Is Roman Catholicism Evil?

[dscherck]

See that's the thing. They are clear. If I was to ask someone who had no clue about salvation what those verses meant, I think they would understand clearly. It's only when people are indoctrinated to believe they are responsible for their salvation that the confusion occurs, they start twisting dozens of clear verses to try to form a doctrine off one verse that isn't perfectly clear (Such as the reference in Janes) or try to change the meanins of the English and the original Greek words of the NT. Which is why basing ones belief on the BIBLE ALONE not tradition is important, because people err, the Bible doesn't. And the best way to interpret the Bible is with the Bible, because no Christian doctrine is ever based off one single verse. Doctrines are repeated from cover to cover through the Scriptures.

See, there's the problem. The idea that the Christian religion is based on the Bible is completely false. The inverse is true. The Bible is based on the teachings of the Christian religion. Remember that the first Christians didn't have Bibles easily accessible to them, and indeed, many of the letters and books that comprise the New Testament weren't compiled until years, sometimes decades after they were written. So, right off the bat we have an issue of, if the Christian religion is Bible based, how could there be any Christians prior to the canonization of the Scriptures?

People do err, Holy Tradition is kept free from error though through the grace of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is a product of Holy Tradition and the Christian Church. Taking it out of the proper context and you find confusion. Thus we see people here debating on things like, infant baptism, is baptism immersion only, do you baptize in the Trinity or in Jesus' name, is baptism symbolic or does it really cleanse our soul, etc... If the Scripture is so clear as you claim, then why are there so many instances where good men and women who base their religion solely on the Bible don't agree on things?

 

[MissTatiana]

See, there's the problem. The idea that the Christian religion is based on the Bible is completely false. The inverse is true. The Bible is based on the teachings of the Christian religion. Remember that the first Christians didn't have Bibles easily accessible to them, and indeed, many of the letters and books that comprise the New Testament weren't compiled until years, sometimes decades after they were written. So, right off the bat we have an issue of, if the Christian religion is Bible based, how could there be any Christians prior to the canonization of the Scriptures?

Thank you for clearing this up! Many Protestants seem to be ignorant of this point--- the Church came first and then the Bible.

 

[Maddog]

See that's the thing. They are clear. If I was to ask someone who had no clue about salvation what those verses meant, I think they would understand clearly.

You think? What is faith? What are works of the law? What is salvation? What is justification? These are concepts that someone completely ignorant would need to be taught. And of course, their understanding of such ideas would depend largely upon the teacher and the faith tradition from which he was drawing (yes, that includes Protestant traditions). If you're going to insist it's clear, fine, but I'm going to insist it's clear that these verses aren't clear as they stand.

It's only when people are indoctrinated...

Oh, that's rich. And what's to stop me from levelling that same charge against you? Viz ''You've clearly been indoctinated with Protestant theology, that's why you interpret and twist these verses as you do''. We could do that, but I'm not sure it'd get us anywhere.

Which is why basing ones belief on the BIBLE ALONE not tradition is important

This is an impossibility. The Bible is not infallible, it is merely inerrant. It cannot speak for itself, it must be read, and as stated, anything we read must be interpreted; that's just how humans work.

because people err, the Bible doesn't.

So we agree? The Bible is inerrant, and man is fallible. So that means that it's possible that yours or the Protestant interpretation of the Bible may be in error?

And the best way to interpret the Bible is with the Bible, because no Christian doctrine is ever based off one single verse. Doctrines are repeated from cover to cover through the Scriptures.

Seems a good plan, but as we've already established, people err. So what we've really got here is a fallible interpretation of Scripture being used to interpret another fallible interpretation of Scripture, which can only lead to fallible conclusions. Now, you may feel confident that you've got it right, but surely you have to admit that there's a very real possibility that you're wrong?

The only solution I can see is if there were some divinely inspired framework (or tradition!) which helps us reach the proper interpretation. I think the Catholics might have one of those, but you'd better ask them.

 

[Warrior44]

Quote: "See that's the thing. They are clear. If I was to ask someone who had no clue about salvation what those verses meant, I think they would understand clearly. It's only when people are indoctrinated to believe they are responsible for their salvation that the confusion occurs, they start twisting dozens of clear verses to try to form a doctrine off one verse that isn't perfectly clear (Such as the reference in Janes) or try to change the meanins of the English and the original Greek words of the NT. Which is why basing ones belief on the BIBLE ALONE not tradition is important, because people err, the Bible doesn't. And the best way to interpret the Bible is with the Bible, because no Christian doctrine is ever based off one single verse. Doctrines are repeated from cover to cover through the Scriptures."

It is common knowledge that many things changed after the Protestant Reformation. One of the things that changed was the way in which the Scriptures were to be interpreted. Many different Protestant denominations hold dear the belief that they are able to interpret the meaning of the Sacred Scriptures in any way that makes sense to them so long as they feel it is correct and guided by the influence of the Holy Spirit. This idea is even fundamental to many denominations. This belief is defended by saying that the meaning of the Bible is clear, or obvious to the reader, and if it isn’t then it will be made clear to the reader through the authority of the Holy Spirit. But what if the Bible doesn’t have a clear meaning? Those that belong to the Catholic and Orthodox religions, as well as many others, believe that the meaning of Scripture is not obvious and the reader needs to be guided to stay on track with his or her interpretations, and they can defend this standpoint by observing the sheer number of Protestant denominations, the origin of the Bible, and the writings of early Christian fathers.
Many Protestants believe in the idea that one can interpret the Holy Scriptures in a way that they feel is necessary based on what they may be feeling emotionally, physically, etc. because they are being guided by the Holy Spirit in their reading. This makes sense in theory and it even goes a little way to explain how there could be different ways to get to Christ. However, in reality, this does not follow through. There are hundreds of different Protestant denominations that all seem to accept this ability to interpret Scriptures freely. If there really was a plain and obvious meaning behind the words of the Bible then there would be agreement among these hundreds of different denominations; and it is plain to see there isn’t. One can argue though that these denominations are in agreement in fundamental beliefs and only differ on the smaller, less significant items. But this is not true because there are differences between such groups as the Trinitarians and Non-Trinitarians, and the Calvinists and Armenians. If the meaning of the Bible was so clear, why are these beliefs of these groups so fundamentally different? For example, say computer installation instructions were given to a number of people who ended up interpreting them in hundreds of different ways. One would question the clarity of those instructions. (Bennet) How then can one say anything different about the “plain meaning” of Scriptures?
To further this point, one can look back into the history of the Scriptures and the dates of when they were compiled. The books of the New and Old Testaments were not collected as one Book until a couple of centuries after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ. Until it was made accessible to them, the early Christians needed to depend upon the tradition of the Church. This dependency on tradition was important for the correct formation of the early Christians in their religious lives. Once the Church put the books together, the Bible was not mass-produced. Rather it was preached and explained to the followers of Christ by the priests who were familiar with Church teaching and tradition. So the Bible was not compiled to be read by any person without interpretation. The Scriptures themselves say that they cannot be clearly understood: “So Philip ran to him, and heard [the Ethiopian] reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him” (Acts 8:30-31, RSV). To use the computer example again, if a person had a question about the instructions, wouldn’t the best choice be to ask the writers of the instructions rather than come to his own conclusions of what they mean? (Bennet) So historically then, we can see that the Scriptures were meant to be studied along with the help of the Priests of the early Church.
The influence of the early Christian writers did not die with them, but carry through to this day and age of free interpretation of the Bible. These Church Fathers formed beliefs based on Scriptural references, some of which are not shared by Protestants today. For example: “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?’ Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’” (John 3:3-5, NASB). Some Protestant denominations would interpret this as the birth of water being the physical birth and the birth of the Spirit to be when they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. And this makes sense, but if one was to look at what the early Church historians have to say about it, they say that it is a direct reference to the waters of Baptism. For 1600 years this was the way it was understood. Even Martin Luther agreed that this referred to Baptism. But if one was to take this particular Protestant viewpoint, then one comes to an interesting conclusion: the meaning of the Scriptures was so clear that 16 centuries of Bible readers completely missed the obvious, plain meaning of the text. Of course this actually means that the Scriptures really aren’t clear because every interpreter before the Reformation didn’t come up with the “clear” meaning. This is just one example of how the “clear meaning” of the Scriptures can be different for one person, for another person, and for the Apostles. We can see quite clearly that if a century and a half of people missed the meaning, then the Scriptures aren’t obvious to anyone that reads them (Bennet).
Nevertheless this continues to be a strongly debated topic to the present date. Some say that Scripture really is easy to interpret, however we can’t interpret it easily because of the fall of Adam and Eve so our original sin makes it difficult for us to interpret Scripture. This certainly makes sense, however, it still leads to the fact that the Scriptures need interpreting in order to be read correctly. One can see this from the different number of denominations, what the history of the Scriptures looks like, and the opinions and interpretations of the early Bible commentators. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches both believe that the Bible cannot be interpreted freely, so they accept the teaching Church Tradition as a guide to lead them to the truth in their reading. They are not told what to believe, but rather they use the Church’s guidance like a roadmap to help them get to their ultimate destination safely.

 

[Brandon777]

The reason why the original Protestant Martin Luther disliked the Roman Catholic Church was corruption, false teachings and too much reliance on tradition. Traditions of men do not get us to heaven, although some may help the Kingdom of God. A church becomes a cult when the call to repentance to Jesus Christ is taken out. The important thing to consider with being a Roman Catholic is if you profess Jesus Christ as King and master of your life rather than idolizing Mother Mary or the other saints. And prayer belongs to God alone. Talking to dead people is a sin, including saints so...

 

[dscherck]

The reason why the original Protestant Martin Luther disliked the Roman Catholic Church was corruption, false teachings and too much reliance on tradition. Traditions of men do not get us to heaven, although some may help the Kingdom of God. A church becomes a cult when the call to repentance to Jesus Christ is taken out. The important thing to consider with being a Roman Catholic is if you profess Jesus Christ as King and master of your life rather than idolizing Mother Mary or the other saints. And prayer belongs to God alone. Talking to dead people is a sin, including saints so...

The saints are not dead. Scripture is quite clear on that.
Idolizing the Theotokos is a heresy that is strongly condemned. We don't idolize her, we do however honour her as the mother of Our Lord and as befitting the queen mother of the King of Kings.

And remember that we are told in the Scriptures itself to hold fast to the traditions passed on to us, either written OR by word of mouth.

 

[Laodicea]

The saints are not dead. Scripture is quite clear on that.
Idolizing the Theotokos is a heresy that is strongly condemned. We don't idolize her, we do however honour her as the mother of Our Lord and as befitting the queen mother of the King of Kings.

And remember that we are told in the Scriptures itself to hold fast to the traditions passed on to us, either written OR by word of mouth.

Where in the Bible does it say that the saints are not dead? For the Bible says

Ecclesiastes 9:5
(5) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Also we need to be careful of tradition

Matthew 15:3
(3) But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

 

[Crypto]

The only solution I can see is if there were some divinely inspired framework (or tradition!) which helps us reach the proper interpretation. I think the Catholics might have one of those, but you'd better ask them.

The Catholic tradition is in total contradiction to what the Scriptures say, which I showed above. But this thread is a waste of my time, because I have to keep repeating the same arguments with no one disproving them, so I'm unsubscribing. Thanks for the discussion everyone.

 

[dscherck]

The Catholic tradition is in total contradiction to what the Scriptures say, which I showed above. But this thread is a waste of my time, because I have to keep repeating the same arguments with no one disproving them, so I'm unsubscribing. Thanks for the discussion everyone.

The Catholic tradition is in contradiction to your personal interpretation. However, it is in perfect accordance to what Scripture teaches.

 

[dscherck]

Where in the Bible does it say that the saints are not dead? For the Bible says

Ecclesiastes 9:5
(5) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Also we need to be careful of tradition

Matthew 15:3
(3) But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Eph. 3:14-15- we are all one family ("Catholic") in heaven and on earth, united together, as children of the Father, through Jesus Christ. Our brothers and sisters who have gone to heaven before us are not a different family. We are one and the same family. This is why, in the Apostles Creed, we profess a belief in the "communion of saints." There cannot be a "communion" if there is no union. Loving beings, whether on earth or in heaven, are concerned for other beings, and this concern is reflected spiritually through prayers for one another.

Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 - this family is in Jesus Christ, the head of the body, which is the Church.

1 Cor. 12:12,27; Rom. 12:5; Col. 3:15; Eph. 4:4 - we are the members of the one body of Christ, supernaturally linked together by our partaking of the Eucharist.

Rom. 8:35-39 - therefore, death does not separate the family of God and the love of Christ. We are still united with each other, even beyond death.

Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30 - Jesus converses with "deceased" Moses and Elijah. They are more alive than the saints on earth.

Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38 - God is the God of the living not the dead. The living on earth and in heaven are one family.

Luke 15:7,10 – if the angels and saints experience joy in heaven over our repentance, then they are still connected to us and are aware of our behavior.

John 15:1-6 - Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. The good branches are not cut off at death. They are alive in heaven.

1 Cor. 4:9 – because we can become a spectacle not only to men, but to angels as well, this indicates that angels are aware of our earthly activity. Those in heaven are connected to those on earth.

1 Cor. 12:26 - when one member suffers, all suffer. When one is honored, all rejoice. We are in this together as one family.

1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2 - now we see in a mirror dimly, but in heaven we see face to face. The saints are more alive than we are!

Heb. 12:1: we are surrounded by a great glory cloud (shekinah) of witnesses. The “cloud of witnesses” refers to the saints who are not only watching us from above but cheering us on in our race to heaven.

1 Peter 2:9; Rev. 20:6 - we are a royal family of priests by virtue of baptism. We as priests intercede on behalf of each other.

2 Peter 1:4 - since God is the eternal family and we are His children, we are partakers of His divine nature as a united family.

1 Cor. 1:2; Rom. 1:7 - we are called to be saints. Saints refer to both those on earth and in heaven who are in Christ. Proof:

Acts 9:13,32,41; 26:10; 1 Cor. 6:1-2; 14:33; 2 Cor. 1:1; 8:4; 9:1-2; 13:13; Rom. 8:27; 12:23; 15:25,26, 31; 16:2,15; Eph. 1:1,15,18; 3:8; 5:3; 6:18; Phil. 1:1; 4:22; Col 1:2,4,26; 1 Tm 5:10; Philemon 1:5,7; Heb. 6:10; 13:24; Jude 1:3; Rev. 11:18; 13:7; 14:12; 16:6; 17:6;18:20,24; Rev 19:8; 20:9 - in these verses, we see that Christians still living on earth are called "saints."

Matt. 27:52; Eph. 2:19; 3:18; Col. 1:12; 2 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 5:8; 8:3-4; 11:18; 13:10 - in these verses, we also see that "saints" also refer to those in heaven who united with us.

Dan. 4:13,23; 8:23 – we also see that the angels in heaven are also called “saints.” The same Hebrew word “qaddiysh” (holy one) is applied to both humans and angels in heaven. Hence, there are angel saints in heaven and human saints in heaven and on earth. Loving beings (whether angels or saints) are concerned for other beings, and prayer is the spiritual way of expressing that love.




Regarding tradition:


Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth."

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is "preached" (not read) to me is not a man's Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church's living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have "heard" (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have "heard" (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God's word is manifested "through preaching" (not writing). This "preaching" is the tradition that comes from the apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was "preached" (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles' successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a "means to recall these things in mind." But since this was his last canonical epistle, this "means to recall" must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God's appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isa. 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isa. 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

 

[Laodicea]

Eph. 3:14-15- we are all one family ("Catholic") in heaven and on earth, united together, as children of the Father, through Jesus Christ. Our brothers and sisters who have gone to heaven before us are not a different family. We are one and the same family. This is why, in the Apostles Creed, we profess a belief in the "communion of saints." There cannot be a "communion" if there is no union. Loving beings, whether on earth or in heaven, are concerned for other beings, and this concern is reflected spiritually through prayers for one another.

Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 - this family is in Jesus Christ, the head of the body, which is the Church.

1 Cor. 12:12,27; Rom. 12:5; Col. 3:15; Eph. 4:4 - we are the members of the one body of Christ, supernaturally linked together by our partaking of the Eucharist.

Rom. 8:35-39 - therefore, death does not separate the family of God and the love of Christ. We are still united with each other, even beyond death.

Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30 - Jesus converses with "deceased" Moses and Elijah. They are more alive than the saints on earth.

Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38 - God is the God of the living not the dead. The living on earth and in heaven are one family.

Luke 15:7,10 – if the angels and saints experience joy in heaven over our repentance, then they are still connected to us and are aware of our behavior.

John 15:1-6 - Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. The good branches are not cut off at death. They are alive in heaven.

1 Cor. 4:9 – because we can become a spectacle not only to men, but to angels as well, this indicates that angels are aware of our earthly activity. Those in heaven are connected to those on earth.

1 Cor. 12:26 - when one member suffers, all suffer. When one is honored, all rejoice. We are in this together as one family.

1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2 - now we see in a mirror dimly, but in heaven we see face to face. The saints are more alive than we are!

Heb. 12:1: we are surrounded by a great glory cloud (shekinah) of witnesses. The “cloud of witnesses” refers to the saints who are not only watching us from above but cheering us on in our race to heaven.

1 Peter 2:9; Rev. 20:6 - we are a royal family of priests by virtue of baptism. We as priests intercede on behalf of each other.

2 Peter 1:4 - since God is the eternal family and we are His children, we are partakers of His divine nature as a united family.

1 Cor. 1:2; Rom. 1:7 - we are called to be saints. Saints refer to both those on earth and in heaven who are in Christ. Proof:

Acts 9:13,32,41; 26:10; 1 Cor. 6:1-2; 14:33; 2 Cor. 1:1; 8:4; 9:1-2; 13:13; Rom. 8:27; 12:23; 15:25,26, 31; 16:2,15; Eph. 1:1,15,18; 3:8; 5:3; 6:18; Phil. 1:1; 4:22; Col 1:2,4,26; 1 Tm 5:10; Philemon 1:5,7; Heb. 6:10; 13:24; Jude 1:3; Rev. 11:18; 13:7; 14:12; 16:6; 17:6;18:20,24; Rev 19:8; 20:9 - in these verses, we see that Christians still living on earth are called "saints."

Matt. 27:52; Eph. 2:19; 3:18; Col. 1:12; 2 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 5:8; 8:3-4; 11:18; 13:10 - in these verses, we also see that "saints" also refer to those in heaven who united with us.

Dan. 4:13,23; 8:23 – we also see that the angels in heaven are also called “saints.” The same Hebrew word “qaddiysh” (holy one) is applied to both humans and angels in heaven. Hence, there are angel saints in heaven and human saints in heaven and on earth. Loving beings (whether angels or saints) are concerned for other beings, and prayer is the spiritual way of expressing that love.




Regarding tradition:


Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth."

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is "preached" (not read) to me is not a man's Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church's living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have "heard" (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have "heard" (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God's word is manifested "through preaching" (not writing). This "preaching" is the tradition that comes from the apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was "preached" (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles' successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a "means to recall these things in mind." But since this was his last canonical epistle, this "means to recall" must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God's appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isa. 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isa. 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

I can see that you have spent quite alot of time on this which is to be commended but I have a problem believing that we live after we die cause the Bible says

Psalms 146:4
(4) His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
Ecclesiastes 9:5
(5) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Also the Bible says that Moses was resurrected

Jude 1:9
(9) Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

If Moses went straight to heaven when he died then why did they dispute the body of Moses?

Jesus told his disciples that some would not taste death till they have seen the lord coming

Luke 9:27-30
(27) But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
(28) And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.
(29) And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.
(30) And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:

Moses represented those who will be resurrected when Jesus returns and Elias those who will be alive

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
(16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
(17) Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I pray that you will consider these texts and pray about it and be like those in Berea
Acts 17:11

 

[IrisHouse]

The Catholics are our brothers and sisters, and we should love them as such, so no, they are not evil. Anyone who believes otherwise can think what they like, but these days everyone uses the word hate, why not try love instead ?

 

[loveschild]

We are commanded to love even if one is in the wrong. We are commanded to forgive and to pray for people. We can pray and hope people will come to know the truth. There are truths in the bible. There are things in the bible we are warned of.

I'll tell you a true story. I have a friend who was in the Catholic church. She was Catholic. Her husband died. She fell in love with her Christian man. She wanted to marry in her church. She loved her church. The church told her because her man was not a Catholic she could not get married in the church she had gone to all of her life. She was broken hearted.

She cried out to the Lord why Lord whats going on. The Lord started talking to her. Her husband had her read the bible. She hadn't ever read the bible because the Catholic church said only priest could read the bible. She started talking to the Lord and told him to prove himself to her.

He told her not to morn over not being able to go to that church. He told her to get her rosaries, all her beautiful saints she had always prayed to and burn them. Why these are precious to me. She wanted to obey God. Well can I give them away these cost a lot of money. No burn them. She told her husband and they went in the yard and prayed and threw the things in the burning barrel. Screams came out of the fire to the horror of her and her husband. Demonic screams.

The things in the bible are true and they are in there for good reason. You don't have to believe anything in the bible but all of it is true, none the less.

 

[bobie]

lol i thought i was the only one who voted mel gibson!

 

[Scotth1960]

Let's look at how many Biblical principals catholicism violates.. 1 They call a preist father, and the book of Matheew says that no ,man is to called father, 2 They pray to saints,, which is idol worship. 3 they go to a preist to intercede to God for them when Christ is our priest to intercede for us. 4. The preist tells you to say a few vain repetaive prayers that mean nothing and all is forgiven. 5 , They have graven images in the church.. threr may be more.. but these are the ones i can think of af hand

Eastern Orthodoxy is not the same Faith as Roman Catholicism. But Orthodoxy says it is not wrong to call priests father. It depends on what Christ meant by "call no man father". See Peter E. Gillquist's book "Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith". Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1992. Praying to saints is not idol worship, and we don't pray TO saints, but THROUGH them. They are alive in heaven. See Scripture for bishops and priests and deacons, these all intercede before God for us. Scripture says to pray without ceasing, so repeated prayers are not intrinsically forbidden or wrong. Eastern Orthodox icons are not idols or graven images. Much of Roman Catholicism is good and right, because it retains much from the time when Roman Catholicism was Eastern Orthodox. It became a separate, different faith by deviating from the norm and infallible criterion of Christian Faith that is Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[MissTatiana]

We are commanded to love even if one is in the wrong. We are commanded to forgive and to pray for people. We can pray and hope people will come to know the truth. There are truths in the bible. There are things in the bible we are warned of.

I'll tell you a true story. I have a friend who was in the Catholic church. She was Catholic. Her husband died. She fell in love with her Christian man. She wanted to marry in her church. She loved her church. The church told her because her man was not a Catholic she could not get married in the church she had gone to all of her life. She was broken hearted.

The Catholic Church allows for Catholics to marry non-Catholics, so I'm not sure why her priest would not let her get married again. Catholics are allowed to re-marry if the spouse has passed away. If they had gotten divorced and he was still alive, they would have to try to get an annulment (which states that they were basically never married in the first place). Annulments are not automatically given out-- there is a process.

So this is NOT the norm of what Catholics practice. Priests can err--- perhaps there was some other issue as well. In order to get married you have to go through a "Pre-nuptial Investigation" and as well as complete an Inventory (questionnaire) before you can get married. The priest might have found some issue that would prevent him from marrying them.

For example, if they failed a few parts of the Inventory they are required to go through counseling together before the Church will marry them. Or if they refuse to have children -or- refuse to raise them as Catholics, they might be denied a marriage as well.

The Church does not have to marry any person just because they want to get married. The Church is trying to protect the sanctity of Holy Matrimony from those who just want to rush into it. So this story is probably not as clear cut as you're trying to make it sound.

She cried out to the Lord why Lord whats going on. The Lord started talking to her. Her husband had her read the bible. She hadn't ever read the bible because the Catholic church said only priest could read the bible. She started talking to the Lord and told him to prove himself to her.

This is also extremely false. Perhaps she has a very poorly trained priest, but the Catholic Church encourages that we read the Bible daily. They also encourage that people attend Mass daily, where the Scriptures are read a few times and practiced in other ways.

Once again, either this friend of yours misinterpreted what the priest said/taught -or- the priest is not upholding what the faith truly teaches.

He told her not to morn over not being able to go to that church. He told her to get her rosaries, all her beautiful saints she had always prayed to and burn them. Why these are precious to me. She wanted to obey God. Well can I give them away these cost a lot of money. No burn them. She told her husband and they went in the yard and prayed and threw the things in the burning barrel. Screams came out of the fire to the horror of her and her husband. Demonic screams.

More than likely Satan allowed for the screams to happen so that she and her husband would turn away from God and the heavenly Church. I pray the Rosary often and it has brought me much closer to God-- I am so sorry to hear that she is being persuaded that these are evil things. They are not.

The things in the bible are true and they are in there for good reason. You don't have to believe anything in the bible but all of it is true, none the less.

The Holy Scriptures are our source of nourishment, but God reaches us and nourishes us in other ways. Once again, I encourage you to do your own research on the topics, such as the Eucharist and the Rosary, and find the Biblical and historical support to why Catholics believe in them.

 

[MissTatiana]

The Catholics are our brothers and sisters, and we should love them as such, so no, they are not evil. Anyone who believes otherwise can think what they like, but these days everyone uses the word hate, why not try love instead ?

Thank you for at least keeping an open mind and heart It was very scary for me to tell my Protestant friends that I was going to become a Catholic Christian. Some friends completely turned their backs on me, but thankfully most continued to still show me love and friendship.

I'm hoping more Brothers and Sisters in Christ will see the light of love.

 

[loveschild]

[/b][/color]The Catholic Church allows for Catholics to marry non-Catholics, so I'm not sure why her priest would not let her get married again. Catholics are allowed to re-marry if the spouse has passed away. If they had gotten divorced and he was still alive, they would have to try to get an annulment (which states that they were basically never married in the first place). Annulments are not automatically given out-- there is a process.

So this is NOT the norm of what Catholics practice. Priests can err--- perhaps there was some other issue as well. In order to get married you have to go through a "Pre-nuptial Investigation" and as well as complete an Inventory (questionnaire) before you can get married. The priest might have found some issue that would prevent him from marrying them.

For example, if they failed a few parts of the Inventory they are required to go through counseling together before the Church will marry them. Or if they refuse to have children -or- refuse to raise them as Catholics, they might be denied a marriage as well.

The Church does not have to marry any person just because they want to get married. The Church is trying to protect the sanctity of Holy Matrimony from those who just want to rush into it. So this story is probably not as clear cut as you're trying to make it sound.


This is also extremely false. Perhaps she has a very poorly trained priest, but the Catholic Church encourages that we read the Bible daily. They also encourage that people attend Mass daily, where the Scriptures are read a few times and practiced in other ways.

Once again, either this friend of yours misinterpreted what the priest said/taught -or- the priest is not upholding what the faith truly teaches.

More than likely Satan allowed for the screams to happen so that she and her husband would turn away from God and the heavenly Church. I pray the Rosary often and it has brought me much closer to God-- I am so sorry to hear that she is being persuaded that these are evil things. They are not.



The Holy Scriptures are our source of nourishment, but God reaches us and nourishes us in other ways. Once again, I encourage you to do your own research on the topics, such as the Eucharist and the Rosary, and find the Biblical and historical support to why Catholics believe in them.

Hi all I said happened. I heard all my life they weren't allowed to read there bibles. They were not allowed to marry in the church. Your church may not be like this but it is history the church has been like this for many many years. You should know your won church history.

But you missed the whole point. Demons in the false gods screamed when burned. That should have been a clue to the clueless. This is not some make believe story. We have enough things in life to deal with. Doing things that God strictly forbids because it is witchcraft.

I have been in another person house who used to be a Catholic. She turned to our Lord thank God. The Lord showed me how her house was covered in his blood. But there were blank spots on the walls of blood covering her house. Why Lord this is not good? The house has to be completely covered in your blood you know this Lord. I had a tour of her new home she thought she would never get. I told her she would get a new home we just had to pray and trust and it would be so. It was so in about 2 months. On the tour, her daughter had a rosary hanging on the wall of her bedroom. I told her that had to go. It carries a curse. So when the Lord showed me the blood on the walls and it had holes in the blood I knew the rosary was part of the problem. I asked the Lord what else is wrong. He told me to ask her what other things she had from being a Catholic so I did. She came out with this cross with a dead Jesus hanging on it. The sign of Satan, that he defeated Jesus at the cross. You know that is just what Satanist, witches an all are trained, Satan defeated Jesus on the cross. I told her in order to take the holes away in the blood of Jesus she had to get rid of all these things. They are symbles of Satan and they have demons in them. They make holes in the protection of God. It is up to her as to what she does. I can only tell her the truth. Those things are evil. They are warned of by God. But you all can do what ever you want.

 

[rainacorn]

I think we all, to some degree, choose a denomination based on our own desires. Even if we're going with whatever our parents did, it's probably because we put a lot of value on familial tradition.

I was raised Catholic, but I felt like it wasn't a good fit for me, specifically because of my family. I'm still appalled by how little they know about the Bible. It also bothers me quite a bit when they say people are 'too focused on Jesus.' I know this isn't true of EVERY Catholic, just saying it's my personal experience with Catholicism. To my family, it's a nationality/culture thing. Not an actual relationship with God thing.

I'm sure I could look for a Catholic church and possibly even find one that regularly studies the Bible and doesn't do so much chanting and recitation. It's probably out there somewhere. But I found a quaint little protestant Bible church that suits me just fine. They do serious Bible study every chance they get and encourage personal growth in Christ. I've learned a lot there and enjoy the hand-clappy services. Feels like willing worship instead of some kind of act of obedience.

My sister, however, loooooves tradition and discipline. She's become Orthodox. It works for her and makes her feel close to God. That's the point, right?

 

[Warrior44]

I am sorry that many of you have come in contact with misled Catholics. Catholics ARE encouraged to read the Bible, as much as possible. Catholics ARE allowed to marry non-Catholics and have invalid marriages annulled. Catholics use the crucifix as a reminder of Jesus' sacrifice for mankind. The devil in no way "defeated" Jesus. He chose of his own free will to die on the cross for our sins. Lastly the Catholic Church teaches that there is no such thing as too focused on Jesus. After all, He is our Savior. But the Catholic Church also teaches devotion to God the Father and the Holy Spirit-the other two persons of the Blessed Trinity, as well as Mary and the Saints. Hopefully this helps clear up some misunderstandings. God bless.