10 Misconceptions of the RCC

[Alive in Christ]

Are you serious! This site is laughable. :laugh: You really use this as evidence? Two exambles: The baptism of Bells. Of course, bells were not baptised (that is reserved for human beings), but the rite used in the blessing of them bore many similarities to the sacrament, so it was called that by some people, but (and, of course, the site does not point this out) the Catholic Church never had a rite called ''The Baptism of Bells''.
And wax candles introduced in church. Oh, horror of horrors! Why didn't they just add some floodlights???

Posting a link like this adds no credibility to your position against Catholicism. Chick Publications prints the same kind of nonsense that most people can see through. I would hope you could find better ''evidence'' against the Church than this. James White presents better ''evidence'' against the Church. I suggest you go to Youtube and enter his name in the search engine ánd you will get material that has some credibility.

Walter...

I am sorry that you didnt like my linked material, but it wasnt posted for you (if you are a baptist)

It was posted. for the catholics. or catholic sympathisers.

The material in my linked material is overflowing with ((truth)) for any catholics. or catholic sympathisers who have been sucked into believing the poisionous false teachings of the catholic church

Thank you for your comments

 

[Walter]

Sorry, wrong pope. It was Pope John XIV.

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs033.htm

No problem, easy mistake.

I have found nothing to substantiate that anyone has done anything more than what has been claimed, and that is, bless bells. Then there are claims like the one you are referring to and Lorraine Boettners claim that there was an intent to actually ''baptise bells''.

Here's what Catholic Answers says about the "baptism of bells."

QUOTE
Item: "Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII . . . [A.D.] 965."

What is the reader supposed to make of this? Most non-Catholics realize that Catholics baptize infants, but bells? If Catholics think they can baptize bells, why not baptize automobiles or any other inanimate object? The charge, if true, does make the Church look silly. But what happened was not what Boettner implies. There was indeed a "baptism of bells," but it was not a baptism in the sacramental sense of the word. When a church received new bells for its bell tower, the bells were blessed, usually by the local bishop. Any object can be blessed, a blessing being a dedication of a thing to a sacred purpose. The ceremony used in the blessing of the bells was reminiscent in some ways of the ceremony used in baptism, so in popular usage it came to be called the "baptism of bells," though no one thought the bells were actually receiving a sacrament. The phrase is innocent, but when anti-Catholics refer to it in just a few words, it looks particularly bad. END QUOTE

Ordinarily I wouldn't post something found on a Catholic apologetics site but I was not able to find much else on the subject.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No problem, easy mistake.

I have found nothing to substantiate that anyone has done anything more than what has been claimed, and that is, bless bells. Then there are claims like the one you are referring to and Lorraine Boettners claim that there was an intent to actually ''baptise bells''.

Here's what Catholic Answers says about the "baptism of bells."

QUOTE
Item: "Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII . . . [A.D.] 965."

What is the reader supposed to make of this? Most non-Catholics realize that Catholics baptize infants, but bells? If Catholics think they can baptize bells, why not baptize automobiles or any other inanimate object? The charge, if true, does make the Church look silly. But what happened was not what Boettner implies. There was indeed a "baptism of bells," but it was not a baptism in the sacramental sense of the word. When a church received new bells for its bell tower, the bells were blessed, usually by the local bishop. Any object can be blessed, a blessing being a dedication of a thing to a sacred purpose. The ceremony used in the blessing of the bells was reminiscent in some ways of the ceremony used in baptism, so in popular usage it came to be called the "baptism of bells," though no one thought the bells were actually receiving a sacrament. The phrase is innocent, but when anti-Catholics refer to it in just a few words, it looks particularly bad. END QUOTE

Ordinarily I wouldn't post something found on a Catholic apologetics site but I was not able to find much else on the subject.

Walter, you really need to let people know your operating as a Catholic.

 

[Walter]

Walter...

I am sorry that you didnt like my linked material, but it wasnt posted for you (if you are a baptist)

It was posted. for the catholics. or catholic sympathisers.

The material in my linked material is overflowing with ((truth)) for any catholics. or catholic sympathisers who have been sucked into believing the poisionous false teachings of the catholic church

Thank you for your comments

I guess I would fall into the Cat'lic sympathiser category as I have not yet been received into the Church. I am in the process but that doesn't mean I have stopped thinking for myself. I will give serious consideration to what is presented on this board as truth.

 

[DHK]

No problem, easy mistake.

I have found nothing to substantiate that anyone has done anything more than what has been claimed, and that is, bless bells. Then there are claims like the one you are referring to and Lorraine Boettners claim that there was an intent to actually ''baptise bells''.

Here's what Catholic Answers says about the "baptism of bells."

QUOTE
Item: "Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII . . . [A.D.] 965."

What is the reader supposed to make of this? Most non-Catholics realize that Catholics baptize infants, but bells? If Catholics think they can baptize bells, why not baptize automobiles or any other inanimate object? The charge, if true, does make the Church look silly. But what happened was not what Boettner implies. There was indeed a "baptism of bells," but it was not a baptism in the sacramental sense of the word. When a church received new bells for its bell tower, the bells were blessed, usually by the local bishop. Any object can be blessed, a blessing being a dedication of a thing to a sacred purpose. The ceremony used in the blessing of the bells was reminiscent in some ways of the ceremony used in baptism, so in popular usage it came to be called the "baptism of bells," though no one thought the bells were actually receiving a sacrament. The phrase is innocent, but when anti-Catholics refer to it in just a few words, it looks particularly bad. END QUOTE

Ordinarily I wouldn't post something found on a Catholic apologetics site but I was not able to find much else on the subject.

This can't be glossed over as the beginning of the practice of the "baptism of bells." It wasn't. That practice also was and is very superstitious. It is said to have the power ward off demons. Ridiculous!

Look at what was said:
Pope John XIV now commanded that the great bell in the Lateran church should be baptized and named after him.

Furthermore:
"As far as regards the preceding century, I cannot speak of any improvement, inasmuch as the secular affairs manifested themselves with much commotion, strife, misery, and distress. Papal dominion prevailed more and more. The idolatrous ceremonies were very prolific; the baptismal water was consecrated; the oil was prepared by the bishop alone, two days before Easter, as well as imparted to others; the Supper, or sacrament, was administered nearly every Sunday, at an altar or table prepared for this purpose.

"It was taught, that the saints must be worshiped; not that they should save the supplicants, but that they should intercede, and ask God for help for them., "Holy people were presented, who had died before the time of Christ, in the Old Testament, and who, as it was said, had been in hell, yet without pain-a strange notion and wicked doctrine respecting the holy fathers., "It was said that there was a purgatory, where men had to atone after this life, and wash away sin by suffering., "The canonizing of ecclesiastical persons was very common. The holidays instituted in honor of the saints, were very many, and took away nearly one half of the year. The images and graves of the saints were greatly esteemed. Kings, princes, lords, ecclesiastics, and laymen, made pilgrimages to Rome, St. Jago, Jerusalem, and other places, where the bodies or bones of the saints were buried or preserved, as though dead bones without spirit, could impart life or benefit., "The sick would confess to the ear of the priest, and thereupon receive the sacrament of the unction; after which they departed in full assurance, though without any good resulting from it., "The dead were buried with the ringing of bells, with tapers and torches, with much singing, with masses, vigils, and prayers for their souls, etc." P. J. Twisck, Chron., 10th book, page 361.

It was the Roman Catholic Church that kept the world of that age in darkness. It was known as "the Dark Ages."

 

[Walter]

Walter, you really need to let people know your operating as a Catholic.

Been a while since I have posted on this board and I guess people have forgotten about my background. I was a Baptist attending a EV. Free church (that had formerly been PCUSA and left because of the liberal agenda) and have made my way to the Catholic faith.

 

[Alive in Christ]

(1) Baptism of Bells
This name has been given to the blessing of bells, at least in France, since the eleventh century. It is derived from the washing of the bell with holy water by the bishop, before he anoints it with the oil of the infirm without and with chrism within. A fuming censer is then placed under it. The bishop prays that these sacramentals of the Church may, at the sound of the bell, put the demons to flight, protect from storms, and call the faithful to prayer.

Oh my word :tear:

Heavenly Father, help them,

 

[saturneptune]

Been a while since I have posted on this board and I guess people have forgotten about my background. I was a Baptist attending a EV. Free church (that had formerly been PCUSA and left because of the liberal agenda) and have made my way to the Catholic faith.

I for one should have a more open mind as to how you mature spritually. In my case, I started off as a conservative Presbyterian (not PCUSA, but PCA) and moved to Baptist. It took some time and study to come around to the major difference in favor of the Baptists, which in this case were baptism, autonomous churches, no hierarchy, and no creeds.

You on the other hand start off Baptist, go way past Presbyterian and to the Catholic faith. Just because I went the opposite direction does not make your reasoning wrong. I am going to try and discuss the specifics of each difference without the jabs at the denomination from now on.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Thinking stuff...DHK posted to you...

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.

What DHK posted here is truth.

The catholic church is playing word games.. They are ingaging in, and encouraging its vicims, to engage in Goddess worship.

...but then, when a problem..ooops... occures, they simply fall back on there old "stand by
...Oh no we dont worship Mary, because "wink wink".. we use a differnt "wink wink"... word. for it! See! its a completly differnt word

The Catholic false churh engages in goddess worsip. and no amount of "word games" can change that.

God have mercy

 

[Walter]

I for one should have a more open mind as to how you mature spritually. In my case, I started off as a conservative Presbyterian (not PCUSA, but PCA) and moved to Baptist. It took some time and study to come around to the major difference in favor of the Baptists, which in this case were baptism, autonomous churches, no hierarchy, and no creeds.

You on the other hand start off Baptist, go way past Presbyterian and to the Catholic faith. Just because I went the opposite direction does not make your reasoning wrong. I am going to try and discuss the specifics of each difference without the jabs at the denomination from now on.

Thank you so much for this post. I will make every effort to do the same.
I will be on the road for a few days. I will try to respond to any comments or questions when I return. Have a wonderful Christmas! :wavey:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just show me the scripture where she was ascended.

Well, if it occured after the last NT book in the canon was written would it be in there? I mean Scriptures don't say Paul was beheaded do we believe that he was? If we do then why don't we say Paul isn't dead because it isn't written in scriptures? Or more to the point were there miraculous healings after the time of the NT? Why do you believe these reports? I mean they aren't in the bible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Scripture tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken to heaven. The last mention of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ is Acts 1:14. After that there is no reference at all to her. Anything about the immaculate conception and the ascension of Mary is simply fiction.

God chose Mary to give birth to Jesus Christ just as God chose Israel to bring Jesus Christ into the world.

Nothing in Scripture supports the fiction the Roman Catholic Teaching Magisterium and the Pope have concocted about Mary.

As to your first point read my response to EWF. As to your 2nd response the Catholic Church teaches the Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ just as God chose Israel to be the nation in which Jesus was born. There is no concoction. In fact what we believe about Mary is clearly seen in scripture.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Now your defaulting to a catholic Bishop? Tell your bishop he wrote the book many of your churches are marketing now titled "Why be Catholic" & thats the question I am constantly asking you!

There are a lot of Parishes that are being mislead from the Catholic Faith by unfaithful clergy. This is due to a movement within the Catholic Church of people who constantly attack the teachings of the Church and want it to move to an anglican like liberalism. However, they are limited because the actual authoritative documents which must be believe go against them. There are bishops in this liberal movement. Now this priest. And I haven't read his work may teach what you said he is or he may have meant something different than what you posted and was misunderstood I don't know. However, I trust you and what you said. And if he actually teaches that Mary is the feminine face of God and that she is a goddess or the 4th person in the Trinity. Then he is a heretic and the proper proceedure for dealing with such things is before the bishop. But I heard one priest teach Homosexuality is not a sin. I heard nuns supporting abortion. And all these things are in contradiction to what the Catholic Church teaches. However, though these are issues in the Catholic Church these issue also permeate non Catholic Christians. Notre Dame has been sensured before and currently a New Bishop was assigned over that area to whip them into shape because they were teaching a liberal non-Catholic agenda. So is Georgetown. And personally unless they submit themselves to Catholic Teaching I think it will only be a little time before they loose the ability to call themselves Catholic. In fact a statement just came out about charities calling themselves catholic yet not upholding Catholic priniciples like sending money to fund organizations that also support abortion. I think this is the begining of a cleanising that needs to happen. Hopefully this answers your question.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There are a lot of Parishes that are being mislead from the Catholic Faith by unfaithful clergy. This is due to a movement within the Catholic Church of people who constantly attack the teachings of the Church and want it to move to an anglican like liberalism. However, they are limited because the actual authoritative documents which must be believe go against them. There are bishops in this liberal movement. Now this priest. And I haven't read his work may teach what you said he is or he may have meant something different than what you posted and was misunderstood I don't know. However, I trust you and what you said. And if he actually teaches that Mary is the feminine face of God and that she is a goddess or the 4th person in the Trinity. Then he is a heretic and the proper proceedure for dealing with such things is before the bishop. But I heard one priest teach Homosexuality is not a sin. I heard nuns supporting abortion. And all these things are in contradiction to what the Catholic Church teaches. However, though these are issues in the Catholic Church these issue also permeate non Catholic Christians. Notre Dame has been sensured before and currently a New Bishop was assigned over that area to whip them into shape because they were teaching a liberal non-Catholic agenda. So is Georgetown. And personally unless they submit themselves to Catholic Teaching I think it will only be a little time before they loose the ability to call themselves Catholic. In fact a statement just came out about charities calling themselves catholic yet not upholding Catholic priniciples like sending money to fund organizations that also support abortion. I think this is the begining of a cleanising that needs to happen. Hopefully this answers your question.

Your misunderstanding......Richard Rohr wrote the book to assure wayward catholics that Roman Catholicism is a viable religious choice. I beg to differ with him however.

The RCC has always done a "Wink & Nod" with regards to Mary Worship & however you want to spin it as to the RC Clergy intent, I never heard one nun, priest, deacon etc ever correct anyone about the deity of Mary. And I tell you this in all candor & seriousness, that until the RCC takes an active roll & makes a concerted effort to put Mary in the proper scriptural context, then you will be held accountable for having attempted to destroy the unity & harmony of the Trinity. A very grave sin indeed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your misunderstanding......Richard Rohr wrote the book to assure wayward catholics that Roman Catholicism is a viable religious choice. I beg to differ with him however.

The RCC has always done a "Wink & Nod" with regards to Mary Worship & however you want to spin it as to the RC Clergy intent, I never heard one nun, priest, deacon etc ever correct anyone about the deity of Mary. And I tell you this in all candor & seriousness, that until the RCC takes an active roll & makes a concerted effort to put Mary in the proper scriptural context, then you will be held accountable for having attempted to destroy the unity & harmony of the Trinity. A very grave sin indeed.

Curious. At RCIA where I am at it is always emphasized that Mary is not a deity because this is what people commonly think that Catholics think. I never heard of this Richard Rohr guy but I will now look him up and see what he's teaching. However, I will state officially that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is not God or a god. If you want to read about Catholicism being a Christian Church I suggest Alan Schreck Phd and his Book Catholic and Christian. But its better to go to the actual Documents themselves.

BTW, EWF, on an Online Catholic forum another priest had this to say about Rohr.

Hi,

I have no doubt that Fr. Rohr is well intentioned. His compassion has helped many people. But, as with many of his (my) generation, he contends that the current time is so unique with insights unavailable to past gerations, that we can validly diminish teachings of the Magisterium. He favors the ambiguity of mystery over teachings that favor absolute truths. This of course, diminishes the very authority of the Church itself

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sure you will, since you are so objective about the RCC. Everyone of them is the absolute truth. The only miracle of the RCC is that some members come to salvation in Jesus Christ despite the Catholic infrastructure hindering faith in Christ at every stage of Christian maturity.

I have always wondered though, does the holy water you sell go through a Britta water filter? Also, I have always wondered, if a vampire drank the blood after one of communion services that has been transsubstantiated, would the vampire have extra powers?

I'm not objective when it comes to the RCC faith. At one point I may have been but no longer. However, I do attempt to present what the actual beliefs of the Catholic faith are oppose to what people think which isn't the same thing.

Holy Water. I think because of the Media and Movies you have a misunderstanding about Holy Water. The word Holy means to set apart for a special use. Thus Holy water is set apart for a special use. I don't use Holy Water to drink. I set it apart for another use such at to remind myself of my baptismal promises everytime I leave a church or to remind myself of the cleansing blood of Christ. Only in the movies does it burn vampires. So Holy water can be tap water, bottled water, perrier, etc... As long as I set it aside for a special use.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So Thinking Stuffed and Walrus, I was wondering what happens to the substance of the body and blood of Christ after communion and the magical transsubstitution takes place. What do you do with the elements? Do you put them in a blender and add them to holy water your sell? Or perhaps the priests consume the elements and add years to their life kind of like the ancient beetle from Eygpt? Oh I know, maybe you take the elements and sell them to faith healers so they can go on television.

I don't know where you get your ideas but if they are not consumed they are put in the tabernacle.

Is nothing sacred to you and your denomination? The body and blood of Christ, the most precious substances in the universe that frees us from the consequences of sin, has been taken by your cult, and reduced to a magic act and trinket gimic.

Again you are wrong. The Eucharist is very sacred and it isn't a "magic act" or a "trinket gimic" it is exactly what Jesus told his disciples it was. His body and his blood which was given for them and us. Jesus didn't say this is like my body or this is like my blood. He didn't say if you meditate on what I said you have life in you he did say that unless you eat (trogo from trogain) my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you. In fact I find it funny that you take the Catholic view and ask "do you not hold anything sacred?" When in fact we hold a lot of things sacred. It is protestantism that has made a lot of Sacred things common and thus lost a lot of the teaching of the ancient church.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Curious. At RCIA where I am at it is always emphasized that Mary is not a deity because this is what people commonly think that Catholics think. I never heard of this Richard Rohr guy but I will now look him up and see what he's teaching. However, I will state officially that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is not God or a god. If you want to read about Catholicism being a Christian Church I suggest Alan Schreck Phd and his Book Catholic and Christian. But its better to go to the actual Documents themselves.

BTW, EWF, on an Online Catholic forum another priest had this to say about Rohr.

You can look up many Catholics that misrepresent ....I viewed a televised show featuring Archbishop Fulton Sheen last week. My dear Lord, the guy was telling stories about his personal encounters with Mary @ the pools of Lourdes. Look that one up as well & tell me it doesn't smack of "Name it & claim it" religion & totally misrepresents Mary!

Then again, I can throw the kitchen sink at you to get you to understand that this was always a "wink & nod' con game perpetuated by the roman catholic church (even though they will deny it). In the streets they have always maintained that Mary was a deity....its truly disingenuous to now not even acknowledge it. And we can keep this going to infinity if you like.....in fact, ask your Bishop to participate, just let me know his coverage area of Pennsylvania.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

was Mary born a sinner, per the bible?

Where does the bible say Mary is a sinner? Scripture verse please.

Did she need a Saviour to be her redeemer, per the Bible?

Yes and I explained how this is so.

is there ANY Biblical example of "veneration" that accorded to ANYONE other than God any verneation/worship?

Veneration isn't the same as worship. Worship goes to God alone but yes there is veneration throughout the scriptures. Elizabeth says to Mary

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be[g] a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

This is veneration. FYI Mother of my Lord is the same as Mother of God. There are other examples of people being honored in the Scriptures as well.

Does the Bible record ANYTHING the RCC ascibes to mary as Co matrix/Cio reddemer/Mother of God Intercessor for saints etc?

You are an intercessor when you pray for other people. You participate in the salvation of other people by preaching the gospel message to them but it is God who saves. I don't know what a co-matrix is. Catholics don't believe we are in a computer generated halucination that fight computer programs like Neo. Do you think we are in the matrix?

She is to be honored as being obedient to the call of God to have His Son

Yes she is. We certainly see it in Elizabeth's proclimation and veneration!

but NOT to have ANYTHING else honoring her any more than your mother or ine had, if they were Christians!

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Jesus honor's his mother. I honor my mother. What are you trying to say?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You can look up many Catholics that misrepresent ....I viewed a televised show featuring Archbishop Fulton Sheen last week. My dear Lord, the guy was telling stories about his personal encounters with Mary @ the pools of Lourdes. Look that one up as well & tell me it doesn't smack of "Name it & claim it" religion & totally misrepresents Mary!

Catholics certainly aren't name it and claim it! In fact, I know a few of these Copeland, and Hinn name it and claim it types and its anti-thetical to Catholic teaching.

Then again, I can throw the kitchen sink at you to get you to understand that this was always a "wink & nod' con game perpetuated by the roman catholic church (even though they will deny it).

My question is it the Catholic Church or people on the street?

In the streets they have always maintained that Mary was a deity....its truly disingenuous to now not even acknowledge it.

My question is when did they say Mary was a deity? Look at all the church documents and tell me where they say Mary was a deity? It could be that people have treated her such but is that Catholic teaching? No. If you can come up with an official Catholic Document that says Mary is God or a deity I would then have to agree with you.

And we can keep this going to infinity if you like.....in fact, ask your Bishop to participate, just let me know his coverage area of Pennsylvania.

Sure. I'll PM you and let you know his coverage area but I think you'll be disappointed.