Warning! Catholic church is a FALSE religion

[KingdomGeneration]

ugh this thread makes me weary, lol. ok so i thought i'd start a random thread on cains wife but baptist answered it too quickly, lol. hmm i wonder if this thread has gone far enough

I personally feel that it is quite possible that there are sincere Catholic believers out there despite some of the twisted doctrine that the Catholic faith may hold on to. I think the same could be true for some Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses who are sincere about Christ also.

Several times in these forums I have heard people defend a certain doctrine that promotes that a person can still be saved despite walking away from their relationship with Christ (Carnal Christianity) all the while arguing that it is impossible for a person to judge the sincerity of another. Yet these same people later go on to openly condemn Catholics, Mormons and JW's when in truth one could argue that the same rules that apply to "Carnal Christianity" could apply to the other groups as well.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Better tell that to Ignatius who was personally taught by the Apostle John and ordained bishop of Antioch.

Ignatius? Just like the bible the early church Father's writings must be read in context, and not claimed to say something which they do not. Ignatius was debating the Gnostics who did not believe Christ was actually in the flesh. Ignatius was not making a doctrine of transubstantiation whatsoever.

Ignatius is arguing against the Gnostic Docetists, who denied that Jesus had a true physical existence, or that that he actually died and rose again:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”
​

Ignatius states that the Eucharist is the body of Christ without given any details about the nature of the change, if any, in the elements. The problem with the Gnostics concerned the person of Christ and not the nature of the Eucharist. The heretics did not participate in the Eucharist because they do not believe in what the Eucharist represents, namely the true, physical flesh of Jesus, who actually and really suffered on the cross, and which was really resurrected from the death.

Tertullian uses a similar argument from the Eucharist to combat Docetism:

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body” (Against Marcion, Bk 4).
​

Like Ignatius, he speaks of a change in the bread - it is made the body of Christ. But unlike Ignatius, Tertullian goes on to define the nature of the change. Rather than saying that the bread ceases to exist, he calls it the “the figure” of the body of Christ and maintains a clear distinction between the figure and what it represents, namely the “veritable body” of our Lord.

http://www.bibletopics.com/BibleStudy/159.htm

 

[MahogonySnail]

It is right to emphasise that the bread and wine represents the actual fleshly body and blood of Christ, but it is another thing to make a doctrine of transubstantiation that makes wild claims that the bread and wine actually change into something else and are not longer bread and wine. Scripture and early church writings do not support this Roman Catholic doctrine very well. The best scripture that disproves it is in Matthew as I quoted earlier, when Jesus referred to the cup as "fruit of the vine" not His own blood. This clearly shows it is only to be taken as symbolic in nature. And it begs the question why Catholics don't allow their church members to drink the wine isn't that going against Christ's own teaching to drink it in remembrance of Him.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Another thing that disproves the bread and wine are Christ's body and blood is that at the time when Christ said "do this in remembrance of me", it was before His crucifixion. How could the disciples be eating Christ's actual body and blood in the bread and wine on that night before Christ had even been crucified?

 

[CLARKY]

"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)


Tertullian's doctrine of the Holy Eucharist has been much discussed, especially the words: "Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei". A consideration of the context shows only one interpretation to be possible.

Tertullian is proving that Our Lord Himself explained bread in Jeremiah 11:19 (mittamus lignum in panem ejus) to refer to His Body, when He said, "This is My Body", that is, that bread was the symbol of His Body.

Nothing can be elicited either for or against the Real Presence; for Tertullian does not explain whether the bread is the symbol of the Body present or absent. The context suggests the former meaning. Another passage is: Panem, quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat. This might mean "Bread which stands for His Body", or "Presents, makes present".

Also, The Church has always held that when disagreements over Scripture arise, the correct interpretation of the Bible will be consistent with how the Church authorities have believed in the past, as revealed by the Ecumenical councils, the writings of the Apostles of Jesus and the early Church Fathers "so that we may no longer be infants, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" EPH 4: 14. An individual "opinion" never constituted a need for an ecumenical council, so your point is moot.

 

[CLARKY]

"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

Tertullian's doctrine of the Holy Eucharist has been much discussed, especially the words: "Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei".

A consideration of the context shows only one interpretation to be possible. Tertullian is proving that Our Lord Himself explained bread in Jeremiah 11:19 (mittamus lignum in panem ejus) to refer to His Body, when He said, "This is My Body", that is, that bread was the symbol of His Body. Nothing can be elicited either for or against the Real Presence; for Tertullian does not explain whether the bread is the symbol of the Body present or absent.

The context suggests the former meaning. Another passage is: Panem, quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat. This might mean "Bread which stands for His Body", or "Presents, makes present".

Also, The Church has always held that when disagreements over Scripture arise, the correct interpretation of the Bible will be consistent with how the Church authorities have believed in the past, as revealed by the Ecumenical councils, the writings of the Apostles of Jesus and the early Church Fathers "so that we may no longer be infants, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" EPH 4: 14. An individual "opinion" never constituted a need for an ecumenical council, so your point is moot.

 

[any]

I think what psalm speak clear when said:
Why do the natiojns say
where is treir God?
Our God is in heaven;
he does whatever pleases him
But their idols are silver and gold,
made by hands of men
they have mounth,but cannot speak,
eyes,but they cannot see
they have ears,but cannot hear,
noses,but they cannot smell
they have hands,but cannot feel
feet,but they cannot walknor can they utter a sound with their throats

 

[SonShine]

Luke 9:48-50 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great. And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

 

[MahogonySnail]

There would be no need to appeal to what the Church says if the evidence in Scripture and early church writings were so sure on this topic. Only reinforces my view that the R.C. church is more of a cult than not. All cults appeal to their religious institution or system as evidence for what it claims to be correct. But independent verification and validation of Roman Catholic claims by many from both the Scriptures and Early church writings show the Catholic view not to be so factual and unbiased afterall, as they claim.

Here is the problem with blindly following what the Church says. I find it ironic that despite in 1415 AD the Council of Constance decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone, two Popes condemned such a "half communion":

Gelasius [492-496] complains: † "That some received the bread, but abstained from the cup; whom he condemns as guilty of superstition, and orders that they should either receive in both kinds, or else be excluded from both, because one and the same mystery cannot be divided without grand sacrilege." Leo the Great [440-461] denounces them with equal vehemence:‡ "They receive the body of Christ," says he, "with unworthy mouth, but refuse to drink the [p. 193] blood of our redemption, such men's sacrilegious dissimulation being discovered, let them be marked, and by the authority of the priesthood cast out of the society of the faithful." Gelasius was a respectable pontiff, but Leo the Great deserved his title: he was one of the ablest churchmen, and most celebrated popes that ever lived, and his condemnation of half communion in Catholic eyes should strip it of all authority.


It also goes against Christ's own command in Matthew 26:27 to "drink from it, all of you"

So if I were you I would check more carefully whether you want to blindly follow what the Church system says or not, it could be wrong.

 

[CLARKY]

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.: Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.: Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.: I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.: Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.

Looks CLEAR to me.






















​

 

[MahogonySnail]

So why do Catholics only eat half the sacrifice, an unbloody one because they don't drink Christ's blood. Orthodox have both bread and wine why not Catholic. How can you claim to have life by celebrating mass if you only eat the body and not drink the blood. Only the priest(s) drink the blood. And the priest only referred to the bread as Christ's body not both as body and blood. Why?

 

[CLARKY]

"There would be no need to appeal to what the Church says if the evidence in Scripture and early church writings were so sure on this topic. Only reinforces my view that the R.C. church is more of a cult than not"

Better tell that to Bartholomew who referred to Rome as the first patriarchate.

Rome is the first because Peter was in residence there. The second was Antioch because Peter was bishop there first. Then Peter sent Mark to Alexandria to form the Church there.

After some time Jerusalem was added; remember it had been destroyed by Hadrian because Peter first exercised his ministry there.

Finally Constantinople applied for the rank of patriarch because Peter's brother, Andrew, brought the Faith there. So you see, the patriarchates all are related to PETER.

Not only is sola scriptura unbiblical, it is illogical as well. If it was a foundational doctrine from the very beginning, then what did Christians do for the first sixty years before the N T books were finished?

And what about the 400 years before the canon was established and Christians were unsure of what Scripture they should be sola about?

What about all that time before the Gutenberg press, when to buy a Bible cost three year’s wages? Or what if you were one of the common masses who couldn’t read a Bible even if you had one?

Wouldn’t this make sola scriptura useless for the bulk of the Church’s two thousand years of existence?

The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity. It is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book.

In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private interpretation it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal.

Readers believe in themselves rather than in any higher authority of His Church.
The "unhappy divisions", not only between sect and sect but within the same sect, have become a byword. They are due to the pride of private intellect, and they can only be healed by humble submission to a Divine authority.

The "Bible alone" theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church. It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the protestant reformation.

The theory is a "tradition of men" that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1–8).

 

[MahogonySnail]

That's all very nice but it's ignoring the fact that, we can't really thank Catholics for giving us a bible for us to read ourselves. It could also be said it is illogical to trust in one church system (Roman Catholicism) given that:

a) the teachings of the Church have changed over time and are not the same as they were at the time of Peter and soon afterwards
b) There was a reformation, there would be no need for a reformation if the Catholic church was not without fault.

Readers believe in themselves rather than in any higher authority of His Church.

And what Church authority did the intended recipients of Paul's letters have for example? When they got a letter from Paul did they contact their local Roman Catholic authority to have it explained to them? Nope, they probably read it for themselves. Cut out the middle man I say. Especially when a) and b) as I listed above have shown it to be so unreliable. Did not Christ gift every believer with the Spirit or only the Church authorities?

Readers believe in themselves rather than in any higher authority of His Church.
The "unhappy divisions", not only between sect and sect but within the same sect, have become a byword. They are due to the pride of private intellect, and they can only be healed by humble submission to a Divine authority.

Unlike cult-like submission to a higher authority despite wealth of evidence against it, disagreeing and discussion of scripture is actually normal human behaviour and it's called freedom to think and believe for one-self. When Jesus spoke to people he always referred them back to the scriptures. Christ did not just tell them how it was, He told them to search the scriptures for themselves. And despite this common claim by Catholics that private interpretation leads to division, the Catholic church itself even with its authorities and all is actually quite fragmented and full of little sects and divisions within itself.

 

[MahogonySnail]

The irony is that those who hold to Sola Scripture do not reach the same conclusions as those who believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Why is that? And these are not amateurs either who reach these conclusions contrary to the R.C. church, but well respected theologians. One example is as I gave before, that Catholics don't give wine to the laity, yet Scripture teaches nothing of the sort. Why is that? I know it was introduced out of fear of spilling Christ's blood or something, but is Christ's blood too holy for sinners to drink it?

 

[CLARKY]

"That's all very nice but it's ignoring the fact that, we can't really thank Catholics for giving us a bible for us to read ourselves. It could also be said it is illogical to trust in one church system (Roman Catholicism) given that:"

The Church made the cut. The Church decided what was and what was NOT Scripture and guarantees it as the Word of God since the Holy Spirit was promised to lead the Church to ALL truth.

The Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church at 2 synods, at Hippo Regius in 393 and Carthage in 397.

The results were forwarded to Pope Damasus 1 who posted a "canon" of the titles, the official list, and nothing changed in the Bible until Luther, on his own authority, deleted books the Church had sanctioned.




"a) the teachings of the Church have changed over time and are not the same as they were at the time of Peter and soon afterwards"

His Church teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the Apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers, the pope and the bishops united with him, have never changed any doctrine.

Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

What she does change however are her (disciplines). (Disciplines) are changeable but doctrine is not changeable because they are truths revealed by God–such as the incarnation, Trinity, Virgin Birth, etc.

But (disciplines) are practices the Church decides to use to help lead the faithful to a deeper Faith and relationship with Our Lord. For instance, for years Catholics were to abstain from the flesh of land animals on Friday.

They could eat fish instead. This was a small sacrifice for the sake of (discipline); to suffer a little bit on Friday in memory and union with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross on Good Friday.

It inserted the practice of our Faith into an additional day of the week besides Sundays only. But by the time of Vatican II, it was decided by the Magesterium of the Church to remove this particular (discipline) as mandatory and change it.

The new (discipline) for Friday’s is that each of the faithful may choose their own sacrifice to join themselves to the suffering of Christ. They may choose whatever is meaningful for them but all are encouraged to do something.

So, let me restate the fact that the Catholic Church does not change her doctrines. It is easy to see, however, that many who are not in (full communion) with the Church
could be confused and think, erroneously that the Church “changed her doctrines”, dropped doctrines, or made up new doctrines.



b)" There was a reformation, there would be no need for a reformation if the Catholic church was not without fault. "

What reformation? Luther and his fellow friends decided to reform the Church and they were promptly excommunicated.

Contrary to popular belief the protestant REVOLT failed. It ended in division and the establishment of new institutions.

"We are compelled to concede to the Catholic Church that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all." Martin Luther

 

[dolly_d]

well yeah .. they dont follow the whole truth .. its more like a tradition to them

 

[CLARKY]

"Christ did not just tell them how it was, He told them to search the scriptures for themselves."


John 5:39 - But when Jesus said "search the Scriptures," He was rebuking the Jews who did not believe that He was the Messiah. Jesus tells them to search the Scriptures to verify the Messianic prophecies and His oral teaching, and does not say "search the Scriptures alone." Moreover, since the New Testament was not yet written, the passage is not relevant to your claim of sola Scriptura.


"And despite this common claim by Catholics that private interpretation leads to division, the Catholic church itself even with its authorities and all is actually quite fragmented and full of little sects and divisions within itself. "

The Catholic Church considers itself a single Church ("one Body") composed of a multitude of local or particular Churches, in each of which the one Catholic Church is embodied. However, the Catholic Church attaches great importance to the particular Churches within it.

A particular Church, in Catholic theology and Canon law, is any of the individual constituent ecclesial communities "in full communion with Rome" that are part of the Catholic Church as a whole. Canon 368 of the Code of Canon Law.

They are: Armenian Catholic Church, Belarusian Catholic Church, Bulgarian Catholic Church, Byzantine Catholic Church, Chaldean Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church, Croatian Greek Catholic Church, Ethiopian Catholic Church,

Georgian Catholic Church, Greek Catholic Church, Hungarian Catholic Church, Italo-Albanian Catholic Church, Latin Church, Febronianism, Gallicanism, Maronite Catholic Church, Melkite Catholic Church,

Romanian Catholic Church, Russian Catholic Church, Ruthenian Catholic Church,Slovak Catholic Church, Syrian Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

 

[MahogonySnail]

The fact is the Church has changed , dropped, and made up new teachings, certains Popes have contradicted other Popes, it is quite obvious looking at history. I gave one example about drinking the communion wine. Without arguing over what constitutes doctrine and what doesn't, it is clear the teachings and practices of the church have changed. But Catholics often explain away these. If you for example keep the doctrine that the wine actually becomes the blood of Christ, and yet make a rule that laity cannot partake of that wine in the 1400's, what is the use of having an unchanged doctrine about the wine becoming the blood? So no, doctrines and disciplines are not uncorrelated and distinct or separate from one another. Doctrine is as much about actions and practices as it is about written words in a book.

 

[MahogonySnail]

John 5:39 - But when Jesus said "search the Scriptures," He was rebuking the Jews who did not believe that He was the Messiah. Jesus tells them to search the Scriptures to verify the Messianic prophecies and His oral teaching, and does not say "search the Scriptures alone." Moreover, since the New Testament was not yet written, the passage is not relevant to your claim of sola Scriptura.

Neither did Christ say "ask the Roman Catholic church", or "ask Peter, who will be the first Pope". While the NT was not yet written, at this time, the Roman Catholic church did not exist either. Only in the made up fictional view of history which the Catholic church has had to make up to justify its existance.

Regarding unity, it is well known that Catholic belief is not uniform throughout the Church. Not every Catholic ascribes to the official position of the Church. There are Priests pushing to allow marriage, there are some pushing to accept homosexuality, the list goes on.
You claim that Sola Scriptura leads to division, but I'm not sure how you can explain divisions within the Catholic church.

Social-religious studies show, without exception, that there is no unanimity among Roman Catholics in following official Church teaching. International and trans-cultural inquiries - such as that carried out by the North American sociologist Greeley - show particularly clearly how the faithful have reached totally different opinions, even in matters which Papal authority regards as closed for discussion (i.e. 'almost dogmas'), such as the ordination of women and married men. In many countries, the majority of the faithful think and act in a manner which the Church's teaching qualifies as 'erroneous'
http://www.we-are-church.org/forum/forum6engl.htm

 

[CLARKY]

"The fact is the Church has changed , dropped, and made up new teachings"

Name one.