The cultishness of Catholicism...

[Alive in Christ]

This presentation of Catholic Culticness is on full display here.

The vain repititions, the mindless droning of pre ordained words, the resulting indoctrination, etc etc etc

Its in 2 parts, but together its only about 20 minutes.

Its very saddening.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__RbWgxA2G0

 

[lori4dogs]

Thanks for providing the link. I love the chaplet of Divine Mercy.

The bible prohibits VAIN repititious prayer, not repititious prayer. This chaplet is by no means vain. Did you pay attention to the words. Probably not. Nor is there anything wrong with liturgical prayer. You just have such an anti-Catholic hatred that you can't stand anything connected with the Catholic Church.

 

[lori4dogs]

BTW, I visited a local Baptist church in my home town the other day. A praise song that consisted of about 15 words sang over and over and over again. Was that vain repitition as well??

 

[Revmitchell]

BTW, I visited a local Baptist church in my home town the other day. A praise song that consisted of about 15 words sang over and over and over again. Was that vain repitition as well??

Yes but it is not set up by a hierarchy therefore it is not possible to paint all Baptists with such nonsense.

 

[billwald]

Singing "Just As I Am" 15 times until some brave soul went forward so the rest could go home and get some sleep . . . .

 

[lori4dogs]

Any prayer from the heart, repetitive or otherwise, is acceptable to God. How many times should we repeat “I love you” to Jesus? The matter then is not simply repetition, but vain repetition.

Here is part of an answer given by 'Catholics United for the Faith':

“As the Heathens Do”

"In this passage, Jesus is referring to “empty” or “vain” vocal prayer as practiced by the pagans, “who feared to omit from their prayer the name of one god or the mention of one request.” The key word here is “vain” or “empty,” not repetition. Ancient pagans feared that if they did not invoke the “correct” titles of that day, their fickle gods would not hear them. To them a god was a person with human feelings, appetites, and caprices. By cleverly appealing to these changeable qualities they could influence or even oblige a god to act in their favor. For the pagans, prayer was nothing less than an attempt to manipulate a powerful ruler. “Needless to say, repetition of such a simple prayer as the Rosary is by no means discouraged provided it does not become mechanical. We use repetition not to secure God’s attention, but to sustain our own."

 

[annsni]

Is this truly part of the chaplet?

"Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world."

How in the world can WE offer God anything of Christ? The atonement is done. Where in Scripture are we told to offer to God the blood of Jesus? That we're to offer Him the Body of Jesus? That we're to give Him the DIVINITY of Jesus???????? Nope - that's just completely unBiblical.

 

[lori4dogs]

Is this truly part of the chaplet?

"Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world."

How in the world can WE offer God anything of Christ? The atonement is done. Where in Scripture are we told to offer to God the blood of Jesus? That we're to offer Him the Body of Jesus? That we're to give Him the DIVINITY of Jesus???????? Nope - that's just completely unBiblical.

Yes, the atonement is done I don't see how that is the issue here. I have heard protestants 'pleading the blood of Jesus' in their prayers. I really believe is it similar.

In a sense, He does belong to us, just as we belong to Him; the New Testament says that the relationship of Jesus to His disciples is so close that we literally become His mystical "Body" on earth, and He fills us with His Spirit (see I Cor 12). Thus, when we offer Him to the Father in the chaplet, we are also offering ourselves in and with Him, and He is offering us in and with Himself. Spiritually, we are so enmeshed as to be inseparable from Him (save by un-repented mortal sin, of course).

The New Testament also tells us that our relationship with Christ is so close that it is a relationship of spousal love: Christ is the Bridegroom, and the Church is His Bride (see Ephesians 5:25-32). As in any true spousal relationship, the spouses, in a sense, belong to each other. The two have become "one flesh" (Gen 2:24).

 

[annsni]

Yes, the atonement is done I don't see how that is the issue here. I have heard protestants 'pleading the blood of Jesus' in their prayers. I really believe is it similar.

In a sense, He does belong to us, just as we belong to Him; the New Testament says that the relationship of Jesus to His disciples is so close that we literally become His mystical "Body" on earth, and He fills us with His Spirit (see I Cor 12). Thus, when we offer Him to the Father in the chaplet, we are also offering ourselves in and with Him, and He is offering us in and with Himself. Spiritually, we are so enmeshed as to be inseparable from Him (save by un-repented mortal sin, of course).

The New Testament also tells us that our relationship with Christ is so close that it is a relationship of spousal love: Christ is the Bridegroom, and the Church is His Bride (see Ephesians 5:25-32). As in any true spousal relationship, the spouses, in a sense, belong to each other. The two have become "one flesh" (Gen 2:24).

So you are saying that we become Jesus? You do realize that there is a difference between the physical body of Jesus and the body of Christ that is the church, right? Your comparison is like a pastor who used to post here that said that the King James Bible is God because John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." and so, the Word is God. Well, the Word is the Bible and of course the only Bible to him was the KJV so the KJV was God. Same sort of reasoning that I see here.

 

[lori4dogs]

So you are saying that we become Jesus? You do realize that there is a difference between the physical body of Jesus and the body of Christ that is the church, right? Your comparison is like a pastor who used to post here that said that the King James Bible is God because John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." and so, the Word is God. Well, the Word is the Bible and of course the only Bible to him was the KJV so the KJV was God. Same sort of reasoning that I see here.

No comparison. And of course we don't become Jesus. I said spiritually we are enmeshed with Him, that all.

 

[Trotter]

"Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world."

I see so many things that scream "WRONG!" to me on so many different theological levels I don't even know where to start.

How can anyone offer up the body and blood of Jesus to God? Even if the language is used figuratively it would be in very poor taste. I do realize that the RCC teaches that the bread and wine are transformed into Christ's flesh and blood (again, wrong on so many levels), but this is way beyond that.

And to offer up the soul of Jesus? That borders on, or steps into, blasphemy. Even in salvation we do not possess the soul of Jesus. This should not even be said figuratively, much less a part of a prayer? What idiot wrote this? he should have been flogged at the least.

And forget about offering up His divinity. Man never touches divinity as it is the sole realm of the Godhead. The Mormons believe in attaining divinity, but I would have thought the RCC would be somewhat more in line with scripture. yeah, dumb of me... I know.

In atonement for sins? Give me a break! Jesus is the ONLY atonement. Nothing we do or can do has one whit to do with His work done on our behalf. But this prayer is going to offer up Jesus' body, soul, blood, and DIVINITY in order to atone for our sins? This makes me so outraged that I could spit nails.
==============================================

Regarding people "pleading the blood of Jesus"... that is pretty close to the same thing as this "prayer" in my book. Jesus shed His blood for our sins; pleading the blood is completely off base in every way. Praying for someone or for a situation is one thing, but "pleading the blood" is just plain stupid.

I don't care for 7/11 songs, either (seven words repeated eleven times). I do love praise choruses, but I prefer those with meat to them... not chanting a slogan. "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High" is about as close to a 7/11 song as I get. I also love singing the chorus to Rich Mullins' song "Awesome God" in church. Keep the 7/11's for a pep rally.

 

[Zenas]

I see so many things that scream "WRONG!" to me on so many different theological levels I don't even know where to start.

How can anyone offer up the body and blood of Jesus to God? Even if the language is used figuratively it would be in very poor taste. I do realize that the RCC teaches that the bread and wine are transformed into Christ's flesh and blood (again, wrong on so many levels), but this is way beyond that.

And to offer up the soul of Jesus? That borders on, or steps into, blasphemy. Even in salvation we do not possess the soul of Jesus. This should not even be said figuratively, much less a part of a prayer? What idiot wrote this? he should have been flogged at the least.

And forget about offering up His divinity. Man never touches divinity as it is the sole realm of the Godhead. The Mormons believe in attaining divinity, but I would have thought the RCC would be somewhat more in line with scripture. yeah, dumb of me... I know.

In atonement for sins? Give me a break! Jesus is the ONLY atonement. Nothing we do or can do has one whit to do with His work done on our behalf. But this prayer is going to offer up Jesus' body, soul, blood, and DIVINITY in order to atone for our sins? This makes me so outraged that I could spit nails.
==============================================

Regarding people "pleading the blood of Jesus"... that is pretty close to the same thing as this "prayer" in my book. Jesus shed His blood for our sins; pleading the blood is completely off base in every way. Praying for someone or for a situation is one thing, but "pleading the blood" is just plain stupid.

I don't care for 7/11 songs, either (seven words repeated eleven times). I do love praise choruses, but I prefer those with meat to them... not chanting a slogan. "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High" is about as close to a 7/11 song as I get. I also love singing the chorus to Rich Mullins' song "Awesome God" in church. Keep the 7/11's for a pep rally.

The Chaplet of Divine Mercy was inspired by visions of a Polish nun named Faustina Kowalska. In 1933, God gave Sister Faustina a striking vision of His Mercy. She wrote in her diary:

"I saw a great light, with God the Father in the midst of it.
Between this light and the earth I saw Jesus nailed to the Cross
and in such a way that God, wanting to look upon the earth, had to
look through Our Lord's wounds and I understood that God blessed
the earth for the sake of Jesus."

Of another vision on Sept. 13, 1935, she writes:

"I saw an Angel, the executor of God's wrath... about to strike
the earth...I began to beg God earnestly for the world with words
which I heard interiorly. As I prayed in this way, I saw the
Angel's helplessness, and he could not carry out the just
punishment...."

The following day an inner voice taught her to say the prayer we know as the Chaplet of Divine Mercy on ordinary rosary beads.
The words, “I offer You the Body and the Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son . . .,” really sum up the theology of the Eucharist. Unlike Evangelicals, who see the Lord’s Supper as a a memorial fellowship meal, Catholics regard the Eucharist as both a memorial meal and a sacrifice. They believe the bread and wine, which become the literal body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, are sacrificed each time each time they receive the Eucharist (Malachi 1:11; John 6:53-58). They believe the sacrifice on the cross exists throughout all time and the Eucharist is not a new sacrifice but an extension of Christ’s original sacrifice. The benefit of this is that by receiving the Eucharist they believe they are forgiven of venial sins.

While slightly off the topic, I would recommend the book Understanding Four Views on the Lord's Supper to anyone wanting to get a better understanding of the theology of the Eucharist (Lord's Supper). It is written by scholars of the Baptist, Reformed, Lutheran and Catholic faiths, and each of the four POV's has a response by each of the other three writers.

Trotter, I agree with your comments on the 7/11 songs, although there is one version of the Chaplet that is one of the most beautiful melodies I have ever heard. I just wish it weren’t so darn long and repetitive.

 

[annsni]

I see so many things that scream "WRONG!" to me on so many different theological levels I don't even know where to start.

How can anyone offer up the body and blood of Jesus to God? Even if the language is used figuratively it would be in very poor taste. I do realize that the RCC teaches that the bread and wine are transformed into Christ's flesh and blood (again, wrong on so many levels), but this is way beyond that.

And to offer up the soul of Jesus? That borders on, or steps into, blasphemy. Even in salvation we do not possess the soul of Jesus. This should not even be said figuratively, much less a part of a prayer? What idiot wrote this? he should have been flogged at the least.

And forget about offering up His divinity. Man never touches divinity as it is the sole realm of the Godhead. The Mormons believe in attaining divinity, but I would have thought the RCC would be somewhat more in line with scripture. yeah, dumb of me... I know.

In atonement for sins? Give me a break! Jesus is the ONLY atonement. Nothing we do or can do has one whit to do with His work done on our behalf. But this prayer is going to offer up Jesus' body, soul, blood, and DIVINITY in order to atone for our sins? This makes me so outraged that I could spit nails.
==============================================

Regarding people "pleading the blood of Jesus"... that is pretty close to the same thing as this "prayer" in my book. Jesus shed His blood for our sins; pleading the blood is completely off base in every way. Praying for someone or for a situation is one thing, but "pleading the blood" is just plain stupid.

I don't care for 7/11 songs, either (seven words repeated eleven times). I do love praise choruses, but I prefer those with meat to them... not chanting a slogan. "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High" is about as close to a 7/11 song as I get. I also love singing the chorus to Rich Mullins' song "Awesome God" in church. Keep the 7/11's for a pep rally.

:thumbsup:

 

[BobRyan]

I see so many things that scream "WRONG!" to me on so many different theological levels I don't even know where to start.

How can anyone offer up the body and blood of Jesus to God? Even if the language is used figuratively it would be in very poor taste. I do realize that the RCC teaches that the bread and wine are transformed into Christ's flesh and blood (again, wrong on so many levels), but this is way beyond that.

How so?

The priest "claims the powers" to "confect God" in the form of the body of Christ. Once the priest has that power - it is simple thing to say "I offer up to you O God the body and soul of Christ".

And to offer up the soul of Jesus? That borders on, or steps into, blasphemy.

As the Catholic document "The Faith Explained" points out - IF the Catholic teaching about being able to confect God is wrong - then the act of "worshipping a piece of bread" as though it were God is an act of idolatry.

The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”

The Faith Explained – Page 350

“On this, the last night before His death, Jesus is making His last will and testament.

Ibid. Page 351
A last will is no place for figurative speech (in the Catholic opinion); under the best of circumstances (human) courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words that night, untold millions of people would be worshipping him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. if he would not really be present under those appearances, the worshippers would be adoring a mere piece of bread, and would be guilty of idolatry,.

I am not one of those that accuses the RCC of being a non-Christian "cult" - thus I do not claim that just because someone is a Catholic - they are not saved.

However I would ask this of the readers here - what "Cult" do you know of - claiming the powers to "confect God"??

I know of none.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Chaplet of Divine Mercy was inspired by visions of a Polish nun named Faustina Kowalska. In 1933, God gave Sister Faustina a striking vision of His Mercy. She wrote in her diary:

Of another vision on Sept. 13, 1935, she writes:

"I saw an Angel, the executor of God's wrath... about to strike
the earth...I began to beg God earnestly for the world with words
which I heard interiorly. As I prayed in this way, I saw the
Angel's helplessness, and he could not carry out the just
punishment...."

The following day an inner voice taught her to say the prayer we know as the Chaplet of Divine Mercy on ordinary rosary beads.
The words, “I offer You the Body and the Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son . . .,” really sum up the theology of the Eucharist.

WE have had threads here where I staunchly defend the 1Cor 12 teaching on the ongoing gifts of the Holy Spirit - including the gift of prophecy.

But I also stated on those threads that I strongly support holding those messages that are claimed to be from God to strict "sola scriptura" accountability.

Is 8:20 "to the Law and the Testimony - if they speak NOT according to THIS WORD - they have no light" for John tells us to "TEST the spirits" 1John 4:1 instead of merely "believing ever spirit" that comes along.

in the case above - the failing is in two parts.

1. The Angels of God SERVE HIM - the Angels are HIS "ministers" Heb 1:7 and they worship and serve God alone (Heb 1:6).

So there is no such thing as God commanding His angel to act - and then man making God's angel "powerless".

2. The second error in that vision is that in Heb 10:9-14 Christ's completed sacrifice on the cross was "once for ALL TIME"

vs 10 is specific about the body of Christ offered ONCE.

Unlike Evangelicals, who see the Lord’s Supper as a a memorial

Indeed they do - for Christ said "do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me" 1 Cor 11: 24.

He never said "do this to CONFECT ME".

He never said "as often as you do this -- you do OFFER up to God MY body and my soul in sacrifice".

Catholics regard the Eucharist as both a memorial meal and a sacrifice.

Indeed they do - hence their error.

They believe the bread and wine, which become the literal body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, are sacrificed each time each time they receive the Eucharist (Malachi 1:11; John 6:53-58).

Hence their error - since Hebrews only allows ONE completed sacrifice for all time - offerred ONCE for all time.

Heb 9:28 says that Christ "having BEEN OFFERED ONCE" to bear the sins of many -- no longer bears sin in that way. It was completed when Christ said "it is finished".

He did not say in John 6 "you will have the power to confect me and then time after time afer time to offer Me up as a sacrifice" -- though the RC doctrine desperately needs that to have been in John 6.

Furthermore - in John 6 Christ said that "the flesh is WORTHLESS - my WORDS have power and life".

But even worse - in John 6 Christ did not say "some day in the FUTURE I will be the BREAD of life" He said HE ALREADY WAS the bread of life - then and there. And yet pope Peter did not take a bite out of Christ - then or ever!

They believe the sacrifice on the cross exists throughout all time and the Eucharist is not a new sacrifice but an extension of Christ’s original sacrifice. The benefit of this is that by receiving the Eucharist they believe they are forgiven of venial sins.

1. When are they forgiven of mortal sin?
2. Where does Christ say "by eating of my body you receive forgiveness of venial sin"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Zenas]

1. When are they forgiven of mortal sin?

in Christ,

Bob

When they go to confession.

2. Where does Christ say "by eating of my body you receive forgiveness of venial sin"??

in Christ,

Bob

It's probably one of those things John was referring to in John 21:25. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[billwald]

>How can anyone offer up the body and blood of Jesus to God?

The same way that any human offers anything to God, whatever THAT is.

 

[annsni]

>How can anyone offer up the body and blood of Jesus to God?

The same way that any human offers anything to God, whatever THAT is.

But how do we offer that which is not ours to offer? Did anyone in the Bible take someone else's offering and say "Hey God, add me on that too"?

 

[billwald]

If we are slaves of God or Satan then we own nothing.

And if we own stuff, how do we offer it to God? I suppose a burnt offering is an honest attempt. If our offering goes to our church budget . . . .

 

[BobRyan]

Posted by BobRyan
2. Where does Christ say "by eating of my body you receive forgiveness of venial sin"??

It's probably one of those things John was referring to in John 21:25. :smilewinkgrin:

Which says ---??

25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen

So if now the rule of "sola scriptura" is that anything we want to claim about Christ is automatically true - via an appeal to what we do not find in scripture, I am thinking that we could then argue "Christ said - beware lest at any future point in time you be tricked into joining something called the Catholic church".

And then when someone says "where in the world did Jesus ever say such a thing according to scripture?" -- we simply respond John 21:25??

That would be the "Wild wild west" in terms of Bible doctrines.

in Christ,

Bob