What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

Erose · Aug 20, 2013

Continued from post 80

Pteriax said:
[*]Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

Hum, his list includes also the Epistle of Jeremiah and Baruch. Concerning the above books it actually reads that their canonicity is disputed, but we all know that there are other books that were also disputed at one point or another and still got in.

Pteriax said:
[/LIST]
Furthermore, the only powerful support for these books is that they appear in the Septuagint version. However, in many of our Bibles there is much material that is uninspired, including history, poetry, maps, dictionaries, and other information. This may be the reason for the appearance of this material in the Septuagint. The apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon.

You are right. They are not in the current Jewish Canon, but they have been in the Christian Canon longer than they have not been in the Jewish Canon, so the question is: Why do Protestants view Jewish rabbis and scholars who rejected Christ to still have authority over what they should view as Scripture? If the Jews added or subtracted from their existing canon today, will Protestants follow?

Pteriax said:
There are reputed to be 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocryphal.

Wrong again. Here is a good start for you:

KJVO – Pt 2, Deuterocanonical Quotes in the New Testament | Unsettled Christianity

It's got good links as well.

My point is simple here you really don't know what you think you know and neither does the site that you posted from.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot:

It's a swing, and a hit, and its out of here!

Erose · Aug 20, 2013

Pteriax said:
That is simply not true. Have you read the Trent documents, or just had them summarized for you? Maybe you are the one who needs to do research outside of Sunday school.

I understand why you would be confused on this matter, as you haven't had a need to study such things, so I will try to explain to you what happens when the Church "defines" a teaching in an Ecumenical Council or via Ex Cathedra. You see when something becomes "defined", the Church isn't establishing a new doctrine or teaching. That isn't how it works. Rather when a doctrine is defined, it is ending all debate on the topic. In other words, that is it, this is what we believe as we have always believed and it will never change. In most cases a doctrine is "defined" because of some heresy is questioning that doctrine, so in response the Church formulates what it believes as clearly as possible, and then attaches an anathema to it. Afterwards it is no longer be questioned by Catholics.

Because Trent defined the canon, doesn't mean that the canon defined wasn't already the canon of the Church. It was, and has been by at least the 4th century. But the reformers began questioning the existing canon, so in response to that questioning, the Bishops of Trent formulated it, so that it would be fully understood that this was/is the canon of the Church, never to be changed.

Second Phoenix · Aug 20, 2013

Creech said:
The Roman Catholic Church went from teaching that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church to teaching that it is possible for even non-Christians to be saved.

That's not true- the Catholic Church affirms both. You are making a leap that no salvation outside of the Church means that one must be Catholic at death to be saved.

No salvation outside the Church means just that- that there is no other source of salvation.

brinny · Aug 20, 2013

sorry, wrong thread

Creech · Aug 21, 2013

Second Phoenix said:
That's not true- the Catholic Church affirms both. You are making a leap that no salvation outside of the Church means that one must be Catholic at death to be saved.

No salvation outside the Church means just that- that there is no other source of salvation.

Your statement is correct concerning the modern Roman Catholic Church, but this teaching contradicts historical Catholic beliefs and dogma.

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Pope Boniface I, Epistle 14.1: "It is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship."

MoreCoffee · Aug 21, 2013

One wonders why folk who are 'outside of the Catholic Church' spend so much time worrying about what the Catholic Church teaches?

Second Phoenix · Aug 21, 2013

Creech said:
Your statement is correct concerning the modern Roman Catholic Church, but this teaching contradicts historical Catholic beliefs and dogma.

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

A quote from a Pope is not "Catholic belief and dogma". Think of all that the current Pope has said today. Thousands of words. Think about how many sentences and words he has spoke this week. This month. Do you think everything a Pope says is canon to Catholics?
When he said the weather was miserable, was he speaking infallibly?

Do you think that everything Peter said constitutes canon, infallible teaching? Or is it only what Peter said when speaking from his position of authority, not what he spoke while in a position of authority?
Peter sinned until the day he died, I'm sure. So, does this mean that Peter's word were always fallible- or that, in certain instances, such as his epistles, speaking authoritative, deliberately from his role as apostle- he spoke infallibly.
If yes- that's what Catholics believe and the Pope and apostles.

There is no room for heretics, schismatics, pagans in Heaven for Catholics. There is only room for Catholics who were these things.
This Pope, like many in his day, subscribed to a theory, not a dogma, that only baptized individuals within a reasonable state of grace can see Heaven. The rest can only experience the natural joys of limbo. This is a theory that Catholics developed, and have dropped. This theory informs the opinion of this Pope.
The same way that scientific or medical theories of medieval theories informed Popes, that spoke and wrote on them- but have proven to be wrong.

Rev Randy · Aug 21, 2013

MoreCoffee said:
One wonders why folk who are 'outside of the Catholic Church' spend so much time worrying about what the Catholic Church teaches?

Subconscious guilt?Just kidding. I do it for comparison reasons.
Looking to Rome for an example is very old. While many make a conscious effort to ignore Rome, it is still within us. It's a First Among Equals thing. We can't simply ignore that the majority of Christendom is Roman Catholic. Even when we don't agree with Rome.
Now that I've been nice and polite, I must say I often feel Rome views us as teenagers desiring to borrow the car keys.

MoreCoffee · Aug 21, 2013

Rev Randy said:
Subconscious guilt?Just kidding. I do it for comparison reasons.

Looking to Rome for an example is very old. While many make a conscious effort to ignore Rome, it is still within us. It's a First Among Equals thing. We can't simply ignore that the majority of Christendom is Roman Catholic. Even when we don't agree with Rome.

Now that I've been nice and polite, I must say I often feel Rome views us as teenagers desiring to borrow the car keys.

Well, I read a bit of exo-theology, Anabaptist and JW, and occasional Orthodox

It seems odd however to go trawling through web pages to find a critique of Catholic Faith when it is not one's own faith and the only use one is likely to get from it is to complain about Catholic teaching or history or whatever on a discussion or debate forum such as this. It is not as if those who do such things are learning anything very useful and nothing likely to benefit them.

Rev Randy · Aug 21, 2013

MoreCoffee said:
Well, I read a bit of exo-theology, Anabaptist and JW, and occasional Orthodox

It seems odd however to go trawling through web pages to find a critique of Catholic Faith when it is not one's own faith and the only use one is likely to get from it is to complain about Catholic teaching or history or whatever on a discussion or debate forum such as this. It is not as if those who do such things are learning anything very useful and nothing likely to benefit them.

When I want to know something about the roman Catholic I go to the Roman Catholic and the CCC. Seems a poor source to go to haters of the RCC to get truth about Rome. I mean , if you want to know my shoe size, ask me and not someone who has never met me. BTW 12DD.

MoreCoffee · Aug 21, 2013

Rev Randy said:
When I want to know something about the roman Catholic I go to the Roman Catholic and the CCC. Seems a poor source to go to haters of the RCC to get truth about Rome. I mean , if you want to know my shoe size, ask me and not someone who has never met me. BTW 12DD.

That's like no shoe size I've ever seen

Rev Randy · Aug 21, 2013

MoreCoffee said:
That's like no shoe size I've ever seen

Canoe size?

Albion · Aug 21, 2013

Second Phoenix said:
A quote from a Pope is not "Catholic belief and dogma". Think of all that the current Pope has said today. Thousands of words. Think about how many sentences and words he has spoke this week. This month. Do you think everything a Pope says is canon to Catholics?
When he said the weather was miserable, was he speaking infallibly?

The only reasonable way of approaching this question is to avoid the easy excuses. No one thinks that, when the Pope decides which car to buy, he's making an infallible moral or doctrinal judgment. That being the case, it helps the discussion NOT to make that one's answer to a serious question about the church changing its beliefs--as it has done many times.

At the same time, we do have to realize that there are opinions offered in public by the Pope or other clerics which are important but not meant to be anything official.

The truth is that infallibility--according to the church's own thinking--is not vested solely in the Pope. Far from it. When we look at the "magisterium" and the supposed continuity of beliefs, there are indeed many changes that have been made in history to teachings that were supposed to be infallible...and there is no way to get around that by saying "Oh, we didn't mean that, although we taught it as the whole church's belief for hundreds of years, so don't hold this change against us."

Ecclectic79 · Aug 21, 2013

I know communion (bread and wine) is heavily endorsed in 1 Corinthians.

As far as the Mariology, that's a far more fascinating mystery.

I think the best biblical leads outside of the "This is your mother" and the saying of Elizabeth in the beginning of John is Proverbs 8:30 where the whole coredemptrix role is shown as 'wisdom' being co-creator of the world. In that sense one could make ample arguments that Mary was an avatar of the biblical Sophia, not the gnostic Sophia. Another thing to pay attention to was Pope Sextus V and his fascination with Mary. There's a rather abnoxious picture of him 'getting a drink' so to speak that someone painted in satire but two really stunning things about that satire - 1) a woman with only half her breasts covered is supposedly symbolic of Isis, 2) 'Virgin's milk' is a major bit of Hermetic alchemical nomenclature for what they like to call the 'first matter' (alchemy really being the western import of shaktic, trantric and various kundalini disciplines of yoga to the west). I think this last one is one of those things that the Lord himself, at his second coming, will have to clear up for us because there's such a tight intertwining of OT bible and Hermeticism here that it's incredibly difficult to sort out what's going on - whether that reflects on a medieval Hermetic invasion of Catholicism, whether it reflects on Hermeticism as a somewhat kindred but different thing, or whether its something split on a much deeper level that we just don't have the info to guess at. What seems to hold true is that we've had tons of Marian apparitions, her message of being coredemptrix keeps harkening back to Proverbs 8:30, and for all that she said about Russia and it needing to be consecrated to the immaculate heart of Mary, wouldn't you know it, that's also the country that had the most advanced Mariology in it's orthodox church.

tz620q · Aug 21, 2013

LittleLambofJesus said:
I never really studied on that and tried to find a thread on CF about that subject. I did find this:

http://www.christianforums.com/t6926358/
GT Response: Council of Trent, Canon 9, and Scripture

I could follow the link to the OBOB thread; but could not search and find or follow the link back to the GT thread.

In a nutshell, I think that it is comical that in 1541 the Lutherans and the Catholics tried to meet and come to an agreement on their differences in theology. The only topic that they could agree on is that justification requires faith.

It took till 1999 for the formal documentation of this agreement in the Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification to be promulgated; and then most of the American Lutheran synods would not go along with the agreement that the World Lutheran Federation signed.

The second part of your post was ScottBot's calling for Catholics to boycott GT. I remember that. We soon found out that the only thing worse than hearing the constant droning of a bunch of people bickering pointlessly is to hear the constant droning of silence. At first the non-Catholic posters were like a kid in a candy store; but after eating your first pound of malted milk balls, the second doesn't taste so good. You soon realize that it is only through the comparison of the taste of different foods that any one food can be called your favorite. I do have to say though that since this boycott I have not felt the bitter biting edge of pure hatred that we often saw before that.

Erose · Aug 21, 2013

Albion said:
The only reasonable way of approaching this question is to avoid the easy excuses. No one thinks that, when the Pope decides which car to buy, he's making an infallible moral or doctrinal judgment. That being the case, it helps the discussion NOT to make that one's answer to a serious question about the church changing its beliefs--as it has done many times.

At the same time, we do have to realize that there are opinions offered in public by the Pope or other clerics which are important but not meant to be anything official.

The truth is that infallibility--according to the church's own thinking--is not vested solely in the Pope. Far from it. When we look at the "magisterium" and the supposed continuity of beliefs, there are indeed many changes that have been made in history to teachings that were supposed to be infallible...and there is no way to get around that by saying "Oh, we didn't mean that, although we taught it as the whole church's belief for hundreds of years, so don't hold this change against us."

Do you have an example?

Creech · Aug 21, 2013

Second Phoenix said:
A quote from a Pope is not "Catholic belief and dogma". Think of all that the current Pope has said today. Thousands of words. Think about how many sentences and words he has spoke this week. This month. Do you think everything a Pope says is canon to Catholics?
When he said the weather was miserable, was he speaking infallibly?

Do you think that everything Peter said constitutes canon, infallible teaching? Or is it only what Peter said when speaking from his position of authority, not what he spoke while in a position of authority?
Peter sinned until the day he died, I'm sure. So, does this mean that Peter's word were always fallible- or that, in certain instances, such as his epistles, speaking authoritative, deliberately from his role as apostle- he spoke infallibly.
If yes- that's what Catholics believe and the Pope and apostles.

There is no room for heretics, schismatics, pagans in Heaven for Catholics. There is only room for Catholics who were these things.
This Pope, like many in his day, subscribed to a theory, not a dogma, that only baptized individuals within a reasonable state of grace can see Heaven. The rest can only experience the natural joys of limbo. This is a theory that Catholics developed, and have dropped. This theory informs the opinion of this Pope.
The same way that scientific or medical theories of medieval theories informed Popes, that spoke and wrote on them- but have proven to be wrong.

This is not merely a quote by the Pope. Cantate Domino is from one of the Ecumenical Councils, the Council of Florence. It is the belief of the Roman Catholic Church that Ecumenical Councils speak without error on matters of faith and morality.

Pteriax · Aug 21, 2013

IS THE ROMAN POPE WITHOUT ERROR? - PAPAL INFALLIBILITY DEBATE: JAMES WHITE VS. ROBERT FASTIGGI - YouTube

EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY PROVES ROMAN CATHOLICISM FALSE - YouTube

THE ORIGINAL EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH WAS NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC SYSTEM OF SALVATION - YouTube

[Staff Edit]

Gregory Thompson · Aug 21, 2013

MoreCoffee said:
One wonders why folk who are 'outside of the Catholic Church' spend so much time worrying about what the Catholic Church teaches?

probably has something to do with its political influence .

Tzaousios · Aug 21, 2013

[Staff Edit of Quote]

I would very much like to see what your reply is to Erose's answers (posts #80 and #81) to your list of what is supposedly wrong with the Apocrypha.

What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Senior Veteran

Repentance works.

Well-Known Member

Sometimes I pretend to be normal

Repentance works.

Sometimes I pretend to be normal

Repentance works.

Sometimes I pretend to be normal

Facilitator

Prayer in Breakbeat

Regular Member

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Someone to hate

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency