What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

[Rev Randy]

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]

The SDA has better and much longer videos

 

[Standing Up]

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.

Rome is backpedaling on that, recognizing God in nearly all other religions, that they could be saved in them. Right?

 

[Erose]

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.

This quite frankly isn't completely a correct statement. The Church still maintains that salvation is found only within the Church.

14. This holy Council first of all turns its attention to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it. (LUMEN GENTIUM 14)

And it still teaches this very fact. Concerning non-Catholics this document in the following sections explains its position very well, why we hold this position, so I rehash what one can read for themselves.

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."

Concerning the two quotes you have provided, one of the problems that many create for themselves is that when you take quotes like these out of context and their historical environment, you can make them sound however you like. The world has changed drastically since these have been written. When these were written, if you weren't Catholic, then you were basically actively a rebel. Everyone knew what the Church was, and rejecting what the Church was, was also rejecting who God is. Thus in the context of the times these statements made logical sense. Remember what Christ said: He who rejects you, rejects Me, and He who rejects Me, rejects Him who sent Me.

A simple question for you may clear up your confusion. Do you believe that someone who rejects God, knowing who He is, can be saved? The Catholic Church doesn't believe he can be.

The difference today is you have a lot of Christians who are not full members of the Catholic Church at no fault of their own. They haven't necessarily rejected the Catholic Church, knowing it is the Church established by Christ, but rather they reject the Church for other reasons, such as they have been taught the Catholic Church isn't Christian, or its the harlot of Babylon, ect. Invincible Ignorance plays a role here, in that if you are not convienced of the divine origins of the Catholic Church, then you are not rejecting Christ. For many they feel like if they became Catholic it would be the same as rejecting Christ.

The problem is that we are talking about a different time and place, with different issues to discuss.

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.

I have to agree with others here, you don't have a very good leg to stand on. No salvation outside the Church is a doctrine not a theory.

 

[Rev Randy]

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.

You did a good job explaining this but the word infallible stands in the way of some hearing. When one of the RCC hears the word they understand the Catholic meaning of the word. When an evangelic hears it they hear "he thinks he's God". The very concept of a man speaking or acting in the person of Christ via the authority given of Christ is not understood by all. That Christ gave authority to some that He did not give to all believers is also something not understood by all.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Second Phoenix

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.
​

Rome is backpedaling on that, recognizing God in nearly all other religions, that they could be saved in them. Right?

Seems as if they are trying to catch up to the Reformation ,
which the RCC views as a threat to the power and supremecy of the RCC's hierarchy, via the Roman Papacy, Vatican. IMHO




.




.


.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Pteriax

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]
​

The SDA has better and much longer videos

There is nothing better under the sun than watching RCs and SDA sparring on CF.
Popcorn anyone?...........

http://www.christianforums.com/t1291811-19/

Roman Catholic -- Seventh-day Adventist -- the Truth

My parents are Seventh-day Adventists. About 25 years ago i became a Roman Catholic. I became Catholic because it is where i feel i can best obey and serve JESUS.

But since both claim to be "The True Church" or "The Truth" i am constantly reexamining my decision.

My mom, who i love dearly, is still alive and we talk frequantly. She is a Seventh-day Adventist

In this discussion i am going to use the Bible (usually the New Century Version - which by the way is the translation Jerry Thomas used in The Messiah which is his modern rendering of The Desire of Ages. I am currently reading The Messiah and will have more to say about this great book later.

I will also frequantly refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which quotes scripture very frequanly. It can be found at: http://www.christusrex.org/www2/kery...searchcat.html

My dad bought the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. I loved reading it as a child but no one has taken my hints and given it to me yet. I whish it was available on line.

I look forward to an interesting discussion. I suggest that all positions of these two great churches be open to discussion except the Sabbath which is being discussed in another thread which i read and comment on frequantly.

Lets have a friendly Christian discussion!!
I am glad to admit that there are good SDA christians.

lonnie

.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Perhaps RCs should just stick to the OBOB board if they can't defend their position w/o acting defensive on the GT board.




.

We defend our position all the time, to the point of getting banned from CF.

There is a reason for our holding to every one of those in your first post, LLOJ. Every one of them. What we get from those reasons we give is "I don't see..." And that's the issue. You Protestants are blind to the reasons we give. Whereas Catholics know our common ground with Protestants, and most of our disagreements are 'It's not this, it's that." We say it's this and that. Consider the argument thread about Creation vs Evolution. Catholics, for the most part say that both are part of the correct whole discussion. Some Protestants say Creation Only, some say young earth, others old earth. We say it doesn't matter how old the earth is, that Evolution can be reconciled with Creation in Genesis, and that you're free to believe as much or as little of Evolution as you want, as long as you don't forget God.

Catholicism is a religion of both/and. Protestants tend to exclude some of the arguments and favor one particular one, in other words 'either/or'.

Matt 16:18, Protestants say, some anyway, that Jesus wasn't renaming Peter, that he's callng him a little pebble, that he was calling the Church the Rock, that he was calling himself the Rock, etc. Other than the pebble excuse, we believe Jesus could have meant all the others, but in particular he was naming Peter the head of his Church after Christ's Passion, Death and Resurrection. You guys exclude most other interpretations in favor of your favorite. We don't exclude.

The other issue is that you change the meaning of terms that had one meaning for 1500 years, change the meaning of that word, and exclude yourselves. The biggest ones are Salvation, Justification, and Righteousness.

 

[Erose]

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.

Hum, no response forthcoming from him I see, does silence in this case speak volumes, do you think?

 

[Root of Jesse]

You did a good job explaining this but the word infallible stands in the way of some hearing. When one of the RCC hears the word they understand the Catholic meaning of the word. When an evangelic hears it they hear "he thinks he's God". The very concept of a man speaking or acting in the person of Christ via the authority given of Christ is not understood by all. That Christ gave authority to some that He did not give to all believers is also something not understood by all.

Yeah, a glossary of the Catholic and Protestant meaning of terms would be useful.

Infallible doesn't mean all knowing, and it doesn't mean the pope isn't wrong sometimes. It also doesn't mean he can predict the lottery numbers. It means that in certain select times, when the Pope says he's doing it, when the statement is to the entire Church in matters of faith and morals, he cannot lead the Church into error. That's it.

 

[Albion]

Rome is backpedaling on that, recognizing God in nearly all other religions, that they could be saved in them. Right?

Correct, except that it uses its own definitions in order to pull off that doctrinal change. As you've seen, it used to be that there was no salvation outside the church, but today we have the RCC saying that it hasn't changed...which is true so long as you believe that "the church" NOW encompasses non-Christians and even pagans who are deemed save-able because they are part of the "church" without knowing it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yeah, a glossary of the Catholic and Protestant meaning of terms would be useful.

Infallible doesn't mean all knowing, and it doesn't mean the pope isn't wrong sometimes. It also doesn't mean he can predict the lottery numbers. It means that in certain select times, when the Pope says he's doing it, when the statement is to the entire Church in matters of faith and morals, he cannot lead the Church into error. That's it.

Yes, the gift of infallibility guarantees the truth of statements made ex cathedra but it is not a gift of inspiration nor a gift of prophecy and it does not confer moral purity.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Correct, except that it uses its own definitions in order to pull off that doctrinal change.

Don't evangelicals use their own definitions? Is it supposed to be a bad thing to define the meaning of the technical terms that one uses?

 

[Albion]

Don't evangelicals use their own definitions?

First, define "evangelical."

Second, show us where any such church has used an altered definition in order to cover up a doctrinal change. Then I'll be able to answer your question.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Rome is backpedaling on that, recognizing God in nearly all other religions, that they could be saved in them. Right?

Not backpedaling at all. When we say "The Church" we mean the universal Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Don't evangelicals use their own definitions?

Is it supposed to be a bad thing to define the meaning of the technical terms that one uses?

Not at all!

Rom 12:16
Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble.
Do not be wise in your own opinion.






.

 

[MoreCoffee]

First, define "evangelical."

I'll pass on that; it is the proper province of those who use the term to self-describe to define how they use it.

Second, show us where any such church has used an altered definition in order to cover up a doctrinal change. Then I'll be able to answer your question.

Isn't it your job to show the alleged changes in doctrine that you've attributed to Catholic faith?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Correct, except that it uses its own definitions in order to pull off that doctrinal change. As you've seen, it used to be that there was no salvation outside the church, but today we have the RCC saying that it hasn't changed...which is true so long as you believe that "the church" NOW encompasses non-Christians and even pagans who are deemed save-able because they are part of the "church" without knowing it.

The Church always included every Christian. Even heterodox, even orthodox, even heretical. The point is that inside the Church we know salvation is possible. You guys look at the statement negatively. Turn it around: "Salvation is inside the Church". What is "the Church"? To us it means "those who have been called by Christ".

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Church always included every Christian. Even heterodox, even orthodox, even heretical.
The point is that inside the Church we know salvation is possible. You guys look at the statement negatively. Turn it around: "Salvation is inside the Church". What is "the Church"? To us it means "those who have been called by Christ".

Since when has the RCC included heretics and how did they identify them?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7495160-37/
Tyndale and defying the Pope [Poll Thread]

Tyndale was a heretic

16 12.80%

Originally Posted by AniGequoti

Well, I deny the pope and all his laws too. What does that make me? Should I be concerned?
​

Only if you lived during the time of Tyndale

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

........Tyndale was arrested and imprisoned in the castle of Vilvoorden for over 500 days of horrible conditions.
He was tried for heresy and treason in a ridiculously unfair trial, and convicted.
Tyndale was then strangled and burnt at the stake in the prison yard, Oct. 6, 1536.....

http://www.christianforums.com/t6486531-9/#post41067049
That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

.

 

[Albion]

I'll pass on that; it is the proper province of those who use the term to self-describe to define how they use it.

OK. Since you asked about them, but can't tell us whom you had in mind, you've withdrawn your question, I take it.

Isn't it your job to show the alleged changes in doctrine that you've attributed to Catholic faith?

That, I've already done.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Since when has the RCC included heretics and how did they identify them?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7495160-37/
Tyndale and defying the Pope [Poll Thread]

Tyndale was a heretic

16 12.80%






.

Does "heretic" mean "non-Christian?" It means someone who holds an unorthodox opinion. Doesn't mean they're going to hell, necessarily.

By the way, it was the English government that tried and burned Tyndale...