Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Nice try! The true Church is the pillar of truth because it adheres to the word of God and not by its own teachings. The church is not its own authority, but looks to the word of God as its source for all truth. What you described above allows those who lead the church to dictate scripture and any new teachings. If the RCC or any entity teaches anything that is contrary to scripture, then scripture is the authority. The Berean's searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was the truth. They didn't take him at his word or consult the Church, but checked the scriptures themselves. All believer's should do the same. That being said, if anyone's church is preaching anything that is contrary to scripture, they should be concerned and look into it a believer in Christ. The word of God is the authority over all.
Regarding the above, scripture shows that believer's are authorized to know and proclaim the word of God.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
The above doesn't depend on the Magisterium, but to the servant of God.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
The above doesn't depend on the Magisterium, but to the servant of God.
Pay attention, because the scripture was given above regarding the Berean's. But, if you really want the chapter and verse, here it is again:
"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11)
They examined the scriptures, not the church or anyone else. The word of God is the authority for all believers. How else would we be able to know a false teaching from the truth? If anyone teaches anything contrary to scripture, it should be deemed as false.
"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11)
They examined the scriptures, not the church or anyone else. The word of God is the authority for all believers. How else would we be able to know a false teaching from the truth? If anyone teaches anything contrary to scripture, it should be deemed as false.
1. Beliefs about Mary's origins and current place in the Kingdom are non-essentials.
2. The vast majority of Christendom adheres to the idea of the "Real Presence." The idea that communion is "just symbolic" comes from Zwingli in the 1600s. So, Christians for about 1600 years believed in the Real Presence (based on scriptures, btw), and then Zwingli presents an idea that was followed by SOME (not even the majority) of Protestants. The children of these Zwinglians now want to pretend that the concept of the Real Presence is a Roman Catholic idea. It's not.
3. Other churches besides the RCC observe sacraments. Believing that certain spiritual disciplines are sacramental isn't an RCC thing. It's an early church thing. Again, it wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that certain groups denied the sacramental nature of various spiritual disciplines. Now people want to re-write history and pretend that it's an RCC thing.
4. Prayer to saints is a non-essential (but it has a scriptural foundation)
5. "pagan Egyptian obelisk"...yeah, I have no idea what you're referencing here, but how about that consumeristic coffeeshop within the building of that protestant church?
So, here's what I've observed. None of your arguments address ANY issues of orthodoxy. You've presented zero evidence that the RCC violates orthodoxy. You have, however, presented several ideas in a limited way. This is typically referred to as "spin."
In other words, your presentations of these supposed "violations" aren't even accurate but designed to promote your already existing underlying view that the RCC is the "woman who rides the beast." (This, btw, is more Reformation falsehoods that have been brought into the present as unquestionable truths. What you do is you start with a "truth" and then go back and manipulate scripture to support it).
2. The vast majority of Christendom adheres to the idea of the "Real Presence." The idea that communion is "just symbolic" comes from Zwingli in the 1600s. So, Christians for about 1600 years believed in the Real Presence (based on scriptures, btw), and then Zwingli presents an idea that was followed by SOME (not even the majority) of Protestants. The children of these Zwinglians now want to pretend that the concept of the Real Presence is a Roman Catholic idea. It's not.
3. Other churches besides the RCC observe sacraments. Believing that certain spiritual disciplines are sacramental isn't an RCC thing. It's an early church thing. Again, it wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that certain groups denied the sacramental nature of various spiritual disciplines. Now people want to re-write history and pretend that it's an RCC thing.
4. Prayer to saints is a non-essential (but it has a scriptural foundation)
5. "pagan Egyptian obelisk"...yeah, I have no idea what you're referencing here, but how about that consumeristic coffeeshop within the building of that protestant church?
So, here's what I've observed. None of your arguments address ANY issues of orthodoxy. You've presented zero evidence that the RCC violates orthodoxy. You have, however, presented several ideas in a limited way. This is typically referred to as "spin."
In other words, your presentations of these supposed "violations" aren't even accurate but designed to promote your already existing underlying view that the RCC is the "woman who rides the beast." (This, btw, is more Reformation falsehoods that have been brought into the present as unquestionable truths. What you do is you start with a "truth" and then go back and manipulate scripture to support it).
You are correct. The Church is the pillar of truth because it adheres to the Word of God. Its teaches are derived from this and sacred Tradition. But it only declares teachings that are in full agreement with both. You are correct that the Church isn't its own authority. It derives its authority from God.
This verse simply states that believers are free to use the Bible for the things listed. Not that they are are to declare doctrine. Doctrine is not listed.
The Bible is clear Peter had authority above the other apostles. Meaning he had the final say.
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." (Mt 16:18-19)
The Bible is clear Peter had authority above the other apostles. Meaning he had the final say.
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." (Mt 16:18-19)
The verb "is" in verse 20 is the translation of the word 'ginomai' which according to Strong's Lexicon means, "to cause to be, to become, come into being." Hence the sense of this verse is this: "no prophecy of Scripture 'came into being' by any private interpretation." The apostle Peter is here speaking about the process by which the Scriptures came into being, namely, their origin, and not about the understanding of Scripture already given.
Peter says that no Scripture came into being by 'private interpretation' - that is by one's own explanation. Whom does he have in mind? Is it the reader, or the men who penned the Scriptures? Since Peter is speaking about the origin of Scripture, it seems likely that he is talking about the prophets themselves. In other words, Peter is saying that the Scriptures did not originate in the prophets' own understanding. This could be confirmed if we read the following verse since the apostle Peter gives the reason why scripture did not come into being of the prophets' own understanding, "for" he continues, "prophecy never came by the will of man." The prophets did not invent the Scriptures. Rather, they were God's instruments to write his Word: "...holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
So, this verse does not discourage believers from reading and understanding the Bible for ourselves, but it does give us full confidence why we should trust the Scriptures. Though written by men, the Scriptures do not have their origin in the human mind but in the mind of God the Holy Spirit. The Bible is the Word of God.
Peter says that no Scripture came into being by 'private interpretation' - that is by one's own explanation. Whom does he have in mind? Is it the reader, or the men who penned the Scriptures? Since Peter is speaking about the origin of Scripture, it seems likely that he is talking about the prophets themselves. In other words, Peter is saying that the Scriptures did not originate in the prophets' own understanding. This could be confirmed if we read the following verse since the apostle Peter gives the reason why scripture did not come into being of the prophets' own understanding, "for" he continues, "prophecy never came by the will of man." The prophets did not invent the Scriptures. Rather, they were God's instruments to write his Word: "...holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
So, this verse does not discourage believers from reading and understanding the Bible for ourselves, but it does give us full confidence why we should trust the Scriptures. Though written by men, the Scriptures do not have their origin in the human mind but in the mind of God the Holy Spirit. The Bible is the Word of God.
The verb "is" in verse 20 is the translation of the word 'ginomai' which according to Strong's Lexicon means, "to cause to be, to become, come into being." Hence the sense of this verse is this: "no prophecy of Scripture 'came into being' by any private interpretation." The apostle Peter is here speaking about the process by which the Scriptures came into being, namely, their origin, and not about the understanding of Scripture already given.
Peter says that no Scripture came into being by 'private interpretation' - that is by one's own explanation. Whom does he have in mind? Is it the reader, or the men who penned the Scriptures? Since Peter is speaking about the origin of Scripture, it seems likely that he is talking about the prophets themselves. In other words, Peter is saying that the Scriptures did not originate in the prophets' own understanding. This could be confirmed if we read the following verse since the apostle Peter gives the reason why scripture did not come into being of the prophets' own understanding, "for" he continues, "prophecy never came by the will of man." The prophets did not invent the Scriptures. Rather, they were God's instruments to write his Word: "...holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
So, this verse does not discourage believers from reading and understanding the Bible for ourselves, but it does give us full confidence why we should trust the Scriptures. Though written by men, the Scriptures do not have their origin in the human mind but in the mind of God the Holy Spirit. The Bible is the Word of God.
Peter says that no Scripture came into being by 'private interpretation' - that is by one's own explanation. Whom does he have in mind? Is it the reader, or the men who penned the Scriptures? Since Peter is speaking about the origin of Scripture, it seems likely that he is talking about the prophets themselves. In other words, Peter is saying that the Scriptures did not originate in the prophets' own understanding. This could be confirmed if we read the following verse since the apostle Peter gives the reason why scripture did not come into being of the prophets' own understanding, "for" he continues, "prophecy never came by the will of man." The prophets did not invent the Scriptures. Rather, they were God's instruments to write his Word: "...holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
So, this verse does not discourage believers from reading and understanding the Bible for ourselves, but it does give us full confidence why we should trust the Scriptures. Though written by men, the Scriptures do not have their origin in the human mind but in the mind of God the Holy Spirit. The Bible is the Word of God.
That's an interesting way of looking at the verse and I don't reject that interpretation. But I would argue that even that way of looking at it would imply that we are not to form our own doctrines from Scripture as individuals. For if the Scriptures did not originate in the prophets own understanding but only by the Holy Spirit, what right do we have to interpret them? Did God give us that same ability through the Holy Spirit? I would call it arrogance to think so.
i fully agree with your last paragraph. The Church is for reading and studying the Bible.
Last edited:
Hi PoetMary,
That information that I have given you are the dogma's of the RCC. I think that you need to go back and study exactly what Roman Catholicism believes. Your reference to the idea that communion is "just symbolic" comes from Zwingli in the 1600s," I am not getting that information from them, but from scripture. I wish that you guys would actually read the scriptures that I present. So here it is again, scripture states (not Zwigli) that Jesus took bread and broke it and said "this is my body" which is broken for you. Then he took the cup and said, "this is my blood" which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins for many. Therefore, the bread is figurative for the Lord's body and the wine is figurative of his blood. The following is right from the counsel of Trent:
" If anyone denies that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, but says that Christ is present in the Sacrament only as symbolically or figuratively, or by his power: let him be anathema." - council of Trent (1545-1563):
So, take note of the dogma above, that it came straight from the RCC's counsel of Trent and not from the Zwingli's.
No, praying to saints has no scriptural foundation. we are never to pray to saints or to angels, but to God the Father though Jesus Christ. He is the One who makes intercession for us. There is no where in scripture that even hints that we are to pray to saints.
Obviously, you are not aware of the pagan Egyptian obelisk that sits in the middle of St.Peter's square. Remember, we are showing the characteristics of the RCC and having a pagan obelisk sitting the front of what is supposed to represent Christianity demonstrates who she really is. If you can't understand that, then you need to really do some study on the RCC and compare it to the word of God before commenting on it.
Typical, just ignore all of the scriptural proofs presented and act like they don't matter. Everything that I presented is RCC dogma and therefore is opposed to the word of God. Also, I don't manipulate scripture, I list it just as it appears in the word of God. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised at your response, for it is written that many will be deceived by this last day false religious system and you are already on your way.
Last edited:
Hi zzz98,
Let me ask you a question: How would you know whether or not something regarding what God has said was true or not? How would you go about finding out whether or not anything being told to you regarding God is true or false? What source would you check to find that out? Now regarding those questions, keep in mind that we as believers are to be on our guard discerning the difference between the true gospel and false gospel's, which we have been warned about in scripture by the apostles. How would you be able to tell the difference? You would have to have some standard to go by. Something reliable and authoritative from God, otherwise it would just be the teaching's of men. So, where would you go to authenticate that what you are being taught is from God? Below is a good example of what I am talking about:
"At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time."
Now, if someone comes to me and says that the Messiah has been out in a secret place for some time and is just waiting for the proper time to reveal himself. I am going to go and claim the scripture above because Jesus warned us about this very thing, that people would come and say that the Messiah is out in the desert or in the secret room. Therefore, because I have the word of God, I can be confident when someone comes to me and teaches something that is not in sync with the word of God, then I can dismiss it as being a false teaching. And believe me, many people have already made the claim that the Messiah is out in the desert or in the secret places.
The word of God is the only authority to be able to know what is the truth and what is a lie. If the pope or its liturgy teaches me something that is not in agreement with the word of God, then I should trust in the word of God and not in men. And not only the Pope, but any other teacher in the world that is teaching that does not agree with what is written in Scripture and that because it is God-Breathed. When tempted by Satan, Jesus quoted scripture to him. Paul and the other apostles quoted from scripture. Believers in Christ should eat, drink and sleep the word of God.
Let me ask you a question: How would you know whether or not something regarding what God has said was true or not? How would you go about finding out whether or not anything being told to you regarding God is true or false? What source would you check to find that out? Now regarding those questions, keep in mind that we as believers are to be on our guard discerning the difference between the true gospel and false gospel's, which we have been warned about in scripture by the apostles. How would you be able to tell the difference? You would have to have some standard to go by. Something reliable and authoritative from God, otherwise it would just be the teaching's of men. So, where would you go to authenticate that what you are being taught is from God? Below is a good example of what I am talking about:
"At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time."
Now, if someone comes to me and says that the Messiah has been out in a secret place for some time and is just waiting for the proper time to reveal himself. I am going to go and claim the scripture above because Jesus warned us about this very thing, that people would come and say that the Messiah is out in the desert or in the secret room. Therefore, because I have the word of God, I can be confident when someone comes to me and teaches something that is not in sync with the word of God, then I can dismiss it as being a false teaching. And believe me, many people have already made the claim that the Messiah is out in the desert or in the secret places.
The word of God is the only authority to be able to know what is the truth and what is a lie. If the pope or its liturgy teaches me something that is not in agreement with the word of God, then I should trust in the word of God and not in men. And not only the Pope, but any other teacher in the world that is teaching that does not agree with what is written in Scripture and that because it is God-Breathed. When tempted by Satan, Jesus quoted scripture to him. Paul and the other apostles quoted from scripture. Believers in Christ should eat, drink and sleep the word of God.
It is not an Egyptian Obelisk, first of all. It is a Roman one. Based on tradition and history that obelisk sat in the center of the "Circus" or Horse racing track on the Vatican Hill. It was the last thing seen by St. Peter when he was crucified (tradition). When Christianity was made legal in the Roman Empire, the Christians of Rome went to the Vatican Hill and climbed on top of the obelisk and placed a cross. This was done to proclaim that Christ had conquered the pagans who had murdered hundreds of Christians before that obelisk. It remains as testimony to the conquering of Christ over evil through His blood shed for us and the blood of the martyrs shed in His Name.
If you notice, there is still a cross on top of the obelisk.
If you notice, there is still a cross on top of the obelisk.
As you can see below, it is an Egyptian obelisk was meant for Heliopolis and was brought over to Rome by Caligula in 37 AD. It wasn't until the 16th century that it was moved from the circus to where it now stands. But regardless, there is no reason for that to be sitting on the grounds of what is supposed to be the church of Christ. If anything it is an abomination.
little is known of its origins or which Pharaoh ordered its construction, but it was certainly quarried in Egypt and intended to be erected in Heliopolis. Sometime between 30 and 28 BC the red granite obelisk shows up in Alexandria under Augustus’s instructions to have it erected in the Julian Forum there. It was Gaius Caligula who had the obelisk bought to Rome in 37 AD. It was the largest non-inscribed obelisk to leave Egypt, at 25.5 m high and weighing an estimated 326 tons.
little is known of its origins or which Pharaoh ordered its construction, but it was certainly quarried in Egypt and intended to be erected in Heliopolis. Sometime between 30 and 28 BC the red granite obelisk shows up in Alexandria under Augustus’s instructions to have it erected in the Julian Forum there. It was Gaius Caligula who had the obelisk bought to Rome in 37 AD. It was the largest non-inscribed obelisk to leave Egypt, at 25.5 m high and weighing an estimated 326 tons.