Featured 10 Misconceptions of the RCC

Not one is a "misconception" but are all absolute truths. The Old Harlot is still offering her cup of fornication for all to drink who are gullible enough to drink from it.

 

I probably was too severe in my general condemnation by saying every point is absolute truth. I think you gave a balanced response. Catholicism is such a cultic religion and so detrimental to any true child of God that I have a hard time finding anything good to commend it.

 

the single biggest misconception would be the lie that the RCC is really a Christian church, that it has the true Gospel!

 

They worship Mary. Period.

 

I tried the link and cannot see the site and what the specific 10 things to which you are considering. I can only shed light on how the Catholic thinks about these things but of course I encourage you all to study these items thoroughly. I also understand the moment I point these things out I will be derided and abused by a few but at least I can put forth the Catholic Argument to an extent.

Maybe Salty if you want you can copy what the 10 items are and post them that way I can read and respond to them. However, I can at this point only respond to the responses given.

First I will say that most often there is misconseptions considering what Catholics actually believe by Protestants and at times by disenting clergy and ignorant layity.

Now I will respond to some of the reponses. Biblicist you are true to what you have consistently have provided which is to say the least untrue no matter how much you protest to the contrary.

Annsi your contention is a bit better and more thoughtful and deserves a reply.

I can only guess that the statement was that the church disapproves of bible study or prohibits the bible in some sense. Your answers is certainly what is generally believed by non Catholic groups however I would venture to say contrary to your assertion that even saying that it "Was true at one time" is incorrect. Think about it. The Bible has been preserved from its writing to the current day even during the "dark ages" or "middle ages" by the constant work of Catholics long before the reformation. In western Europe had it not been for Irish monks and other Catholic clergy there would have been no other access to scripture. Clearly it's important significance in the Catholic Church can be seen in the amount of effort to keep intact these sacred texts. What is often forgoten is that the majority of the world until recent history was primarily illiterate. Especially in Europe which was being tamed by Catholic Clergy from its pagan history of violence and idol worship by germanic, celtic, and viking tribes. For people who could not read scriptures were read allowed to them by clergy. If you know anything about the Mass you would note that it is a combination of two liturgies. 1) the Liturgy of the Word and 2) the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Communion for those not familiar with the terms. During the first part of the Mass passages from scriptures are read a passage from the Old Testament, and Epistle or Revelation, and the Gospel. With the Gospel being given highest honors. And the cycle of reading spans 3 years so that in a 3 year setting all of the scriptures may be heard by the layity. Therefore as can be seen scriptures are not avoided and looked down upon. What then you may ask about the bible burnings and Tyndale and so forth. Well if you study history you will see that the actual first attempt to translate the bible into the english vernacular was by St. Bede long before Tyndale. The issues that the Catholic Church had with Tyndale and other reformers was not the desire to translate the bible into the common vernacular to "keep the bible" away from the "masses" but rather the lack of oversight and proper review. Not submitting to Ecclesiastical review was believed to cause misinformation and bad translation. Thus the Catholic Monarchs believing they were responsible for maintaining the faith within their jurisdictions often persecuted people they believed had improper bibles (much like we view the New World Translation of the Jehovahs Witnesses). But in accordance with the cutural behaviors at the time led to massive book burnings and imprisonment and death of people like Tyndale and Huss. Also people forget that the technology of the printing press made bibles more cheaply to be printed and accessed by more people. However, the Ecclessiastical authorities believed these should be held for review as well before going to the general populace who may take their own personal understanding (which may be incorrect) and cause people to fall away from the faith. Examples of this can be seen even with the printing press where the "wicked bible" was printed and available to the masses. Someone might then believe it was ok to commit adultery. So for point 10 that is the Catholic view. Catholics have always honored and respected the bible but certainly they held higher regard for the Latin bible which had significant review many centuries earlier than new vernacular bibles being printed with out review.

I will get to your other points latter because this post came out longer than I had originally intended.

 

can a catholic hold to differing understandings though from the "official" viewpoints of the catholic church, isn't the church seen as having the only infallible true way to see the scriptures?

 

Discourage Bible Reading

Catholics worship Mary and are, therefore, committing idolatry

Catholics aren’t Christians

The Pope is infallible in all things

The Catholic Church is opposed to science and rejects evolution

Indulgences let you pay to have your sins forgiven

Emperor Constantine invented the Catholic Church in 325 AD

Catholic Priests can’t get married

The Church added books to the Bible

The Papacy is a medieval invention

 

To which I answer that as any student of multiple languages that English in some ways is limiting. For instance we use the word love to mean many things. Where as the Greeks used four words which specified meanings. So it is with worship. Kings and Queens were called "your worship" and such and so forth. When speaking of Mary "worship" in the Catholic sense is not the same as one would hold as the same sense of worshiping "God". In latin which is the official ecclesiastical language for the Church there are three words which are all translated into english as worship. Latria, Dulia, and hyperdulia (which in which hyper acts as a discriptor of dulia). Latria is what you and I would consider the worship given to God alone. Dulia is more in line with honor bestowed or respect given. Hyper Dulia is a special honor more than regular honor. How is this to be understood. I will point out in our cultural terms. I give honor to someone who recieves a gold ribbon winning a race - Dulia. There is a special honor I give to a dignatary greater than that I would give the winner of the race - Hyperdulia. Mary is a created creature like the rest of us. However, she holds a special place in the Catholic perspective because she has become the New Eve Doing what the first Eve did not by submitting to God entirely in humility "behold I am the handmaiden of the Lord let it be done to me according to thy word." setting an example for all Christians there after in her submission. She being the first believing Christian as she was the first to believe in Christ and who he is in his fullness and followed God. Catholics also believe that she is the ark of the New Covenant in that for 9 months she held within her womb the very presense of Jesus who is God. Thus she holds a special honor. The term Theotokos (God barer) which often is translated Mother of God doesn't mean that Mary Created God. Or that She was before God. It simply means that God who created Mary joined himself to his creation by taking on humanity in his incarnation through her. Any other phrase would mislead people on the nature of who Jesus Chist is like the Jehovah's witnesses. However, people have a misconseption about this all the time!!!! But the reality of the belief is as I spelled it out here.

I will answer your other points annsi.

 

A person calling themselves Catholic can hold to any view point they want (many do) however if its not inline with the Catholic Church in reality they aren't really Catholic or in real communion with the Catholic Church. But let me point out that this is only with things that the church has spoken to. If the Church hasn't spoken to something then speculation is permitted as long as it doesn't go against some thing else the church has spoken too.

 

Thank you Revmitchell. I'll review these and post more thoughts about them later. Needless to say that I'm in agreement that these are misconseptions.

 

Some are some are not.

 

Out of curiosity Mark, were you raised in it?

 

The false dichotomy the RCC has made in some of these words is only an excuse to say one is not worshiping Mary when indeed they are. I give much respect to Biblicist and the views he posts on this board. In your definition therefore, I am giving him "dulia." I don't think the RCC would agree with that, but that is the way you have defined the term. However, I do not worship Biblicist, and you do worship Mary.

This is entirely wrong. There is no such thing as a "New Eve." There is no Bible teaching that indicates such. You cannot demonstrate that from the Bible. It is simply a man-made doctrine.

Not much of a picture of Eve, then is she?

Here is her example:
1. At the wedding of Cana:
--Do whatever He saith. It was giving Christ the per-eminence, telling others to submit to him.
2. "I rejoice in God my Savior." In that one statement she admits that she is a sinner in need of a Savior.
3. She takes sacrifices to the priest (two of them) on the day that Christ is circumcised. One of them is a sin offering, in full recognition that she herself is a sinner. This was all done according to the law. See Leviticus chapter 12.

She is not the "ark of the New Covenant." That is pure allegory. There is no need for allegorizing Scripture, something that Augustine popularized, and Origen originated. Even the RCC distanced themselves from the heretic, Origen.
The concept of theotokos is wrong. Mary was but a vessel used by God in a certain time in history in a certain way. God could have used any one of a number of virgins. He used Mary. Why? You can ask him when you get to heaven.
Christ was fully God and fully man--always. He never gave up his divinity, not even when in Mary's womb. Mary provided nothing, but a womb to for the incarnate Son of God to temporarily live in. That is all.

 

Unfortunately, I agree somewhat by your statement here. There are a lot of Catholics who really don't hold to their faith. However, I see no difference between faithless Catholics and the faithless of other denominations

Almost but not yet right. The Pope doesn't "speak for God". He speaks to the deposit of faith as has been consistently taught since the begining. And only when he speaks to a matter of faith and morals in unity with the bishops. Infallibility is a prohibitor from speaking a "new revelation" or anything contrary to what has been believed and consistently taught by the Church.

The Catholic Church believes faith and science are not mutually exclusive. Thus holding that truth is truth and proper science that reveals actual truth will not exclude faith.

Though there were priest who used that line of reasoning during the middle ages this doesn't actually grasp indulgences. It was the abuse of these priest that provided more fodder for the reformation. What is actually believed about indulgences has to do with personal sanctification. Following the line "carrying your cross". A person once said "in a world gone wrong the only way to restore communion is by sacrifice." Meaning that in our sin we are crooked and to make us straight (ordering our lives around Jesus Christ rather than the world) hurts. Thus the disciplines of fasting which is submitting your body to your will's authority may hurt but its good to do to purposely order your life to Christ's. You are basically aligning yourself to Christ. It has little to do with the forgiveness of sin but does emphasise your sanctification.

Constatine did not create Catholicism. Nor did he make Catholicism or Christianity the "official religion of the empire". He provided a legal document for the tolleration of Christians with in the empire called the Edict of Milan. Remember right before Constantine one of the worst persecution of Christians had occured under Diocletian and he restored seized property and granted freedom from prisons for Christians allowing them to properly be unpersecuted citizens of the empire.

The truth of the matter is there are 22 rites within the Catholic Church of those rites only 1 - the latin rite has prohibition for priest to marry. The reason initially for the prohibition is that clergy status during the middle ages was passed on by inheritance and there were abuses with property. However, the Latin rite maintains celebacy because they want the priest not be totally dedicated to the Lord.

This is certainly debatable. It is clear from the NT that LXX text were used which contained the apocryphal books. There is referrence to the apocryphal books in the NT and we also see it in later Christian writings. I personally believe much in the apocryphal books sheds light on Christianity and Jewish beliefs of Jesus time period. The fact that the apocryphal books (Deuterocanonical books) were considered scripture from Jeromes time up to the 1500's is a key indicator. 600 years.

Just a couple of points about Peter and the Papacy. First people hold a lofty view of "Pope" All it means is father and all Bishops and leaders were called Father or Papa in the mediteranian basin and countries. Today Tribal peoples of Africa and Asia call tribal leaders Father. Its a term of respect is all. Next with regard to Peter I think its pretty significant that every time there is a listing of Apostles Peter is always mentioned first. As a side note Judas is always listed last. Also note in the NT Peter is mentioned 195 times the next most often mentioned apostle is John who is mentioned 99 times. When speaking of the twelve often we see the phrase "Peter and the Others" Matt 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17; Acts 1:13. Peter is the one who recieved a name change by the Lord, he was given the Keys to the Kingdom and mentioned by name. Jesus called to Peter to walk on the water. John differed to Peter at the tomb. Peter leads the other apostles in choosing Judas successor, He preaches the first pentecost sermon. Paul had to check in with Peter (gal 1:18). I certainly think there is scriptural support for the office.

 

Well if you are venerating him as a servant of God. It may indeed work.

I don't worship Mary (latria). I honor her and look to her as an example to follow so that in saying "may it be done to me according to your word" that I may follow in the same humility in obedience to God.

I can demonstrate that Jesus mission was the redemption of man. Restoring what was once lost is part of that Redemption. New Heaven, New Earth. Jesus the New Adam (1 Cor 15:45. It seems consistent with the themes provided through out scripture. The original parents the original eve: "So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” how the woman's role is recapitulated “And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.” Original “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.” New “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greetings this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” Note what Ireneaus says about the matter in the 2nd Century

Looking at first glance at these passages it may seem that calling someone "woman" might offend a modern person. However, in ancient times it was a sign of respect (Jn 4:21 and 8:10). And knowing the methodology of John's writing his gospel if we follow the format of 2 fold structure the begining of which is "signs" it may be that John was revealing the cana episode as a reversal of the fall reported in genesis. And note that Genesis speaks of a future woman who's son will crush the devil.

As far as needing a savior let me say that your supposition that she does not need a savior is wrong. There is nothing suggesting in the doctrine that Mary does not need a savior. In fact is a logical fallacy. There are two ways a person may be saved from danger as one person has said "by intervention and rehabilitation. Some people are saved after years of drug addiction...Others are saved from addiction because they were spared the temptation by being raised in good homes." In both cases with both people they were saved. And Mary was saved by God.

I think you misunderstand Lev12:1-8. The birth of a male prohibits the woman from touching any holy object or approachings the temple for 40 days when she must sacrifice to cleanse here from legal impurity or for ceremonial cleanliness. In any way she gave the poor offering and Jesus had no need for attonement. In similar attitude when Jesus was baptised by the baptist he said it was to "fulfill all righteousness" Not that he needed forgiveness of sin.

Something which every Christian does. The fact is the OT prefigures Christ and his entire life and ministry. The ark is one such prefiguring.

God is sovereign and nothing he does is haphazard as in your suggestion. God Chose Mary specifically and prepared her for her specific task. To Say Theotokos is wrong is to impune the nature of Christ as he is. To say Jesus wasn't fully divine and fully human at his incarnation is to Deny Jesus himself. Theotokos was used to protect that perception of Christ. But I realize you have a little problem with history. I understand your confussion.

 

I don't venerate him; but you venerate (worship) Mary. The Hindus venerate their idols; they worship them. Venerate and worship are the same. Like I said you create a dichotomy between the two words to make the excuse that you don't worship Mary, when in fact you do. Venerate is not simple respect; it is worship. All worship belongs to God alone. You worship Mary, and that is called idolatry.

Words! Just words! May your actions speak for you. Your veneration of Mary, that is your worship and prayers to her, be your example of your worship of her, and that is idolatry, a violation of the Ten Commandments, which you conveniently ignore.

Only if you have the proper definition of "redemption."

That is not redemption.
"to obtain release by the payment of a price." The price, in Christianity, was Christ's precious blood, obtaining our release from sin."
I wasn't "once lost." I was lost from the day I was born. I wasn't innocent for a time, and then became lost, and then was in need of redemption. I have been lost since I was born. It is called the depravity of man. Therefore I need redemption.

It is not consistent. These are not pictures of redemption at all.
This earth will not be redeemed; it will be destroyed with fire and then a completely new one will be created. Likewise with the heaven--destroyed and then a new one created. That is not redemption.

Adam was born or created as a child of God. He sinned. He was not lost. He was separated in his fellowship from God. His fellowship with God was restored when God killed an animal, shed blood on their behalf, and made coats of skin for them. It was the first animal sacrifice in the Bible. Adam and Eve are in heaven today; there is no reason not to believe that. They didn't need redemption. They needed restoration. There is a difference.

The second Adam didn't need redemption either.
However Mary did need redemption. She was a sinner in need of Savior. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and Mary was no exception. We find Mary in Acts 1, praying with 119 others in the Upper Room. She is no greater than any others. She has no exalted position. She is a sinner just like the rest of them, a sinner who has come to Christ. That is the last we hear about Mary.

And so??

You are able to copy and paste Scripture. Good for you. Am I supposed to note something special here?

Jim Jones, Charles Taze Russel, Mary Baker Eddy, etc. all had their special interpretations too. The Bible is my authority; not the fanciful imaginations of these uninspired men and women.

Genesis 3:15 is known as the protoevengelium, or the first Messianic promise of the Bible. It has nothing to do with Mary. It was a promise given to Eve.

Not to believe it would not only be illogical on your part but unbelief. She needed a Savior and admitted. Anyone who admits the need of a Savior is admitting that they are a sinner. Case closed.

What physical danger did Mary have to be rescued from?
Are you suggesting then that Mary was "a mental case"?

And now you are suggesting that Mary was a drug addict??
You should be ashamed of yourself.

Yes, when she put her trust in Christ as Messiah, the Savior of the world. She did not believe that from infancy.

The Scriptures are plain. I am not the one who does not understand.

Leviticus 12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

She brought a turtledove for a sin offering. Read the account. She offered a sin offering because she knew that she was a sinner.

Only in your imagination.

But he didn't have to. He could have chosen another virgin.

No it isn't. It is to respect the true nature of God and of Mary at the same time.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that.

Theotokos was used to say a lot more than what you just said. But you don't want to admit that.

 

Lands sakes honey child! Who would have predicted DHK & Thinkingstuff in a RCC Discussion!?! :laugh:

 

If I may be frank with you TS (& please do not view my ramblings as insults) but this sin & then go to confession, then repeat the same sin & go again (& again & again) to confession in order to cleanse my soul & thus go to heaven --- when I cross the street & a bus hits me, LOL....thats just wrong.

But yet the entire North East (thats predominately RC) operates that way daily. Its false, its devious & it gives license to the morally bankrupt to continue on in that pattern. Even teaching their children to operate that way--which becomes a generational curse.

Then Mortal vs Venial Sin BS...... God man, Sin is Sin! Why perpetuate a hoax that lands souls in hell? Remember, I have 32 years of this RC nonsense so I can make my own lists that would have you defending that Church for years on end. Granted there is a lot to other churches that stinks on ice but few that can match the RCC. Why not just radicalize.....go to the root; the radix & be one that delves deep into scripture to learn & grow in the truth of Jesus Christ. I just see you waisting away delving into Roman Catholic dogma with no foundational footing. Its exhausting & my heart go out to you.