Roman Catholic...Christian or Cult?

[Zenas]

Are you sure it is a fabrication?
I don't know anything about the person who wrote it. I was simply looking for information on Sheen and therefore did a search. That is what I came up with. I'll do another if you wish.

The story about the Chinese girl may or may not be true. It was first written down by a German priest named Karl Maria Harrer. Later, the rogue priest Martin Lucia appropriated it and used it in connection with his fictitious account of Fulton Sheen.

According to Sheen's biography, America's Bishop: The Life and Times of Fulton J. Sheen, by Thomas C. Reeves, he began the practice of making a holy hour before the blessed sacrament in 1918 while he was a student at St. Paul Seminary in Minnesota.

Sheen was quite gregarious and a prodigious fund raiser. However, he is best known for his half hour television program, "Life Is Worth Living," which he began in 1951. He may have been America's first televangelist. He had several celebrity converts, the best known of whom were Clare Booth Luce and Henry Ford II.

Sheen's life long practice of eucharistic adoration is actually quite common among Catholics, and certainly does not make him a mystic.

 

[Zenas]

DHK...

I have it on my cable package and I would recommend you get it. Its well worth the $2.50 a month.

Its overflowing with a continual verification of the blaphemies and heresies that we know exist in the RCC.

Some of the rosary liturgy programs show the goddess worship being directed to Mary VERY clearly.

Some or all? If some, which ones?

I've had people say to me "oh, they dont do that anymore", and I can say "Yes they do...I saw it with my own eyes last night".

Can you give me an example?

 

[DHK]

Sheen's life long practice of eucharistic adoration is actually quite common among Catholics, and certainly does not make him a mystic.

He certainly was one of the early televangelists, and a Catholic at that!
However, "eucharistic adoration" in and of itself is a mystical practice. What is adoration? It is worship, praise, etc. It is that which due only to God. Hence it is idolatry. The command is to worship God and him only thou shalt worship. God is not found in a piece of bread no matter who blesses it and how many times it is blessed. When you think of these things more objectively don't you think that is a bit superstitious.

I know; I used to believe the same way. But looking back now, I wonder: How could I ever have believed such nonsense that Christ is living within that piece of bread???

Acts 17:24-25 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

Do the Catholics understand what these verses mean?

 

[Zenas]

He certainly was one of the early televangelists, and a Catholic at that!
However, "eucharistic adoration" in and of itself is a mystical practice. What is adoration? It is worship, praise, etc. It is that which due only to God. Hence it is idolatry. The command is to worship God and him only thou shalt worship. God is not found in a piece of bread no matter who blesses it and how many times it is blessed. When you think of these things more objectively don't you think that is a bit superstitious.

I know; I used to believe the same way. But looking back now, I wonder: How could I ever have believed such nonsense that Christ is living within that piece of bread???

Acts 17:24-25 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

Do the Catholics understand what these verses mean?

The transubstantiation process does seem superstitous. So does the practice of prayer. Why would you talk to someone who isn't there? When you get down to the nitty gritty, all things religious seem superstitous. After all it contemplates the supernatural, which cannot be explained outside of a faith in something we cannot see.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul all understood Jesus to have said, "This is my body," not this represents my body. Paul said to the Corinthians, "Is not the cup of blesing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" Never once did he or anyone else say anything about it being symbolic.

Frankly, the idea or transubstantiation never occured to me until I was about 45 years old when, in a conversation with a very fundamentalist Baptist friend of mine, he mentioned the Catholic belief that the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ. It sounded rather silly but I went back and read all those passages relating the Last Supper and, sure enough, they said nothing about the communion elements being symbolic. So, DHK, I don't know what to tell you except that one man's faith is another's superstition.

As far as Acts 17:24-25 is concerned, God is not contained in temples. He does not need them for his dwelling, or for any other use, as the ancient pagans imagined. Yet by His omnipresence, He is both there and everywhere.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The transubstantiation process does seem superstitous. So does the practice of prayer. Why would you talk to someone who isn't there? When you get down to the nitty gritty, all things religious seem superstitous. After all it contemplates the supernatural, which cannot be explained outside of a faith in something we cannot see.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul all understood Jesus to have said, "This is my body," not this represents my body. Paul said to the Corinthians, "Is not the cup of blesing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" Never once did he or anyone else say anything about it being symbolic.

Have you ever studied what a metaphor is and the rules that characterize it? How would you recognize it? Metaphors assert that one thing is directly another thing. They use state of being verbs (is, was, am). The verb can be replaced with the word "represent" and you have the meaning conveyed by a metaphor. For example "I am the vine" means "I represent the vine" rather than I am literally the vine. In regard to the flesh of Jesus being bread and his blood wine to drink, John 6:35 makes it clear that Jesus is speaking metaphorically and wants his hearers to see that.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

He breaks down the language and explains what he means. Coming and believing in him is the same as eating and drinking him. Thus "I am the bread of life" is a metaphor or "I represent the bread of life." How is one's hunger for Christ satisfied? Answer "he that COMETH to me shall never hunger." How is one's thirst satisfied? "he that BELIEVETH on me SHALL NEVER THIRST." Coming and believing are synonyms here.

When Jesus said "this IS my body" his LITERAL body was distinct and separate and yet unbroken by the cross. When he said "this IS my blood" his LITERAL blood was still flowing through his veins and had not yet been given, or shed on the cross. The bread and wine simply REPRESENTED the LITERAL body passing the bread out.

 

[Zenas]

Have you ever studied what a metaphor is and the rules that characterize it? How would you recognize it?

Yes, Dr. Walter, I have three degrees, all of them from fully accredited universities--a total of 274 semester hours. I have even taught at the college level. I know what a metaphor is. :BangHead:

The problem I have is that four times this event is discussed and not one of the four writers gives a hint it is a metaphor. If the metaphor were discussed once or twice, maybe there would be no explanation but four times? Moreover, I believe the Bible has God as its author. God knew how people would respond to this and, if it really is a metaphor, His word has misled people for two thousand years. God is not the author of confusion. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone regarded it as anything other than literal until well after the Reformation.

 

[DHK]

The transubstantiation process does seem superstitous. So does the practice of prayer. Why would you talk to someone who isn't there? When you get down to the nitty gritty, all things religious seem superstitous. After all it contemplates the supernatural, which cannot be explained outside of a faith in something we cannot see.

Prayer to God is natural. Inside man is a God-made vacuum which no one or no thing can fill but God Himself. God has created us that way. We are made in the image of God. Prayer is simply communication with God. The line is never busy.
But prayer to a piece of bread? No. That is idolatry. That piece of bread is
C6 H12 O6
Christ does not exist in just three elements of the periodic table. Again, this is dreadful superstition.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul all understood Jesus to have said, "This is my body," not this represents my body.

No they did not. You are sadly mistaken. If they did, why didn't they take his arm and bite a chunk out of it. He was not literal. When Jesus said: "I am the door," why didn't they knock on Jesus? They understood the metaphor. Metaphors are symbolic in nature. He said "I am the vine. You are the branches." They didn't look for grapes at the end of their arms. Why? They understood the metaphor. It was symbolic. Why do you understand the symbolism elsewhere in the Bible but not here?

Paul said to the Corinthians, "Is not the cup of blesing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" Never once did he or anyone else say anything about it being symbolic.

He didn't have to. They all understood the metaphors involved. These truths are self-evident. When I share in the Lord's Supper I know I am not consuming Christ. This truth is self-evident. I realize what the bible is teaching. We "remember" the Lord's death until he comes--exactly what Paul says we are to do. Remember how? By eating the bread and drinking the wine (juice) that represents his body and blood. In no way is flesh eaten or blood drunk. That is pretty much blasphemous, even to think of it in that sense.

Frankly, the idea or transubstantiation never occured to me until I was about 45 years old when, in a conversation with a very fundamentalist Baptist friend of mine, he mentioned the Catholic belief that the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ. It sounded rather silly but I went back and read all those passages relating the Last Supper and, sure enough, they said nothing about the communion elements being symbolic. So, DHK, I don't know what to tell you except that one man's faith is another's superstition.

Yeah, like the Hindus being baptized in the Ganges River that their sins might be washed away; a practice not much different than the baptism of the RCC. Both are superstitious.

As far as Acts 17:24-25 is concerned, God is not contained in temples. He does not need them for his dwelling, or for any other use, as the ancient pagans imagined. Yet by His omnipresence, He is both there and everywhere.

You are speaking of and teaching pantheism.
The Scripture specifically teaches that God does not dwell in temples built with man's hands. What do you think it means? Why did Paul teach that? You can't come and counter with God's omnipresence. That is not the point. God does not dwell in the eucharist. That is pantheism and perhaps akin to animism. It is not Christianity. It is best described as pure idolatry.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is odd that you would suggest that a writer must discuss metaphors before you could recognize a metaphor? Writers don't usually discuss metaphors, they USE metaphors. Jesus comes as close as a speaker can in explaining to his hearers that his language is metaphorical. First he asserts the metaphor - "I am the bread of life" and then he follows by explaining how one partakes of this bread. If he meant the hearer to understand his words "I am the bread of life" as LITERAL he would have said "he that eateth me" rather than "he that COMTH to me shall never hunger. If he wanted the hearer to understand his words as LITERAL he would have said "he that drinketh of me" rather than "he that beleiveth on me shall never thirst."

This obvious explanation PRECEDES the debated language in John 6:54-57. If you have three degrees, taught in college, surely you can see John 6:35 is an obvious explanation that he is speaking metaphorically and wants his listerners to understand that. The Pharisees didn't understand it because they were looking to accuse him. Some of his disciples didn't understand it because they were false beleivers (vv. 64-65). However, his true disciples understood he spoke metaphorically as Peter responded "thou hast the WORDS OF LIFE." They understood that life was in His words rather than in any physical substance they need to partake. They partook of His words BY FAITH.

Yes, Dr. Walter, I have three degrees, all of them from fully accredited universities--a total of 274 semester hours. I have even taught at the college level. I know what a metaphor is. :BangHead:

The problem I have is that four times this event is discussed and not one of the four writers gives a hint it is a metaphor. If the metaphor were discussed once or twice, maybe there would be no explanation but four times? Moreover, I believe the Bible has God as its author. God knew how people would respond to this and, if it really is a metaphor, His word has misled people for two thousand years. God is not the author of confusion. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone regarded it as anything other than literal until well after the Reformation.

 

[Zenas]

Prayer to God is natural. Inside man is a God-made vacuum which no one or no thing can fill but God Himself. God has created us that way. We are made in the image of God. Prayer is simply communication with God. The line is never busy.
But prayer to a piece of bread? No. That is idolatry. That piece of bread is
C6 H12 O6
Christ does not exist in just three elements of the periodic table. Again, this is dreadful superstition.

Prayer is only natural to the one who believes in the object of his prayers. For everyone else, it is foolish or even demented.

But IF you believed the bread were God, wouldn't you want to worship it? Do you not think God is capable of turning any object into Himself as many times as He wants to? Alter all God is spirit but He once came to earth in human form. As far as your organic compound is concerned, it is closer to wine than it is to bread.

Why do you understand the symbolism elsewhere in the Bible but not here?

The symbolism is obvious in these other places but not so obvious here. When He gave the bread of life discourse, the people found it so disgusting many of His disciples left Him. There was no such confusion about the door or the vine metaphors.

That is pretty much blasphemous, even to think of it in that sense.

It does seem rather disgusting. Many of the Romans regarded the early Christians as cannibals for this reason. So far as I know, the Christians did nothing to dispel this notion.

You are speaking of and teaching pantheism.
The Scripture specifically teaches that God does not dwell in temples built with man's hands. What do you think it means? Why did Paul teach that? You can't come and counter with God's omnipresence. That is not the point.

No, pantheism says God is at one with all of nature. Christianity says God is everywhere. Psalm 139.

God does not dwell in the eucharist.

You're right. Only the Lutherans and Anglicans would disagree with you here. Catholics would agree because they believe the eucharist is God. Why do you think they have eucharistic adoration?

It is best described as pure idolatry.

It is either idolatry or it is not. If Jesus really transforms the substance of those wafers to His body, it is pure worship. If He does not it is idolatry. How do you know?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Prayer is only natural to the one who believes in the object of his prayers. For everyone else, it is foolish or even demented.

But IF you believed the bread were God, wouldn't you want to worship it? Do you not think God is capable of turning any object into Himself as many times as He wants to? Alter all God is spirit but He once came to earth in human form. As far as your organic compound is concerned, it is closer to wine than it is to bread.
The symbolism is obvious in these other places but not so obvious here. When He gave the bread of life discourse, the people found it so disgusting many of His disciples left Him. There was no such confusion about the door or the vine metaphors. It does seem rather disgusting. Many of the Romans regarded the early Christians as cannibals for this reason. So far as I know, the Christians did nothing to dispel this notion. No, pantheism says God is at one with all of nature. Christianity says God is everywhere. Psalm 139. You're right. Only the Lutherans and Anglicans would disagree with you here. Catholics would agree because they believe the eucharist is God. Why do you think they have eucharistic adoration? It is either idolatry or it is not. If Jesus really transforms the substance of those wafers to His body, it is pure worship. If He does not it is idolatry. How do you know?

Can you think of anywhere else in the Scriptures where God manifested himself in inanimate objects and then required His people to worship those objects as God?

Since this very thing is condemned as idoltry throughout the Old and New Testaments, wouldn't God be violating His own Law as well as requiring His people to violate His law in doing such a thing?

However, does not God use such language as metaphors of Himself throughout the scriptures??

 

[Dr. Walter]

Prayer is only natural to the one who believes in the object of his prayers. For everyone else, it is foolish or even demented.

But IF you believed the bread were God, wouldn't you want to worship it? Do you not think God is capable of turning any object into Himself as many times as He wants to? Alter all God is spirit but He once came to earth in human form. As far as your organic compound is concerned, it is closer to wine than it is to bread.
The symbolism is obvious in these other places but not so obvious here. When He gave the bread of life discourse, the people found it so disgusting many of His disciples left Him. There was no such confusion about the door or the vine metaphors. It does seem rather disgusting. Many of the Romans regarded the early Christians as cannibals for this reason. So far as I know, the Christians did nothing to dispel this notion. No, pantheism says God is at one with all of nature. Christianity says God is everywhere. Psalm 139. You're right. Only the Lutherans and Anglicans would disagree with you here. Catholics would agree because they believe the eucharist is God. Why do you think they have eucharistic adoration? It is either idolatry or it is not. If Jesus really transforms the substance of those wafers to His body, it is pure worship. If He does not it is idolatry. How do you know?

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

John 6:35 is not the only time Jesus explains his language before John 6:52-55. In John 6:47 Jesus spells out what it means to have eternal life with a double "verily, verily" introduction. After spelling it out he then proceeds to say it metaphorically in verse 48 "I am THAT bread of life" or "I REPRESENT that bread of life."

Therefore, TWICE before the disputed section, Jesus explains what he means by eating and drinking as metaphors of PARTAKING of him by faith - "believeth on me" that obtains eternal life. Simple and straightforward. Why should anyone be confused when he lays it down before he says:

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

 

[Alive in Christ]

ZENUS...

Me...

I have it on my cable package and I would recommend you get it. Its well worth the $2.50 a month.

Its overflowing with a continual verification of the blaphemies and heresies that we know exist in the RCC.

Some of the rosary liturgy programs show the goddess worship being directed to Mary VERY clearly.

You...

Some or all? If some, which ones?

All rosary liturgies are blasphemous. But one of them seems to be particularly troubling. I dont remember what any of these programs are called.

Me....

I've had people say to me "oh, they dont do that anymore", and I can say "Yes they do...I saw it with my own eyes last night."

You...

Can you give me an example?

I've had Catholics say that everything is "Sooooo much different" these days. The liturgies. The masses. Not at all like when I was Catholic in the 60's and 70's.

EWTN makes clear that nothing has changed, by showing the dead blaphemous liturgies, masses, and ceremonies as they are today.

 

[billwald]

Most Catholic liturgies are bible verses strung together with prayers for mercy.

 

[jaigner]

Most Catholic liturgies are bible verses strung together with prayers for mercy.

Bill, that brings up an interesting point.

We say we're all about the Bible, listening, following, and valuing it highly. But walk into any Baptist Church, and you'll likely hear very little of it being read.

When I was in grad school at Wheaton, the assignment was to attend two churches outside your denomination or faith tradition. Some folks went to mosques or synagogues or Mormon temples. Not being so adventurous, I attended a Catholic service for the first time in many years. I was struck by how much Scripture informed their liturgy and just how much was being read. OT, NT and gospel readings.

Now, I understand that there are still problems with Catholic theology and that all that Scripture doesn't necessitate a heart change on behalf of the congregants, but I wonder if we value Scripture as much as we think we do. That is something that, I believe, the Catholic and other liturgical traditions get right.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Bill, that brings up an interesting point.

We say we're all about the Bible, listening, following, and valuing it highly. But walk into any Baptist Church, and you'll likely hear very little of it being read.

When I was in grad school at Wheaton, the assignment was to attend two churches outside your denomination or faith tradition. Some folks went to mosques or synagogues or Mormon temples. Not being so adventurous, I attended a Catholic service for the first time in many years. I was struck by how much Scripture informed their liturgy and just how much was being read. OT, NT and gospel readings.

Now, I understand that there are still problems with Catholic theology and that all that Scripture doesn't necessitate a heart change on behalf of the congregants, but I wonder if we value Scripture as much as we think we do. That is something that, I believe, the Catholic and other liturgical traditions get right.

And yet, in spite of all that scripture in the liturgy, Catholic people are generally SUPREMELY ignorant of biblical truth.

They arent even in the same universe as evangelicals regaring a knowledge scriptural truth.

 

[Jedi Knight]

And yet, in spite of all that scripture in the liturgy, Catholic people are generally SUPREMELY ignorant of biblical truth.

They arent even in the same universe as evangelicals regaring a knowledge scriptural truth.

Amen to that.

 

[jaigner]

And yet, in spite of all that scripture in the liturgy, Catholic people are generally SUPREMELY ignorant of biblical truth.

They arent even in the same universe as evangelicals regaring a knowledge scriptural truth.

Generally, you're right.

Interesting, nonetheless.

 

[thomas15]

I vote for cult although they don't meet the definition of cult in the classic sense. Some of my reasons are:

Cult of personality. Catholics all but worship the Pope, they see things in him that just don't exist or are actually flat out lies, as in him not being a servant rather he is served hand and foot. He is political instead of spritual, he accepts worship where he shouldn't. There is also a cult of personality with regard to Mary.

According to Rome, and individual gets God's grace from a wafer that is made Holy by a priest. This would, if true would mean that a priest (not provided for in the NT) could actually create something from nothing the same way that Jesus fed the 4000. Jesus started out with a few loaves and fishes and fed 1000s. The priest starts out with a cracker and feeds the flock the actual living soft tissue of Jesus. Also, this means that God's grace is transmitted through human hands, not by faith in the unseen God.

Enough for now but I could go on and on. Simply put, the God that Catholics worship is not the same one that Baptists worship, anymore than the God that the unbelieving Jews believe in. True, they both have the same Bible and in theory speak of the same historical Jesus and the Triune God. But the God of the Roman Catholic Church is not the same personal God of the Bible, sorry to say.

 

[Grace&Truth]

As far as Acts 17:24-25 is concerned, God is not contained in temples. He does not need them for his dwelling, or for any other use, as the ancient pagans imagined. Yet by His omnipresence, He is both there and everywhere.

The problem with this statement is that only Christ's divine nature is omnipresent, His human body is not. So how is it that Jesus' can be present upon all the RC alters all over the world at the same time bodily????

We know that while on earth Jesus could not be in more then one location at a time, therefore, how could He have been turned into bread (bodily) while He was setting at the Last Supper with His deciples????

The Answer: He cannot and He was not.....

 

[Zenas]

The problem with this statement is that only Christ's divine nature is omnipresent, His human body is not. So how is it that Jesus' can be present upon all the RC alters all over the world at the same time bodily????

We know that while on earth Jesus could not be in more then one location at a time, therefore, how could He have been turned into bread (bodily) while He was setting at the Last Supper with His deciples????

The Answer: He cannot and He was not.....

Actually we don't know that while on earth Jesus could not be in more than one location at a time. Scripture doesn't address this one way or the other. You're entitled to your opinion but it certainly appears that you believe in a Jesus with limited abilities. I believe in a Jesus with unlimited power, who transcends all barriers of time and space. Of course He could be on a million alters at the same time. :jesus: