Featured Rome's Mary on the Cross and God's Throne

[

it took some time for the RCC to discover alot of "Traditions"

KEY DATES IN THE EVOLUTION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

300 -- Prayers For The Dead

300 -- Making The Sign Of The Cross

600 -- Worship in Latin Language

700 Circa -- Roman Catholic began to kill and torture "heretics", beginning Inquisition These "heretics" were people who believed in ancient Egyptian Mysteries

And in the revival of that belief system, known as Gnostics and Hermetics.

754 -- Temporal, Political power of the Pope

788 -- Worship of Mary and the Saints

788 -- Worship of the cross, images, and relics

858 -- Donation of Constantine

965 -- Baptism of Bells

998 -- Fasting on Fridays and on Lent

1000 -- Creation of Holy Water

1090 -- Praying by using Rosary beads

1123 -- Enforced celibacy for priests

1190 -- Sale of Indulgences

1215 -- Transubstantiation of the Wafer

1215 -- Auricular confession of sins to the priest

1303 -- Roman Catholic Church as the only Catholic Church

1438 -- Purgatory Proclaimed

1545 -- Tradition equal in authority to the Bible

1545 -- Justification (Putting into right standing with God) by good works, not by faith

alone

1545 -- Apocryphal books added to the Bible

1854 -- Immaculate conception of Mary

1870 -- Roman Catholic Pope lost the secular power enjoyed over most of Western Europe, called the Papal States.

1870 -- Roman Catholic Pope Pius IX, convened Vatican Council I. Main item on the agenda was the infallibility of the Pope. "After much intensive lobbying and some very unchristianlike pressure, the pope suffered a major moral defeat when, out of over 1,000 bishops entitled to take part in the Council, only

451 voted for infallibility. But by a strategy of politicking and threatening all but two of the dissenters left Rome before a final vote was taken. At the last meeting of the council, on July 18, 1870, it was decided by 533 votes to 2 that the pope was infallible when defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals."

1950 -- Assumption of Mary

 

And here you have it ladies and gents - error straight from the book entitled Roman Catholicism (Loraine Boettner) - one of the worst sourced and biggoted books of our time.

Yeeeee ha!
WM

 

What is sad is how blatantly wrong those dates are. I can find earlier dated documents expressing beliefs in those topics than the ones provided. For instance. What is often not expressed or even noted is that the Christian Church never made declaration about a certain doctrine until some heresy challenged the the consistently held view by all Christians. So for instance at the Lateran Council in the 1200's you see a dogmatic statement about the Eucharist and Transubstantiation became declared was a term that embodied the basic belief that had always been held. It was not a new invention but one consistently held from the begining. The reason for this defining moment was that now a heresy was being promulgated indicating that the Eucharist didn't contain the real presence thus a council had to be called and terms defined but we can see as early as 90 AD from Ignatius of Antioch and 150 AD from Justin Martyr documents siting the commonly held belief of the real presense in the Eucharist. So it goes for other topics as well.

 

The idolatrous views about Mary and papal infallibility were most certainly not held by the earliest churches. There was not even a pope at that time.

 

Can't argue with the Eucharist so attempt another issue. However, we see with Clements letter to the Corinthians around 100 AD he instructs them how to treat their own bishop obviously with authority over that Church though in Rome. Also note by Ireneaus own hand he make it quite clear that the bishop of Rome holds a predominate position among all Christian Churches. A lot earlier than your list. As far as Marian veneration the earliest found Marian prayer dates to 250 AD. Again earlier than your list. Also we see pectoral references venerating Mary before 250 on drawings in the Catacombs in Rome and else where. As Dr. Mark I. Miravalle points out in his article Mary in the Early Church

BTW I've been to Rome and walked in these Catacombs. Quite an experience.

 

What do you mean, can't argue with the Eucharist? What are you talking about?

Anything written in 100 AD and referencing a bishop was obviously talking about a senior pastor, not a monarchial bishop, since this development had not taken place.

And what list are you talking about? I think you have me mixed up with someone else.

It is quite obvious to any objective person that the RCC instead of being the one true church that Jesus established and which has not changed is rather the greatest innovator in all of Christianity. It is full of extra-Biblical, non-Biblical, and anti-Biblical doctrines and structure, many of which developed long after the apostolic churches. And that includes the Marian idolatry such as the immaculate conception and the assumption, the papacy, and papal infallibility, to name just a few.

 

I may have confused you with someone else, though you were on the same track as the other person, but what is quite clear is any review of historical Christian documents you can find that instead of "innovation" you find a re-assertion of a common belief which at latter periods become more defined with specific terminology but the beliefs itself was not changed.

 

Interesting that for the RCC doctrines and dogmas though, MUST appeal to either church tradition /Council/ or to church fathers, not the Bible itself!

 

I have seen these pics several times in differannt threads.


Non christians seem to be enfatuated having a goddess to worship. Cultic groups such as the catholic false church, and the Orthodox church, make the goddess seem acceptable.

Very sad, and God is not amused

 

Quite wrong. What you don't seem to understand is that the bible itself is our tradition. Often what is taken for facts about the Catholic faith is nothing more than vitriol. Very few of you actually goes to the source save to find a phrase in the middle of some document (that is to say out of context) just to prove your point. Think of it this simple way. If Jesus taught the disciples /Apostles and they spread the faith then there should be a discernible line of evidence that follows the apostles down through the ages to this very day. Very often people seem to think that once the NT was completed (80-90 AD) God abandon the church until the reformers. However, looking at history we see that yes in fact we can trace the Christian faith and its development right back to Jesus in a continuous unbroken line. The evidence is overwhelming that when you study history that the faith which does this is the Catholic/Orthodox faith.
But let me go on with Scriptures. Jesus didn't write a book and pass it on like the Claims of Joseph Smith with his golden tablets. If Jesus expected that the scriptures were the only thing needed to pass on for the continuation of his faith he would have written down the faith himself and he wouldn't have establish a church. He would have just passed the book on. Logically what does this tell us? He expected the faith to be passed on primarily by word of mouth in the confines of consistent teaching of an established church body. The bible developed out of Tradition. Supposing that Jesus died in 33 AD and we don't see the first NT book until 55 AD what does that tell you? That the book was written from an already established faith that already had a set of tradition. Note the first book of the NT wasn't even written by an Apostle. What does that tell you? The first priority for the apostles wasn't to write a book but to pass the faith on orally by Tradition already established and out of that Tradition comes the writing of the first NT book. What does scripture itself say of these matters? Does scripture teach that the bible is "the pillar and foundation of truth"? No. What the scriptures do teach is that

And it is out of that Church with an already established teaching from which comes the scriptures, the first book written 20 years after that church began! And what is clear is that after the last book of the NT was written not all the churches had all the collections of NT scriptures. Which overtime, a long time, eventually churches were able to accumulate all the writings of the NT but by then they had to cipher out which ones were consistent with the consistent teaching and so we see there wasn't an early agreement which NT books were considered scripture and which were not. Which is why books were argued over like Jude and Revelation which though authority of the writers were evident and had apostolic connection they were still argued over whether they should be admitted into the "authorized list of NT scripture" After all neither Jesus nor his apostles gave us a divinely inspired table of contents. The fact that no one knows who wrote the book of Hebrews and its connection to apostolic authority has always been in question proves the point. It is out of the already established Church from whence comes scripture which purpose is to

because it is based on the teaching given to the Church which Paul says once again

.
So the bible is tradition and is Catholic Tradition which is why Catholics kept it by arduously copying the text as accurate as they could from generation to generation. Note it was Catholics who did this. Not Lutherans as they didn't exist until the 1500s. Not Hussites as they didn't exist until the 1400's. Not the Waldasians, not any other group but Catholics. Which is why in the received text Erasmus when he couldn't get the completed Greek text of scripture translated the Latin back into Greek to fill out his completed Greek NT text upon which the King James is based.
As far as councils and traditions and church fathers what they attest to is that unbroken line of the beliefs of the Church from the beginning. We point to them because their writings are witness to beliefs in their day which followed on from the Apostles. Catholics can say see after the last apostle died his student Polycarp or Clement taught what the apostles did and it matches what we believe to this very day. And Church Councils are the means and method established by the Apostles which to settle disputes within the church as we see what happened in Acts 15.

 

All anyone has to do to see that the RCC and the earliest churches are worlds apart is to study the scriptures and early church history. What does the RCC withs its blend of the Roman state, paganism, superstition, extra-biblical, non-biblical, anti-biblical doctrine and practices, pomposity, earthly lords on earthly thrones, Marian idolatry, infallible popes, popes themselves, have to do with the teachings and lifestyle of a simple carpenter? Very little.

Look at the vestments that the hierarchy wear. They cost thousands of dollars. Now I see nothing wrong with a simple white alb and stole, but look at what some bishops' mitres cost, and copes and such. This is outrageous.

Any objective observer can see that the RCC is not the church of the New Testament.

 

which is clear you haven't done.

See got that wrong too

got that wrong as well. ,

add another wrong

Clearly have no Concept even how the bible came to be much less its interaction with the Church.

, wrong again.

Wrong again.,

Clearly you confuse a lot of thing about Catholicism,

Wrong,

,which term you clearly don't understand

,Yep again. Its a wonder if you have even studied Christian History.

And see this is where you all get it wrong. You all have taken the Jewishness out of Jesus. You clearly don't see him in his actual context. Yes he was the son of a carpenter. But more than that he was the Messiah. He is the prophesied suffering servant. The descendent of David. The very incarnate God.

Yes and we see archeological evidence that they had vestments in the early church and if you paid attention to the attire you would see its Jewish roots.

I use to critique protestant pastors on their 1,000 suites, their nice houses, nice Lincoln town cars. Which they use all the time. Priest only use vestments during services . Do you know what the average pastors salary in the United States is? For 2012 its $86,128. Do you know what priestly salary is? Priest's average salary is 40,000. But depending on the location in the United States it ranges from $29,211 in phoenix to $44,566 in Miami.

These things are only used in services which are meant to glorify God. However, I find it interesting you don't have a problem with Pastor living well above the means of their congregations means. Yeah a Catholic spends money on vestments you have issues a Pastor spends money on himself not a problem. What about those $1,000 suites, $100 ties, only God knows the cost of the watches these men wear. How about those nice houses or cars? Yeah it is clear you are skewed.

Which we now know objectivity is not a characteristic you have. So how can you claim to objectively look at whether the Catholic Church is or is not the Church of the New Testament? Its clear you cannot.

 

Your post is so full of falsehood I scarcely know where to start. First, you don't know to whom you are talking. I am not a hillbilly with a third-grade education. I have a doctorate in church history and theology, so not only do I know exactly what I am talking about, I can be objective in dealing with the facts which by your willful brainwashing you obviously cannot.

It is you who says I don't have a problem with a pastor living well above the means of their congregation; I never said that! I do have issues with the opulence exhibited by some pastors, and I have stated that several times since I have been here. I have especially criticized this lifestyle lived by TV evangelists and "prosperity gospel" teachers. It is wrong wherever it is found.

But this does not change the facts that I posted about the RCC. All anyone need do to confirm that is compare the teachings and practices of the RCC with the New Testament; it will be clearly seen that the RCC has departed significantly from those NT teachings and practices. It has added extra-biblical, non-biblical, and anti-biblical doctrine and practice; it is the greatest innovator in Christendom.

I know you have to fall back on insults and falsehood because you have willfully swallowed the RCC hook, line, and sinker, and when it comes down to it, you cannot defend the RCC from scripture. No one can. The few doctrines I cited are enough evidence of that.

I started a thread with the purpose of being charitable to Roman Catholics, but when I get insulted and demeaned, I no longer wish to be charitable.

 

Then stop speaking like one.

I have yet to see your objectivity. Though you may be educated you make the same errors Dan Brown does making allegations which is based on supposition rather than fact. Where he draws conclusions misconsturing the facts. Concluding some erronious ideas. Connecting the whole of Christiandom to paganism much like Zeitgeist the Movie. Lets actually review some history together. Which if you have a doctorate in History you may well see the value of the testimony of the ECF of their beliefs and application of Christian teaching. Have you read JND Kelly, or Jaroslav Pelikan, Metzger, Geisler, or David Flusser. Or the 10 Volumes set of the Ante Nicene Fathers? Have you read Justin Martyr, Clement, Polycarp, , and many, many others? I have and as I studied these things several things occured to me. There were natural questions that develop out of the study of Christian history and the development. Weren't these questions being asked at seminaries by other people. And as I asked my pastors they said they didn't have the time to devote because they were busy in other classes and didn't bother because they already had determined what they hold to rather than being objective. I would truely like to see some real objectivity from you.

My journey to Catholicism began with objectivity. So lets be objective.

It's not just the TV evangelist. In my own experience I was going to a SBC where we were in financial difficulty because of the economy and at the business meeting there was more discussion about lowering our giving to the cooperative amount rather than discuss the pastors salary which was $100,000 when the mean income for the church was around $40,000. See you want to jump on priest whose vestments which are only used in services for the cost when they make the lowest ministers salary in all the united states. They get paid less than protestant ministers, Jewish rabbis, Muslim Imams, etc... But its an unfair criticism as it improperly suggest that Catholic priest only care about image where as the suggestion is protestant pastors do not. In both cases you are wrong.

I have and one thing I note the reason you have such a problem with Catholics and Orthodox is that you don't view the NT in its Jewish Context.

Not at all. We can see that Paul quotes from Doxologies in the NT evidence of Liturgical practices in the NT. We see the apostles keeping Jewish prayer traditions and Holy Days. What is often done is people have taken the scriptures out of their semetic environment 2,000 years ago and make modern American value judgements about it that would have been irrelevant 2,000 years ago.

The fact is the Apostles didn't have the bible! They had Jewish scriptures but they didn't rely only on that. They spread the gospel and the teachings of Jesus by word of Mouth. The bible which developed out of a form called a codex. But in Jesus days there were multiple scrolls. The bible developed some time later. But all evangelization was done primarily by word of mouth and Christian practices were initially based on Jewish liturgy and admendments to those liturgy incorporating Christian beliefs expressed orally?

You are the insulter. Claiming I worship Mary (I do not), saying I'm Idolotrous, and the multitude of other insults slung at me when I know its not true. So I defend the accusations. And if you are not being objective and spewing forth vitriol and accusations not knowing what you are actually talking about I express just that. I personally would prefer a debate where we spoke reasonably about scripture. But as I attempt to the vitriol is spewed forth. Often what I see is when I'm defending any Catholic position on any topic what happens is that instead of completing that discussion another topic and accusation is sent hurlying my way. Ie example: I could be speaking about how the scriptures support the Catholic Eucharistic view. Quoting scripture. Then some person says something to the effect Yeah well how can we believe that when you worship Mary! Then I try to express what is actually believed about Mary and what scriptures I used to support our teaching on Mary and then someone will say. Well what about the inquisition where Catholics killed millions of bible believers, see they are the church of the anti-Christ. in addition throw in TS you don't believe the bible just like your satanic father the RCC? And you have particpated in some of this venom spewed out at Catholics though you should have a better view since you have your Doctorate in history. You can't even admit it was the Catholic church which preserved the bible down through the ages to this very day. So yes I get defensive. But wouldn't you be defensive if you were called a cultist heretic all the time? So no you haven't been as charitable as you wanted to seem. I would prefer that you were and actually see what I said about those pictures regarding Mary. If you have a retort make it an edjucated reasonable retort without the accusations and I might not be so defensive. Otherwise you sound no more educated than Jack Chick.

 

I am curious about your doctorate which you have mentioned several times. Is it a Th.D,. D. Min., Ph.D, or other? Which college/university awarded it? Did you publish your dissertation via UMI?

 

Thinking stuff, you posted to another poster...

If you, sincerely, from your heart, treat Mary as the Catholic litergies, and catholic prayers and contemplations intreat you to do, you will indeed be worshiping Mary.

Same thing with the eucherist. It is NOT the literal flesh of christ. Its a cracker.

I implore you to come to your senses.

The Catholic church is ((poision)) spiritually.

 

How many Catholic Liturgies have you been to? Every mass that I have been to only invokes the name of Mary once. Its at the begining part of the liturgy called the Penetential rite, when the People ask Mary, the Angels and the saints, and our fellow "brothers and sisters" to pray for us to the Lord our God. Thats it. No worship. No Hail Marys said at mass either.

Then you are in disagreement with Jesus Christ and the scriptures. Jesus is explicit in John 6 what he expects and indicates what the bread and wine is to be at the last supper.

Thank you for your consideration. I sincerely mean that. However, I believe that when I take the bible at its word, which Jesus declares we must eat his flesh and drink his blood and that the bread is his body and the wine is his blood. Or when Paul says those who do not distinguish the body when they recieve the bread and wine condemn themselves, that I have truelly come to my senses.

I believe I've grown spiritually since going back to the Catholic Church.

 

so you are saying that Jesus does not speak symboliclly?

 

Nope. I'm saying he wasn't speaking symbolically in John 6 when speaking about eating his flesh or at the institution of the communion meal. The majority of his disciples didn't like what he said in John 6 either and so they left and no longer followed him. We know it was at that Point that Judas was pointed out as well.

 

so at the last supper, did Jesus turn the bread and wine into His flesh and blood?