Warning! Catholic church is a FALSE religion

[MahogonySnail]

"The fact is the Church has changed , dropped, and made up new teachings"

Name one.

Easy, in 1996 JP2 said that Catholics could believe in evolution. There's one.




There's a fairly long list here of extra-biblical teachings , 53 of them:

http://www.bible.ca/cath-new-doctrines.htm


There's one I mentioned earlier about the contradiction between the council of constance in 1415 forbidding wine for laity


in 1415 AD the Council of Constance decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone, two Popes condemned such a "half communion":

Gelasius [492-496] complains: † "That some received the bread, but abstained from the cup; whom he condemns as guilty of superstition, and orders that they should either receive in both kinds, or else be excluded from both, because one and the same mystery cannot be divided without grand sacrilege." Leo the Great [440-461] denounces them with equal vehemence:‡ "They receive the body of Christ," says he, "with unworthy mouth, but refuse to drink the [p. 193] blood of our redemption, such men's sacrilegious dissimulation being discovered, let them be marked, and by the authority of the priesthood cast out of the society of the faithful." Gelasius was a respectable pontiff, but Leo the Great deserved his title: he was one of the ablest churchmen, and most celebrated popes that ever lived, and his condemnation of half communion in Catholic eyes should strip it of all authority.


It also goes against Christ's own command in Matthew 26:27 to "drink from it, all of you"

 

[CLARKY]

"Neither did Christ say "ask the Roman Catholic church", or "ask Peter, who will be the first Pope".

Matthew 18: 15-18 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.

If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the Church.

If he refuses to listen even to the Church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Just as the observant Jew avoided the company of Gentiles and tax collectors, the Christian disciples separated from a sinful member who refused to repent even when convicted of his sin by the Church.

The member was to be set outside the fellowship of the community.

First there is to be private correction (Matthew 18:15); if this is unsuccessful, further correction before two or three witnesses (Matthew 18:16); if this fails, the matter is to be brought "before the Church".

And if the sinner refuses to attend to the "correction of the Church", he is to be expelled (Matthew 18:17). The Church's judgment will be ratified in heaven, by God (Matthew 18:18).

Matthew 18:15-18 shows that the Church has the final word in matters of judgment. This upholds the teaching authority and power of the Church. Matthew 18:18 provides this authority under the power of binding and loosing.


As I stated before the Church in Rome was the first patriarchate, so I will not repeat myself. There is an abundance of documents and overwhelming evidence of history to support this.

There are early records that before Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome they together chose Linus as Peter's successor.

He ruled the Church for about eleven years from 67. For the next twelve years Cletus was pope and then Clement from 90 to 100.

 

[CLARKY]

Evolution isnt a doctrine concerning faith.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Neither did Christ say "ask the Roman Catholic church", or "ask Peter, who will be the first Pope".

Matthew 18: 15-18 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.

The question is which Church? I don't see the word Roman Catholic or Peter or Pope or Official Church teachings in those verses. In any case this is not about interpretation of scriptures but about offenses.

The irony is that you are arguing against private interpretation of scriptures and yet you are quoting scriptures here to me from the bible, which I assume you wish me to read and interpret privately .

It was Protestants - men like Wycliff, Tyndale and Luther - who first gave the Bible in the common language of the people, at the same time when the Roman authorities were busy burning every copy of the Bible they could lay their hands on.

Catholics are allowed to have a copy of their bible but when they find something that's not in it, like any of the 53 false teachings I gave previously, they are told not to question the authorities. Why is that? Because the Church never gets anything wrong and scripture is unreliable? Or because they want to enforce a particular view upon its followers?

Evolution isnt a doctrine concerning faith.

It is actually if it contradicts the belief that God created the whole world and everything in it.

 

[CLARKY]

"Easy, in 1996 JP2 said that Catholics could believe in evolution. There's one".

The Catholic Church remains nuetral on evolution. Although we can believe in evolution, we are not encouraged to do so, nor are we encouraged to ignore it.



There's a fairly long list here of extra-biblical teachings , 53 of them:

http://www.bible.ca/cath-new-doctrines.htm


There's one I mentioned earlier about the contradiction between the council of constance in 1415 forbidding wine for laity


"in 1415 AD the Council of Constance decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone, two Popes condemned such a "half communion":

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) cofirmed the belief that the substances of bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. Which was later reaffirmed and made more precise by the Councils of Constance (1415) and Trent (1551).

According to doctrine of transubstantiation, the whole Christ is present under each form, the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine for that reason, Trent insisted, it is unnecessary to receive the Eucharist under both species as John Hus and his disciples in Bohemia argued.

Vatican II</SPAN></B> teaches that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not confined to the consecrated elements of bread and wine for Christ is present, first, in the community which has assembled for worship; secondly, in the person of the minister who presides in his name; and thirdly, he is present in the biblical word which is proclaimed. Finally, he is present in the sacred species themselves.

Real presence of Christ in the Sacred species come about through the ordained priest, who “confects” the Eucharist (Lateran IV) and the power of priest to consecrate the bread and wine is not dependant on his personal holiness (Council of Constance).

The nature of the change brought about in the Eucharist, as taught by the Church, lies beyond what chemistry, biology, or physics are able to establish. What is changed is the essence, the fundamental being, the hidden kernel, of the thing from which its particular forms of manifestation and activity arise.

Because the empirical phenomena, which came within the purview of science, remain unaffected, bread and wine can exercise the same physical functions after the transformation as before.

Therefore distinction must be made between the terms “substance” as referring to the empirical reality (the physical presence of bread and wine) in science (this would be the area of “accidents” in traditional Church doctrinal language).

 

[CLARKY]

"It is actually if it contradicts the belief that God created the whole world and everything in it".


I dont care HOW He created it.

 

[CLARKY]

"The question is which Church? I don't see the word Roman Catholic"


Perhaps the N T books were completed before Ignatius got around to refering to the Church as Catholic.

"Roman" as a sobriquet started with English satirists who thought it was a thigh slapper to limit the "universal" church to Rome. It was hot stuff in the Elizabethan age.

Words like "Roman," "Romish," "Romanist," were originally used of the old Church by protestants to signify their hatred of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

Nowadays "Roman" is applied to the one Catholic Church to indicate that there are other Catholics as well, who are not in union with Rome.

Christ's Church is Catholic, because it encircles the whole world. It is Roman because its center is in Rome, where the Bishop of that city is the successor of Peter, whom Christ made head of his Church.

There is no need to call the Pope's Church the "Roman Catholic Church." "Catholic" alone is sufficient. "Roman" is often used with an insulting or false meaning.

There is only one Catholic Church. It is that which Jesus Christ founded, which has been on earth since his day, and to which he said, "I will be with you all days even to the consummation of the world."


Perhaps you can tell me who founded the Catholic Church. I can give you the names of the men who founded the protestent churches. Lets start there.

 

[CLARKY]

"Regarding unity, it is well known that Catholic belief is not uniform throughout the Church. Not every Catholic ascribes to the official position of the Church. There are Priests pushing to allow marriage, there are some pushing to accept homosexuality, the list goes on."

Do you know the difference betweeb DOGMA and CANON LAW?

 

[kujo313]

"Regarding unity, it is well known that Catholic belief is not uniform throughout the Church. Not every Catholic ascribes to the official position of the Church. There are Priests pushing to allow marriage, there are some pushing to accept homosexuality, the list goes on."

Do you know the difference betweeb DOGMA and CANON LAW?

If I sat 20 people in a line and whispered something in the first person's ear and told them to pass it down, the last person would not be repeating what I told the first person.
Therefore, it's only commen sense for the every person in that line to personally come up to me and ask me what I said.

Same thing in the Church. We need to go BACK to what the Bible says. Not some guy in the 2nd century nor some guy in Rome today.
In the 2nd century, some "catholic" got it all twisted and , therefore, screwed up all of their "tradition".

Jesus fulfilled the Jewish Feasts. During Passover, He called Himself the Passover Lamb. Whenever we drink from the cup and eat the bread, we remember Him. Simply put, the Last Supper was a Passover Dinner.

The CC needs to look at what the meal MEANT and not what was on the menu.

 

[CLARKY]

Same thing in the Church. We need to go BACK to what the Bible says

Members of the Catholic Church wrote the N T books and compiled the Bible to reflect the teaching of the apostles. The apostles did not teach because they read the bible to see what they would write later on! LOL

 

[MahogonySnail]

Members of the Catholic Church wrote the N T books and compiled the Bible to reflect the teaching of the apostles

That is a strong argument for sola Scriptura. I mean it is correct that the Catholic Church (as in Universal) wrote and compiled the bible. However there is a lot of things the Roman Catholic Church teach that are contradictory or simply not found in the Scriptures. Can Catholics claim that the apostles taught things not found in the Scriptures? i.e.

If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

• 1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
• 2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
• 3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
• 4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
• 5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
• 6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
• 7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
• 8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
• 9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
• 10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
• 11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
• 12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
• 13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
• 14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

 

[Forgiven83]

Roaringkitten. . .I completely agree with you--we need to reach out in love to others. . .that is what God has commanded us to do. It seems like this is just a bash on catholics chat and it is kind of upsetting. I was raised in the catholic church so I very much understand what they believe. I left the church yes but my father and mother still go to it. There are some catholics who don't believe truth yes. . .but some who do. I left because I don't agree with praying to Mary--I think we should only be praying to God but yeah. . .

Hey Bec, I feel the same way you do. I grew up strict roman catholic, I loved the catholic church, I knew the mass off by heart. I attended mass every sunday of my childhood, then became head cantor at a cathedral and a wedding and funeral singer. I knew how to SING the mass let alone say it!! I know that there is much about the RCC that is unbiblical, I don't think anyone on this thread has disputed that definitively. but I, like others on this thread, believe that this topic has been mishandled somewhat. I'm not sure what this thread is trying to achieve, but I do know whatever positive aim that this thread has it is not being achieved.

The problem is, people who are catholic do not want to be "saved" because they believe they already are. Throwing around a thread saying how false they are only solidifies their belief that it is US who are lost. How do I know? I used to be one of those people!

I dont believe that I was EVER very far away from the Lord..God held me in the palm of his Hand all my life, catholic or not! It's important to remember that the very definition of christianity is a relationship with CHRIST....I fail to see how it is impossible for a catholic to have that. Dont get me wrong, the RCC doesnt make it easy, but its not impossible and we are the LAST people who should be judging!

U wanna know how I left the RCC? NOONE argued me into submission. NOONE told me I was "false" leading me to suddenly have an epiphany! Noone even SPOKE to me about it. The holy spirit opened my eyes through the word. That's it. It was a gripping on my heart by God Himself that lead me to the truth. I have sincere doubts that reading this thread will somehow do the same for anyone else.

Please.....can we stop bashing catholics now? It makes me sick to my stomach!!! If it werent for my catholic heritage I would NOT BE A CHRISTIAN NOW!! THANK GOD I was a catholic!!! I had a comprehensive knowledge of Jesus, and becoming a christian was very easy as a result. It was a tweak in my beliefs rather than a complete 360 turn. Have you ever considered that perhaps the catholics you meet are just on that journey at the moment too?? Dont be a stumbling block! Love them instead!!!

 

[juspekatzus]

the son says, he who is for us is not against us. However, these people have been misled for many, many years. their idols have to be removed.they have to turn to the son, him being the source, we the sheep must feed them his word. the father is calling them out of her. the sheep must show them how

 

[fallen82]

All I can say is, WOW!!! Im surprised that so many of you would intentionally say things to put others down. It doesnt matter what denomination you are or what Bible you read, whether or not you get baptised or believe in tounges. That is all trivial. Have you accepted Christ in your heart as your one and only Saviour. Have you confessed your sins and repented. Do you follow the word of God. Thats what matters. Thats it. God is not going to ban you to hell for going to confession. Come on now guys. Think before you type. And one more thing WHO CARES if she made some spelling or grammatical errors. Are you perfect? I know Im not.

 

[CLARKY]

"If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church?"

1. You are not being very intellecually honest.

2. You are not reading my posts, because you keep repeating the same questions.

3. You attempt to avoid answering my questions my firing off another dozen questions for me to answer.

4. I have been very fair answering ALL of your questions.

5. I feel you have an agenda against the Catholic Church

6. I find you to be very insulting.

7. You are having difficulty addressiing any particular topic.

8. You pick a statement from an early Church father and claim he speaks for the entire Church.

9. The topic in this thread is insulting in itself. So if you wish to continue on any PARTICULAR topic and STICK with it, you can start a new thread.

10. This conversation has ended.

 

[MahogonySnail]

It's difficult to ignore that few if any of the common Roman Catholic beliefs I listed above are actually supported by the scripture and teaching of the apostles isn't it?

But stick to your early church writers, and official Church dogmas if you will. I prefer to follow the apostle's teachings as found in Scripture.

 

[CLARKY]

To most you history moves forward in leaps and bounds. First there were Jesus and the twelve apostles, and then there was Paul, and then there was Martin Luther (with maybe a brief stop to visit Hus and Wycliff). One thousand five hundred years of history simply vanish without a trace.

Your opinions will never supersede the beliefs of the Apostles, early Christian Fathers, early Christians, 2000 years of Christian councils and correct interpretations.

" Without the proper authority to interpret the scriptures, Christianity will break up into hundreds of disagreeing sects. " ( John Carnmer 1521 ) He was right.​

 

[CLARKY]

As if the Church who decided what was and what was not scripture needed to wait until after 1517 so the thousands of disagreeing sects could interpret it for us. Isn't that a rib tickler?

 

[MahogonySnail]

Yet it's strange that the majority of catholic teachings that protestants have a problem with cannot be found in the Scriptures which reveal the teaching of the apostles. Afterall you did acknowledge that the Bible was compiled to reflect the teaching of the apostles. The funny thing is that even children can interpret the scriptures rightly and know better than most Catholics on things such as praying to Mary, calling the Pope "Holy Father" ( a title reserved for the Heavenly Father alone) and many others.
It's quite simple, the Catholic church did not give us the bible because it would not have produced a book which condemns the very same things which it practices. No wonder the Catholic church tried to burn as many bibles as they could lest the common people realise how much the institution had lied to them about what is the truth.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Despite your claim that we have to thank the Catholics for the bible , it was not until the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking officials of the Catholic Church "officially" cataloged the books they thought should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences of all Catholics. (See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17-18).