system should also be on the list.

 

[MKJ]

You probably agree with #26, no? But maybe not #9?

#9 is the one about Christ not being born normally so as to maintain Mary's virginity?

I don't think I consider that a doctrine of the Catholic Church - its a theological opinion held by some - not many these days I suspect. I find it weird, but on the other hand I am rarely ready to entirely dismiss things because they seem weird to me - I think it is a good reason for me to refrain from judgement if I find something weird. Perhaps birth before the Fall was accomplished differently and Christ's birth followed that model.

As for 26 - 26) RC believes neither EO, OO, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, etc can interpret the Word of God (bible/tradition).


I think that would have to be expressed in a more nuanced way. I am not sure that as written it is a terribly accurate reflection of the teaching.

It woud probably be better to say that they do not believe those groups are prevented from falling into error, and perhaps that when they lack part of the correct teaching (say, on the Eucharist) it will tend to lead to other incorrect interpretations.

Well, I think the latter is true - one error will tend to lead to other errors of interpretation. And I do not know whether or not Christian groups are prevented in some way from going too far astray in their understanding - I have seen some groups of Christians that went so far astray that they were no longer Christian.

 

[squint]

Claiming all other christian believing sects are ignorant subservients of their all knowing all only truthful sect.

 

[Root of Jesse]

One line refutation of all of these:
1. We don't worship bread rather than God
2. We don't worship angels. We believe Jesus' heart is sacred.
3. Baptism must be Trinitarian to be valid
4. We do believe in the priesthood of believers. Some, though, are consecrated to God.
5 & 6 are not errors
7. Since Catholic Church defined the Scripture Canon applicable to the Christian faith, this cannot be an error.
8. Not an error. There is nothing in the Bible that says that the Bible alone is completely the Word of God
9. The error here is that Christ's birth in any way changes the fact Mary's virginity.
10. Put a positive way, we believe God is merciful and doesn't put us in this life to fail.
11. Not sure this has anything to say.
12. Succession means one comes after the other. It also means one teaches what the other taught. All our doctrine is apostolic.
13. We don't believe Peter assigned anyone his authority.
14. & 15, Alone, you're right. But these beliefs are part of the entire system. Without all of them, we have to leave it to God.
16. Believe in non-sacerdotal sacraments...strange concept. As if ordination is not necessary...
17. This is not what Catholics believe.
18. Um, no, not by themselves...see 15&14 above.
19. Only an error, possibly, if you don't hold the 72 book Bible. But not even sure then.
20. How could something that confirms what Jesus said in Scripture be an error?


I'll leave it at that for now.

Like the list in Protestant errors, not everyone will agree on these. Feel free to suggest others.
The latest is that RC does not believe anyone but it can understand the bible.


1) Eucharist Adoration (the worship of the bread, rather than God).
2) Accepting bad theology from those who contradict scripture (devotions to "sacred" hearts, worship of angels).
3) Accepting "regenerative" baptisms of heretical groups as on par with Christian baptism.
4) Maintaining the clergy/laity split, rather than promoting the biblical priesthood of believers.
5) Believing Christ died on Good Friday.
6) Believing Christ rose in the night or at sunrise Easter Sunday.
7) Maintaining more than 66 books of the bible as inspired (God breathed).
8) Believing there is salvific information necessary for Christians apart from the bible.
9) Maintaining that Jesus Christ was not born in the normal human way (with afterbirth), thus ending virginity. Subsequently there was the substituting of “Mary” as the Great Goddess myth of Artemis/Diana.
10) Believing there is another way to God besides Christ (the Roman Church sums up this belief Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.) .
11) Ignoring tradition that ties directly to scripture.
12) Defining "apostolic succession" as anything other than "teach the same" as apostles.
13) Believing Peter assigned anyone at Rome his authority (1 Peter 5:1-3 Peter calls the elders of Asia Minor and gives them the same authority (feed His sheep)).
14) Assumption of Mary as a salvific belief.
15) Immaculate conception as a salvific belief.
16) Sacerdotal sacrament.
17) Works necessary to maintain salvation.
18) Submission to the Roman Church’s Pope as salvific (unam sanctam and lumen gentium, confirming same doctrine)
19) Purgatory.
20) Transubstantian.
21) Ignoring Council decisions.
22) Failing to discern the Body of the Lord, calling them communities, rather than churches (or The Church).
23) Infallibility.
24) Failing to understand the Roman Church is a denomination.
25) The Roman Church pretends the authority of apostles (Firmilian 256ad).
26) RC believes neither EO, OO, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, etc can interpret the Word of God (bible/tradition).
100 (ccc)The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.
27) reserved

 

[SwordFall]

SU: Again you've misunderstood your group. Rome accepted baptisms of Marcion, Valentinus, etc. Rome said they don't need to be baptized in the Christian church.

From what I understand, the Church does not give itself sole authority of baptism. Baptism simply has to be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and requires no bishopric power to be done.

Early Christians used to baptize each other with buckets and spoons.

 

[Standing Up]

#9 is the one about Christ not being born normally so as to maintain Mary's virginity?

I don't think I consider that a doctrine of the Catholic Church - its a theological opinion held by some - not many these days I suspect. I find it weird, but on the other hand I am rarely ready to entirely dismiss things because they seem weird to me - I think it is a good reason for me to refrain from judgement if I find something weird. Perhaps birth before the Fall was accomplished differently and Christ's birth followed that model.

Ohoh, you're not one of those who think Christ was born from Mary's side are you?

The ever-virgin myth is a Roman Church de fide idea. It contradicts scripture and tradition.

As for 26 - 26) RC believes neither EO, OO, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, etc can interpret the Word of God (bible/tradition).


I think that would have to be expressed in a more nuanced way. I am not sure that as written it is a terribly accurate reflection of the teaching.

It woud probably be better to say that they do not believe those groups are prevented from falling into error, and perhaps that when they lack part of the correct teaching (say, on the Eucharist) it will tend to lead to other incorrect interpretations.

Well, I think the latter is true - one error will tend to lead to other errors of interpretation. And I do not know whether or not Christian groups are prevented in some way from going too far astray in their understanding - I have seen some groups of Christians that went so far astray that they were no longer Christian.

That is a different error.

This is #26.

100 (ccc)The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

RC does not think EO, Anglican, etc can interpret authentically the bible.

 

[Standing Up]

From what I understand, the Church does not give itself sole authority of baptism. Baptism simply has to be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and requires no bishopric power to be done.

Early Christians used to baptize each other with buckets and spoons.

Up until 10 years ago, Rome thought LDS baptism was valid.

 

[Standing Up]

Claiming exclusive rights to all scripture and interpretations.

Claiming imperfect bodies of individuals of their sect derive the only truthful conclusions.

Claims of authority in logic sequences that are patently illogical.

Will stay away from observations of the more severe nature of their actions in real life, but 'isolating' those things from their system should also be on the list.

Believe those are covered by #26. You tell me.

 

[squint]

Believe those are covered by #26. You tell me.

yeah, I guess the 'etc' covers everything...heh heh

There is no alternative understanding in their logic anyway. So how about banishing free thought while simultaneously claiming to uphold free will?

oh, etc...