Is Roman Catholicism Evil?

[SantoSubito]

When a disagreement comes between Scripture and tradition, which takes the greater position?

I'm assuming we're not talking about Protestant interpretations of Scripture disagreeing with the Catholic view. Also I am treating this as a hypothetical question because Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition have never contradicted each other.

One of three things would likely happen. Either the Pope would exercise his authority to teach infallibly, a council would be called to determine whether there is a disagreement between the two and if so what can be done to resolve it, or the ordinary Magisterium would use it's teaching authority to explain why the two are not in conflict or if we're talking about small "t" tradition they would use their authority to formally discourage or ban a practice that is in conflict with Scripture.

 

[Abiding]

Im a protestant.....my hands are full

 

[Crypto]

I'm assuming we're not talking about Protestant interpretations of Scripture disagreeing with the Catholic view. Also I am treating this as a hypothetical question because Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition have never contradicted each other.

One of three things would likely happen. Either the Pope would exercise his authority to teach infallibly, a council would be called to determine whether there is a disagreement between the two and if so what can be done to resolve it, or the ordinary Magisterium would use it's teaching authority to explain why the two are not in conflict or if we're talking about small "t" tradition they would use their authority to formally discourage or ban a practice that is in conflict with Scripture.

I'm talking about the Scripture interpreted by itself, not ones particular view. Have never contradicted each other? There are dozens of places in the Catholicism that contradicts Scripture.

Catholicism Verses The Bible

The Roman Catholic Teaching on Salvation and Justification

 

[Maddog]

I'm always wary of these kinds of questions, because generally the Catholic will give an answer and then they'll be bombarded with a bunch of proof-texts for the Protestant position.

I'm assuming we're not talking about Protestant interpretations of Scripture disagreeing with the Catholic view.

I'm talking about the Scripture interpreted by itself...There are dozens of places in the Catholicism that contradicts Scripture.

Catholicism Verses The Bible

The Roman Catholic Teaching on Salvation and Justification

Well look at that. It seems Santo was right to be wary, since here we have the Protestant proof texting bombardment, along with sneaky Protestant interpretations that pretend they're impartial (ie. 'Scripture interpreted by itself' - like it or not, that's a very Protestant approach to Scripture).

 

[SantoSubito]

I'm talking about the Scripture interpreted by itself, not ones particular view. Have never contradicted each other? There are dozens of places in the Catholicism that contradicts Scripture.

Catholicism Verses The Bible

The Roman Catholic Teaching on Salvation and Justification

Honestly I won't even to begin to address anything from the jesus-is savior website. To me that is not even close to a valid source for information, CARM for that matter is not a valid source either. Most if not all of what is said on the jesus-is-savior is exaggeration and falsehood either intentionally or unintentionally.

Well look at that. It seems Santo was right to be wary, since here we have the Protestant proof texting bombardment, along with sneaky Protestant interpretations that pretend they're impartial (ie. 'Scripture interpreted by itself' - like it or not, that's a very Protestant approach to Scripture).

Indeed, I didn't expect the jesus-is-savior website to be brought into the discussion. Funny thing is we have an Anglican and a Catholic agreeing about Protestant tactics.

 

[dscherck]

Honestly I won't even to begin to address anything from the jesus-is savior website. To me that is not even close to a valid source for information, CARM for that matter is not a valid source either. Most if not all of what is said on the jesus-is-savior is exaggeration and falsehood either intentionally or unintentionally.



Indeed, I didn't expect the jesus-is-savior website to be brought into the discussion. Funny thing is we have an Anglican and a Catholic agreeing about Protestant tactics.

 

[MissTatiana]

Roman Catholicism is a blending of Roman paganism with Christianity,and can be labeled as white magic,but if you look at some objects it appears they have turned to black magic.

This is coming from the Vatican,and I know that Catholics are not trying to be occultic,but the Vatican is going to try to lead them astray with the New Age religion's occult christianity in the future,for the Vatican will change more to the occult side,which she is there,but introducing it slowly to the public.

The Pope says that if someone works to establish the kingdom of God on earth,even if they do not acknowledge Jesus as savior can be saved,and they will change more,at least public to introduce it slowly to where it reflects the New Age religion's occult christianity.

Wow somebody drank too much of the Kool-Aid. Where in the world did you get this interpretation about Catholicism? I highly recommend that you actually attend a Mass and learn about how we praise and worship God and fellowship with one another and the Saints before you made such a crazy accusation.

Btw, God uses ALL people--- Christians or non-Christians--- to have His will be done on earth. Even if you don't label yourself a Christian, that doesn't mean God can't use you. And I'm thinking that none of us are actually God, so no human being has the right to proclaim someone has salvation or does not have salvation. God judges human beings, not any pastor, reverend, or priest-- hence why you will never hear a Catholic save someone has salvation or they do not have salvation, unlike those Protestants that I know who proclaim God has surely given them salvation. Some people who do this might be surprised of their actual outcome.

 

[MissTatiana]

Well look at that. It seems Santo was right to be wary, since here we have the Protestant proof texting bombardment, along with sneaky Protestant interpretations that pretend they're impartial (ie. 'Scripture interpreted by itself' - like it or not, that's a very Protestant approach to Scripture).

 

[Crypto]

Honestly I won't even to begin to address anything from the jesus-is savior website. To me that is not even close to a valid source for information, CARM for that matter is not a valid source either. Most if not all of what is said on the jesus-is-savior is exaggeration and falsehood either intentionally or unintentionally.



Indeed, I didn't expect the jesus-is-savior website to be brought into the discussion. Funny thing is we have an Anglican and a Catholic agreeing about Protestant tactics.

The Bible is clear on these issues, call it prooftexting or whatever, but it's clear. If it is exaggeration or false, refute it's claims.

My primary question is: Is justification by faith alone (Romans 3:28, Ephesians 2:8-9) or as the Catechism teaches:

"1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.51 "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior."

51 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1604.
52 Cf. 2 Pet 1:4.

"2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions."

Those are 2 places where the tradition of Catholicism is in direct opposition with what the Bible teaches. I thought they didn't exist?

 

[Scotth1960]

Ok well we've got one for Islam that never seems to go away, so I figured in the interests of fairness we should have one for the Catholics too.

Friends:
"THE POPE OF ROME AND THE AGE-OLD LIES OF LATINS"
http:// ecumenizm.tripod.com/ECUMENIZM/id15.html

"Roman Catholicism," -- says Dostoevsky - "is even worse than atheism. ... All atheism does is preach a belief in nothing whereas Catholicism goes further, it preaches a distorted Christ Whom it itself has slandered ... it preaches the antithesis of Christ. It preaches Antichrist. ...
"The Latin teaching concerning original sin, which perverts the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Catholic Church, "carried through to its logical conclusion, it suggests that God Himself is the cause of evil in the world, i.e. it leads to an absurdity."

God save us all from the heresies of Roman Catholicism. In Erie PA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington PS God save us all from the heresies of Protestantism (Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, the Baptists, the Pentecostals, etc.). Amen.

 

[Crypto]

Friends:
"THE POPE OF ROME AND THE AGE-OLD LIES OF LATINS"
http:// ecumenizm.tripod.com/ECUMENIZM/id15.html

"Roman Catholicism," -- says Dostoevsky - "is even worse than atheism. ... All atheism does is preach a belief in nothing whereas Catholicism goes further, it preaches a distorted Christ Whom it itself has slandered ... it preaches the antithesis of Christ. It preaches Antichrist. ...
"The Latin teaching concerning original sin, which perverts the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Catholic Church, "carried through to its logical conclusion, it suggests that God Himself is the cause of evil in the world, i.e. it leads to an absurdity."

God save us all from the heresies of Roman Catholicism. In Erie PA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington PS God save us all from the heresies of Protestantism (Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, the Baptists, the Pentecostals, etc.). Amen.

Wow so I guess you're the only true Christian on this entire chat then aren't you while the rest of us are heretics? Congrats!

 

[SantoSubito]

Wow so I guess you're the only true Christian on this entire chat then aren't you while the rest of us are heretics? Congrats!

Well if we're to be fair you're calling half of of all Christians heretical when you denounce Catholicism. I'll get to your other post later, but right now I don't have the time.

 

[MissTatiana]

Well if we're to be fair you're calling half of of all Christians heretical when you denounce Catholicism. I'll get to your other post later, but right now I don't have the time.

Also don't forget about Orthodoxy which is much closer to Catholicism than Protestantism. I think us "heretics" out number those faithful Christians.

 

[Maddog]

Also don't forget about Orthodoxy which is much closer to Catholicism than Protestantism. I think us "heretics" out number those faithful Christians.

Quite. Even as an Anglican, I find it a useful rule of thumb that if the Othodox and Catholics agree on a point of faith, then it's pretty much a dead cert to be true.

 

[Maddog]

The Bible is clear on these issues, call it prooftexting or whatever, but it's clear.

I'll let the Catholics answer your specific points (though off the top of my head, I'd anticipate that they'll draw the distinction between 'works' and 'works of the law' ie. Old Testament law). But there's a problem with the insistence that 'the Bible is clear'. If it were so clear, then how come most of Christendom has got it wrong? See, I'm pretty confident that the Catholics will be able to insist exactly the same thing, that 'the Bible is clear' but come to a different conclusion than you.

I don't know, maybe the Bible isn't so clear after all? Or maybe we all interpret the Bible according to our own faith traditions? I think this is most likely the case. I think we all have to acknowledge that whenever we read the Bible (or indeed anything) we are interpreting. So, it seems to me at least, that the real trick is to make sure we have the right tradition to inform our understanding of Scripture.

I think we're at risk from going off on all sorts of tangents, so I'll stop here for the moment. However, just for fun, taking your 'the Bible is clear' argument, where abouts in the Bible does the phrase 'by faith alone' in relation to justification occur? I'll give you a clue, it's in James, and is immediately preceded by the word 'not'. See, clear, isn't it?

 

[Crypto]

I'll let the Catholics answer your specific points (though off the top of my head, I'd anticipate that they'll draw the distinction between 'works' and 'works of the law' ie. Old Testament law). But there's a problem with the insistence that 'the Bible is clear'. If it were so clear, then how come most of Christendom has got it wrong? See, I'm pretty confident that the Catholics will be able to insist exactly the same thing, that 'the Bible is clear' but come to a different conclusion than you.

I don't know, maybe the Bible isn't so clear after all? Or maybe we all interpret the Bible according to our own faith traditions? I think this is most likely the case. I think we all have to acknowledge that whenever we read the Bible (or indeed anything) we are interpreting. So, it seems to me at least, that the real trick is to make sure we have the right tradition to inform our understanding of Scripture.

I think we're at risk from going off on all sorts of tangents, so I'll stop here for the moment. However, just for fun, taking your 'the Bible is clear' argument, where abouts in the Bible does the phrase 'by faith alone' in relation to justification occur? I'll give you a clue, it's in James, and is immediately preceded by the word 'not'. See, clear, isn't it?

The passage in James is often taken out of it's context, verse 18 explains what the passage is about: "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." It's basically a polemic against people who profess Christ but have no life fruit to back it up. And one verse that may seem a bit obscure has to be interpreted by the rest of the Bible, which is the error of cultists and others who misrepresent what the Bible teaches regarding salvation.

Romans 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Titus 3:5-7 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

 

[Scotth1960]

Wow so I guess you're the only true Christian on this entire chat then aren't you

while the rest of us are heretics? Congrats!

I did not say any of you are not true Christians.
Is it wrong to ask the following question
Which tradition correctly interprets the Bible?

Eastern Orthodoxy
Oriental Orthodoxy
Roman Catholicism
Old Catholicism
Anglicanism
Protestantism in some form
Baptist "church"
Presbyterian
Reformed
Lutheran
Methodist
Pentecostal
Adventist
etc.
Mormon? (Give us a break! That's weird!)

Can I point out the truth of John 15:26 and still confess I have a lot to learn.
I am still a poor sinner.
I'm still in error. I need to do more. I'm just pointing out what I learned about John 15:26, which showed me I was in error. The easy thing about Christianity is to read the Bible and learn what it teaches. The hard thing about Christianity is to get to church on Sunday, when much of my past experience of Sundays was sleeping in. Old habits are hard to break. Anyway, I have been to church on Saturday evenings a few times.
All I'm here for is to point out books and teachings I have found to be true. You are free to agree or disagree as you will. I can't bind your conscience, and you can't bind mine. We all need the Holy Spirit before we can come together in Church. We all have differing notions on which local churches we should be attending. This CC is a kind of chat forum for a lot of people who tend to be aware of some of the failings of their Christian experience. Much of what we hear on Christian TV is false teaching, and I know I have encountered some Christianity that misunderstands the Bible. The whole Reformed thing has left me questioning my Protestant (Lutheran/Presbyterian) roots. Much of what the Reformers did to get free of Rome was good, but they still remained Roman Catholics, at least in their confession of Filioque.
When I do get back to the Orthodox Church, it will be a better day for me. I am planning to go next month, and I think now I will say goodbye for now to you posters. Anyway, I can't say anyone is a heretic. I am (or at least I was at one time) a heretic, too. I've done and thought and said some things that are in error. I need to repent better each day. But I have learned SOME of the truth. Some of you, however, would call ME a heretic because I venerate icons. You would say they are "idols". And you would think I don't know what I believe when I insist on believing in the supernatural birth of Christ without pains of childbirth and not violating the ever-virginity of Mary. You would insist the Virgin did not remain a virgin, although you can't produce one text that teaches "the children of Mary and Joseph". Some of you would insist on original sin, or purgatory, or for those who are Protestants, you would insist that infants can't be baptized, and that only adult or teenage believers should be baptized. And you would support whatever denomination tradition you think best interprets the Bible.
Well goodbye for now all. I think I will just wait until August to check back here. I need to get back to writing my book and more than that going to Church.
I just suggest your read John 15:26 and see how that relates to the Church. If you are Lutheran or Catholic or Anglican or Presbyterian, you may think that when you say "And the Son", you aren't ignoring or misinterpreting this verse from John's Gospel, but you have been taught wrong by Augustine of Hippo.
Some of you have no problem with John 15:26, because you do follow the Bible and not Augustinian tradition.
God bless us all. In Erie June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington
PS Officially I'm still heterodox, too, until the day when that changes and I receive grace and healing from the Spirit in the Church. I wonder why all of us post so many times. It would be better for us just to go to church. What we understand as church. Of course, this CC is all about many different understandings of what the Bible means and what the meaning of faith in Jesus Christ is. So many of you are preoccupied with the Book of Revelation and the rapture. And with other things like that. Most of us were or are some kind of Protestants, and very few people who post here support Roman catholicism. But there are a few catholics in this forum. I think it's rather too bold to state posts like "Is ...... evil?" Those posts, especially the post "Is Thor evil?" is a really strange, odd thing. I think some people are kind of less than serious. Was Hitler evil makes more sense than "Is Thor evil"
? Anyway, according to Jesus Christ and the Bible, we have all sinned. God's mercy endures forever, while in this world we are imperfect and evil. May God deliver us from all of our sins. Amen.

 

[Crypto]

I did not say any of you are not true Christians.
Is it wrong to ask the following question
Which tradition correctly interprets the Bible?

Eastern Orthodoxy
Oriental Orthodoxy
Roman Catholicism
Old Catholicism
Anglicanism
Protestantism in some form
Baptist "church"
Presbyterian
Reformed
Lutheran
Methodist
Pentecostal
Adventist
etc.
Mormon? (Give us a break! That's weird!)

Can I point out the truth of John 15:26 and still confess I have a lot to learn.
I am still a poor sinner.
I'm still in error. I need to do more. I'm just pointing out what I learned about John 15:26, which showed me I was in error. The easy thing about Christianity is to read the Bible and learn what it teaches. The hard thing about Christianity is to get to church on Sunday, when much of my past experience of Sundays was sleeping in. Old habits are hard to break. Anyway, I have been to church on Saturday evenings a few times.
All I'm here for is to point out books and teachings I have found to be true. You are free to agree or disagree as you will. I can't bind your conscience, and you can't bind mine. We all need the Holy Spirit before we can come together in Church. We all have differing notions on which local churches we should be attending. This CC is a kind of chat forum for a lot of people who tend to be aware of some of the failings of their Christian experience. Much of what we hear on Christian TV is false teaching, and I know I have encountered some Christianity that misunderstands the Bible. The whole Reformed thing has left me questioning my Protestant (Lutheran/Presbyterian) roots. Much of what the Reformers did to get free of Rome was good, but they still remained Roman Catholics, at least in their confession of Filioque.
When I do get back to the Orthodox Church, it will be a better day for me. I am planning to go next month, and I think now I will say goodbye for now to you posters. Anyway, I can't say anyone is a heretic. I am (or at least I was at one time) a heretic, too. I've done and thought and said some things that are in error. I need to repent better each day. But I have learned SOME of the truth. Some of you, however, would call ME a heretic because I venerate icons. You would say they are "idols". And you would think I don't know what I believe when I insist on believing in the supernatural birth of Christ without pains of childbirth and not violating the ever-virginity of Mary. You would insist the Virgin did not remain a virgin, although you can't produce one text that teaches "the children of Mary and Joseph". Some of you would insist on original sin, or purgatory, or for those who are Protestants, you would insist that infants can't be baptized, and that only adult or teenage believers should be baptized. And you would support whatever denomination tradition you think best interprets the Bible.
Well goodbye for now all. I think I will just wait until August to check back here. I need to get back to writing my book and more than that going to Church.
I just suggest your read John 15:26 and see how that relates to the Church. If you are Lutheran or Catholic or Anglican or Presbyterian, you may think that when you say "And the Son", you aren't ignoring or misinterpreting this verse from John's Gospel, but you have been taught wrong by Augustine of Hippo.
Some of you have no problem with John 15:26, because you do follow the Bible and not Augustinian tradition.
God bless us all. In Erie June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington
PS Officially I'm still heterodox, too, until the day when that changes and I receive grace and healing from the Spirit in the Church. I wonder why all of us post so many times. It would be better for us just to go to church. What we understand as church. Of course, this CC is all about many different understandings of what the Bible means and what the meaning of faith in Jesus Christ is. So many of you are preoccupied with the Book of Revelation and the rapture. And with other things like that. Most of us were or are some kind of Protestants, and very few people who post here support Roman catholicism. But there are a few catholics in this forum. I think it's rather too bold to state posts like "Is ...... evil?" Those posts, especially the post "Is Thor evil?" is a really strange, odd thing. I think some people are kind of less than serious. Was Hitler evil makes more sense than "Is Thor evil"
? Anyway, according to Jesus Christ and the Bible, we have all sinned. God's mercy endures forever, while in this world we are imperfect and evil. May God deliver us from all of our sins. Amen.

Some of the differences between Christian groups are not on the most important thing: the gospel. As long as someone gets the gospel right, they're good. Unfortunately about half the churches you listed are not solid on the true gospel.

 

[Maddog]

The passage in James is often taken out of it's context, verse 18 explains what the passage is about: "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." It's basically a polemic against people who profess Christ but have no life fruit to back it up. And one verse that may seem a bit obscure has to be interpreted by the rest of the Bible, which is the error of cultists and others who misrepresent what the Bible teaches regarding salvation.

Romans 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Titus 3:5-7 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Well there you go. I don't doubt that those passages are perfectly clear to you, but what about me and the thousands of millions of other Christians who just don't see those verses as you do? Even if the Protestant interpretation is correct, how do you reconcile the idea that these verses are clear with the observable fact that most who fall under the banner of Christianity draw different conclusions?

 

[Crypto]

Well there you go. I don't doubt that those passages are perfectly clear to you, but what about me and the thousands of millions of other Christians who just don't see those verses as you do? Even if the Protestant interpretation is correct, how do you reconcile the idea that these verses are clear with the observable fact that most who fall under the banner of Christianity draw different conclusions?

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.