Is Roman Catholicism Evil?

[ComeLordJesus]

You have to wonder about a religion that teaches that Mary is the mother of God.

 

[maxwel]

Nehemiah6:

Oops, it seems you are stuck way in the past -- around the time of the Reformation (1517 to 1648). Time to do some research so you can try to remain up to date (at least to the 20th century). Let me help.

The "Joint Declaration On The Doctrine Of Justification" was signed by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church on 31 October 1999. On 23 July 2006, the World Methodist Conference signed that same declaration. It said: "15. In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. ... 16. All people are called by God to salvation in Christ. Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith. ... 25. We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. ... 26. According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide). In faith they place their trust wholly in their Creator and Redeemer and thus live in communion with him. God himself effects faith as he brings forth such trust by his creative word. ... In the doctrine of 'justification by faith alone', a distinction but not a separation is made between justification itself and the renewal of one's way of life that necessarily follows from justification and without which faith does not exist."

In other words, the Catholic Church, the Lutheran World Federation, and the World Methodist Conference agree that the faithful are justified by faith -- alone, but they also acknowledge that good works are a product of and an affirmation of that faith. Just in case you were unaware, Lutheranism has its roots in the work of Martin Luther, who sought to reform the Western Church to what he considered a more biblical foundation (that means it is Protestant).

You can find the full text of the declaration at: < http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html >

The problem is, this doesn't' seem to be what most Catholics actually believe, therefore, it is most likely not what most Catholics are actually taught.

 

[Endoscopy]

The Creed is no more and no less than the affirmation by a written oath that a given person reciting it is "saved."

I believe Jesus, let your yes be yes and let your no be no. Anything else proceeds from evil, andyes, this applies to taking any oath or affirming any creed............also, the faithful have no need of such exaggerations and demonstrations, love and obedience are sufficient.

I totally disagree. It was written as the end result of fighting heresies especially Gnosticism. It almost took over the church back then. The elders first created the Roman Creed but by 390 decided a more complete Creed was required to fight Gnosticism. It's heresie was God created Jesus, Jesus then created another semi god then that one created another, etc. The Creed demolishes that being part of Christianity. You need to understand church history. It explains why some things happened and were written.

 

[Endoscopy]

Addendum because of the foolish 5 minute rule

We have religious groups claiming to be Christian. Mormons for example. The creed can be used against them since they claim Jesus was just a man that was the first to reach god head status that all are supposed to achieve. Their website is misleading unless you drill down to understand their changed definitions of Christian words.

 

[JaumeJ]

Reading the New Testament we find Jesus and Paul mention the already present apostasy. No man will bridle its steady progress to a world dominating church built on materialism and apostasy in general.

This is true yet there are many who are truly faithful to Jesus Christ as best they are given to be able in all the apostte churches.......it is written.

I totally disagree. It was written as the end result of fighting heresies especially Gnosticism. It almost took over the church back then. The elders first created the Roman Creed but by 390 decided a more complete Creed was required to fight Gnosticism. It's heresie was God created Jesus, Jesus then created another semi god then that one created another, etc. The Creed demolishes that being part of Christianity. You need to understand church history. It explains why some things happened and were written.

 

[JaumeJ]

I am not blinded by the one tree, the entire forest is i view. Soon enough all will see, all who truly believe Jesus Christ.

Addendum because of the foolish 5 minute rule

We have religious groups claiming to be Christian. Mormons for example. The creed can be used against them since they claim Jesus was just a man that was the first to reach god head status that all are supposed to achieve. Their website is misleading unless you drill down to understand their changed definitions of Christian words.

 

[garee]

Creeds are a work of heresy, an opinion of men. They are not the one authority as a source of faith the word of God. I don't think God will share that glory with the things of men as if he was served by human hands to begin with​

The word heresy was added a new meaning after the oral traditions of the fathers of the Catholic church ….called a law of the fathers, commandments of men. Christ called the law of the fathers a brood of vipers indicating false apostles. They performed that so they could Lord it over the faith of the pew Catholics. ​

They changed the meaning to reflect their own oral traditions making the word of God without effect. This is seeing no man can serve two teaching masters. Just like they changed the meaning in violation of the commandment not to in respect to one word in Deuteronomy 4:2, with the word phrase "private interpretation" the same as a heresy. The true meaning is a private interpretation is a person's own commentary and like all men, a finger print of what they personally believe not subject to the will of others. ​

They like the Pharisees with Sadducees two opposing sects that put aside their differences, like the Roman Catholic with the Greek Orthodox sect used their own oral tradition as the standard or law called the law of the father to try and make the written word as n all things written in the law and prophets as that which offers no understanding, without the use of their own private interpretation.

The word heresy with no other meaning simple mean "sect" or denomination a group of mankind who he the same kind of opinions. I would think when two or three, or two our three thousand gather together under the authority of His word he is there working with them. A husband and wife as one creation are both used to represent God who is one. They could constitute a sect or denomination as a part of the whole church. ​

I think in that way seeing there could not such a thing as a non-denomination, because it is a denomination, that identifies itself as one. The kingdom of God is not of this world it does not come by observing the temporal. There must be divisions as heresies. A Creed is a heresy or private interpretation of man as always he must do the first works as our first love in knowing him not seen. ​

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1​

​

​

​

 

[Brian_Graham]

The problem is, this doesn't' seem to be what most Catholics actually believe, therefore, it is most likely not what most Catholics are actually taught.

maxwel:

My evidence is the official teaching of the Catholic Church, with a link to the Vatican provided so you can verify that information.

Please provide your supporting evidence (with links for verification) in counterpoint to my post, and then we can discuss the matter. That evidence must not include "doesn't seem to be" or "most likely," since those phrases are deliberately vague and speculative.

To support your assertion you must demonstrate that "most Catholics" (which would be a simple majority of 50% plus one -- or 614,500,001 Catholics) do, indeed, believe as you have stated and indeed have been taught as you've stated. An acceptable alternative would be to provide evidence to show that a simple majority of Catholic clerics around the world, who are responsible for teaching Catholic doctrine, are failing in their duties (that number would be again be 50% plus one cleric, or 207,158 Catholic priests). Isolated anecdotes to not constitute evidence.

Thanks.

 

[Brian_Graham]

You have to wonder about a religion that teaches that Mary is the mother of God.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is three consubstantial [which means "of the same substance or essence"] persons or hypostases -- the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit -- as "one God in three Divine Persons," as described in Matthew 28:19, John 10:30, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Corinthians 13:14, John 14:26, and 1 John 5:7-8.

Therefore, Jesus is God.

The Bible teaches us that Mary is the mother of Jesus in: John 19:25-27; John 2:1-5; Luke 1:35; Luke 1:30-33; Luke 2:47-52; Luke 1:31; Mark 3:31-35; Matthew 2:11; Matthew 1:26; Matthew 1:18-25; Matthew 12:46-50; and Matthew 13:55. (Just for your own information, that's four out of four Gospels)

Ergo, by extension, Mary is the mother of God -- Jesus -- one of the three Divine Persons of the Triune God.

It appears you may have missed something in your Bible studies about Mary being the mother of Jesus, and about the Triune God. You have to wonder about a religion that fails to teach about the meaning of the Trinity.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Ergo, by extension, Mary is the mother of God -- Jesus -- one of the three Divine Persons of the Triune God.

Brian, in the New Testament the word "God" (Theos) generally refer to God the Father. So in order for Mary to be the mother of God, she would have to be the mother of God the Father, as well as the triune Godhead. Do you see how absurd that is? And do you NOT SEE that since God the Holy Spirit did not want Christians to fall into this error, He has taken care to refer to Mary always as "the mother of Jesus".

 

[Endoscopy]

Reading the New Testament we find Jesus and Paul mention the already present apostasy. No man will bridle its steady progress to a world dominating church built on materialism and apostasy in general.

This is true yet there are many who are truly faithful to Jesus Christ as best they are given to be able in all the apostte churches.......it is written.

You ignore the later elders were still fighting the encroaching heresies and so created the creeds to fight them. Faced with proponents of the heresies they would use the Roman and Apostles Creed to define the heresies as non Christian!

 

[Brian_Graham]

Brian, in the New Testament the word "God" (Theos) generally refer to God the Father. So in order for Mary to be the mother of God, she would have to be the mother of God the Father, as well as the triune Godhead. Do you see how absurd that is? And do you NOT SEE that since God the Holy Spirit did not want Christians to fall into this error, He has taken care to refer to Mary always as "the mother of Jesus".

Nehemiah6

Do you NOT SEE that if God the Holy Spirit did not want Christians to fall into this error, He would have taken care to ensure that all references to "God" would refer exclusively to the Father? In which case, we would have three distinct Gods with different names rather than a unified triune God.

Perhaps you missed it the first time, so I'll repeat it for you: "one God in three Divine Persons." According to your reasoning then, and to avoid confusion, we should never refer to "God" unless we mean all three Divine Persons of the Trinity together. We should refer only to the Father, the Son or Jesus Christ or the Saviour, and to the Holy Spirit. Do YOU not see how absurd that is?

"For Mary to be the mother of God, she would have to be the mother of God the Father." Not so. To be the mother of God, Mary would have to be mother of only one of the three Divine Persons since each is God. And lo and behold, she is !! She is the mother of Jesus, God the Son.

But, you also failed to perform due diligence before writing your first post. The Catholic Church is quite specific that its teaching of Mary as the "Mother of God" is in direct reference to the Redeemer, and that personage of God is Jesus Christ. You may dislike the Catholic Church for a broad range of reasons -- many of which, I'm sure, are justifiable, given its history, but that dislike should be based on facts.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
(the official teaching of the Catholic Church)
Part One: The Profession of Faith
Section Two: The Profession of the Christian Faith
Chapter Three: I Believe in the Holy Spirit
Article 9:
Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ
963 ... "The Virgin Mary ... is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God, of the Redeemer. ... "Mary, Mother of Christ."

Perhaps it would be more productive to spend time on substantive issues rather than on interpretive semantics.

 

[Endoscopy]

Nehemiah6

Do you NOT SEE that if God the Holy Spirit did not want Christians to fall into this error, He would have taken care to ensure that all references to "God" would refer exclusively to the Father? In which case, we would have three distinct Gods with different names rather than a unified triune God.

Perhaps you missed it the first time, so I'll repeat it for you: "one God in three Divine Persons." According to your reasoning then, and to avoid confusion, we should never refer to "God" unless we mean all three Divine Persons of the Trinity together. We should refer only to the Father, the Son or Jesus Christ or the Saviour, and to the Holy Spirit. Do YOU not see how absurd that is?

"For Mary to be the mother of God, she would have to be the mother of God the Father." Not so. To be the mother of God, Mary would have to be mother of only one of the three Divine Persons since each is God. And lo and behold, she is !! She is the mother of Jesus, God the Son.

But, you also failed to perform due diligence before writing your first post. The Catholic Church is quite specific that its teaching of Mary as the "Mother of God" is in direct reference to the Redeemer, and that personage of God is Jesus Christ. You may dislike the Catholic Church for a broad range of reasons -- many of which, I'm sure, are justifiable, given its history, but that dislike should be based on facts.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
(the official teaching of the Catholic Church)
Part One: The Profession of Faith
Section Two: The Profession of the Christian Faith
Chapter Three: I Believe in the Holy Spirit
Article 9:
Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ
963 ... "The Virgin Mary ... is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God, of the Redeemer. ... "Mary, Mother of Christ."

Perhaps it would be more productive to spend time on substantive issues rather than on interpretive semantics.

I totally agree! I have several issues with the Catholic Church. But it still preaches the gospel!!!

 

[Endoscopy]

5 minute rule
I have attended mass many times. Once as part of a group. Had an exchange student from Italy. I went to mass with him and he attended our church. Same gospel message! Went to South Africa for work. Attended the Catholic Church the agent for our company had there attended. It was like attending a Baptist Church here. Totally informal. Heard the gospel message. Gee gospel message every time. How can that be?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Perhaps it would be more productive to spend time on substantive issues rather than on interpretive semantics.

It is more than a matter of semantics. Had the RCC (and the EOC) been content to let well enough alone, they would have simply continued with the Bible doctrine that Mary was the mother of Jesus. However the RCC has made Mary into a goddess and worships her.

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, [Mary called Queen, but never in Scripture]
Our life, our sweetness and our hope. [Christ is our life and hope, but Mary has been substituted for Him]
To thee do we cry, [The Bible tells us to only cry to God]
Poor banished children of Eve; [The Bible does not call humans as “banished”]
To thee do we send up our sighs, [The Bible tells us to send our sighs to God]
Mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then, most gracious advocate, [Christ is our divine Advocate, NOT Mary]
Thine eyes of mercy toward us; [Only God can have mercy on anyone, NOT Mary]
And after this our exile,
Show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. [Christ shows Himself to His saints, but not through Mary]
O clement, O loving,
O sweet Virgin Mary.

V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God, [Christ prays for us as our Mediator, NOT Mary]
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. [God makes us worthy of the promises of Christ, NOT Mary]

 

[Jackson123]

How do you know this? Did you speak with this Muslim G-D?

I know by reading her doctrine at lumen gentium II/16

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.

If you want to read complete go to this link

https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2church.htm

 

[Jackson123]

This kind of confusion arises when people follow the false sunday resurrected jesus who leads astray MANY whoever they are...proving scripture true Mat 24.

I follow Jesus, He Rose from the dead, why you care when he Rose? Is that make any different?

 

[JaumeJ]

It seems to me the One being ignored is my Savior, Jesus Christ, Yeshua.

By the time your "elders" came in to convene and vote on what they fabricated came along the anti Hebrew influene was rampant and people were being taught not to worthip God on the same day the Jews in Jesus worshipped Him...They were told by your "elders" if they celebrated the Sabbath of God o the Seventh Day as do the Hebrews in Christ they would be excommunicated.,

Conclaves of men are but a whisper of a breeze...... Know the Word, listen to God, be in Jesus Christ, not in the "elders" yo have idolized of the third and fourth centuries......the damage was already rampant.

You ignore the later elders were still fighting the encroaching heresies and so created the creeds to fight them. Faced with proponents of the heresies they would use the Roman and Apostles Creed to define the heresies as non Christian!

 

[beta]

I follow Jesus, He Rose from the dead, why you care when he Rose? Is that make any different?

Why should we care when Jesus rose from the dead ?
This is a very relevant question Jackson and deserves careful consideration because it 'borders on the spiritual which can only be understood by Spirit.
Most of us believe and understand that Jesus died and rose again on a sunday because the earliest church which happened to be RC tells us this....NOT because we get it from scripture. We trust that the Roman Catholic church did ! But did they ?
On close examination of scripture (too long to get into here) but has been recently discussed in another thread it is found that Jesus did NOT rise on a sunday but at Sabbath sunset.
So why does it matter which day He rose ? because it makes Him to be either True or False in view that many false christs were predicted Mat 24. Had JESUS NOT warned us of this problem then we would not have to worry about other false christs and just focus on Himself....in which case the exact time or day of His resurrection would not matter.
BUT since there are many false christ arising Mat 24, HOW can we know for sure which one is genuine/true ? Only from scripture 1Cor 15v3,4....and not from men or any human-led church.

Is it important to follow the right Jesus ? or can it just be one of the many false ones ? OUR SALVATION DEPENDS ON THE RIGHT ONE !!!

I hope this is not too complicated for you and I am willing to go into more detail step by step to help you and others see Truth which can and will save you !

 

[OneFaith]

The bible says in latter days some will follow deceiving spirits and abandon THE Faith. They didn't abandon faith (belief in God) they abandoned the belief in the doctrine of God- which is the new testament. Sure, they may have mixed truth (scripture) in with their lies, otherwise the contrast would show, and it would not be deceiving. But many did follow these deceptions, and many branch-off churches were created from the true church that Christ established.

So what were some of the things the bible tells that they were deceived about? It says that they were commanded by these deceiving spirits to abstain from certain foods that God wanted them to receive with thanksgiving. (Catholic Lent). They also ordered some people not to marry (Catholic preists and nuns). Aside from these, Jesus says call no man Father (in a religious sense), and that these men love to wear their tassels long and have the most important seats at public events. I've seen the Pope be worshiped with my own eyes, and him gladly accepting it. "He sits on the throne of a church and calls himself God."

"If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit (hell). Do not follow the Catholic church!