Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I forget to ask you question, Do you believe Muslim that believe Jesus as a prophet, not God, go to heaven?
If so why, is that because dogmatic constitution on the church issue by vatican but oppose the bible?
Protestant is not relies of man made opinions, but the bible.
If you ask the authority to interpreted the bible. I believe in the eyes of God, every body have the same status. All are sinner and lack of the glory of God. Every body well come to read the bible.
What is read mean? mean try to understand/ or interpreted.
If one honest and sincere than Holy spirit will help him to interpreted.
Holy spirit doesn't care whether he is great man like pope or commoners.
He doesn't care whether he is president or beggar.
All His care is whether he is honest and sincere or dishonest and insincere.
If so why, is that because dogmatic constitution on the church issue by vatican but oppose the bible?
Protestant is not relies of man made opinions, but the bible.
If you ask the authority to interpreted the bible. I believe in the eyes of God, every body have the same status. All are sinner and lack of the glory of God. Every body well come to read the bible.
What is read mean? mean try to understand/ or interpreted.
If one honest and sincere than Holy spirit will help him to interpreted.
Holy spirit doesn't care whether he is great man like pope or commoners.
He doesn't care whether he is president or beggar.
All His care is whether he is honest and sincere or dishonest and insincere.
A
To be fair, false religious systems exist which have experienced little to no denominationalism. I wouldn't call Baha'i "more true" because it lacks denominations... lol.
And though Catholics don't like to admit it, the Catholic Church itself has experienced major schisms and splits in its history with the largest being the East-West Schism. Even the resulting Roman Catholic Church itself came to a point, during the Western Schism, in which it had more than one pope excommunicating each other and it wasn't until the 19th century that this was sorted out with finality.
It can be argued that reformation churches, and their subsequent denominations, are the product of a schism that began within the Catholic Church as Catholics themselves sought reform.
But the consequence of the existence of denominations themselves, is often overstated. Firstly, many denominations exist because people moved to new areas and formed new churches. All denominations are not a result of a doctrinal split... a fact that is often lost in this discussion. Secondly, the false religious cults aside (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Day Adventists, etc...), teaching of essential Christian doctrine is well represented in Protestantism. Certainly there are many doctrinal disagreements; however, there is also uniform agreement and homogeneity on the essentials themselves.
Which brings us to the modern Catholic Church itself presently deviating from the essentials of Christianity, having strayed into heresy over the centuries, and to date stubbornly refuses to repent and reform itself. Hence, the "Protestant schism" and existence of this thread
.
And though Catholics don't like to admit it, the Catholic Church itself has experienced major schisms and splits in its history with the largest being the East-West Schism. Even the resulting Roman Catholic Church itself came to a point, during the Western Schism, in which it had more than one pope excommunicating each other and it wasn't until the 19th century that this was sorted out with finality.
It can be argued that reformation churches, and their subsequent denominations, are the product of a schism that began within the Catholic Church as Catholics themselves sought reform.
But the consequence of the existence of denominations themselves, is often overstated. Firstly, many denominations exist because people moved to new areas and formed new churches. All denominations are not a result of a doctrinal split... a fact that is often lost in this discussion. Secondly, the false religious cults aside (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Day Adventists, etc...), teaching of essential Christian doctrine is well represented in Protestantism. Certainly there are many doctrinal disagreements; however, there is also uniform agreement and homogeneity on the essentials themselves.
Which brings us to the modern Catholic Church itself presently deviating from the essentials of Christianity, having strayed into heresy over the centuries, and to date stubbornly refuses to repent and reform itself. Hence, the "Protestant schism" and existence of this thread
.
M
OK, will do - see the below references to traditions, written and oral Word, and good works
2 Thessaolonians 2:
[11] That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. [12] But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: [13] Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. [14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [15] Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace,
2 Thessalonians 3:
[6] And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us. [7] For yourselves know how you ought to imitate us: for we were not disorderly among you; [8] Neither did we eat any man' s bread for nothing, but in labour and in toil we worked night and day, lest we should be chargeable to any of you. [9] Not as if we had not power: but that we might give ourselves a pattern unto you, to imitate us. [10] For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat.
And I'll throw in some works, too, from Matthew 25
[31] And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: [36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
2 Thessaolonians 2:
[11] That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. [12] But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: [13] Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. [14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [15] Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace,
2 Thessalonians 3:
[6] And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us. [7] For yourselves know how you ought to imitate us: for we were not disorderly among you; [8] Neither did we eat any man' s bread for nothing, but in labour and in toil we worked night and day, lest we should be chargeable to any of you. [9] Not as if we had not power: but that we might give ourselves a pattern unto you, to imitate us. [10] For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat.
And I'll throw in some works, too, from Matthew 25
[31] And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: [36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
Last edited:
M
To be fair, false religious systems exist which have experienced little to no denominationalism. I wouldn't call Baha'i "more true" because it lacks denominations... lol.
And though Catholics don't like to admit it, the Catholic Church itself has experienced major schisms and splits in its history with the largest being the East-West Schism. Even the resulting Roman Catholic Church itself came to a point, during the Western Schism, in which it had more than one pope excommunicating each other and it wasn't until the 19th century that this was sorted out with finality.
It can be argued that reformation churches, and their subsequent denominations, are the product of a schism that began within the Catholic Church as Catholics themselves sought reform.
But the consequence of the existence of denominations themselves, is often overstated. Firstly, many denominations exist because people moved to new areas and formed new churches. All denominations are not a result of a doctrinal split... a fact that is often lost in this discussion. Secondly, the false religious cults aside (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Day Adventists, etc...), teaching of essential Christian doctrine is well represented in Protestantism. Certainly there are many doctrinal disagreements; however, there is also uniform agreement and homogeneity on the essentials themselves.
Which brings us to the modern Catholic Church itself presently deviating from the essentials of Christianity, having strayed into heresy over the centuries, and to date stubbornly refuses to repent and reform itself. Hence, the "Protestant schism" and existence of this thread.
And though Catholics don't like to admit it, the Catholic Church itself has experienced major schisms and splits in its history with the largest being the East-West Schism. Even the resulting Roman Catholic Church itself came to a point, during the Western Schism, in which it had more than one pope excommunicating each other and it wasn't until the 19th century that this was sorted out with finality.
It can be argued that reformation churches, and their subsequent denominations, are the product of a schism that began within the Catholic Church as Catholics themselves sought reform.
But the consequence of the existence of denominations themselves, is often overstated. Firstly, many denominations exist because people moved to new areas and formed new churches. All denominations are not a result of a doctrinal split... a fact that is often lost in this discussion. Secondly, the false religious cults aside (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Day Adventists, etc...), teaching of essential Christian doctrine is well represented in Protestantism. Certainly there are many doctrinal disagreements; however, there is also uniform agreement and homogeneity on the essentials themselves.
Which brings us to the modern Catholic Church itself presently deviating from the essentials of Christianity, having strayed into heresy over the centuries, and to date stubbornly refuses to repent and reform itself. Hence, the "Protestant schism" and existence of this thread
.
Originally Posted by AgeofKnowledge
To be fair, false religious systems exist which have experienced little to no denominationalism. I wouldn't call Baha'i "more true" because it lacks denominations... lol.
And though Catholics don't like to admit it, the Catholic Church itself has experienced major schisms and splits in its history with the largest being the East-West Schism. Even the resulting Roman Catholic Church itself came to a point, during the Western Schism, in which it had more than one pope excommunicating each other and it wasn't until the 19th century that this was sorted out with finality.
It can be argued that reformation churches, and their subsequent denominations, are the product of a schism that began within the Catholic Church as Catholics themselves sought reform.
But the consequence of the existence of denominations themselves, is often overstated. Firstly, many denominations exist because people moved to new areas and formed new churches. All denominations are not a result of a doctrinal split... a fact that is often lost in this discussion. Secondly, the false religious cults aside (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Day Adventists, etc...), teaching of essential Christian doctrine is well represented in Protestantism. Certainly there are many doctrinal disagreements; however, there is also uniform agreement and homogeneity on the essentials themselves.
Which brings us to the modern Catholic Church itself presently deviating from the essentials of Christianity, having strayed into heresy over the centuries, and to date stubbornly refuses to repent and reform itself. Hence, the "Protestant schism" and existence of this thread.
And though Catholics don't like to admit it, the Catholic Church itself has experienced major schisms and splits in its history with the largest being the East-West Schism. Even the resulting Roman Catholic Church itself came to a point, during the Western Schism, in which it had more than one pope excommunicating each other and it wasn't until the 19th century that this was sorted out with finality.
It can be argued that reformation churches, and their subsequent denominations, are the product of a schism that began within the Catholic Church as Catholics themselves sought reform.
But the consequence of the existence of denominations themselves, is often overstated. Firstly, many denominations exist because people moved to new areas and formed new churches. All denominations are not a result of a doctrinal split... a fact that is often lost in this discussion. Secondly, the false religious cults aside (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Day Adventists, etc...), teaching of essential Christian doctrine is well represented in Protestantism. Certainly there are many doctrinal disagreements; however, there is also uniform agreement and homogeneity on the essentials themselves.
Which brings us to the modern Catholic Church itself presently deviating from the essentials of Christianity, having strayed into heresy over the centuries, and to date stubbornly refuses to repent and reform itself. Hence, the "Protestant schism" and existence of this thread
.
your smug reply is also according to your own fallible interpretations and opinions.
A
Wrong. It is according to objective truth, which in this case manifests as qualifiable historical facts. For example, George Washington was the first president of the United States of America. As a fact, it is not subject to my or your fallible interpretation or opinion despite your false assertion that it need be.
Originally Posted by Elin
You have not demonstrated where "Sola Scriptura" is an erroneous interpretation of the Scripture presented.
your interpretation of these verses is simply hilarious. they have nothing to do with the teachings of a church founded 700 years after Christ.
now what is this referring to? It refers to Paul's teaching being passed on accurately in his own time while he was still alive and able to vet them , and especially to what he wrote in his letters. It has NOTHING to say about words that were passed on which were not based on his teaching. The early fathers whose genuine writings we have were incapable of passing on Paul's words because thy did not understand them. You only have to read Clement of Rome's letter to see that.
You Roman Catholics are such an arrogant lot that you assume that any mention of what is passed on applies to you. But your traditions were not passed on by Paul. They are a mishmash of later heresies.
2 Thessalonians 3:
you see here it is again. It is not any tradition but 'the tradition which you have received FROM US'. And how do we know that tradition. ONLY FROM PAUL's LETTERS. It is miles away from the spurious traditions claimed by the Roman Catholic church which are all fantasies.
Where in the Bible did Jesus Christ or the Apostles every teach through Tradition that Mary was sinless? Because God Himself says that ALL HAVE SINNED.
Romans 3:9-12
[SUP]9 [/SUP] What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."
Romans 3:23
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
The Word of God the Bible has MORE authority than Traditions from the Catholic Church. Where in the Bible Mattp0625 does God say the Traditions of the Catholic Church has MORE authority then God?
Its interesting that ALL the Catholic Traditions of Mary did not show up until a 1000 years after the Bible was written by God!
Here is a list of Traditions of Mary that has come from the Catholic Church.
1. Co-redemptrix.
2. Mediatrix.
3. Queen of Heaven.
4. Immaculate conception.
5. Perpetual Virginity.
6. Bodily assumption into Heaven.
7. Mary's right to veneration and/or worship.
All of these appeared a 1000 years AFTER the Bible was written!
All of these Traditions are from Satan, not from God. The Catholics teach by Immaculate conception Mary was sinless. Now the question is who is lying? God or the Catholics?
We all know for a fact that it is impossible for God to lie. Therefore its the Catholics who are teaching their lies as Truths from God.
I did catch Mattp0625 in a trap when he clearly quoted Romans 3:23 saying that ALL have sinned. But now he is trying to deceive us by claiming Mary was without sin. Mattp0625 you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
This is a clear example of the deceitfulness of the Catholics in trying to make themselves look like a True Christian when in reality they are wolves in sheep clothing.
It does not matter Mattp0625 what you say or believe for the Holy Spirit has told me that you do not have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is a Gift I have from the Holy Spirit.The Discerning of Spirits is a Gift i have from God. I can tell who is a True Christian and who is not.
When we receive Salvation we also receive the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If you do not believe me then read the Book of Acts and you will see that ALL believers receive the Holy Spirit!
You may fool the others into accepting the lies you teach but I have God who shows me what you really are!
Romans 3:9-12
[SUP]9 [/SUP] What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."
Romans 3:23
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
The Word of God the Bible has MORE authority than Traditions from the Catholic Church. Where in the Bible Mattp0625 does God say the Traditions of the Catholic Church has MORE authority then God?
Its interesting that ALL the Catholic Traditions of Mary did not show up until a 1000 years after the Bible was written by God!
Here is a list of Traditions of Mary that has come from the Catholic Church.
1. Co-redemptrix.
2. Mediatrix.
3. Queen of Heaven.
4. Immaculate conception.
5. Perpetual Virginity.
6. Bodily assumption into Heaven.
7. Mary's right to veneration and/or worship.
All of these appeared a 1000 years AFTER the Bible was written!
All of these Traditions are from Satan, not from God. The Catholics teach by Immaculate conception Mary was sinless. Now the question is who is lying? God or the Catholics?
We all know for a fact that it is impossible for God to lie. Therefore its the Catholics who are teaching their lies as Truths from God.
I did catch Mattp0625 in a trap when he clearly quoted Romans 3:23 saying that ALL have sinned. But now he is trying to deceive us by claiming Mary was without sin. Mattp0625 you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
This is a clear example of the deceitfulness of the Catholics in trying to make themselves look like a True Christian when in reality they are wolves in sheep clothing.
It does not matter Mattp0625 what you say or believe for the Holy Spirit has told me that you do not have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is a Gift I have from the Holy Spirit.The Discerning of Spirits is a Gift i have from God. I can tell who is a True Christian and who is not.
When we receive Salvation we also receive the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If you do not believe me then read the Book of Acts and you will see that ALL believers receive the Holy Spirit!
You may fool the others into accepting the lies you teach but I have God who shows me what you really are!
A
This is another false assertion that you are making. The best argument anyone can hope for, Protestant or otherwise, is one that aligns with the objective truth. While humanity may be fallible, all men are not always wrong. One can be infallible with respect to asserting an actual fact.
In my previous example, I used the presidency of George Washington. George Washington was the first president of the United States. This is a fact which falls in the domain of objective truth and cannot be mitigated by philosophical relativism, post modern revisionism, the fallibility of humanity, nor any ism. When I, as a fallible human being, state that George Washington was the first president of the United States of America I am being infallible within that statement simply because George Washington's tenure as the first president of the United States of America is an infallible fact.
What's not; however, are your false assertions which I see are extending into church history here.
In my previous example, I used the presidency of George Washington. George Washington was the first president of the United States. This is a fact which falls in the domain of objective truth and cannot be mitigated by philosophical relativism, post modern revisionism, the fallibility of humanity, nor any ism. When I, as a fallible human being, state that George Washington was the first president of the United States of America I am being infallible within that statement simply because George Washington's tenure as the first president of the United States of America is an infallible fact.
What's not; however, are your false assertions which I see are extending into church history here.
You have no arguments at all LOL
Peter was NOT the first Pope and you have not a jot of evidence that says that he was. And in fact in his letters Peter revealed what you would call Protestant truth. So you are doubly stymied. Not a trace in them of all your fallacious doctrines.
Unfortunately Paul's letter to the Romans was misunderstood by later Romans which is one reason why the church became more and more heretical.
How could Paul help the Roman Catholic church. It did not come into existence until 7th century AD. Prior to that it was just a local church.
Peter was NOT the first Pope and you have not a jot of evidence that says that he was. And in fact in his letters Peter revealed what you would call Protestant truth. So you are doubly stymied. Not a trace in them of all your fallacious doctrines.
Unfortunately Paul's letter to the Romans was misunderstood by later Romans which is one reason why the church became more and more heretical.
How could Paul help the Roman Catholic church. It did not come into existence until 7th century AD. Prior to that it was just a local church.
M
It was all a misunderstanding, you say. I see.
When you read the book of Acts, kind sir, there is plenty of evidence showing Peter as the leader of Christ's church. It shows him leading the group of 11 as well as the 120, performing miracles and being sought by men respected by nations. In fact, Peter is mentioned more than all the other disciples combined.
The RCC traces lineage to Peter and therefore to Christ.
now what is this referring to? It refers to Paul's teaching being passed on accurately in his own time while he was still alive and able to vet them , and especially to what he wrote in his letters. It has NOTHING to say about words that were passed on which were not based on his teaching. The early fathers whose genuine writings we have were incapable of passing on Paul's words because thy did not understand them. You only have to read Clement of Rome's letter to see that.
You Roman Catholics are such an arrogant lot that you assume that any mention of what is passed on applies to you. But your traditions were not passed on by Paul. They are a mishmash of later heresies.
2 Thessalonians 3:
you see here it is again. It is not any tradition but 'the tradition which you have received FROM US'. And how do we know that tradition. ONLY FROM PAUL's LETTERS. It is miles away from the spurious traditions claimed by the Roman Catholic church which are all fantasies.
you see here it is again. It is not any tradition but 'the tradition which you have received FROM US'. And how do we know that tradition. ONLY FROM PAUL's LETTERS. It is miles away from the spurious traditions claimed by the Roman Catholic church which are all fantasies.
Has anyone said Scripture alone saves? Scripture doesn't save. It brings home the truth so that men and women can look to Jesus Christ and be saved. Faith come by hearing, and hearing by the word of GOD. And it is through personal faith in Jesus Christ.
Certainly the Roman Catholic church and its traditions cannot save.
Last edited:
The early church for the first five hundred years believed in sola scriptura. that was why they refused to allow into their canon any book not written by or authorised by an Apostle. It was why all their arguments appealed to Scripture. You simply close your eyes to what does not suit you.
As for your relying on good works. that condemns you immediately. The Scripture is quite clear that good works play no part in salvation. They RESULT from salvation. (Romans 3.24-9; Ephesians 2.5-10; Titus 3.4-7, among others)
As for your relying on good works. that condemns you immediately. The Scripture is quite clear that good works play no part in salvation. They RESULT from salvation. (Romans 3.24-9; Ephesians 2.5-10; Titus 3.4-7, among others)