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.
Yes, I do believe that Jesus is and will continue to build his church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. But, you have to belong to the true body of Christ and the RCC is not it. For there are gospels many and lord's many. The RCC is not the church, but is the mother of all pagan institutions. An individual believer should never put their salvation and eternal life in the hands of any group, but himself should be grounded in the word of God. The church is a place to gather together with those who also believe in the same Lord and the same word and to glorify God as a group of believers, but the church is not what saves a believer. Every individual should always be checking to see if what is being taught is in agreement with the word of God, not matter who it is. And I'll tell you this, the church is not going to be judged as a group, but each individual will stand before the Lord and receive reward or loss of reward. So one better make sure they have the right gospel and the right Lord, otherwise, they could find themselves at the great white throne judgment.
Z
What are you talking about? There are 73 Books of the bible. The canon of 73 books was around about 1100 years before Luther took books out. A common myth protestants use is to say Catholics added books. Clearly history says protestants removed 7 books. Get your facts straight, unless truth means nothing to you and you enjoy piling on Catholics
I think it is "you" that should pay attention to what this passage truly pertains too.
I disagree, you need to ask yourself.....Did the Bereans practice Sola Scriptura or "Bible Only" because they "searched/examined the Scriptures?" No, surprisingly they didn't. The answer is no because they accepted "extra-biblical" ideas/doctrines. Case in point is that the messiah, i.e., the Christ, was he the "Jesus of Nazareth," verses the "Jesus living in Antioch" or the "Jesus of Berea" etc. Which Jesus was the Messiah? Only extra-biblical information told them that they had the correct Jesus or that it was a man "named" Jesus at all. The scriptures didn't teach them this. The Apostle Paul did. Thus they "accepted" Paul's NEW revelation to them that "Jesus of Nazareth" was the Messiah, AND more importantly, that this Jesus was "GOD!" The Jews believed (and still do) that the Messiah would just be a man. A mortal. Not the Son of God and the Second person of the Holy Trinity. In fact the idea of a Trinity is another extrabiblcial refelation taught to the Bereans (and the Thessolionions). These are three NEW revelations not believed by the Jews of ancient Palestine. Nor even the Jews of today.
It was only through the teachings of Christ's Church that they received these revelations. When they "searched/examined the scriptures," they found the former not there and the second two revealed to them only through Paul's teachings. It was only through the teachings of Christ's Church that they came to realized the truth in them. "Sola Scriptura" or the "Bible Alone" idea excludes the teaching authority of Christ's Church, and unbiblically, (see 2 Peter 1:20) leaves interpretation of the very Word of GOD up to each and every individual. If the Berean's had embraced this this idea, it would have left them believing (through their personal readings of the OT and a rejection of the teachings of Christ's Church) , that Christ was NOT God when the OT Scriptures actually proved he was. Hence the teaching authority of Christ's Church is again proved to be essential in echoing the Words and intent of our Lord Jesus Christ. A Biblical example of the guidance needed and afforded by Christ's Church is found in the Book of Acts:
The Holy Scriptures tell us the function of Christ’s Church is to teach and guide Christ’s flock: " Philip ran up and heard him [an Ethiopian eunuch] reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him." Acts 8: 30-31
The purpose of Christ's Church (The Catholic Church) is to teach and guide. Just as Our Lord told us commanded His Church to do in his last words of the Gospel of Matthew: "Teach them to observe all I have taught you and behold I am with you always until the end of the world"
Matt. 28:20. (Since his disciples would not live forever, this promise to His Church He commissioned in Matt. 16:16-19
So I ask you my friend.....Did the Bereans embraced a primitive form of Sola Scriptura, or Bible Only? I say absolutely not, and fortunately they didn't. But who did? Well, the real believers of Sola Scriptura (if it were to exist in apostolic times), were the hard headed Thessalonians, who REJECTED St. Paul's message. (Acts 17). For Scripture tells us that they ALSO "searched the OT Scriptures" (as did the Bereans), only they found Paul's message wanting for their interpretation of the OT Scriptures (and their rejection of the guidance offered by Christ's Church) failed to point to Jesus "of Nazareth" as the Messiah, it failed to instruct them on the Holy Trinity and it failed to lead them to the belief that this Messiah was GOD!
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them,
"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." Acts 19: 1-2
So in closing, "you" should read the chapter again my friend. Regardless of what your pastor (or your personal interpretation) has taught you, the Bereans embraced extra-biblical ideas/doctrines and accepted the guidance and teachings of Christ's Church over their personal interpretations of Scripture. This renders Sola Scriptura or the unbiblcial "Bible ONLY" theory, null and void because Sola Scriptura rejects the teachings of Christ's Church as authoritative.
Why would Christ start His Church if He would allow you or anyone else for that matter to reject it? Whether you wish to beleive it or not, bottom line is the Bereans upheld the words of the Apostle Paul when he said: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Pax Christi
p.s. just out of curiosity, out of the thousands of differnt Protestant/non-Catholic denominations, of which do you follow or beleive in?
rev 13 describe there will be a beast that have great authority to all nation and the dragon/lucifer behind this government
Now we know Popes promote one world government. If we google, we will find in a lot of news paper post the Popes speech and in some copy exactly/original Pope speech with little coment
Let me repeat, my question: Is that something weir?
One world government is Lucifer agenda, Pope suppose enemy of Lucifer promote Lucifer agenda.
To me it mean Pope work for Lucifer
Now we know Popes promote one world government. If we google, we will find in a lot of news paper post the Popes speech and in some copy exactly/original Pope speech with little coment
Let me repeat, my question: Is that something weir?
One world government is Lucifer agenda, Pope suppose enemy of Lucifer promote Lucifer agenda.
To me it mean Pope work for Lucifer
Jews never accepted the apocrypha as part of the Old testament canon. "The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)
The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus.
The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired. They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome's Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
Cyril (born about A.D. 315) - "Read the divine Scriptures - namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century.
Those interested in the truth can read more here: http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus.
The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired. They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome's Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
Cyril (born about A.D. 315) - "Read the divine Scriptures - namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century.
Those interested in the truth can read more here: http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
Ha-Ha.... for about the millionth time....You can tell whats in a persons mind just by looking a a picture?? If so, I'd love to have you at the horse track some time, we could make millions!! Lol! Catholics do not worship statues nor do we worship images, no matter what your crystal ball or your mind reading pastor may tell you. Statues and images of Our Blessed Lord Jesus, Mary, and the Saints are just holy reminders that they are praying and therefore helping us as we pilgrimage throughout this earthy journey. In the same way a neighbor can ask you to pray for them and you would say, Of course; Catholic Christians ask Jesus, Mary, and the Saints (through prayer) for help and, God-Willing, with their prayers we will receive some help.
If someone very close to you, just had a tragic event in their life and ask you to pray for them, would you say: No, I can't; that would undermine the sole mediatorship of Jesus Christ? No Catholic is undermining the sole mediatorship of Jesus Christ because they have been baptized and partake in the Eucharist and therefore, like Mary and the Saints, are In Christ! — not apart from Christ! Yeah, we still have broken bodies that we have to work with but our goal is to do the best we can. We can do so by renewing our Sunday Covenant at Mass and going to Confession.
We are not worshipping pieces of marble. Holy images and statues are nothing more than what would be in the wallet of any family man: a picture of their wife and children, which, like God the Father, he takes pride in.
Catholics do not worship Mary or the saints in any way! Any Catholic that tells you this should go to Confession and talk to the priest about this issue. You or any other any non-Catholic who says this, is distorting what we believe as Catholic Christians.
No river or stream can be above it's source. Likewise, no creature can be above it's creator.
A.B. Fulton Sheen: "The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it."
Pax Christi
If someone very close to you, just had a tragic event in their life and ask you to pray for them, would you say: No, I can't; that would undermine the sole mediatorship of Jesus Christ? No Catholic is undermining the sole mediatorship of Jesus Christ because they have been baptized and partake in the Eucharist and therefore, like Mary and the Saints, are In Christ! — not apart from Christ! Yeah, we still have broken bodies that we have to work with but our goal is to do the best we can. We can do so by renewing our Sunday Covenant at Mass and going to Confession.
We are not worshipping pieces of marble. Holy images and statues are nothing more than what would be in the wallet of any family man: a picture of their wife and children, which, like God the Father, he takes pride in.
Catholics do not worship Mary or the saints in any way! Any Catholic that tells you this should go to Confession and talk to the priest about this issue. You or any other any non-Catholic who says this, is distorting what we believe as Catholic Christians.
No river or stream can be above it's source. Likewise, no creature can be above it's creator.
A.B. Fulton Sheen: "The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it."
Pax Christi
fordman, no one is supposed to actually get on their hands and knees to pray to a statue. Yet we see the pope doing exactly that. You do NOT need to bow before a statue to show honor for it. SO, if the pope doesn't worship Mary's statue, why does he bow down to it?
Also, a practicing catholic CANNOT also be a practicing christian.. there's no such thing as a "catholic christian." That's like saying I'm a Muslim and follow Mohammed, but I'm also a christian who follows Jesus. YOU CANNOT SERVE TWO MASTERS.
You are mistaken--Mary and the saints DO NOT pray for us. They can't. They don't intercede on your behalf--only Jesus is capable of that. And that's another diff between catholics and christians. Christians don't believe that Mary hears and answers prayers, and intercedes. Nor do christians go to Mass. We don't bow down before statues that have no worth at all, whether physically or spiritually. Christians pray to JESUS ONLY. Catholics pray to Mary, the saints AND Jesus, which is an erroneous thing to do, because ONLY JESUS HEARS AND ANSWERS PRAYER. It's futile and stupid to pray to Mary and the saints!!
If someone asked me to pray for them, I definitely would BUT I'd confine that prayer to Jesus only. Mary and the saints cannot and do not hear or answer prayers, and THAT is what catholics refuse to believe: that a sinful dead woman CAN answer their prayers.
Also, a practicing catholic CANNOT also be a practicing christian.. there's no such thing as a "catholic christian." That's like saying I'm a Muslim and follow Mohammed, but I'm also a christian who follows Jesus. YOU CANNOT SERVE TWO MASTERS.
You are mistaken--Mary and the saints DO NOT pray for us. They can't. They don't intercede on your behalf--only Jesus is capable of that. And that's another diff between catholics and christians. Christians don't believe that Mary hears and answers prayers, and intercedes. Nor do christians go to Mass. We don't bow down before statues that have no worth at all, whether physically or spiritually. Christians pray to JESUS ONLY. Catholics pray to Mary, the saints AND Jesus, which is an erroneous thing to do, because ONLY JESUS HEARS AND ANSWERS PRAYER. It's futile and stupid to pray to Mary and the saints!!
If someone asked me to pray for them, I definitely would BUT I'd confine that prayer to Jesus only. Mary and the saints cannot and do not hear or answer prayers, and THAT is what catholics refuse to believe: that a sinful dead woman CAN answer their prayers.
Okay then Magenta, Can you show where yourself or this Christian historian Phillip Schaff find a Bible before Martin Luther (16th century) that excludes the 7 Sacred Books he removed from the Canon of Scripture? I am willing to bet not. What does tell us logically? All Christians before Luther's version of the Bible, accepted the 73 books (verse 66 books) as inspired Holy Writ. Luther created the very first Bible in the history of Christianity to exclude 7 of these sacred books. Actually he apportioned them to an "uninspired but good for reading" appendix in his translation. In fact every Protestant Bible carried the 7 books in an appendix until 1826 when the English Bible Society began omitting them from their publications. Soon every other Protestant translation followed suit. It is of note that even William Tyndale, (who was a precursor to the first Protestants), in his English version of the Bible, *included* 73 books as opposed to the 66 held by Protestants today. One cannot find a Bible that precedes Luther that EXCLUDES the 7 sacred books. What does that tell you? It tells you that every single Bible (and every single Christian) before Luther held these 7 books as inspired.
The following link (from the Protestant website at Calvin College) provides the
official declaration at the Council of Carthage in the 4th century when the OT/NT canon was FIRST defined. This same canon remained unchanged for 1000+ years until Luther deemed (by his own authority) 7 OT books "uninspired." (He did so because these 7 sacred books contradicted his new theology). This 24th Canon from the 4th century Council of Carthage was used by all Christians as the only canon of Scripture. It was again reaffirmed in its entirety at the Council of Trent in the 16th century in response to the Protestant Reformation and the deletion of 7 sacred books from the Holy Bible.
The closing of the Christian canon in the 4th century. From Protestant Calvin College website:
NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
This Protestant site above lists Canon 24 of the Council of Carthage in the 4 century that lists the 7 missing books Luther removed from the Bible. All Bibles contained these 7 books until their removal by Luther in the 16 century:
Tobias, (Listed in the 4th century as Tobit)
1. Wisdom, listed as one of the 5 Books of Solomon.
2. Sirach (known as Ecclesiasticus) listed as one of the 5 Books of Solomon.
3. Baruch listed as one of the Twelve Books of the Prophets. (Protestant Bibles only have 11 books of the prophets)
4. Tobias, (Listed in the 4th century as Tobit)
5. Judith
6. Maccabees book 1
7. Maccabees book 2
So Magenta, you need to ask yourself, why does every Bible without exception before Martin Luther have 73 inspired books? By what right and under whose power did Luther removed Scripture from Scripture? Does not the Holy Bible caution:
"I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in the prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book." Rev. 22:18-19
Test this as the Holy Bible commands.
"Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil." 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22
I just want to believe as the Apostles taught Christ's early Church, no matter where it leads me and no matter what it costs me. Don't you?
Pax Christi
I wonder why Israel who was charged by God to receive the word of God and teach it to the world never recognized the seven books you seem intent on adding to the bible?
I have read them and they do not seem to have the same Spirit to them that the rest of the bible readily shows forth.
The Gnostics wrote a lot of additional texts that they claimed were inspired of God but these were rejected.
The apostles had only the OT scriptures from which to preach Christ. Souls were saved by grace through faith from the OT scriptures. It is not so much what scriptures you have, OT or NT, as that the Holy Spirit uses them to bring men to Christ.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I have read them and they do not seem to have the same Spirit to them that the rest of the bible readily shows forth.
The Gnostics wrote a lot of additional texts that they claimed were inspired of God but these were rejected.
The apostles had only the OT scriptures from which to preach Christ. Souls were saved by grace through faith from the OT scriptures. It is not so much what scriptures you have, OT or NT, as that the Holy Spirit uses them to bring men to Christ.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I don't understand why you said my info from non catholic?
a news paper or what ever Media like tv etc may secular media,
But it post what ever Popes said. When Pope make a speech about promoting one world government, it is in front of thousand reporter and some National tv.
It is proven by million people through tv.
Do you think all media lie?
Just google it brother and think if there is a hole to make them lie.