Roman Catholicism , cult or not? Part II

The don't worship mary? But she is our mother. Again, not a strictly Catholic thing. The Orthodox have huge churches dedicated to, and beautiful icon's written about, Mary. Even Luther was devoted to Mary.

Mary:
</font>

• Was the first Christian, accepting Christ into her heart as well as her womb.</font>
• Had a heart that so graciously said of God "be it done unto me according to they word", which we should all immitate.</font>
• Is the new Eve to Christ's new Adam. "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between her seed and yours" says God in Genesis 3. Mary is that Woman, and Christ even identifies her as "woman".</font>
• Mary is the ark of the new covenant - whereas the old ark carried the manna from heaven, the law of the lord written on stone and the budded staff of Aaron the high priest, Mary carried the living bread, the word made flesh, and the true high priest and shoot of Jesse.</font>
• St. John's revelation makes that ocnnection to, showing the ark in heaven (rev 11) and then immediately the woman who bore the king (rev 12).</font>
• Davidically speaking, Mary is the queen of heaven. The Queen wasn't the king's wife, but his mother.</font>
• Jesus begins his ministry at her behest, making the best wine the earth ever saw</font>
• Scripture attests that "from [that] day forth, all generations will call her blessed" and they do.</font>

She's not worshiped, nor should she be. The Catholics don't teach that she should. Nor do the Orthodox. Nor do the early church fathers.

 

Claudia,

Excellant post, Claudia. Catholics and Catholic sympathisers can be an odd bunch sometimes, cant they?

Bless their hearts.

Mike

 

Excellent post, how very true.

God Bless

 

Also add the Anglican Church to that list.

 

Your spirit is refreshing compared to other posters on this board. Please know that there are many of us on this board that do not hate or despise the RCC.
In Christ,
Nate

 

First of all thanks to LS for providing that list of Mariolotry "essentials".

Now lets contrast that list of man-made Ideas with the actual Word of God.


</font>

• Mary was not the first Christian, she was not the first to believe in the Messiah (Christ) - she came with her other children to Christ and accused him of having lost his mind.</font>
• Had a heart that so graciously said of God "be it done unto me according to they word", which we should all immitate. (At last a truth about Mary!)</font>
• Mary Is NOT the new Eve to Christ's new Adam. -- Christ ALONE provides the first sinless antitype for Adam. THERE IS no other redeemer or savior or God to "SHARE" this work with him as an equal - as Eve shared with Adam in being our first PARENTs. Christ was not MARRIED TO HIS MOTHER!
  
  God said TO the ACTUAL EVE "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between her seed and yours" says God in Genesis 3.
  
  The "seed of the woman" represents the seed of mankind - and specifically Christ the God-man born among the children of Adam.
  
  Mary is NOT Eve! Christ was NOT married to His Mother!!</font>
• Mary is NOT the ark of the new covenant - NO TEXT speaks of Mary as being the ark or AN ark!
  
  In Rev 11 we see the Temple in heaven opened but never do we see Mary in ALL of the book of Revelation.</font>
• The "woman" of rev 12 is the church in both OT and NT. The church goes into 1260 years of persecution in Rev 12. THAT persecution is that which was heaped upon her by the RCC.
  
  Historically the EARTH itself comes to her aid - as she flees to the "new world" to escape persecution.</font>
• Davidically speaking, Mary is NOT the queen of heaven. David's mother was NEVER QUEEN of Israel!! Mary is NEVER called "Queen" by Christ OR by ANY Bible writer!!</font>
• Jesus begins his ministry at His Baptism and then was lead out into the wilderness for 40 days - after which He began to preach the same message that John preached about the Kingdom of heaven being at hand. Mary NEVER asks Christ to preach about the Kingdom of heaven. NOR does Mary EVER ask Christ to offer Himself for the sins of mankind.</font>
• Scripture MAKES NO reference to the Marriage supper and the miracle of wine saying "from [that] day forth, all generations will call her blessed".
  
  Luke 1 Mary says "of herself" from "this day shall all generation call me blessed" - and so they do.</font>

She's IS WORSHIPPED by Catholics as Queen of heaven, sinless like Christ and Coredemptrix WITH Christ -- they do this as they come before HER ALTARS to pray and worship.
[/quote]

WORSHIP at Mary’s Altars

 

As the son of a Baptist pastor in Texas, who went to Baptist churches his whole life and spent 5 years living on the campus of East Texas Baptist College, I would like to tackle your very real concerns about how the Catholic Church could be very, very wrong.

True. However, Catholics believe that the Church includes all of Christianity. Those who are not baptized as Catholics represent separated brethren, who are still a part of the Church, if in an imperfect way by their view, they are out outside of the Church. So, even though they do believe that salvation is not guaranteed outside of the Church, they also believe that all Christians are within the Church.

True. However, any triune baptism (in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) is considered a valid Christian, thus Catholic baptism. The baptism need not take place in a Catholic church to be considered valid. All properly constituted baptisms (triune) are considered valid. In fact, my baptism at Emmanuel Baptist Church in Clute, Texas is considered completely valid in the Catholic Church... As are all Christian baptisms.

That's not really how they teach it, but that is a way that it is commonly distorted when taught to us in Baptist churches. The Catholic Church recognizes Holy Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (notice upper-case 't')... there are traditions and Traditions... Traditions are considered sacred, while traditions (small t) are considered changeable ways of doing things. Do you suggest other churches have no traditions that are not listed in the Bible? I'd love to discuss that topic separately. Do Lutherans have traditions or Traditions? What about Episcopals?... Orthodox Christians? Are they also cults by your description? Since most of the Christian world (by a large margin) is Catholic or Orthodox, does that mean most Christians really are not Christians?

The Bible is not a user's manual for Christianity, and Catholics are not really told they have to just sit and wait for the magisterium to interpret. There are plenty of Catholic study bibles and Catholic bible studies with no clergy present. Anyway, the Bible is quite silent on many topics....many very basic and important ones (not just modern issues). Do you suppose that our Lord Jesus Christ never insructed the Apostles on anything other than what was written down in the Gospels?... Do you suppose the Gospels are a compete record of his ministry on earth? The Bible says:

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." John 21:25 (KJV)

The Apostles witnessed these things, they spoke with him, and they passed the traditions and teachings down to us... We have them today. The Bible itself expresses its inability to record every possible thing. So, should we only perform traditions directly found in the Bible, and assume that Christ never taught the Apostles anything else that he wanted us to know about how to worship or live our lives?

Well, Cathlics and Protestants (including Baptists) do agree in the innerancy of the Word of God in the Bible... and... The Word of God says:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:14-24 (KJV)

The Word of God is clear... If one doesn't show his faith through his actions ("works"), then is there really any faith at all?.... Don't get caught up in a symantecs game. Do you believe that someone can say they're a born-again Christian who is faithful to God, yet do nothing but unrighteous acts and never show their faith by their actions and deeds?

Please be specific so I can understand what you mean. Quotes and references preferred. Grace is a very small word, with a very big meaning, don't you think?

So.. The Bible doesn't teach Baptism, Christian marriage, Communion, confessing sins, or ordination of clergy, or anointing the sick?

I'm confused, as I'm pretty sure the Bible must teach those things, because my dad taught me those things in a Baptist church as the pastor of that Baptist church... he was ordained as a Pastor in the Baptist church, and he taught me that I needed to confess my sins in order to accept Christ, I needed to go through the church for a proper Christian marriage, I needed a proper baptism once I had accepted Christ, and my dad regularly went to visit the sick and pray over them... So, really the Sacraments are quite valid as far as I can tell from what I learned as a Baptist about being a Christian. Is it the term 'sacrament' that bothers you? Doesn't Christ use these physical, perceptible signs to show his love for us?

Phew, thank goodness! Thankfully all Christian groups believe this. Purgatory is not taught by the Catholic Church as a place of punishment. That's a way in which we were lied to somewhere down the line and it has been allowed to persist. If you get your theology information from The History Channel, then you might get confused like this. Truth is, Purgatory is considered by Catholics to be a place of cleansing and purification (purgatory, purge, purify) before standing before God. Of course Christ has died for our sins already, but do we not continue to sin? Surely we should be purged fully from those sins before we stand before the throne of God.

That's not really what Catholics believe, either. Here's a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: 'The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.' 'And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.'" CCC 1367

Thank our Lord Jesus Christ, only once! Catholic simply believe that the priest makes the one and only one sacrifice of Christ immediately present for them in the mass. God created time and space... Don't you think he can manipulate it and do with it as he pleases? In any case, the Catholic Church only does what Christ instructed.

Thankfully those are all mis-construed or inaccurate beliefs... I agree, if people believed that, they wouldn't be Christians. Thankfully, Catholics are very much Christian... Without the Catholic Church, there would be no Christianity... Without the Catholic Church, Christianity would have ended when Christ was put in the tomb.

-Michael

[ April 22, 2006, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: ZeroTX ]

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DHK:
It may not deny the deity of Jesus Christ. However:
There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all welcome to the board. I hope you are able to remain for a while.

Secondly - is it your claim that the RCC used the definition you make above during the inquisition? During the dark ages? During the time when they denounced ALL heretics as up for "extermination" (Lateran IV comes to mind).

ETWN's Dr Carroll CONFIRMS that even BILLY GRAHAM would have been burned alive during the dark ages IF he were to have taught then what he taught in the 20th century!

I suppose "Carroll is wrong"? LAteran IV "did not exist". The "inquisition" WAS NOT questioning Christians about their inciiniation to worship Mary or faithful belief in RC doctrines REJECTED TODAY by non-Catholics???!!!

Really!?? This is really what you tell yourself?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Good show...

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be saved one must be baptized into the Catholic Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1. The RCC does NOT practice "open Communion" - it does NOT recognize the communion service of non-Catholics.

#2. The RCC does NOT allow for non-Catholics to be saved under the Bible model of the "New Covenant" (according to Fr Ken Ryan of Catholic Digest). Rather it insists that some OTHER way must be found for non-Catholics other than the BIBLE Gospel method of the NEW Covenant. The NEW Covenant is confined to the Catholic Mass According to the RCC.

#3. The ARGUMENT for the Inquisition - torture and torment of those that dissent from pagan RC doctrines in the dark ages - was that it was BETTER to be tortured by the RCC than to suffer eternity in hell as one OUTSIDE the RCC!

Folks - this just could not be any more obvious.

The RCC has truly changed her position over time - but IF you are going to stradle the fence and claim that the DARK AGES position of the RCC is STILL valid then Dr Carroll of EWTN is 100% correct!

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All doctrine originates from one source (not the Bible), but the magesterium.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1. THIS is why I prefer to engage RC posters ON THIS board rather than on RC boards. On RC boards you get roasted alive for appealing to the standard of scripture as a judge of tradition. ON THIS BOARD you can occassionally get someone to speak of tradition as though the RCC WOULD be willing to subject it to a test of the Bible!

Long live the BB!!

So here is my question for you ZeroTX. ARE you willing to claim that the RCC will hold its man-made traditions SUBJECT to the authority and standard of Scripture? Or will they be satisfied to remain with their model of "zero text" when it comes to "man made traditions"??

In Christ,

Bob

 

I and a number of others on this board would agree with your support and acceptance of James 2 ZeroTX - but that does not really explore the depth of the chasm between the RCC fabrications of "magic sacraments" "Magic powers for the priests" "Extermination of dissenters" "the invention of purgatory" "Priests with powers to confect God" "Bible burning" "the inquistion" "Papal armies promised heaven for slaughtering rival papal armies" "Mary queen of heaven sinless like Christ co-redemptrix"

The list is endless.

Appealing to James 2 (as good as it is) does not begin to explore the chasm.

Your Dad NEVER taught you about "magic sacraments" with "power to mark the soul" or the Priesthood with "magic powers" to confect God - Powers to forgive sins - magic powers that REMAIN with the priest EVEN AFTER going into apostacy!!

Surely you NEVER heard such claims from any Baptist as are made by the RCC for IT's sacraments and priesthood!!

Tell us the truth sir!

These claims from the dark ages were perfectly calculated for the mind of the dark ages. How could anyone leave a church that had THE power to confect God, THE power to forgive sins, THE power to "Mark the soul" even of an infant!. The Catholic MASS ALONE was (and still IS) considered the NEW COVENANT - no other communion is allowed as such!!

All of the magic all of the power was INSIDE the RCC "No salvation outside the church" HAD REAL meaning.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Good afternoon Bob, and thanks for the welcome. I actually have been on here for a couple of years now, I just haven't been around in a while. A lot of things have changed in my life and outlook, for the good, thank the Lord.

I'm sure that the lady on EWTN you spoke about was probably accurate. Of course there's no way to know, but she's probably right. I'm sure however, that she wasn't saying she felt that was the RIGHT thing to do, was she? The sins committed by the leadership of the RCC during the dark ages/Inquisition period you speak of are terrible, horrible tragedies. To this day those actions come back to haunt those in the Catholic Church who know very well how wrong they were. They are just as horrible and no more correct or justified than the Puritans were when they burned supposed witches. Unfortunately, horrible things have happened in the past. I hope we learn from those things, rather than using them as weapons for the creation of false assumptions.

Also, I think there needs to be a distinction between the teachings of Christ passed down and the error-prone and greed-prone nature of human beings. Catholics don't believe that every action ever taken by any member or clergy of the RCC was inspired by God or that clergy members are without sin, sometimes quite awful sin. Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18). Praise Jesus, the Church survived even the atrocities of its own leadership. If it hadn't, none of us today would be Christians, as the faith would have died away. But, Christ promised it would not... and our Lord Jesus kept his promise.

This is exemplified by Luther's concerns, which had nothing to do with the Inquisition period, and also had no intention of splitting the Church. Had he known the result of his actions, he would have surely taken a different course of action. The Church did correct many errors, but the splitting off of so many good Christians was a sad side effect of the methods used.

In any case, you won't get any orthodox Catholic to stand up and say that the actions of the RCC during the Inquisition were right or just. I thank the Lord that our human failings didn't destroy our chance for salvation! As you can see from history, humans do a pretty good job of denying God's infinite abilities sometimes. We only have God to thank for bringing us through sin and for keeping his Church ever-present.

-Michael

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The belief that Christ paid the full penalty for our sins is denied, in that one has to pay part of that penalty in purgatory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all I agree that the History Channel is a worthless "source" for discovering any fact at all about Christianity!

Second - your argument sidesteps the problem with Purgatory.

#1. Purgatory IS NOT taught in scripture. IF EVER there was an RC argument about ITS TRADITIONS being ADDED to scripture - it is ITS tradition on Purgatory.

#2. THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF INDULGENCES is centered on the FACT that Purgatory is NOT A PLACE that you want your loved ones to be in -- AT ALL. It is a place of torment, punishment for sin (venial albeit) and suffering of the soul. A place to GET OUT OF at all costs! A man-made doctrine that FULLY JUSTIFIES the man-made teaching on indulgences!

Can you have indulgences WITHOUT Purgatory? No!! We see in the dark ages the great lengths the saints were willing to go through to EARN plenary indulgences -- ALL to get loved ones OUT OF THE LOVELY WONDERFUL Place you describe as Purgatory??!!!

Be serious!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

My prayer is that you will hang around long enough to answer some of this...

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK said: The sacrifice of Christ was not sufficient, therefore he must be resacrificed again and again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Err - umm - I think you just made DHK's point!!

By claiming that the CONTINUED sacrifice of the Eucharist is a continuation of Christ's sacrifice you reject the Bible doctrine that His Sacrifice was COMPLETE "ONCE FOR ALL" and that having COMPLETED it he "PUT AN END TO ALL SACRIFICE".

The CONTINUAL sacrifice idea of the RCC is a direct denial of Heb 10.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

I actually want to spend a little time responding, but I have an obligation to go attend to this evening (a friend is getting married). However, I will get back ASAP

In the meantime, I would like to suggest considering what traditions may have been passed down from Christ himself, and what man-made traditions are of no harm, but perhaps even a help.

Growing up as a Baptist, I surely appreciated our traditions. I haven't found a Scripture quote yet to indicate why we (in the traditional American Protestant traditions) build our churches with wooden pews, build a nice wooden pulpit to preach from, use hymnal books, have steeples on the churches, have a specific (regularly repated) order of church services, celebrate certain religious holidays on whichever days we do (Easter, Christmas), have Sunday School meeting before church, have church on Wednesday nights, use grape juice instead of wine for communion, etc, etc. They're mostly just traditions of men, aren't they?

Where does it instruct is in the Bible on what days would be holidays or any of these things?... It doesn't... it's tradition.

-Michael

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the above puts the RCC in the realm of a cult. You cannot believe in the above doctrines and be a Christian at the same time. It is an impossibility.
DHK [/QB]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As my posts have shown - you are sidestepping and playing the game of "puting a nice face" on the RCC man-made-doctrines. But the posts I have given show the details you gloss over to make your case.

That is a problem for your response above.

And there is a worse situation. The RCC itself AGREES with DHK - IF the doctrines THAT IT TEACHES and that the non-Catholic Christians reject as false - as opposed to scripture - are in fact WRONG (That is to say - IF the non-Catholics are RIGHT about THEIR OWN beliefs on these points of difference - beliefs where non-Catholics DO NOT think man can confect God - vs - beliefs where the RCC claims TO be able to confect God) -- then the RCC is guilty of idol worship!

That is THEIR OWN statement of the measure of the gap!

RC Eucharist is “idolatry” (if non-Catholics are right) according to the RCC.

The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”

 

I've not seen this shown. I've seen you misconstrue facts to set up a strawman you can then knock down and feel proud of. Dirty pool.

I've read that three times and it's not making sense yet. Can you clarify?

And all Christians are guilty of idolatry if Christ was not raised. But he was so their not. Likewise the eucharist is his flesh, so they're not guilty of idolatry.

Is that what you were trying to say in the above jumble?

on a side note:

"Imprimatur" means "let it be printed", and generally means the work is free from error per se. It does not however make the work an official mouth-piece of Rome...

 

No it doesn't. It means official sanction or approval to publish (in this case by the Catholic Church). It has nothing to do with inerrancy--"Means the work is free from error per se." No work is without error except the Bible. It alone is inspired of God and error free. Only God is perfect. The Catholic writings are full of errors, contradictions, etc., and in no way can be defined as "free from error." The word "imprimatur" doesn't even come close to that meaning. Look it up in a dictionary for yourself.
DHK