FROM A CHRISTIAN TO A CATHOLIC

[SantoSubito]

Jim,

I'll start of by saying that I came into this thinking that maybe you had a view I could actually respond to and discuss. However what you have said is just the same diatribe I've heard since I've been a freshman in High School, and quite honestly I am tired of typing up responses for people that claim that the Catholic Church is the "great apostasy". More to the point I'm curious about what you think of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. All of which affirm doctrines that you have protested against while at the same time being extremely ancient churches. So I guess my ultimate question is what makes you think you have it figured out better than the fathers of faith that walked before us? (I'm calling a preemptive strike on the "My teachings come from the Bible therefore they are as old as they can get" argument.)

 

[Scotth1960]

Here's an instructive article about the Roman Catholic Church from a biblical perspective:

Friends, The true Biblical perspective is not separated from the catholic tradition of the early church (325-787 AD). We must surely all object to Roman Catholicism; but our attack must never become personal or ad hominem, as we, personally, as Protestants, have all "sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". We, former Protestants, who are considering the historical claims and truths of the holy catholic and apostolic eastern Orthodox Church, need to be aware of what has gone on in Christ before us. We did not, as Bible students, invent the wheel. Trying to re-invent the Christian will every 500 hundred years or so with a new Protestant reformation is quite besides and missing the point. In Christ, there is no division, but only the unity of Christ's Orthodox Church. Amen.
Here are some of the real things Roman Catholicism gets wrong, but I shall not quote them all. Here are just the first three:
"Brief Orthodox Replies to the Innovations of the Papacy"
"Our Orthodox Faith is our wealth, our glory, our race, our crown, and our boast." [Joseph Bryennios (1350-1437 AD)].
"Concerning the union of the Eastern Churches with the Church of Rome, the Great Church of Constantinople, in August of 1895, made a reply to the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903). Pope Leo said that union could only be obtained by acknowledging him as supreme Pontifff and the highest spiritual and temporal ruler of the universal church, as the only representative of Christ upon the earth and the dispenser of all grace.
"The Orthodox reply was published in the patriarchal periodical Truth. Signatories included Patriarch Anthimos VII of Constantinople (1895-1898), Bishops Nicodemos of Cyzicos, Philotheos of Nicomedia, Jerome of Nicaea, Nathanael of Prusa, Basil of Smyrna, Stephen of Philadelphia, Athanasios of Lemnos, Bessarion of Dyrrachium, Dorotheos of Belgrade, Nicodemos of Elasson, Sophronios of Carpathos and Cassos and Dionysios of Eleutheropolis.
"The Orthodox assume as the basis of right Faith the doctrine of the New Testament as expressed by the holy Fathers and the holy Seven Ecumenical Councils, common to all the patriarchates, because all the patriarchates, including Rome, were Orthodox during the first ten centuries of Christianity. The eastern patriarchates point out the following serious and arbitrary innovations concerning faith and practice which the Papal Church had introduced. The Orthodox assert that the innovations are clearly opposed to the ecclesiastical condition of the first nine centuries, making the longed-for union of the Church of Rome with the eastern patriarchates impossible. The Orthodox hope that the Papal Church will reject these heretical innovations and return to the ancient condition of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ.
1. "Filioque" The first innovation was the Filioque ("and the Son") addition to the eighth article of the Creed, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. This is in direct contradiction to the words of our Saviour, "When the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, Which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me" [John 15:26]. Also, the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople I, 381 AD), which supplemented the Creed of the First Council (Nicaea I, 325 AD), asserts that the Creed, adopted by the 318 Fathers who had convened at Nicaea, should remain solid and inviolable. The holy Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) issued Canon VII which decreed that it is not permissible for anyone to compose or write, or to offer to those converted from any other faith to Orthodoxy another Creed than the Symbol of Faith.
"Pope Leo III, in 809 AD, synodically denounced the addition of the Filioque. He also ahd the Creed of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, without the Filioque. engraved upon two silver plates, in Greek and Latin. He then wrote: "These words, I, Leo, have set down for the love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith" (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxae).
"2. Water for Baptism. "The second innovation is the substitution of holy Baptism for affusion or infusion (epichusis), where water is poured (ekcheo) over the candidate's head; or, aspersion (rantismos), when water is sprinkled on the candidate's forehead. The Greek verb for "I baptize" (baptizo) means to immerse or plunge. It is linked philologically with the word "dip" (baptein), and never means pouring or sprinkling. Baptism (baptizein) by immersion (katadusis) was the standard practice in the early Church. If we look no further than the meaning of the word "baptism", we see at once that the Latins are unbaptized. Baptism -- whether we call it rebirth, renewal, regeneration -- concerns the whole person, not some single member or part of the person. If the spiritual effects of Baptism concern the whole person, then its outward application ought to involve the whole body.
"In concert with the Lord's command [Mt. 28:19], we baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, three times in succession. Jesus enunciated the three hypostases separately and distinctly. Canon L of the Holy Apostles and Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council, define triple immersion. It is unclear why from the twelfth century onwards, the Latins have come by degrees to abandon the rite of immersion, although the practice persisted in some places at least until the end of the Middle Ages.
"The practice of affusion was allowed in cases of dire necessity, such as if the candidate was seriously ill or in danger of death. In the Didache (100-160 AD), the oldest baptismal manual extant, triple emersion is assumed and pouring allowed only in an emergency, if there is an insufficient amount of water. Apart from an emergency, St. Basil the Great (330-379 AD), says, "There is tribulation when someone dies without Baptism, or when something in the Mystery of Baptism, as it has been handed down to us, is omitted."
"Certain passages of New Testament, such as "so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized unto His death .... Therefore, we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection" [Rom. 6:3-5] and we are "buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, Who hath raised Him from the dead" [Col. 2:12]. These passages would indicate that the burial of Christ in the earth and emergence from it supply the pattern that must be adhered to. Hence, the act of sinking and rising out of the water more adequately symbolizes burial and resurrection with Christ. Christ Himself mentions this when speaking to James and John, the sons of Zebedee, when they asked to sit at either side of Jesus in His glory. Christ answered, "Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" When they answered that they could, Christ said, "Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized" [Mark 10:38-39].
"3. The Host of Unleavened Wafers "The Orthodox bishops, in their reply, also denounced the third innovation of the substitution of unleavened wafers for the leavened bread hitherto used in their sacrament of the Eucharist. ..." [cf. pp. 528-532: The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy: St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, St. Mark of Ephesus. Buena Vista, CO: Holy Apostles Convent, Copyright 1990. q.v.].
"4. Consecration of the Holy Gifts
"5. Lay Participation in the Mystery of Communion
"6. Purgatory
"7. The Immaculate Conception
"8. Papal Supremacy
"Other Innovations
9. Statues
10. Compulsory Clerical Celibacy
11. The Gregorian Calendar
12. Holy Unct

[SIZE=+3][/SIZE]ion In Erie PA USA In search of Christ, Scott R. Harrington

 

[DanuckInUSA]

Yikes long post, very scary.

 

[Crazy4GODword]

Yikes long post, very scary.

very scary or weird

 

[SantoSubito]

Yikes long post, very scary.

Honestly, I don't read long cut and paste posts which is why I didn't read trust in the name's posts. That, and I could practically already predict the argument that was going to be used under every heading before I read it.

 

[Crazy4GODword]

Honestly, I don't read long cut and paste posts which is why I didn't read trust in the name's posts. That, and I could practically already predict the argument that was going to be used under every heading before I read it.

yep i just looked up on the web on his post and there is a match! copy and paste

 

[DanuckInUSA]

There is something so empty about the cut and paste option

 

[SantoSubito]

yep i just looked up on the web on his post and there is a match! copy and paste

Yeah his cut and paste posts seem to come from the A True Church Website LINK: A True Church Home Page. Read their FAQ and you will be very surprised by a lot of their positions.

 

[DanuckInUSA]

Not so surprised actually but also not so interested.

 

[SantoSubito]

The worst thing about it is that the A True Church group seems to be from my home state in Moody Oklahoma.

 

[Crazy4GODword]

is that a bad thing for them to be there? is it america friend that is the worst part?

 

[dscherck]

Interesting quote from Benedict. I disagree. Christ took away my life and gave me His. So much for inerrancy

It's a small part of is larger homily given on the occasion of his election as Pope.
The full homily can be found here.

I'll quote the last paragraph and bold a few parts that speak to me quite powerfully.

At this point, my mind goes back to 22 October 1978, when Pope John Paul II began his ministry here in Saint Peter’s Square. His words on that occasion constantly echo in my ears: “Do not be afraid! Open wide the doors for Christ!” The Pope was addressing the mighty, the powerful of this world, who feared that Christ might take away something of their power if they were to let him in, if they were to allow the faith to be free. Yes, he would certainly have taken something away from them: the dominion of corruption, the manipulation of law and the freedom to do as they pleased. But he would not have taken away anything that pertains to human freedom or dignity, or to the building of a just society. The Pope was also speaking to everyone, especially the young. Are we not perhaps all afraid in some way? If we let Christ enter fully into our lives, if we open ourselves totally to him, are we not afraid that He might take something away from us? Are we not perhaps afraid to give up something significant, something unique, something that makes life so beautiful? Do we not then risk ending up diminished and deprived of our freedom? And once again the Pope said: No! If we let Christ into our lives, we lose nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing of what makes life free, beautiful and great. No! Only in this friendship are the doors of life opened wide. Only in this friendship is the great potential of human existence truly revealed. Only in this friendship do we experience beauty and liberation. And so, today, with great strength and great conviction, on the basis of long personal experience of life, I say to you, dear young people: Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ – and you will find true life. Amen.

 

[SantoSubito]

is that a bad thing for them to be there? is it america friend that is the worst part?

I'm just kinda shocked that my state could give rise to such an "interesting" group. We have our fair share of fundamentalist Protestant groups here, and I'm used to that since I grew up with it (being a Catholic growing up in a small town in OK is not all that great). But from what I've read on their website they seem to be very out there to say the least.

 

[kayem77]

Helloo, first of all, I don't want to sound judgeful or close-minded at all, since all my entire family is catholic, I was raised catholic,and I was myself a catholic my entire life, so I know how the Catholic Church works...and I gotta tell you, since 2 years ago or so I started to really analyze where did they practices come from and I was just more and more confused, cause I noticed they have a lot of contradictions and practices that aren't on the Bible like for example : the saints ( this is a long topic since we apparently have a saint for EVERY issue); the virgin Mary and her holy immaculate conception, not to mention the way they pray to her; the infant baptism...and well this would be long , and almost all is already mentionen by trust_in_the_name articles.

The truth is...and again I don't want to sound judgeful...that yes, the CC purpose is to follow God, love Jesus, and be saved; but the way they do it...well it makes it really hard to accomplish and is easy to lose the purpose or understand why are you doing what you are doing.

I say this cause 2 or 3 years ago, I came to this point at my age to start analyzing religion, and tryind to be closer to God cause all my family was and IS very devoted in the catholic beliefs, so I started to say heyy im proudly a Catholic and finally I know where I am,but the truth was that I didn't even know why I prayed what I prayed, I didn't know what did the Bible said AT ALL, and a lot of things, I knew just ...the prayers enough to be called a good catholic and didn't think too much about it, and I was happy! cause I felt like okaay im doing fine, I go to church enough, I'm a good person, I pray the prayers the Father( the priest) told me to and well....I'm not a serial killer or something like that. ( I don't want to sound like making fun of it, but really that was how I felt).
And well....like many of you know, in mexico almost everyone are catholic, or considered catholic just cause the family is, so a protestant christian in mexico...well is not very common. So I had this friend, a christian friend since middle school, and that was the time when se was closer to her church, and a friend was going with her to a young adult talks, it was like Bible study for the youth with music (christian music) at the beginning. Well my friend told me to go, that it was kinda cool but i was likee naaaah, Im a catholic so I don't need to hear it.

The time passed, and one day I got convinced, I was like wth I'll go ! lol, so I did....and when I arrived well, first of all it is very true when they say Christians should be friendly and loving, cause I felt very welcomed and my first impression was hey this people is cool! So i kept going....but still I WAS CATHOLIC and I even told my friend that I was just going cause I was learning from the Bible and I liked it, and she was like okay I understand. Well with the time, after a lot of those talks, a kind of internal battle started inside me, without my consent lol. So I stopped going, cause I didn't like that feeling, like I was letting behind my beliefs and my friend asked mee, hey why aren't you going anymore? and I was like you know...I feel that if I keep going I'm betraying my beliefs; and in the other hand my mom was getting hesitating about letting me go, because she was scared I won't be catholic no more.

In this time when I stopped going I looked for the CC a lot more! I was trying to prove myself that the CC was correct, that me and my family weren't wrong so I went to the masses and prayed, but while the time was passing I started feeling like an emptyness, like that the masses didn't filled me no more,actually I started questioning me If they ever did ...and instead of listening to the priest when he was talking I kept thinking in my head, why do we have to say those words ? why they have all those saints in the altar ? why this?, why that?, etc etc .

Believe me...those days I was just trying to win that internal battle( I don't know how) that just wasn't letting me go. I started looking for information on internet, I went to Catholic sites to solve all my questions that the priest didn't answer. Oh about the priest...I forgot to say he is a very close friend of my family and very famous where I lived ( a lot of people consider him a saint), he actually used to go to my house to dinner sometimes, my parents used to take him to hospitals to pray for the sick, my dad helped him to install the lights on the church, etc. So in those visits he made, I never felt spiritually filled, he never told us something new, or read the Bible to us, he just told us to pray something, read a psalm and he confessed us. ( Don't misunderstand me, I respect him,I just don't like how people treat him, almost like if he was Jesus; and the fact that he didn't filled me spiritually ).

Well like I was saying before, in those internet sites, I was comparing like this : a christian site in one page, a catholic site in other, and after days and days of doing the same I just quit. I said ENOUGH the truth is....this catholic sites are just giving me more questions with their answers, cause when I was looking for a simple answer likee why do we pray to the Virgin Mary? the answer was ....In the bible says in Juan(John) 19:27 : and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

As you imagine, that was not enough for me cause that passage could've meaned a lot of things and then I was still wondering : why do we have to pray to her ? to worship her? the answers were: of course we are not worshiping her, but revering her cause she is a intermediary to Christ, and she needs to pray for us. I don't need to say I was even more confused since a looooooooot of passages of the bible were saying exactly the opposite, that is only Jesus the one we need to reach God. Then I saw kinda the same explanations about the saints, even with some popes...soo yes...I quit. I quit trying to find my answers on the CC.

So I'm here, I'm not a baptized Christian but I don't consider me Catholic anymore, since I don't believe a lot of their beliefs or practices and didn't had a good spiritual experience. So I just say, I'm christian, with no denominations, I'm not baptized but maybe someday I'd like to. I repeat...I'm not saying the CC is bad, cause there's a lot of respected and studios bishops out there... and hey I WAS A CATHOLIC PERSON, A REAL ONE...is just that I don't approve the method they use and the fact that ALMOST ALWAYS ( I don't pretend to generalize) the priests tell you that you are fine, to be a good person, pray and thenn... ta daaaaa, you are saved! maybe they dont say it like that...but is what you understand most of the times.

AND wow...I didn't expected to write this long, but I felt like I had to say something about this, since I live with my entire catholic family and I was raised catholic...so I dare to say I know what I'm talking about. If something sounded disrespectful I'm sorry, I didn't pretend to, it was just my experience . God bless.

 

[PBUH]

The people of Noah pbuh were the first people that prayed to idols. How did they pray to idols.

In the beginning there were religuous people that were examples to their people. When these people died out Satan said to the people build statues of them so that you remember them and think about God.

After a long period people forgot what the statues were for. Satan then told them these are your God.

Catholics have gone down this path by giving statues powers they do not have. This is a form of idol worship and in the future catholics may start treating these statues as God.

Having a human as infallible is also extremely dangerous and alarm bells should sound each time a pope changes the direction of the church because God does not change Gods mind.

 

[Scotth1960]

III. No Additions

As Paul writes, "

not to think beyond what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6), Moses, Agur the son of Jakeh, and the apostle John, all agree that God's word is not to be added to. Moses speaks of it in Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32, Agur in Proverbs 30:5-6, and John in Revelation 22:18-19. The latter two passages reveal adding to God's word brings with it a serious curse.

Although Scripture says nothing of gnosticism, Charles adds this "needed" information for interpreting the text. He says he gleaned this info from,

Wycliffe Bible Dictionary
Believer's Bible Commentary by William MacDonald
Thru the Bible by J. Vernon McGee
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary
Clark's Commentary by Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A.
NIV Bible Commentary
The King James Study Bible
Ryrie Study Bible
Thompson Chain Reference Bible
The New Scofield Reference Bible
Life Application Bible

​

Dear "trust in the name". If we are not to think beyond what is written (in Scripture: 1 Corinthians 4:6), then why do we need the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, the Believer's Bible Commentary by William MacDonald, Thru the Bible by J. Vernon McGee, Clarke's Commentary Adam Clarke, NIV Bible Commentary, The King James Study Bible, the Ryrie Study Bible, the Thompson Chain Reference Bible, The New Scofield Reference Bible, the Life Application Bible, why do we need these extra books if we are going "by Scripture alone". That is rather double-minded and self-contradictory of you, ISTM. Don't get me wrong, this is America or this is planet earth, and all people on earth are given inalienable rights by God the Creator, the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, freedom of press. So you can believe any tradition you like. The fact is, no body reads Scripture without consulting some Christian authority. Someone must comment on Scripture. Someone's church traditions must go with how one understands and lives by the Bible. There are, however, at least 30,000 different Christian traditions. And some of these traditions are not so Christian, as in Mormon or Jehovah's Witness of Unitarian. So, God's word is not to be added to? And then you list a bunch of study Bibles which all add to God's word by commenting upon the Scripture. The question is, one should neither add nor take away. By not studying the Bible and not commenting on the Bible, we take away from God's commission to Christians to live and to preach the Gospel, to go and make disciples of all nations. Mat. 28. Of course, not everyone can be a missionary, but all Christians are expected to speak as of the oracles of God and preach the simple Gospel that saves: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. Believe in Christ as God and Lord to be saved. That certainly requires some words of Christian theology in addition to just quoting the Bible directly. What is meant by add is do not change the meaning of the Scripture, do not teach things God did not say, and do not take away or delete from what God says. I know I have to repent of an error I made in quoting the Bible. I once misquoted the Bible, "Except ye believe I AM He, ye shall die". I should have said that Christ said, "Except ye believe that I AM He, ye shall die in your sins". That was a serious error I made in not quoting the full text of the Gospel. May God forgive me for the error. Also, may God save us all, that we come to Christ and be saved before it is too late, and that He saves us every step of our journey back to Him in repentance and receiving of the sacraments of His grace, that we do not die in our sins. Lord have mercy on us. Amen. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[SantoSubito]

The people of Noah pbuh were the first people that prayed to idols. How did they pray to idols.

In the beginning there were religuous people that were examples to their people. When these people died out Satan said to the people build statues of them so that you remember them and think about God.

After a long period people forgot what the statues were for. Satan then told them these are your God.

Catholics have gone down this path by giving statues powers they do not have. This is a form of idol worship and in the future catholics may start treating these statues as God.

Having a human as infallible is also extremely dangerous and alarm bells should sound each time a pope changes the direction of the church because God does not change Gods mind.

I'm not familiar with that Noah story, is it from the Hadith by any chance? As for the statues, they themselves have no power and the Saints have no power in and of themselves ultimately it is God that answers the petitions of the Saints. I'm not aware of any Ex Cathedra statement (the only instances when the Pope is infallible) that have changed the direction of the Church.

 

[JimM1228]

I feel like I need to say my goal for this post was not to scold or bash the RCC. I was merely challenging them to acquire answers that I have always wanted to know. I sincerely apologize for hurting Anyones feelings. I don't promote separation especially
In Christ. I will try and keep my personal feelings out of harms way where theyay offend others. Once
Again I apologize to anyone offended by my posts.

 

[Scotth1960]

I simply believe what scripture teaches on the matter.[/B]

[/B]

I'm a Christian, not a Protestant.

[/B]

Neither of which are in the truth.

Friends, It is Protestantism to reject these books. It needs to show, verse by verse, where these books agree with the rest of Scripture, if one attempts to show they are false, one must show that one's interpretation is true, and not one's own, but received from the Church of the Holy Apostles. One must show that St. Peter and St. Paul and St. John and St. Andrew and all the rest did not accept these books. One must get it on tradition. How does one know anything of the early Church? None of us were there. We must accept the words and the testimony of some men. Is it right to imply that anyone who accepts these books is not a Christian? Augustine of Hippo may have made some mistakes of theology. He did. He said "and the Son". That doesn't mean he wasn't a Christian. Just that he was fallible. All Christians are fallible. All of us have some area where we do not understand what the Bible means.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[SantoSubito]

I feel like I need to say my goal for this post was not to scold or bash the RCC. I was merely challenging them to acquire answers that I have always wanted to know. I sincerely apologize for hurting Anyones feelings. I don't promote separation especially
In Christ. I will try and keep my personal feelings out of harms way where theyay offend others. Once
Again I apologize to anyone offended by my posts.

It wasn't that they were necessarily offensive It's just that I've heard all these objections before, and since you already think that the Catholic Church is the "great apostasy" It would probably just be a waste to type out a long response to the questions.

If you really want these questions answered you should probably go post your questions somewhere like the Catholic Answers Forum where there are many people much more knowledgeable than I that could answer your questions.