What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

[Pteriax]

Again where does it say that only these are accepted? Or maybe it is the fact that these images or not classified as idols, because they are not? Like I said before there is ample evidence from Scripture that not all images are idols.

But I think I am done reading the interesting ways that Scripture is being warped. I am still waiting for that verse that says all images are bad except the ones in the temple or Tent.

I and another just told you where. If you want to be willfully ignorant, go on ahead, but don't act like we didn't tell you this.

 

[Erose]

Only in Numbers are the commissioned images.
The Book of Numbersot to be bowed before or prayed to.
Numbers Chapter 21
Numbers 21, verses 8 & 9.
God command the making of a brass serpent, but not to be bowed down before it, or to be prayed to. Context applies.
Also the angels on the ark of the covenant.
None of the exceptions are to be prayed to or bowed to.


Right. Just the ones prayed to & that are bowed to.

I would've hoped so, but apparently not.

You'll be waiting a long time for that load of straw.

What about then the building of the Temple? I have read not of any discourse between Solomon and God on how it should have been built, and yet the Temple is full of images. So did Solomon violate the Commandment? Or perhaps not all images are idols.

 

[Pteriax]

Only in Numbers are the commissioned images.
The Book of Numbersot to be bowed before or prayed to.
Numbers Chapter 21
Numbers 21, verses 8 & 9.
God command the making of a brass serpent, but not to be bowed down before it, or to be prayed to. Context applies.
Also the angels on the ark of the covenant.
None of the exceptions are to be prayed to or bowed to.

Interesting to note that prayer and bowing are completely separate acts, each being specifically forbidden. (I know you pointed this out earlier, but I think it bears repeating)

 

[Erose]

No. Videos that back up what they say with primary sources, not that you would know since you refuse to watch them. Are you afraid they might change your mind?

No, I am afraid they will anger me. Not only that, if someone is too lazy to defend their position and thus resorts to videos, isn't worth responding to. If you know your faith, then profess it. Do you see me using videos? Should I post some? If I did would you watch them? I would expect not. So why expect the same from me?

You have seen it, you commented that you didn't feel like watching it, and commented to someone else that you wouldn't read a long post either. You must be afraid of the truth.

No, like LLOJ said before, I have a life outside these threads. Watching a hours of video, isn't in my schedule. And concerning the long posts comment, you are right at times I will not do so, for most of it I have already seen before. But it should be noted that I responded to your cut & paste in detail, and then all I got back is watch these 40 hours of videos or however long they all were. Sorry, I'm not going to do that. I'm just not a video guy.

You believe wrong. You have not answered where someone prays to anything or anyone other than God except pagans in the Bible, and you totally ignored other questions as well. I never just said false in this discussion, Tz was referring to other debates I engaged in. I have explained every answer I have given you, sometimes with so much detail and information that you refuse to even look at it repeatedly.

Yes I have. Every single place in the Bible were angels are addressed. Some describe a physical manifestation, but most do not, which as I said before fits within the definition of prayer. Thus in the OT there is plenty of examples of dialogue between men and angels. In the Gospels, we even have Jesus dialoging with Moses and Elijah at his transfiguration. So there is plenty of examples of this dialog and petitioning between angels and men. And one instance of Jesus Himself dialoging with Saints, who we would have to assume that Moses and Elijah are.

Before you think to say well those were dialogs only and not true prayers because the angels responded back, let us not forget that the instances we have of prayer to God in Scrpture, the far majority, if not all of them have it in a dialog form as well. So should we not pray to God, unless He speaks back to us? I would think not.

 

[Erose]

Of course we're to Abstain from all appearance of evil (1 Thesselonians 5:22) and to abstain from things that may make our brethren stumble brother. I think the RCC is in error here, as its obvious that it cause some to stumble in its appearance of idolatry.

That I think would be an understandable approach, except for the fact that the use of images precedes Iconoclastic Protestants. Should we give 2000 years of devotion to make iconoclasts to feel better? That would be a tuff pill. Especially considering that more and more Protestants are beginning to understand the advantages of having religious art, and using that art in their own devotions.

 

[decent orange]

Not in this case. I know that you think it's a good idea for everyone to join hands and pretend that we all believe the same thing, but we don't all believe the same thing. What's more, it matters. This is a discussion board, and we are discussing a perfectly reasonable issue--religious errors and inventions made through the years. If you disagree with some that have already been listed, by all means give us your thinking on them.

It is a good idea for everyone to join hands. And it depends on which groups you are referring to when you mention they all don't believe the same thing. Christianity is the belief that Jesus of Nazereth is the Christ, and the Son of God. Catholics believe that, so do Protestants, Orthodox, and Copts.

I'll give you my thinking on them since you asked. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, or any group with a liturgical worship do those things because of their beginnings. They explain things with movements, positions, and images, and this helped with explaining the gospel to pagans, the illiterate , and anyone else who is not proficient with deep or complex biblical themes.

Protestant groups, and other more modern groups explain things with a teacher/student classroom type service, and don't use the same methods.

Though there are some differences in each major branch, they agree on the critical issues, but the method of delivery is not important. Which seems to be the main source of contention in this particular thread, which is why I entered the discussion.

 

[Metal Minister]

That I think would be an understandable approach, except for the fact that the use of images precedes Iconoclastic Protestants. Should we give 2000 years of devotion to make iconoclasts to feel better? That would be a tuff pill. Especially considering that more and more Protestants are beginning to understand the advantages of having religious art, and using that art in their own devotions.

I think there is a happy medium here. Images of Jesus, I think are pretty much universally ok by all denominations. Maybe if we stuck to images of Him? Because NO ONE has any issue with worshipping Him! (if they do, tough noodles!)

 

[Erose]

I think there is a happy medium here. Images of Jesus, I think are pretty much universally ok by all denominations. Maybe if we stuck to images of Him? Because NO ONE has any issue with worshipping Him! (if they do, tough noodles!)

I understand that this is very difficult for non-Catholics to get their heads around, and a sympathize with you. But I don't see anything wrong with it. Scripture does not condemn the use of images, in prayer or meditation. Scripture does condemn idolatry and so does the Catholic Church, but there is a huge difference between praying before an image, and worshipping it as your god. Remember that in those days people actually worshipped these graven idols because they thought they were gods. That isn't, nor has never been Catholic practice.

I like for you to understand that we Catholics believe in the communion of saints, and what this means is that due to us Christians being united in Christ, then we are always united, whether in the world or the next, why? Because Christ is in heaven, but yet we are stilled tied to Him, right? It is through Christ that we are one with all members of His body, and I do mean all. And because of this we should always be concerned with our brethren, and their well being. So we pray for our brethren, whether we see them or not. How can we truly think that once we are called to heaven, that we would stop being concerned for the well being of our brethren on earth? Catholics don't think this happens, we believe the saints continue before God praying for their brethren they left behind.

Now since these saints already experience the beautific vision, ie see God's face, they are no longer hindered by doubt, but rather experience the full reality of God, thus truly their relationship with God is perfect, where ours is not as of yet. Thus their prayers have a greater effect than ours, why on earth should we ignore this fact?

Me, I want to get to heaven to be with my God, and I will use every single means that God gives me. Do I need to pray to the saints for their intercession? No. I do not. But if it helps me or someone I am praying for, in some way, why throw that away? I am not.

 

[Albion]

I'll give you my thinking on them since you asked. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, or any group with a liturgical worship do those things because of their beginnings. They explain things with movements, positions, and images, and this helped with explaining the gospel to pagans, the illiterate , and anyone else who is not proficient with deep or complex biblical themes.

Protestant groups, and other more modern groups explain things with a teacher/student classroom type service, and don't use the same methods.

Except that Lutherans ARE Protestants as well as Anglicans, Methodists, and a few other liturgical churches. This would seem to conflict with your thesis.

 

[decent orange]

Except that Lutherans ARE Protestants as well as Anglicans, Methodists, and a few other liturgical churches. This would seem to conflict with your thesis.

Yes they are Protestants. How does that conflict with my thesis? You do not make sense to me. The delivery is not important. Each group is influenced by the culture it serves. Which is why Catholic/Orthodox have ancient Jewish worship formats that were replaced and re-ordered with Christian themes (Communion, confessing sins, sharing in a meal, ect) , while having pagan dates for many calendar events.

Protestants (some with liturgies, others without liturgies) are structured either similar to the Catholics, or have a speaker with a congregation of listeners, as this style was the same method that debaters utilized in the age referred to as "The Enlightenment".

Most major organized Christian institutions often argue among themselves regarding this because they've slowly drifted away from the purpose of Christianity in many ways.

I think of this text when contemplating this topic:

From 1st Corinthians

"And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law.
To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.
And I do all things for the gospel's sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof. "

 

[Albion]

Yes they are Protestants. How does that conflict with my thesis? You do not make sense to me.

OK. Here's what you wrote:

I'll give you my thinking on them since you asked. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, or any group with a liturgical worship do those things because of their beginnings. They explain things with movements, positions, and images, and this helped with explaining the gospel to pagans, the illiterate , and anyone else who is not proficient with deep or complex biblical themes.

Protestant groups, and other more modern groups explain things with a teacher/student classroom type service, and don't use the same methods.

You appear to contrast liturgical churches with "Protestant" churches, but many Protestants ARE members of liturgical churches. Did you mean to say that Lutherans and Anglicans, for example, "explain things with movements" and also with a "teacher/student classroom type service" (which, obviously they do not do)?

 

[decent orange]

OK. Here's what you wrote:



You appear to contrast liturgical churches with "Protestant" churches, but many Protestants ARE members of liturgical churches. Did you mean to say that Lutherans and Anglicans, for example, "explain things with movements" and also with a "teacher/student classroom type service" (which, obviously they do not do)?

I put those Protestant groups with the larger liturgical groups because of their format. Because the point is not what various groups are classified as, but why they utilize a particular format.

Most Protestant groups don't beseech Mary to intercede on their behalf, but they also believe in life after death. And if Mary was saved, as most Protestants I assume believe, and she then lives, what makes them so fearful to speak to her?

That is just one example of the point I am trying to make. I'm not saying it is wrong for Protestants to NOT beseech Mary, only that division over such a thing is silly.

And I'm not targeting Protestants, because for every silly Protestant accusation of Catholics, there is an equally silly Catholic accusation of Protestants.

 

[Pteriax]

No, I am afraid they will anger me. Not only that, if someone is too lazy to defend their position and thus resorts to videos, isn't worth responding to. If you know your faith, then profess it. Do you see me using videos? Should I post some? If I did would you watch them? I would expect not. So why expect the same from me?

Lazy? I watched every bit of the twenty hours of video material and cross referenced it for truth. It took me about two weeks. You want a short and sweet answer, well you won't get one. There is not one that is adequate. It's either long winded posts or hours of videos or both, but short and sweet ain't happening. Makes me wonder if you have ever read the Bible, I mean you keep pushing your catechism on us as if it explains away every Catholic sin!

No, like LLOJ said before, I have a life outside these threads. Watching a hours of video, isn't in my schedule. And concerning the long posts comment, you are right at times I will not do so, for most of it I have already seen before. But it should be noted that I responded to your cut & paste in detail, and then all I got back is watch these 40 hours of videos or however long they all were. Sorry, I'm not going to do that. I'm just not a video guy.

I made no cut and paste post at all. And as I said, if you aren't interested in the truth or in the world of Christian theology that goes beyond a pocket catechism, you are out of luck here.

Yes I have. Every single place in the Bible were angels are addressed. Some describe a physical manifestation, but most do not, which as I said before fits within the definition of prayer. Thus in the OT there is plenty of examples of dialogue between men and angels. In the Gospels, we even have Jesus dialoging with Moses and Elijah at his transfiguration. So there is plenty of examples of this dialog and petitioning between angels and men. And one instance of Jesus Himself dialoging with Saints, who we would have to assume that Moses and Elijah are.

A conversation and a prayer are not the same thing. Conversing with an angel that is standing right in front of you is not a prayer. Furthermore, in which of those conversations did someone ask the angel to intercede with God on their behalf? And even if that happened, how is that like praying to a dead person?

Before you think to say well those were dialogs only and not true prayers because the angels responded back, let us not forget that the instances we have of prayer to God in Scrpture, the far majority, if not all of them have it in a dialog form as well. So should we not pray to God, unless He speaks back to us? I would think not.

It has nothing to do with dialogue, see my response above.

 

[Tzaousios]

No, you quote it and then impose the RCC interpretation over the words of God.

And here we have the trope of "Everyone else offers a man-made interpretation; I merely repeat what the Bible plainly says."

 

[Tzaousios]

No. Videos that back up what they say with primary sources, not that you would know since you refuse to watch them. Are you afraid they might change your mind?

Please explain how church history has changed your mind. Be specific. I have always wondered, since you claim that your perspective is informed by history, how it could ever have possibly changed as a result of the serious study of history.

 

[Tzaousios]

I never just said false in this discussion, Tz was referring to other debates I engaged in. I have explained every answer I have given you, sometimes with so much detail and information that you refuse to even look at it repeatedly.

Since you posted your videos, and assumed that they did your work for you, "false...no...false...no" mixed in with a few variations of "everything that smacks of Catholicism = BAD." There has been very little critical analysis.

 

[Albion]

Most Protestant groups don't beseech Mary to intercede on their behalf, but they also believe in life after death. And if Mary was saved, as most Protestants I assume believe, and she then lives, what makes them so fearful to speak to her?

First, I assume that you mean to deliver a "dig" to Protestants by using the word "fearful," since it is not fear that keeps Protestants from this practice.

As you know, Protestants are guided by the Bible, and there is overwhelming Biblical evidence against trying to talk to spirits. Even if that were not the case, we have no reason to think that they can hear us. But even if they could, there is nothing in scripture that suggests they are able to operate as intermediaries for us. And even if THAT were not so, we have in Jesus the only mediator and advocate we could possibly hope for. Why do we need another go-between when the Father is waiting to hear from us?

That is just one example of the point I am trying to make. I'm not saying it is wrong for Protestants to NOT beseech Mary, only that division over such a thing is silly.

Many things seem silly before you are properly informed about them, so I can understand that.

 

[Pteriax]

And here we have the trope of "Everyone else offers a man-made interpretation; I merely repeat what the Bible plainly says."

That is not what I said.

Please explain how church history has changed your mind. Be specific. I have always wondered, since you claim that your perspective is informed by history, how it could ever have possibly changed as a result of the serious study of history.

Changed my mind? As in I used to think the RCC was alright and now I do not? That would be a very long post, and would include several videos... Would you actually read it? If so I have no problem sharing.

Since you posted your videos, and assumed that they did your work for you, "false...no...false...no" mixed in with a few variations of "everything that smacks of Catholicism = BAD." There has been very little critical analysis.

That is a gross misrepresentation of my posts. I have caught you in such things before. I know you like to follow people and nitpick them, but this is getting a bit silly.

 

[tadoflamb]

Of course we're to Abstain from all appearance of evil (1 Thesselonians 5:22) and to abstain from things that may make our brethren stumble brother. I think the RCC is in error here, as its obvious that it cause some to stumble in its appearance of idolatry.

I don't know about that. I spent the first 40 years of my life stumbling over the different aspects of Protestantism. If we're going to be concerned about our (separated) brethren stumbling I've got a whole list of things you need to give up before I could ever consider being one you.

Aside from that, in this country, I'm guaranteed the freedom of religion or to worship and pray in any manner I choose. So, I do. A lot of that prayer goes on inside a church, on my knees, sometimes in front of a statue, more often times not. But even if I'm not praying before a statue, there's always the altar (which I bow to) or the crucifix (which I kiss) or some candlesticks (which I contemplate) or possibly the Blessed Sacrament (Whom I adore). So, there's three different possibilities of what may be resting in my heart while down on my knees; veneration, contemplation, and adoration.

What really causes me to stumble is the protestant notion that they can assume what's in my heart by the nature of my demeanor. Only God knows that, and they usurp His authority by assuming they know what lies in a Catholic's heart. In doing so, they become guilty of the mortal sin of self-god, a direct violation of the 1st Commandment. So, my advice to them would be to stop assuming you can read peoples hearts. This kind of spiritual arrogance is just one reason I categorically rejected Christianity for so long. Knock it off.

Besides, like I said, most of this goes on in the privacy of my own faith communities. Unless your coming to mass, my personal prayer life should have no bearing upon anybody. Perhaps protestants should allow the same tolerance for Catholic belief and practice that they afford to their who-knows-how-many denominations and sects. Maybe then you will all stop tripping over yourselves.

 

[Tzaousios]

That is not what I said.

Well, what did you mean by it, then? The statement sets your particular interpretation, which you seem to think is what the Bible plainly says, over that of Roman Catholicism. Do you mean to say that yours and their interpretations are both wrong?

Changed my mind? As in I used to think the RCC was alright and now I do not? That would be a very long post, and would include several videos... Would you actually read it? If so I have no problem sharing.

Well, if that is what happened, but I would just like to see how you specifically examined church history and changed your mind on issues as a result. No videos are needed; you might want to reference the historians that you have read though.

That is a gross misrepresentation of my posts.

No, it is not. Every single one of them, unless it is just a joking aside, just happens to be the exact opposite of whatever Catholics or Orthodox teach. It is contrarianism at its finest.

I have caught you in such things before.

You have caught me in no such thing. Rather, you have tried to rhetorically reconfigure what I have said to make it appear like "gross misrepresentation" has occurred so you can keep hammering away at your choice targets. Let no one mistake this tactic.

I know you like to follow people and nitpick them, but this is getting a bit silly.

Incorrect. It seems you just do not like to be challenged concerning your internalized presuppositions and be asked to explain how you arrived at them beyond "Radical Neocalvinist Protestantism = GOOD; Roman Catholicism = BAD; false...no...false...no...here's some videos."