What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

[Tiredknight]

Here is the best invention.... That the RCC is 'the' Church. That some how the Rome church had superiority, when Antioch, that church that paul(you know the guy who wrote most of the biblical Theology) was sent from... Why not them? they kind of started it.

Or some how peter, an illiterate fisherman who had "foot in mouth" syndrome, is some infallible leader and his word is God's very command.

 

[SpyderByte]

Here is the best invention.... That the RCC is 'the' Church. That some how the Rome church had superiority, when Antioch, that church that paul(you know the guy who wrote most of the biblical Theology) was sent from... Why not them? they kind of started it.

Or some how peter, an illiterate fisherman who had "foot in mouth" syndrome, is some infallible leader and his word is God's very command.

Or who denied our Lord three times, or was told "get behind me satan" by our Lord, etc. Yes, Peter definitely had a foot shaped mouth, and he used it to evangelize the Jews, NOT the gentiles, Paul had to confront him for his error! And peter was the first infallible pope? Jesus was the only infallible one, and if He wanted to have people follow peter as His "vicar" I think He'd have been a little more explicit than something so vague. Why not say "peter, you are my vicar, stand in my place" or something obvious?

 

[tadoflamb]

Or who denied our Lord three times, or was told "get behind me satan" by our Lord, etc. Yes, Peter definitely had a foot shaped mouth, and he used it to evangelize the Jews, NOT the gentiles, Paul had to confront him for his error! And peter was the first infallible pope? Jesus was the only infallible one, and if He wanted to have people follow peter as His "vicar" I think He'd have been a little more explicit than something so vague. Why not say "peter, you are my vicar, stand in my place" or something obvious?

Thank God for St. Peter!

 

[Albion]

Here is the best invention.... That the RCC is 'the' Church. That some how the Rome church had superiority, when Antioch, that church that paul(you know the guy who wrote most of the biblical Theology) was sent from... Why not them? they kind of started it.

Or some how peter, an illiterate fisherman who had "foot in mouth" syndrome, is some infallible leader and his word is God's very command.

There's not too much that depends on Peter. If some other Apostle (for instance, James or Andrew) had wound up in the capitol of the Roman Empire, HIS successors would have figured some way to claim that Jesus had it in mind that THEY should boss the rest of the churches around.

 

[SpyderByte]

Thank God for St. Peter!

 

[tadoflamb]

And thus we came to Rome.~ Acts 28:14

 

[SpyderByte]

And thus we came to Rome.~ Acts 28:14

Do you know who wrote acts? Cause it wasn't peter, and he ain't mentioned as any vicar or head of any church, sorry.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Here is the best invention.... That the RCC is 'the' Church. That some how the Rome church had superiority, when Antioch, that church that paul(you know the guy who wrote most of the biblical Theology) was sent from... Why not them? they kind of started it.

The bishop of Rome certainly acted with that authority from very early on in the Church.

Peter was the foundation of the Church, the head of the Church, which was taught from the beginning. Paul wrote much of the NT, but he never claimed superiority, he made it quiet clear he was not. His role was to go into the gentiles, which is why he had so many letters.

Paul also didn't teach 'biblical theology'. That term does not even make sense. Paul wrote the bible. Writing is then interpreted to form theology.

Or some how peter, an illiterate fisherman who had "foot in mouth" syndrome, is some infallible leader and his word is God's very command.

Another poor understanding of Catholicism. The Pope is not infallible and is not an infallible leader.
Peter wasn't infallible on teaching matters of faith? Do you just throw out what he wrote?

 

[Second Phoenix]

Do you know who wrote acts? Cause it wasn't peter, and he ain't mentioned as any vicar or head of any church, sorry.

Luke wrote it, but from very early on it was believed that Peter and Paul went to Rome. Likely you'll think that well it isn't in the bible so what? The bible doesn't say only to consult it for understand Christian history and theology. That's an absurdity. You can look at a snapshot of history with a modern mind and arrive at truth.

The difference between Catholics and protestants is that protestants look at all the various beliefs and saying existing today as being equally potentially valid. Catholics look at what had been said over the centuries and only that which has always been taught is valid.

 

[Albion]

The difference between Catholics and protestants is that protestants look at all the various beliefs and saying existing today as being equally potentially valid.

That's nonsense. Protestants are more concerned to have true doctrine--almost excruciatingly so in many cases--than just about any other branch of Christ's church. Look at all the confessions of faith and creeds that they've labored over and produced precisely because they DO NOT think that "all the various beliefs and sayings existing today (are seen) as equally potentially valid."

Catholics look at what had been said over the centuries and only that which has always been taught is valid.

That's what they claim. Too bad it's not at all true. Consider those innovations that have already been mentioned in just this thread:

Papal Supremacy
Immaculate Conception
Infallability of the Pope
Papal supremacy
purgatory
indulgencies
submission to the pope of Rome being absolutely neccessary for salvation
auricular confession
meritorious works for the attainment of salvation
transubstantiation

 

[Gnarwhal]

Here is the best invention.... That the RCC is 'the' Church. That some how the Rome church had superiority, when Antioch, that church that paul(you know the guy who wrote most of the biblical Theology) was sent from... Why not them? they kind of started it.

Or some how peter, an illiterate fisherman who had "foot in mouth" syndrome, is some infallible leader and his word is God's very command.

You don't have to agree with the idea that Rome is "the" church, or any of that... but c'mon, show a little decorum.

 

[SpyderByte]

Luke wrote it, but from very early on it was believed that Peter and Paul went to Rome.

With what proof? All proof points to the opposite.

Likely you'll think that well it isn't in the bible so what? The bible doesn't say only to consult it for understand Christian history and theology.

Um, it certainly doesn't say the opposite either.

That's an absurdity. You can look at a snapshot of history with a modern mind and arrive at truth.

What? A snapshot never gives you the whole picture, which is a major problem with the rc church. They look at "snapshots" and draw out erroneous doctrines. Hence this thread.

The difference between Catholics and protestants is that protestants look at all the various beliefs and saying existing today as being equally potentially valid. Catholics look at what had been said over the centuries and only that which has always been taught is valid.

Wow, this is WAAAAAAY off. The rc problem is that it doesn't even entertain the idea that its wrong, and continues to push its errors.

 

[Second Phoenix]

That's nonsense. Protestants are more concerned to have true doctrine--almost excruciatingly so in many cases--than just about any other branch of Christ's church. Look at all the confessions of faith and creeds that they've labored over and produced precisely because they DO NOT think that "all the various beliefs and sayings existing today (are seen) as equally potentially valid."

And yet protestants will be the first to state that they are all equal. Protestants do not argue they are the true faith.

Protestants are concerned with arguing that their man made beliefs are the true doctrine.

That's what they claim. Too bad it's not at all true. Consider those innovations that have already been mentioned in just this thread:

Papal Supremacy
Immaculate Conception
Infallability of the Pope
Papal supremacy
purgatory
indulgencies
submission to the pope of Rome being absolutely neccessary for salvation
auricular confession
meritorious works for the attainment of salvation
transubstantiation

None of those are inventions. The submission to the Pope of Rome thing is a protestant invention. meritorious works are cooperation, not the means to salvation.

You seem incredibly ignorant about Catholicism.

 

[Second Phoenix]

With what proof? All proof points to the opposite.

There are numerous ancient texts about Peter and Paul being in Rome. There are none that argue they weren't.

Um, it certainly doesn't say the opposite either.

Which is to be expected, since it happened towards the end of their lives.

What? A snapshot never gives you the whole picture, which is a major problem with the rc church. They look at "snapshots" and draw out erroneous doctrines. Hence this thread.

Catholicism is based by believing what has always been believed. Protestantism is based on ignoring past beliefs and applying the imagination to scripture.

Wow, this is WAAAAAAY off. The rc problem is that it doesn't even entertain the idea that its wrong, and continues to push its errors.

That's because Catholicism upholds the beliefs of Christians since the beginning. Protestantism upholds the beliefs of 500 year old or less theologians that all admit they are fallible.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Wow, this is WAAAAAAY off. The rc problem is that it doesn't even entertain the idea that its wrong, and continues to push its errors.

What exactly do you think the councils were about?

 

[Standing Up]

There are numerous ancient texts about Peter and Paul being in Rome. There are none that argue they weren't.-snip-

Apart from the bible, the earliest text about Peter in Rome is his martyrdom (Clement of Rome). There is nothing about some supposed "authority lineage". This makes sense because Peter himself calls the elders of Asia Minor and instructs them with the same instruction that Christ gave him (1 Peter 5:2).

Another couple hundred years later, in order to combat heresy, the myth begins that Peter appointed someone in Rome his successor.

It's actually very ironic. Rome had already fallen away from apostolic teaching (Polycarp went there to correct her). And then Rome invents the Peter myth to bolster her authority.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

That's because Catholicism upholds the beliefs of Christians since the beginning. Protestantism upholds the beliefs of 500 year old or less theologians that all admit they are fallible.

Well, this is the RC myth and error thread.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Apart from the bible, the earliest text about Peter in Rome is his martyrdom (Clement of Rome).

lulz- that is an argument? Clement of Rome died just as the last books of the bible were being written (~100 AD).

There is nothing about some supposed "authority lineage".

Uh what, where? It's all over the early Church.

This makes sense because Peter himself calls the elders of Asia Minor and instructs them with the same instruction that Christ gave him (1 Peter 5:2).

Doesn't contradict Catholic teaching on the Pope.

Another couple hundred years later, in order to combat heresy, the myth begins that Peter appointed someone in Rome his successor.

Nope, the bishop of Rome had been exercising authority since the beginning. Hence, the Epistle of Clement, written to a non-Roman community at the same time as the last books of the bible.

It's actually very ironic. Rome had already fallen away from apostolic teaching (Polycarp went there to correct her). And then Rome invents the Peter myth to bolster her authority.

What you just said make no sense.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Well, this is the RC myth and error thread.

So this thread is about modern lies, rather than the continual beliefs of Christianity, thank you for affirming that.

 

[Standing Up]

lulz- that is an argument? Clement of Rome died just as the last books of the bible were being written (~100 AD).



Uh what, where? It's all over the early Church.



Doesn't contradict Catholic teaching on the Pope.



Nope, the bishop of Rome had been exercising authority since the beginning. Hence, the Epistle of Clement, written to a non-Roman community at the same time as the last books of the bible.



What you just said make no sense.

More beautiful irony. You reject something because it's new (Protestant teaching), and then reject Clement because he's too close to the apostles.

The point remains that the earliest extant non-biblical record does mention Peter's martyrdom in Rome, but nothing about some supposed "charism" lineage that hundreds of years later would be known as the Roman Papacy.