What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Taking a both/and vs. either/or approach to interpreting Scripture is warranted within so much of Scripture. John 6 is the perfect example. It starts off symbolic (His teaching) and finishes literal (His flesh)e.g. sacramental

Yes, it does, but the the context determines that. The Verba, in context, is literal.

 

[squint]

Yes, it does, but the the context determines that. The Verba, in context, is literal.

The application of faith or belief in any such events relegates them past the literal only.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

Mark, I distinguish between reality & fantasy only. Distinctions between fantasies don't count with me.
Real Presence, Transubstantiation, and any other purported miracle that literalizes the eucharist metaphor, is simply religious affectation in my opinion.
​

It is regrettable that the truth of the orthodox doctrine regarding the Eucharist can not be part of your faith. For me I take my Lord Jesus Christ at His Word, literally. I we are to not take our Lord's words literally, then we can not take the rest of Scripture literally; which, therefore would make the whole of God's Word a myth. I am not ready to throw out my Bible as fiction just yet, but I do build my faith on it's every word... God's every word.

It says what it says, and the Eucharist is what it is; Christ's very body and blood and a means of Grace whereby sins are forgiven.

Is that belief of the "real presence" a requirement for one to be "orthodox" according to the CF Statement of faith?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7368885-21/
New Statement of Faith at Christian Forums

Christian Forums has changed our Statement of Faith to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
The Nicene Creed has a long history of being the normative Statement of Faith for CF and after much deliberation we feel it is in the best interest of the site to return to the oldest, and most widely used, profession of faith in Christianity.....................



.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes, it does, but the the context determines that. The Verba, in context, is literal.

Metaphor in any context, is metaphor.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Is that belief of the "real presence" a requirement for one to be "orthodox" according to the CF Statement of faith?

<snip>

No, but according to the Book of Concord it is, and since I subscribe to the BoC...



.

Metaphor in any context, is metaphor.

Metaphorically speaking that is!

 

[Standing Up]

Taking a both/and vs. either/or approach to interpreting Scripture is warranted within so much of Scripture. John 6 is the perfect example. It starts off symbolic (His teaching) and finishes literal (His flesh)e.g. sacramental

It's vice-versa. He starts off with literal (eat IS believe) and ends symbolic and then transitions again to explain (My words are spirit, flesh means nothing).

 

[Godisgood12]

What's this about?

mother angelica rosary part 1 - YouTube

Is that good or bad?

 

[Standing Up]

Well, it's dour and hypnotic.

Good or bad? Do they preach Christ crucified?

 

[Rick Otto]

Metaphorically speaking that is!

Mark, I love ya like a brother, but I believe you are just being silly.
Who in their right mind determines an entire book must be literal or figurative because of one specific passage within it?
That is utter nonsense, sir.

"If we are to not take our Lord's words literally, then we can not take the rest of Scripture literally"

 

[squint]

Metaphor in any context, is metaphor.

and thank God for that!

Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

 

[Godisgood12]

All, the visable and invisable, is made to glorify God.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It's vice-versa. He starts off with literal (eat IS believe) and ends symbolic and then transitions again to explain (My words are spirit, flesh means nothing).

You are correct, the literal reading of John 6 is metaphor I'm not even sure that the addition in red is intended, nor implied in John 6.

Mark, I love ya like a brother, but I believe you are just being silly.
Who in their right mind determines an entire book must be literal or figurative because of one specific passage within it?
That is utter nonsense, sir.

Thanks Rick, back at you.

Literal reading does not imply literal interpretation of everything; one can see from the context where metaphor was intended. I admit that sometimes we see what we want to see... such is not literal reading. The Verba gives no such indication that it should be taken as metaphor, no matter how much we want to see it.

John 6 is a metaphor regardless of how much we desire to see it otherwise; that being said, in the literal reading of John 6, using Scripture to give context to Scripture we see;

1. Christ telling us that His words are food that gives eternal life.
2. We see it pointing to the Eucharist (looking at the Verba for context)(much the same way, but in a much planer way than the OT Prophets pointed to the coming of the Messiah. Note that we now view these "metaphorical" prophetic writings in light of the literal truth of Christ's incarnation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

Thought I would bring this over from another thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7789110-68/

Pope Francis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of 41 man-made traditions of the Popes, and the Church of Rome.

1. OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ................................................................................310
2. Wax Candles introduced in church about...........................................................................320
3. Veneration of angels and dead saints about...................................................................375
4. The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted.........................................................................394
5. The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus in..............................................................431
6. Priests began to dress differently from the laity in.................................................................500
7. The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great about the year.......593
8. The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed
by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ...............................................................................600
The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue ( I Cor.14:9).
<edit>

.

 

[Athanasias]

One of my favorites is how they list prayers for the dead beginning 300 years after Christ yet this is a ancient Jewish practice and is found before Christ ever lived( 2 Macc 12:40-45) and admitted by Jews and still practiced today. Jewish encyclopedia even admits this that the Masses and prayers for the dead came from the offerings at the temple and prayers of the Jewish mourners kaddish. So well for another Papal fiction alleged by our anti-Catholic friends.

as for the sign of the cross....oooooh thats just horrible that anyone would make a visible sign of Christ cross on them! LOL Damn us!

 

[Albion]

One of my favorites is how they list prayers for the dead beginning 300 years after Christ yet this is a ancient Jewish practice and is found before Christ ever lived( 2 Macc 12:40-45) and admitted by Jews and still practiced today. Jewish encyclopedia even admits this that the Masses and prayers for the dead came from the offerings at the temple and prayers of the Jewish mourners kaddish. So well for another Papal fiction alleged by our anti-Catholic friends.

So whatever Judaism believes, you must also? Where is that to be found in Tradition, Scripture, the Catechism, or anything else that Christians hold to be authoritative?

 

[katherine2001]

Natural fermentation, that's it. The priest who confirmed me preferred using white wine for practical reason, since red wine tends to stain the Chalice.

EO always use red wine, since it is the blood of Christ.

 

[Albion]

Natural fermentation, that's it. The priest who confirmed me preferred using white wine for practical reason, since red wine tends to stain the Chalice.

It not only stains, it destroys the gold. The solution is either to use silver communion ware, which is why that is seen so often, or else use white wine.

 

[Athanasias]

So whatever Judaism believes, you must also? Where is that to be found in Tradition, Scripture, the Catechism, or anything else that Christians hold to be authoritative?

It just makes historical sense as the Catholic Church is the historical fulfillment
of Israel. its so easy to see all the fulfillment that even Jewish scholars and sources also historically do. yeah and the point was this was something that was believed and practiced long before 300 A.D.The Catholic Church did not invent it LOL

 

[Albion]

It just makes historical sense as the Catholic Church is the historical fulfillment

I am of the opinion that Christ created a new religion. And if one wants to speak of fulfillment or completion, etc. you're speaking only of the finishing touches. It is NOT the case that the Church that Christ founded is just a continuation of everything that the Jewish people did in synagogue, etc. That's not even worth debating, it's so obvious.

yeah and the point was this was something that was believed and practiced long before 300 A.D.

Oh, that I'll concede. The idea that just because some Jewish people did X, we Christians are supposed to keep it up doesn't make sense at all. We don't have Bar Mitzvah's, keep Kosher, etc. etc., but that's what your theory, if consistently applied, would have us do.

 

[Athanasias]

I am of the opinion that Christ created a new religion. And if one wants to speak of fulfillment or completion, etc. you're speaking only of the finishing touches. It is NOT the case that the Church that Christ founded is just a continuation of everything that the Jewish people did in synagogue, etc. That's not even worth debating, it's so obvious.


Oh, that I'll concede. The idea that just because some Jewish people did X, we Christians are supposed to keep it up doesn't make sense at all. We don't have Bar Mitzvah's, keep Kosher, etc. etc., but that's what your theory, if consistently applied, would have us do.

Oh ok sorry you feel this way. It is my opinion that Christ fullfilled the law and prophets and the Catholic Church historically is this fulfillment and the kingdom of God on earth. We don't have to do all the things the Jews did but we can easily see how so much of our history and theology is fullfilled in them and many of their practices. Kinda beautiful and consistent if you ask me.