Is Roman Catholicism Evil?
- Thread starter trust_in_the_name
- 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.
Calling brother and sisters in Christ evil is a bad thing to do. It is over the top wrong. The Catholic Church adheres to the Apostles Creed. Therefore meet the doctrinal statement of who is and isn't a Christian I have many disagreements with Catholicism but they are still fellow Christians. It is horrid to label them evil!!!
Last edited:
I think the old saw about sin can be applied here- hate the dogma, not the dogmatist.
The Roman Church has a great number of doctrinal deficiencies, but a fair number of Catholics find the diamonds in the dung. Some are great thinkers and contributors to our faith or influencers of those who contributed to our faith. Without a Tolkien, you wouldn't have a Lewis. Without a von Staupitz, you wouldn't have a Luther. Without an Aquinas, you wouldn't have a Sproul. Without a Muggeridge, you wouldn't have a Zacharias.
I guarantee the next generation of Protestant theologians and apologists to be marked by the influence of Peter Kreeft and the re-birth of Chesterton's popularity.
The thing is a lot of these Catholics mentioned above rarely made their case as Catholics, but rather as Christians. Ecumenical Catholics. I would argue that in so doing they wandered off the reservation and into a different sort of territory where Papal decrees, the Mass, and Marian tomfoolery faded in the light of the Gospel.
Unwitting Protestants IMHO.
The Roman Church has a great number of doctrinal deficiencies, but a fair number of Catholics find the diamonds in the dung. Some are great thinkers and contributors to our faith or influencers of those who contributed to our faith. Without a Tolkien, you wouldn't have a Lewis. Without a von Staupitz, you wouldn't have a Luther. Without an Aquinas, you wouldn't have a Sproul. Without a Muggeridge, you wouldn't have a Zacharias.
I guarantee the next generation of Protestant theologians and apologists to be marked by the influence of Peter Kreeft and the re-birth of Chesterton's popularity.
The thing is a lot of these Catholics mentioned above rarely made their case as Catholics, but rather as Christians. Ecumenical Catholics. I would argue that in so doing they wandered off the reservation and into a different sort of territory where Papal decrees, the Mass, and Marian tomfoolery faded in the light of the Gospel.
Unwitting Protestants IMHO.
B
garee:
1. I am not Catholic.
2. I am not making Mary into a god.
3. Catholics do not make Mary into a god, either.
4. There are many things about the Catholic Church with which I disagree. And I criticize it for its past corruption, brutality, and wealth accumulation. I am simply using solid and thorough research to debunk the myths that many people put forth about what the Catholic Church teaches in their effort to demonize the beliefs held by 1.2-billion Christians who are part of the Catholic denomination. They do this for the sole purpose of attempting to elevate their assertion that theirs is the only true path to salvation. And that is arrogance/hubris. It is arrogant because they presume to know the mind of God (Romans 11:34; 1 Corinthians 2:11; Isaiah 55:8-9). But why, you might ask, do some insist that they know for certain that their belief structure is the only path. Why do Comcast or AT&T work to create a monopoly? Money. If you're the only game in town, it makes it much easier to generate income for your "mission to save souls." It also helps some "pastors" to sustain themselves in a lavish lifestyle. Remember the corruption in the Catholic Church from the 10th to the 18th centuries I mentioned earlier? It has reared its ugly head once again. But none of that is God's doing. It is humans giving in to the inherent weakness of their flesh. It is religious leaders corrupting what the Bible teaches us so they "can glory in their own flesh" at the expense of their immortal souls.
5. You noted, quite correctly, that the flesh of Mary and the saints is sleeping. But their souls are not. The soul does not die. And it is the soul that is taken into the company of God. Mainstream Protestants believe that. Those Protestants who don't are those who hold that at the time of the Rapture, Jesus will come and vacuum their souls and reconstituted bodies into Heaven, leaving the bodies and souls of everyone else who does not believe as they do to perish on Earth and dwell in Hell for eternity.
6. It is our souls, not our bodies, that are in a state of grace, and it is our souls, not our bodies, that lose that state of grace when we sin. And it is our souls, not our bodies, that regain that state of grace when we repent our sins. Protestants and Catholics aim to reach the same goal; they just have different mechanisms for how they go about achieving it.
1. I am not Catholic.
2. I am not making Mary into a god.
3. Catholics do not make Mary into a god, either.
4. There are many things about the Catholic Church with which I disagree. And I criticize it for its past corruption, brutality, and wealth accumulation. I am simply using solid and thorough research to debunk the myths that many people put forth about what the Catholic Church teaches in their effort to demonize the beliefs held by 1.2-billion Christians who are part of the Catholic denomination. They do this for the sole purpose of attempting to elevate their assertion that theirs is the only true path to salvation. And that is arrogance/hubris. It is arrogant because they presume to know the mind of God (Romans 11:34; 1 Corinthians 2:11; Isaiah 55:8-9). But why, you might ask, do some insist that they know for certain that their belief structure is the only path. Why do Comcast or AT&T work to create a monopoly? Money. If you're the only game in town, it makes it much easier to generate income for your "mission to save souls." It also helps some "pastors" to sustain themselves in a lavish lifestyle. Remember the corruption in the Catholic Church from the 10th to the 18th centuries I mentioned earlier? It has reared its ugly head once again. But none of that is God's doing. It is humans giving in to the inherent weakness of their flesh. It is religious leaders corrupting what the Bible teaches us so they "can glory in their own flesh" at the expense of their immortal souls.
5. You noted, quite correctly, that the flesh of Mary and the saints is sleeping. But their souls are not. The soul does not die. And it is the soul that is taken into the company of God. Mainstream Protestants believe that. Those Protestants who don't are those who hold that at the time of the Rapture, Jesus will come and vacuum their souls and reconstituted bodies into Heaven, leaving the bodies and souls of everyone else who does not believe as they do to perish on Earth and dwell in Hell for eternity.
6. It is our souls, not our bodies, that are in a state of grace, and it is our souls, not our bodies, that lose that state of grace when we sin. And it is our souls, not our bodies, that regain that state of grace when we repent our sins. Protestants and Catholics aim to reach the same goal; they just have different mechanisms for how they go about achieving it.
B
My father was Catholic, my mother was Anglican, my maternal grandmother was Seventh Day Adventist, and my paternal grandfather was Presbyterian. For the reason that no one could agree, I was not raised in the Catholic school system. My education was through the Canadian public school system, which gave me exposure to a broad range of religions. In fact, some of the friends I made in high school from diverse religious backgrounds remain my closest friends 46 years later.
Think of Catholic parishes and schools as franchises. Head office (the Vatican) determines the rules under which they operate. And it is very strict about what can be taught in relation to religious studies in Catholic schools. The church hierarchy makes this possible. All Catholic clergy must take a vow of obedience when they are ordained, so priests must follow the directions of the bishops, who must follow the directions of the cardinals, who in turn, must follow the Pope. The Vatican does this through the Catechism and under its system of Canon Law. The curriculum for other subjects, however, is governed by regional and local government criteria. On a side note, that is why Catholic schools teach evolution as part of their sciences programs.
And Catholic parishes, as "franchisees," also contribute a portion of each Sunday's collection to support higher level offices in the diocese. Collections for Peter's Pence, held each year on the Sunday closest to 29 June, go directly to Rome. The total amount collected by the United States in 2011 represented 28% of the worldwide total of USD$2.49-billion. The "Peter's Pence" proceeds are used for philanthropic works by the Catholic Church throughout the world. None of the money is used for the operations of the Vatican. Operations revenue comes from tourism -- such things as admission charges to museums at the Vatican, the sale of postage stamps, and merchandise sales, which that totalled about USD$113-million in 2011. Other operations revenue is generated by income from a substantial investment portfolio managed by the Vatican Bank. (I only have the 2011 figures because that was the most recent year available for a university paper I wrote about the Vatican).
Think of Catholic parishes and schools as franchises. Head office (the Vatican) determines the rules under which they operate. And it is very strict about what can be taught in relation to religious studies in Catholic schools. The church hierarchy makes this possible. All Catholic clergy must take a vow of obedience when they are ordained, so priests must follow the directions of the bishops, who must follow the directions of the cardinals, who in turn, must follow the Pope. The Vatican does this through the Catechism and under its system of Canon Law. The curriculum for other subjects, however, is governed by regional and local government criteria. On a side note, that is why Catholic schools teach evolution as part of their sciences programs.
And Catholic parishes, as "franchisees," also contribute a portion of each Sunday's collection to support higher level offices in the diocese. Collections for Peter's Pence, held each year on the Sunday closest to 29 June, go directly to Rome. The total amount collected by the United States in 2011 represented 28% of the worldwide total of USD$2.49-billion. The "Peter's Pence" proceeds are used for philanthropic works by the Catholic Church throughout the world. None of the money is used for the operations of the Vatican. Operations revenue comes from tourism -- such things as admission charges to museums at the Vatican, the sale of postage stamps, and merchandise sales, which that totalled about USD$113-million in 2011. Other operations revenue is generated by income from a substantial investment portfolio managed by the Vatican Bank. (I only have the 2011 figures because that was the most recent year available for a university paper I wrote about the Vatican).
B
I'd like to address your final point first. You provided a quote on "private revelation" from a web site that claims it was made by Pope Urban. But as I've pointed out to you previously, that quote doesn't exist anywhere in the Vatican Archives. I also provided you with a link to the Vatican Archives so you could read for yourself what Urban actually said. The quotes exists only on that web site. In other words, the quote is false. That means it is fake, fabricated, not true, bogus. Stop using false quotes to support your assertions. They don't. They only make your conclusions even more incorrect. Do some research. Don't just copy and paste from the first site that says what you want said.
Just in case you think I might try to put a "Catholic" spin on sola scriptura, I am going to cite the writings of David Larson, who teaches in the School of Religion at the Seventh-Day Adventist Loma Linda University. I'm sure even you must acknowledge that a theology school at an educational institution run by the Seventh-Day Adventists could not be further from Catholic ideology.
Larson says the following about Sola Scriptura:
"If we take the words literally, the doctrine of “sola scriptura” is problematic. The Latin word “sola” means “only,” “scriptura” means “scripture,” and so together they mean “only scripture.” In some circles this expression has come to mean that we Christians should consider nothing but the Old and New Testaments when determining what to believe and how to behave. This is not helpful. Neither is it what the Protestant Reformers who promoted this doctrine in sixteenth century Europe had in mind.
For people like Martin Luther and John Calvin “sola scriptura” had a focused meaning. This was that the Roman Catholic teaching that the ultimate authorities for Christians are scripture and tradition is mistaken. Christians have only one supreme authority and it is scripture, they held. For them the doctrine of “sola scriptura” was more like a single bullet that sped toward a specific target than the spraying projectiles of a shotgun it has sometimes now become.
But even this is not exact enough. ... As evidenced by the effective use the Reformers made of the writings of others, for them “sola scriptura” did not mean that we should consider and give weight to nothing else. They were among the best educated people of their day! This is why it seems clearer in our time to convey their meaning by using the expression prima scriptura. The unique role of scripture resides in its overriding priority, not in its supposed exclusiveness.
An exclusivist understanding of the role of scripture is not helpful for a number of reasons. One of these is that none of us can read scripture without being influenced by the circumstances in which we live. Another is that without studying other forms of contemporary knowledge, as well as the whole of scripture, it can be difficult to know how to apply what it says. Still further, the doctrine of “sola scriptura” makes it difficult for denominations to make effective use of the views of their pioneers, be they John Hus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cramner, Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf, John Wesley, or Ellen White. A fourth problem is that this doctrine makes it less likely that Christians will learn from religions other than their own. A fifth is that viewing scripture this way can needlessly make Christians appear dogmatic and obscurant.
Applying scripture to our lives is related to but different from reconstructing as accurately as possible what its various passages first meant, something that non-Christian historians and linguists can do equally well. For them the Bible is a cultural classic; however, for those of us who are Christians it is the primary religious canon, too."
Most Reformers had been instructed by humanists and used their methods. They insisted on a scholarly approach and intellectual integrity for interpreting the Bible in a sermon. Calvin called for the use of dictionaries, grammar books, the commentaries which already existed, and he also advocated that texts should be studied in their original language. [I tried my best to do that at university, but I found I had a great deal of difficulty trying to read the ancient Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin of available texts. Now, I use the KJV and scholarly works by respected theologians when an issue of a translation from the original language arises.] He urged people to read the Scriptures using their faith and their intellect.
Calvin thought that the Bible could only be understood when placed in context: the Holy Spirit inspired the authors, but was constrained by human knowledge at the time. So it was important that the Bible reader should be aware of the background and the age in which these texts were written.
Scholarly works by respected theologians are an aid to understanding the richness of the Bible. But at no time should they ever be elevated to having equal status with Scripture.
On a side note, I've found that people who insist on the literalism of the Bible and sola scriptura are often among the first to cite the Book of Revelation as evidence that the Catholic Church is the "Whore of Babylon" and the Pope is the anit-Christ. They fail to recognize that their very interpretation of Revelation goes against the directive of sola scriptura. They are employing a conspiracy theory interpretation to fit the Catholic Church into the narrative of Revelation.
Just in case you think I might try to put a "Catholic" spin on sola scriptura, I am going to cite the writings of David Larson, who teaches in the School of Religion at the Seventh-Day Adventist Loma Linda University. I'm sure even you must acknowledge that a theology school at an educational institution run by the Seventh-Day Adventists could not be further from Catholic ideology.
Larson says the following about Sola Scriptura:
"If we take the words literally, the doctrine of “sola scriptura” is problematic. The Latin word “sola” means “only,” “scriptura” means “scripture,” and so together they mean “only scripture.” In some circles this expression has come to mean that we Christians should consider nothing but the Old and New Testaments when determining what to believe and how to behave. This is not helpful. Neither is it what the Protestant Reformers who promoted this doctrine in sixteenth century Europe had in mind.
For people like Martin Luther and John Calvin “sola scriptura” had a focused meaning. This was that the Roman Catholic teaching that the ultimate authorities for Christians are scripture and tradition is mistaken. Christians have only one supreme authority and it is scripture, they held. For them the doctrine of “sola scriptura” was more like a single bullet that sped toward a specific target than the spraying projectiles of a shotgun it has sometimes now become.
But even this is not exact enough. ... As evidenced by the effective use the Reformers made of the writings of others, for them “sola scriptura” did not mean that we should consider and give weight to nothing else. They were among the best educated people of their day! This is why it seems clearer in our time to convey their meaning by using the expression prima scriptura. The unique role of scripture resides in its overriding priority, not in its supposed exclusiveness.
An exclusivist understanding of the role of scripture is not helpful for a number of reasons. One of these is that none of us can read scripture without being influenced by the circumstances in which we live. Another is that without studying other forms of contemporary knowledge, as well as the whole of scripture, it can be difficult to know how to apply what it says. Still further, the doctrine of “sola scriptura” makes it difficult for denominations to make effective use of the views of their pioneers, be they John Hus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cramner, Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf, John Wesley, or Ellen White. A fourth problem is that this doctrine makes it less likely that Christians will learn from religions other than their own. A fifth is that viewing scripture this way can needlessly make Christians appear dogmatic and obscurant.
Applying scripture to our lives is related to but different from reconstructing as accurately as possible what its various passages first meant, something that non-Christian historians and linguists can do equally well. For them the Bible is a cultural classic; however, for those of us who are Christians it is the primary religious canon, too."
Most Reformers had been instructed by humanists and used their methods. They insisted on a scholarly approach and intellectual integrity for interpreting the Bible in a sermon. Calvin called for the use of dictionaries, grammar books, the commentaries which already existed, and he also advocated that texts should be studied in their original language. [I tried my best to do that at university, but I found I had a great deal of difficulty trying to read the ancient Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin of available texts. Now, I use the KJV and scholarly works by respected theologians when an issue of a translation from the original language arises.] He urged people to read the Scriptures using their faith and their intellect.
Calvin thought that the Bible could only be understood when placed in context: the Holy Spirit inspired the authors, but was constrained by human knowledge at the time. So it was important that the Bible reader should be aware of the background and the age in which these texts were written.
Scholarly works by respected theologians are an aid to understanding the richness of the Bible. But at no time should they ever be elevated to having equal status with Scripture.
On a side note, I've found that people who insist on the literalism of the Bible and sola scriptura are often among the first to cite the Book of Revelation as evidence that the Catholic Church is the "Whore of Babylon" and the Pope is the anit-Christ. They fail to recognize that their very interpretation of Revelation goes against the directive of sola scriptura. They are employing a conspiracy theory interpretation to fit the Catholic Church into the narrative of Revelation.
Last edited by a moderator:
It does not matter what Larson or even the pope say about the Word of God. Because Scripture is the Word of God, by definition it is supreme in all matters of faith and practice. And that is what Sola Scriptura means. If any teaching lines up with Scripture, fine. But if it does not, then it must be rejected.
There are a very large number of Catholic and Orthodox teachings which DO NOT line up with Scripture. They should have been rejected out of hand a long time ago. Instead they were retained and made into dogma.
There are a very large number of Catholic and Orthodox teachings which DO NOT line up with Scripture. They should have been rejected out of hand a long time ago. Instead they were retained and made into dogma.
And had you simply checked Strong's Concordance, you could have easily confirmed that "kill" meant "murder" in the KJV also.
Strong's Concordance
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ratsach
Phonetic Spelling: (raw-tsakh')
Short Definition: manslayer
People make a big deal out of such things when Strong's has been around for a very long time, and it is the duty of every Christian to properly determine the meaning of any word which may be in doubt.
Strong's Concordance
ratsach: to murder, slay
Original Word: רָצַחPart of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ratsach
Phonetic Spelling: (raw-tsakh')
Short Definition: manslayer
People make a big deal out of such things when Strong's has been around for a very long time, and it is the duty of every Christian to properly determine the meaning of any word which may be in doubt.
B
If only that statement was accurate.
It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.