Featured Roman Catholic...Christian or Cult?

The Catholic Church recognizes two kinds of revelation--public and private. Public revelation came through the apostles and is considered dogma for all. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Private revelation came, and still comes, to individuals. The Church recognizes that this occurs but it is for the benefit of that individual only and does not affect Church doctrine.

 

The vicar of Christ, ex-officio, aka: Papa Noel, reveals the official dogma, as promulgated by the holy see. These revelations are based on scripture and tradition. If there is a conflict, the tradition of the holy fathers is followed, whatever that might be.

Sola scripture, of course, has to be anathema. Private interpretation is forbidden to the Catholic--they are not capable of understanding. Only the duly appointed clerics can understand. Read your Catechism.

This system is rooted in the cult of Nimrod. Those who participate are given over to strong delusion, believing a lie. Most have been duped by many generations of good works--crusades and inquisitions not withstanding.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Really? Like what?

 

How could you not recognize the confusion? Read the Bible and then learn RCC doctrine. You will notice lots of confusion. You might start by reading the first two commandments and notice the RCC prays to created beings. That would cause confusion. Then you might read Hebrews and learn about the Priesthood of the believer, that we can approach God with Jesus Christ as our Mediator. We do not need to go through a Catholic priest who is just as sinful as we are. That would cause confusion. You might study baptism in the Bible and notice it is a symbol of new life in Jesus Christ after salvation by immersion. The RCC sprinkles babies and declares them part of the family of God. That might cause confusion. The Lord established the Lord's Supper to commemorate memory of Him, with the bread and the wine as the two elements. The RCC makes a magic act out of it called transubstantiation where the elements become the actual body and blood of Christ. That would cause confusion. The Bible declares there are two final destinies, either with the Lord or the Lake of Fire. The RCC invented a third, purgatory. That would cause confusion. Scripture teaches salvation is by grace through faith only. The RCC adds baptism and being an RCC member. It is a works Gospel. That would cause confusion. RCC doctrine says the Pope is sinless, yet Scripture teaches all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That would cause confusion. The RCC has several uninspired books in their Bible, that would cause confusion.

 

The Church of rome invented another gospel, and had the papacy set up as the supreme authority, which is Jesus and his Bible alone!

 

You are the one confused. Actually, before I left the Baptist church for the Catholic Church I believed just like you. Then I spent some time studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I was amazed that it's teachings were biblically based. I also spent some time reading Catholic apologetics. It's obvious by your statements ie: 'there are only two final destinies, either with the Lord or the Lake of Fire' that you don't know what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Purgatory is NOT a final destination and it was not 'invented', it is biblically supported. But, I already expected this thread would go all over the place doing 'the doctrinal dance'. I find it interesting that there are countless threads created on BB with the intent of 'debating' Catholics when, in fact, a grand total of 3 Catholics are even allowed to participate on the BB. :BangHead: Regardless of my frustration with that situation, you are obviously fairly new to the board and you might want to look into the archives of the BB and familiarize yourself with the Catholic positions before declaring 'what Catholics believe' because you have already made up some 'whoppers' like the 'Catholic Church doctrine teaches their pope is sinless'. Wow, would it interest you to know that the pope goes to confession. Wonder why he would find it necessary to do that since he is 'sinless'. Oh, and another thing, Presbyterians 'sprinkle', Catholics 'pour'. Spend some time in study, my friend.

 

Do you know why that is?

 

Yes, I believe I do. BTW, I actually forgot somebody which means there are a grand total of four Catholics here. I believe it was DHK that stated that it was determined by the BB that Catholics were mostly here to 'proselytize' and not discuss their faith. They were banned from the board EXCEPT for those of us that were of another Christian faith and became Catholic after coming to the board. We were 'grand-fathered in'? I believe all four of the Catholics on the board are formerly Baptists. I remember Church of Christ participants were also part of the 'Great Purge'. Anyway, I value my BB membership and do my best to follow the rules and guidelines. I hope I have not given anyone the impression I am here to proselytize. I am here to continue to learn about what others believe and their positions. I don't want to misrepresent others beliefs and the BB has been very instrumental in my not only learning what the Catholic Church REALLY teaches but what other Christian denominations teach. Discussion/debate has caused me to dig deeper into what I believe and why I believe it. I truly appreciate this board and all you who have engaged me over the years.

 

BTW, I started on this journey many years ago as a student at Biola University and later at Cal. Baptist University. I remember reading books by Paul E. Little 'Know What You believe/Know Why You Believe It' that challenged me to not just accept what I have been told to believe but to find reasons for 'our hope'.

 

Greetings to you, friend.

I would be interested to know where in the scriptures is found the doctrine of papal infallibility. In fact, where is it found in church tradition for centuries after the scriptures were written? Where is mandatory celibacy of ministers found in scripture or the early church? There is other dogma held by the RCC which cannot be substantiated by scripture and the early church, but those two are enough to let me know that the RCC is not the church founded by Jesus and the apostles.

Oh, and just so you know, I would also say the same of much of Protestantism.

 

Did you know that the celibacy is only required for presbyters and Bishops of the Latin Rite? The Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church have married clergy. I think the perception is that marriage 'is forbidden' and therefore unscriptural. in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" 7:8-9.

I know that from reading responses from you in other threads that evidence of belief of a doctrine by the Early Church as well of sound biblical evidence of that doctrine is important to you. I would like to provide both for you. First of all, what I want to point out is what infallibility IS NOT. As we have seen by some of the accusations in the above postings, papal infallibility does not mean that the pope is 'sinless', and infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching or is an 'invention'; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 "Feed my sheep . . . ", Luke 22:32 "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail", and Matthew 16:18 "You are Peter . . . ". Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught Matt. 28:19–20 and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" John 16:13. That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15, even if individual Catholics do. As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. As you have stated on other threads, Rebel, this development of the faithful’s understanding should have clear beginnings (and the evidence of it) in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine clearly understood what papal infallibility meant, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

 

How does one explain the ongoing rift between East and West regarding primacy of Peter and papal infallibility? This has be festering since the 11th century. Both cannot be right. Both could be wrong.

There is also a serious schism within the ranks of Catholicism since Vatican II. Sitting popes, anti-popes and popes emeritus and anti-popes emeritus indicate a serious inconsistency in the hierarchy and the rank and file.
The credibility of this whole situation is questionable. "God is not the author of confusion."

Where are the ones who have The Faith, once for all, delivered to the Saints?

Someone is being duped.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

My Baptist friend has not stopped laughing after reading your post! :laugh: He said: 'Pot calling kettle black, eh?' How about the COUNTLESS divisions within evangelicalism??? BTW, what you call a 'rift' in the Catholic Church is incredibly small. There are over a billion Catholics in world. The Traditionalists Catholics make up a tiny fraction of that. However, those Catholics are my brothers and sisters in Christ (as are those within Eastern Orthodoxy) and we are of like faith. I believe they will be brought into full communion with the rest of the Catholic Church soon. NOTHING in the Catholic Church compares to the divisions within YOUR ranks. 'How does one explain that'? BTW, Bro James, is it: Limited Atonement or Un-Limited Atonement??? Calvinism or Arminianism?? And, I could go on and on and on with your divisions. Who is right, Bro. James?? Please enlighten me!!

 

This is a deflection. He is not speaking of evangelical churches. He is asking specifically about the RCC.

Much of this is your subjective opinion with no evidence. If anything the gap is growing wider.

Why not start another thread. This is just a deflection, a way to derail this thread which is about the RCC, not about evangelical churches.

Here is another link to the the RCC and Pope Francis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/15/pope-francis-homily_n_6687610.html

His stand is anti-biblical. It should cause even more dissension by Catholics who reason things out.
Did Jesus treat the woman caught in adultery the way that Francis is advocating. Francis is not saying: "Go and sin no more."
He isn't insisting that Jesus is the only way to salvation (John 14:6), but rather that he himself is.
It was Jesus that said: "I am come not to bring peace and safety, but a sword." What did Jesus mean by that?

"Whatever the cost? Really?

 

Is it possible to give a direct answer to a direct question? Stereotypical generalities do not even make a good smoke screen. Pointing out lack of accountability across the religious ranks does not address the issue of Petrine primacy and papal infallibility.

If Peter, the Apostle , is the first vicar of Christ in a long, not so continuous line of Bishops of Rome, anyone outside of the prevue of the holy see is apostate and consequently anathema. It does matter. It cannot be all of the above. If Peter is not as above, that which is in the Vatican is apostate and they are usurpers of Divine authority; so are the ones who tried to reform Rome. Apostasy reformed is still reformed apostasy. What mold does one use to reform apostasy?

Have you considered the Saints of God who did not bow to Rome nor come out of Rome? They are also not part of the present-day evangelical movement. These folk have been harassed to the death by Rome and the daughters of Rome.

Ignorance is not an excuse. Now we know. We have no excuses.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

The bottom line is that mandatory celibacy is wrong and unscriptural. Therefore, the RCC teaching and practice is an innovation not condoned by scripture and actually antithetical to it.

As to papal infallibility, the Eastern Orthodox Church refutes this teaching. Why? Because it has no basis in scripture, the early church, or church tradition. It is a doctrinal innovation and a late one at that. In this, it is no different than Protestant Penal Substitution, or Anselmian Satisfaction.

If you had wanted a church that has innovated the least and divided the least, you should have chosen Eastern Orthodoxy.

I hope you don't believe that in my "straight talk", that I write with any animosity towards you because I assure you I do not.

 

Not deflection at all. Any time Catholics have been accused of something on this board and the Catholic comes back to show the HYPOCRISY which lies within the accusation you will say: 'Don't look at us, this is about you! What we do is irrelevant!' The FACT that there are countless evangelical denominations claiming to hold the 'truth' given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is irrelevant to you, really? This isn't about 'de-railing' a thread, it's about HYPOCRISY!

 

Not at all, Rebel. I always look forward to your posts. And, your not the first that has suggested I should have gone to the EO. I understand your position. However, as to your claim that the Church requires mandatory celibacy, as I said, that is if the person is going to serve in the Latin Rite. If a person has a vocation to ordained ministry and also to the married life, marriage in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church is the norm.

 

It is a deflection in that you are not answering the questions directly asked to you. This happens many times.
Here is the question or questions posted to you:

The so-called divisions in evangelicalism have nothing to do with "the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the scriptures used to support it.
Where is it found in church tradition for centuries after the Scriptures were written?
--These two questions are the two that are summed up in his post.