-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The explanation of Catholic Beliefs
- Thread starter MB
- Start date
Though I differ from my brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church on a great number of things, I will always defend those who claim faith in Christ as the banner of their lives.
As I've encountered some Roman Catholics, just as I have encountered some Baptists and some evangelicals, they have misunderstandings about their faith. Often those with the greatest misunderstandings are the most nominal in their faith. Yet those who are active and growing in their faith have a familiarity that is refreshing and helpful. I'd encourage anyone to seek those out.
I'd like to see where Mary is venerated about Christ in the Mass. I'd like to see where Mary is worshipped more than Christ in sacraments and in the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. Though I disagree with their elevation of her, she was a sinner, saved by grace, who was used mightily by God and then had children after Christ, I think this is an mischaracterization of their theology. Mary is not greater than Christ.
Fair enough, I hold your view here. However, it isn't an issue I'm willing to question their salvation over.
Please list for the me the pantheon of Roman Catholic "gods" who rival the Trinity. Please show me through hyperlinks to their doctrinal statements where there are other "gods" who are just as powerful and worthy of worship as the Trinity.
I don't understand this penchant mischaracterization of Mary as co-redemtrix. Though their doctrine of her is incorrect, I have never really met a Roman Catholic who worships Mary more than any member of the Trinity. Grace does not flow from Mary, though they do believe she is an important vessel through which grace was allowed to flow in bringing Jesus into this world.
This is unnecessary and slanderous. Shame on you. The hospital that did this changed their position after the Roman Church told them they would lose all affiliation and funding over this position. The Roman Catholic position on life is unassailable. No abortion, no murder, no death penalty. It is a coherent position that is very biblical and very well practiced. One isolated incident that has been cleared up should not impugn the entire Church. I bet if we surveyed the congregation you attend we might find some who believe abortion should be legal and available.
You're just a one trick pony. This claim is incorrect and error-laden. Move on.
I've been disappointed in some of the conclusions which arose out of Vatican II. However, if we look closely at these documents they still provide for an everlasting Hell which passes away in annihilation after the final judgment and the establishment of the New Jerusalem. I don't agree with the RCC view here, but I can't question their salvation over it.
I confess my sins to two other men in my accountability group. They offer me nothing more than prayer and support. They confess their sins to me. I offer them nothing more than prayer and support. I agree the Catholic view of penance and confession are wrong.
I think you've mischaracterized their understanding of the Pope. The Pope isn't the Holy Father on the same level as God is the Father. The Pope is understood as the remaining Apostle in whom the authority to forgive sins, administer the sacraments, and baptize for salvation is given. Through their doctrine of Apostolic Succession this authority flows from the Pope to the Cardinals, Bishops, and into the local parishes. I disagree with their view, but your understanding of it is wrong.
The Pope isn't infallible. He doesn't claim infallibility all day long. The only time, and it is rare, where he claims infallibility is when he speaks ex cathedra. I thinks its a silly thing and a wrong way to proceed. But you're understanding is incorrect.
I'm not a transubstantiationist. Obviously not, I'm Baptist. However you've mischaracterized and misunderstood their doctrines badly.
So you're going to condemn all faithful members of the Roman Catholic Church from its inception through the return of Christ as lost and damned to Hell? Wow, I can't do that. You're understanding of their doctrines is so poor I don't know how you can do that either.
These are some pretty serious charges to make against a brother in Christ. Given your misunderstanding of basic Roman Catholic doctrine, perhaps you might rethink your charges here.
As I've encountered some Roman Catholics, just as I have encountered some Baptists and some evangelicals, they have misunderstandings about their faith. Often those with the greatest misunderstandings are the most nominal in their faith. Yet those who are active and growing in their faith have a familiarity that is refreshing and helpful. I'd encourage anyone to seek those out.
I'd like to see where Mary is venerated about Christ in the Mass. I'd like to see where Mary is worshipped more than Christ in sacraments and in the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. Though I disagree with their elevation of her, she was a sinner, saved by grace, who was used mightily by God and then had children after Christ, I think this is an mischaracterization of their theology. Mary is not greater than Christ.
MB said:
Fair enough, I hold your view here. However, it isn't an issue I'm willing to question their salvation over.
MB said:
Please list for the me the pantheon of Roman Catholic "gods" who rival the Trinity. Please show me through hyperlinks to their doctrinal statements where there are other "gods" who are just as powerful and worthy of worship as the Trinity.
MB said:
I don't understand this penchant mischaracterization of Mary as co-redemtrix. Though their doctrine of her is incorrect, I have never really met a Roman Catholic who worships Mary more than any member of the Trinity. Grace does not flow from Mary, though they do believe she is an important vessel through which grace was allowed to flow in bringing Jesus into this world.
MB said:
This is unnecessary and slanderous. Shame on you. The hospital that did this changed their position after the Roman Church told them they would lose all affiliation and funding over this position. The Roman Catholic position on life is unassailable. No abortion, no murder, no death penalty. It is a coherent position that is very biblical and very well practiced. One isolated incident that has been cleared up should not impugn the entire Church. I bet if we surveyed the congregation you attend we might find some who believe abortion should be legal and available.
MB said:
You're just a one trick pony. This claim is incorrect and error-laden. Move on.
MB said:
I've been disappointed in some of the conclusions which arose out of Vatican II. However, if we look closely at these documents they still provide for an everlasting Hell which passes away in annihilation after the final judgment and the establishment of the New Jerusalem. I don't agree with the RCC view here, but I can't question their salvation over it.
MB said:
I confess my sins to two other men in my accountability group. They offer me nothing more than prayer and support. They confess their sins to me. I offer them nothing more than prayer and support. I agree the Catholic view of penance and confession are wrong.
MB said:
I think you've mischaracterized their understanding of the Pope. The Pope isn't the Holy Father on the same level as God is the Father. The Pope is understood as the remaining Apostle in whom the authority to forgive sins, administer the sacraments, and baptize for salvation is given. Through their doctrine of Apostolic Succession this authority flows from the Pope to the Cardinals, Bishops, and into the local parishes. I disagree with their view, but your understanding of it is wrong.
The Pope isn't infallible. He doesn't claim infallibility all day long. The only time, and it is rare, where he claims infallibility is when he speaks ex cathedra. I thinks its a silly thing and a wrong way to proceed. But you're understanding is incorrect.
I'm not a transubstantiationist. Obviously not, I'm Baptist. However you've mischaracterized and misunderstood their doctrines badly.
MB said:
So you're going to condemn all faithful members of the Roman Catholic Church from its inception through the return of Christ as lost and damned to Hell? Wow, I can't do that. You're understanding of their doctrines is so poor I don't know how you can do that either.
MB said:
These are some pretty serious charges to make against a brother in Christ. Given your misunderstanding of basic Roman Catholic doctrine, perhaps you might rethink your charges here.
I'm just not believing what I'm seeing here!
Alive in Christ
New Member
Baptist 4life....
These catholic posts are Not being posted on a baptist forum.
This is the OTHER DENOMINATIANS forum
personally like this forum. I like the interaction with other groups. I apreciate the ones in charge giving us this board.
OOOOOOPS !!
I was wrong. I asumed, but I was wrong .This IS a baptist board. this is unusual.
These catholic posts are Not being posted on a baptist forum.
This is the OTHER DENOMINATIANS forum
personally like this forum. I like the interaction with other groups. I apreciate the ones in charge giving us this board.
OOOOOOPS !!
I was wrong. I asumed, but I was wrong .This IS a baptist board. this is unusual.
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
No sir. I am not defending their position. I am attempting to explain it. I have not doubt that some Catholics have little to no knowledge of their faith and thus by default may indeed have an improper view of Mary's position. Many sitting in the pews of mainline protestant churches are the same way regarding detailed and intimate knowledge of their own "protestant" faith.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Though I differ from my brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church on a great number of things, I will always defend those who claim faith in Christ as the banner of their lives.
As I've encountered some Roman Catholics, just as I have encountered some Baptists and some evangelicals, they have misunderstandings about their faith. Often those with the greatest misunderstandings are the most nominal in their faith. Yet those who are active and growing in their faith have a familiarity that is refreshing and helpful. I'd encourage anyone to seek those out.
I'd like to see where Mary is venerated about Christ in the Mass. I'd like to see where Mary is worshipped more than Christ in sacraments and in the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. Though I disagree with their elevation of her, she was a sinner, saved by grace, who was used mightily by God and then had children after Christ, I think this is an mischaracterization of their theology. Mary is not greater than Christ.
Fair enough, I hold your view here. However, it isn't an issue I'm willing to question their salvation over.
Please list for the me the pantheon of Roman Catholic "gods" who rival the Trinity. Please show me through hyperlinks to their doctrinal statements where there are other "gods" who are just as powerful and worthy of worship as the Trinity.
I don't understand this penchant mischaracterization of Mary as co-redemtrix. Though their doctrine of her is incorrect, I have never really met a Roman Catholic who worships Mary more than any member of the Trinity. Grace does not flow from Mary, though they do believe she is an important vessel through which grace was allowed to flow in bringing Jesus into this world.
This is unnecessary and slanderous. Shame on you. The hospital that did this changed their position after the Roman Church told them they would lose all affiliation and funding over this position. The Roman Catholic position on life is unassailable. No abortion, no murder, no death penalty. It is a coherent position that is very biblical and very well practiced. One isolated incident that has been cleared up should not impugn the entire Church. I bet if we surveyed the congregation you attend we might find some who believe abortion should be legal and available.
You're just a one trick pony. This claim is incorrect and error-laden. Move on.
I've been disappointed in some of the conclusions which arose out of Vatican II. However, if we look closely at these documents they still provide for an everlasting Hell which passes away in annihilation after the final judgment and the establishment of the New Jerusalem. I don't agree with the RCC view here, but I can't question their salvation over it.
I confess my sins to two other men in my accountability group. They offer me nothing more than prayer and support. They confess their sins to me. I offer them nothing more than prayer and support. I agree the Catholic view of penance and confession are wrong.
I think you've mischaracterized their understanding of the Pope. The Pope isn't the Holy Father on the same level as God is the Father. The Pope is understood as the remaining Apostle in whom the authority to forgive sins, administer the sacraments, and baptize for salvation is given. Through their doctrine of Apostolic Succession this authority flows from the Pope to the Cardinals, Bishops, and into the local parishes. I disagree with their view, but your understanding of it is wrong.
The Pope isn't infallible. He doesn't claim infallibility all day long. The only time, and it is rare, where he claims infallibility is when he speaks ex cathedra. I thinks its a silly thing and a wrong way to proceed. But you're understanding is incorrect.
I'm not a transubstantiationist. Obviously not, I'm Baptist. However you've mischaracterized and misunderstood their doctrines badly.
So you're going to condemn all faithful members of the Roman Catholic Church from its inception through the return of Christ as lost and damned to Hell? Wow, I can't do that. You're understanding of their doctrines is so poor I don't know how you can do that either.
These are some pretty serious charges to make against a brother in Christ. Given your misunderstanding of basic Roman Catholic doctrine, perhaps you might rethink your charges here.
Amen!!!! Sorry if you do not wish ME to cheer lead for your positive and affirming positions.
Let me answer this for you. The Catholics don't need defending; they need evangelizing. If there is the odd individual in the RCC it is inspite of their teaching not because of it. Otherwise I would assume all to be lost. Their faith is in "the RCC," not in Christ. It is a religion of works, not of grace by faith. They are not your brothers and sisters in Christ. Their message leads people to hell; not heaven. I speak both from experience and study.
I live in Canada. Our entire population is about 50% Catholic with small towns here and there close to 80% Catholic. The province of Quebec is like a nation within a nation, and close to 85% Catholic. In short there is really nothing to defend in a religion that does not preach the truth of the Word of God.
The mass is the representation or the sacrificing again and again of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It is not about Mary. The Mass is transubstantiation. It is blasphemous heresy--eating and drinking the actual body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. How can you believe in this and believe in the gospel at the same time.
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
I'd like to see where Mary is worshipped more than Christ in sacraments and in the theology of the Roman Catholic Church.
First, the former Pope, Pope John Paul II, put more emphasis on Mary than any other recent pope.
Second, all Catholics are encouraged to pray through the rosary--53 "Hail Mary's," six "Our Fathers." to my recollection. That is a ratio of almost 9:1 in prayers to Mary as to the Father.
Third, have you ever heard of, "The Glories of Mary" by St. Alphonsus di Liguori (1696-1787), 812 pages, a Catholic defense of Mariology. You can find it online. The last section is a collection of prayers to Mary. Here is an example:
God alone is deserving of worship. Prayer is worship. Those who pray to Mary rob God of worship due only to Him, and hence it is idolatry.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me," the Lord said. Mary has become another god, another way of salvation, another way to heaven, a way to get to Christ. They can deny it, but it is in their own writings, made authoritative by the Vatican. The Catholic goes through Mary in order to get to Christ. The concept is that when one approaches the mother their odds are better in reaching the son. How many times do you see in the Catholic churches a statue of Mary holding the "baby Jesus." That is not accidental.
According to them:
She was a perpetual virgin, immaculately conceived, assumed bodily into heaven, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven.
Catholics have a strong belief in the trinity, there is no doubt about that.
However they have made Mary another god, though they will deny that. They do to Mary all that they would do to any other deity: pray to her (worship), and attribute to her attributes of deity.
1. omnipresence: In order for her to hear one billion Catholics praying to her and for her to answer their prayers she would have to be present everywhere.
2. She would have to be omniscient, for the same reason. Not all prayers are said aloud.
3. Again for the same reason she would have to be omnipotent in order to be able to answer the prayers offered to her. Does she have that kind of power to be able to answer the various prayers (especially salvation), that so many petition of her.
Omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience. These are the three major characteristics of deity.
Thus the Catholic believes in the Triune Godhead and then in Mary, another god. They are, like the Hindus, polytheistic.
I might add that there is a liberal wing within the Catholic Church that is pushing to add Mary to the "trinity." But thus far they have been unsuccessful.
Let me quote Ligouri for you again:
Yes, she is a co-redemptrix. Salvation is not possible without her in the RCC.
You are probably right here. I will address doctrine, not practice.
What is emphasized more: the gospel (death, burial, and resurrection), or Mary? Hard to say. Both are emphasized. But for clarity sake the "gospel" is not emphasized as "the gospel" of the Bible, but "another gospel." As a Catholic I knew that Christ died, was buried and rose again. Those were facts, memorized both in English and in Latin. But the gospel is more than just facts.
Do you recognize this conversation:
"Understandest thou what thou readest"?
"How can I understand except some man show me."
And he started from the same Scripture and preached unto him Jesus.
They do believe in hell for unbelievers.
But they also believe in Purgatory for sinful believers (Catholics),
and in heaven.
They don't believe in universalism, but rather ecumenicalism to which they are working toward very rapidly. They are trying to bring all religions under their umbrella.
Their view is that the priest actually has power to forgive sins.
The Bible teaches that only God has the power to forgive sins.
Any priest can do that. The pope is God's representative on earth. He can make infallible decrees. Papal bull become like the word of God--unchangeable Catholic doctrine.
The important thing to note, (as you should nowadays in the media), is that they believe the Pope to be a direct descendant of Peter. This is wrong. There is no succession, as they are all elected. Furthermore there is not much evidence that Peter was ever in Rome as any leader at all. He may have been there at the end of his life to die as a martyr and that is all. But 25 years the Pope of Rome? Hardly?
He is supposed to have the power to make infallible decrees.
Yes, you are right, it happens when he speaks "ex cathedra."
However, only the Scriptures are infallible; not a man.
If a Hindu grows up in the Hindu faith what chance is there of him being saved? Of all the millions of Hindus there are in the world how many of the faithful members of the Hindu religion from its inception (before Christianity) through the return of Christ will you condemn as lost and damned to Hell? You can't do that? Why? Are you a universalist?
Both the RCC and Hinduism preach a message of salvation by works. They say "do good and eventually you will make it." That is not Christianity by any stretch of the imagination. They both believe that water washes away sin. They both believe in more than one god. I was a Catholic for 20 years, and never heard the gospel once. I don't hold out hope for the other billion people that are still there.
I hope that Baptist4life can see by now that what QuantumFaith was doing was simply attempting to explain catholic beliefs in their own words...not that he was agreeing with them on their stance on mary.
We should all appreciate Quantum & PreachinJesus in their attempts to make sure we ACCURATELY represent those with whom we disagree. (Ie, if you spent all your energy trying to convince an agnostic that he can't prove God doesn't exist...you would be frustrating him and wasting your time because you are assuming he is an atheist...in the same way, lambasting catholics for holding a belief they don't actually hold is not going to help anyone.)
THAT SAID...
I do believe PreachinJesus is dangerously understating the problems with Catholic Doctrine as it relates to salvation, especially in a comment like the following:
Granted, I don't know what this is based on; but it seems you would say the stated doctrine of a church does not matter...that it does not AFFECT the beliefs and/or faith of its members.
It seems to me (a non-expert) that OFFICIAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE very much adds salvific requirements to faith in Christ. In a good solid Baptist or Presbyterian, or non-denominational church, if you investigated their beliefs on issues such as Baptism, the Lord's supper, attending church services, avoiding serious sins...you would likely find statements that such things FLOW OUT OF SALVATION and faith in Christ...they are not the MEANS OF SALVATION. I have not found such statements in Catholic Teachings, or in the understanding of it by the masses of catholic followers that I have witnessed, even those "devout" catholics approach the mass in something of a mystical way, such that getting that wine & bread somehow magically sustains them for the week.
So...
-Can a practicing Catholic be a true Christian who is simply mistaken on some issues? YES
-Can a practicing Baptist be unsaved, though he professes some true beliefs? YES.
BUT...It would seem to me that the closer one moves toward embracing the entire teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on Salvation, the LESS likely one is to be relying on Christ alone for salvation...
Whereas in a "Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christus" church...the closer one gets to embracing the official teaching of the church, the closer one is to relying totally on Christ.
We should all appreciate Quantum & PreachinJesus in their attempts to make sure we ACCURATELY represent those with whom we disagree. (Ie, if you spent all your energy trying to convince an agnostic that he can't prove God doesn't exist...you would be frustrating him and wasting your time because you are assuming he is an atheist...in the same way, lambasting catholics for holding a belief they don't actually hold is not going to help anyone.)
THAT SAID...
I do believe PreachinJesus is dangerously understating the problems with Catholic Doctrine as it relates to salvation, especially in a comment like the following:
Granted, I don't know what this is based on; but it seems you would say the stated doctrine of a church does not matter...that it does not AFFECT the beliefs and/or faith of its members.
It seems to me (a non-expert) that OFFICIAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE very much adds salvific requirements to faith in Christ. In a good solid Baptist or Presbyterian, or non-denominational church, if you investigated their beliefs on issues such as Baptism, the Lord's supper, attending church services, avoiding serious sins...you would likely find statements that such things FLOW OUT OF SALVATION and faith in Christ...they are not the MEANS OF SALVATION. I have not found such statements in Catholic Teachings, or in the understanding of it by the masses of catholic followers that I have witnessed, even those "devout" catholics approach the mass in something of a mystical way, such that getting that wine & bread somehow magically sustains them for the week.
So...
-Can a practicing Catholic be a true Christian who is simply mistaken on some issues? YES
-Can a practicing Baptist be unsaved, though he professes some true beliefs? YES.
BUT...It would seem to me that the closer one moves toward embracing the entire teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on Salvation, the LESS likely one is to be relying on Christ alone for salvation...
Whereas in a "Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christus" church...the closer one gets to embracing the official teaching of the church, the closer one is to relying totally on Christ.
I absolutely appreciate the support and encouragement. :love2: Keep it coming! :godisgood:
If this isn't defending, supporting, sticking up for, however you want to say it, please tell me why not.
The RCC is a FALSE gospel, sending millions to an eternity in Hell, and as far as I'm concerned ANY defense, overlooking, or trying to justify their beliefs is sickening. IMO, any Bible believing, born again Christian should know better.
Last edited by a moderator:
DHK, thanks for the reply. In my response I will only speak to several areas where I believe additional clarification is needed and points we need to discuss. In order to confine our discussion appropriately, so we don't get into a huge cut-and-paste war, I'll attempt to limit my responses.
Well this, for starters, is simply overblown. You cannot call transubstantiation heresy.
Since the earliest days of Christianity transubstantiation was an aspect of some doctrines. I don't agree with it, I don't even agree with consubstantiation. But I cannot call either a "heresy" much less a "blasphemous heresy."
One time I was talking with a good friend who is a Catholic priest and we began discussing this issue. He made an interesting point that has stuck with me, he basically said that Catholics were more literalists than Baptists. He then pointed to Matthew 26, John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11. Now I gave him serious pushback, but I did have to credit him at making a good point. Given that most all major theologians between the first century to the sixteenth century believed, or at least promoted, transubstantiation, you cannot call it a "blasphemous heresy."
I disagree with the practice and participate in The Lord's Supper which celebrates Real Presence.
I don't disagree with these points. The overemphasis on Mary is a problem theologically for Catholics. I have stated as such in my posts. However, she is not the central focus of their dogma or liturgical practice.
I have heard of him, but his views do not form nor stand as the official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. Though he is influential, his views were filtered by existing works of Ambrose and Augustine.
Saying he holds a priority of the position on Mariology in the RCC is kind of like saying Bob Jones Sr's view of race is what defines the position for all Baptists.
That said, I've already stated that I disagree with the RCC about their view of Mary. But in critiquing the caricatures present on this board I have noted that most are misunderstanding the point of the RCC doctrine...which I disagree with.
You're misrepresenting their position. They aren't ascribing Mary a position of divinity. They aren't making Mary part of the Triune Godhead. I would challenge you to present actual Catholic dogma, decretals, and declarations that show this (and not ancillary theological works.) Mary does receive a higher position of veneration (a practice which I also disagree with) than other saints, but she is not consubstantial with the Triune Godhead. You're misrepresenting their position.
Mary is an important figure in the NT and in the history of God's salvific plan, but she is not a functioning agent in according salvation to mankind. She bears no efficacy on salvation, but has only received it, then bore more children, and died and went to her eternal reward.
I simply disagree here. The official RCC dogma disagrees with you here. I would challenge you to produce the above listed documents to prove otherwise. Though the idea of co-redemptrix has been floated, the councils and synods have never approved such an idea. Official Catholic doctrine states that Mary herself needed salvation and was ultimately redeemed by Jesus Christ, her Son. Though she is an agent in the process she is neither the grantor of salvation nor the mediator of its efficacy. For more info on this see Ludwig Ott's Dogmatics which is available over at archive.org.
Again, I don't accept the doctrine of Apostolic Succession for a host of reasons. I don't accept their doctrine of the priesthood because we no longer need a mediator between us and God. However, the Pope's "infallibility" (which I disagree with too) is only extended to those rare times when he speaks ex cathedra. The Pope doesn't speak this way often. To my knowledge any Pope has only spoken this way seven times in 1500 years of Church history. The last one being in 1950.
So they don't use it often and it is seriously questioned by many Catholics...including my good friend who is a priest.
This is a red herring, I have stated around here often that I am exclusivist in my soteriology. One can only be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
My point is that though we can disagree with our brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church we can also recognize that they can accept the Gospel and be saved. The points you are listing above are serious doctrinal matters and are among the reasons why I could never be a Roman Catholic. They are in a mightily different place than I am as it relates to theology. However, I must also note that the core of their dogma is often very much the same foundational beliefs that I hold. We both believe Jesus is the means and grantor of salvation. That is a pretty big starting point imho. Ultimately, I hope to only foster understanding and conversation. The RCC has done a terrible job of defining itself and explaining itself over the centuries. As I've discovered the more marginal a Roman Catholic is the more they cling to ancillary doctrines like Mariology and such to help define their marginal faith. Yet when I've encountered grounded and active Catholics, I've also seen that these have a strong faith that seeks after appropriate doctrines and standards.
DHK said:
Well this, for starters, is simply overblown. You cannot call transubstantiation heresy.
Since the earliest days of Christianity transubstantiation was an aspect of some doctrines. I don't agree with it, I don't even agree with consubstantiation. But I cannot call either a "heresy" much less a "blasphemous heresy."
One time I was talking with a good friend who is a Catholic priest and we began discussing this issue. He made an interesting point that has stuck with me, he basically said that Catholics were more literalists than Baptists. He then pointed to Matthew 26, John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11. Now I gave him serious pushback, but I did have to credit him at making a good point. Given that most all major theologians between the first century to the sixteenth century believed, or at least promoted, transubstantiation, you cannot call it a "blasphemous heresy."
I disagree with the practice and participate in The Lord's Supper which celebrates Real Presence.
DHK said:
I don't disagree with these points. The overemphasis on Mary is a problem theologically for Catholics. I have stated as such in my posts. However, she is not the central focus of their dogma or liturgical practice.
DHK said:
I have heard of him, but his views do not form nor stand as the official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. Though he is influential, his views were filtered by existing works of Ambrose and Augustine.
Saying he holds a priority of the position on Mariology in the RCC is kind of like saying Bob Jones Sr's view of race is what defines the position for all Baptists.
That said, I've already stated that I disagree with the RCC about their view of Mary. But in critiquing the caricatures present on this board I have noted that most are misunderstanding the point of the RCC doctrine...which I disagree with.
DHK said:
You're misrepresenting their position. They aren't ascribing Mary a position of divinity. They aren't making Mary part of the Triune Godhead. I would challenge you to present actual Catholic dogma, decretals, and declarations that show this (and not ancillary theological works.) Mary does receive a higher position of veneration (a practice which I also disagree with) than other saints, but she is not consubstantial with the Triune Godhead. You're misrepresenting their position.
Mary is an important figure in the NT and in the history of God's salvific plan, but she is not a functioning agent in according salvation to mankind. She bears no efficacy on salvation, but has only received it, then bore more children, and died and went to her eternal reward.
I simply disagree here. The official RCC dogma disagrees with you here. I would challenge you to produce the above listed documents to prove otherwise. Though the idea of co-redemptrix has been floated, the councils and synods have never approved such an idea. Official Catholic doctrine states that Mary herself needed salvation and was ultimately redeemed by Jesus Christ, her Son. Though she is an agent in the process she is neither the grantor of salvation nor the mediator of its efficacy. For more info on this see Ludwig Ott's Dogmatics which is available over at archive.org.
DHK said:
Again, I don't accept the doctrine of Apostolic Succession for a host of reasons. I don't accept their doctrine of the priesthood because we no longer need a mediator between us and God. However, the Pope's "infallibility" (which I disagree with too) is only extended to those rare times when he speaks ex cathedra. The Pope doesn't speak this way often. To my knowledge any Pope has only spoken this way seven times in 1500 years of Church history. The last one being in 1950.
So they don't use it often and it is seriously questioned by many Catholics...including my good friend who is a priest.
DHK said:
This is a red herring, I have stated around here often that I am exclusivist in my soteriology. One can only be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
My point is that though we can disagree with our brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church we can also recognize that they can accept the Gospel and be saved. The points you are listing above are serious doctrinal matters and are among the reasons why I could never be a Roman Catholic. They are in a mightily different place than I am as it relates to theology. However, I must also note that the core of their dogma is often very much the same foundational beliefs that I hold. We both believe Jesus is the means and grantor of salvation. That is a pretty big starting point imho. Ultimately, I hope to only foster understanding and conversation. The RCC has done a terrible job of defining itself and explaining itself over the centuries. As I've discovered the more marginal a Roman Catholic is the more they cling to ancillary doctrines like Mariology and such to help define their marginal faith. Yet when I've encountered grounded and active Catholics, I've also seen that these have a strong faith that seeks after appropriate doctrines and standards.
My wife is from the RCC, as is her entire family. They do in fact believe praying to Mary is the same prayer given to God, which by definition is in fact worship. I know the church tries to semantically split hairs and refer to it as a form of adoration not given to God, but it is merely a smoke screen to further blur the lines of their false doctrine.
All one has to do is see who they are praying to on their deathbed.
Having said that, I do believe there are true believers in the RCC. I'm friends with one of them. Many people buy into the lies satan has to negate their spiritual walk, and many are saved while in the church and cannot break the strangle hold the church has on them.
All one has to do is see who they are praying to on their deathbed.
Having said that, I do believe there are true believers in the RCC. I'm friends with one of them. Many people buy into the lies satan has to negate their spiritual walk, and many are saved while in the church and cannot break the strangle hold the church has on them.
Last edited by a moderator:
The RCC is a FALSE gospel, sending millions to an eternity in Hell, and as far as I'm concerned ANY defense, overlooking, or trying to justify their beliefs is sickening. IMO, any Bible believing, born again Christian should know better.DHK, thanks for the reply. In my response I will only speak to several areas where I believe additional clarification is needed and points we need to discuss. In order to confine our discussion appropriately, so we don't get into a huge cut-and-paste war, I'll attempt to limit my responses.
Well this, for starters, is simply overblown. You cannot call transubstantiation heresy.
Since the earliest days of Christianity transubstantiation was an aspect of some doctrines. I don't agree with it, I don't even agree with consubstantiation. But I cannot call either a "heresy" much less a "blasphemous heresy."
One time I was talking with a good friend who is a Catholic priest and we began discussing this issue. He made an interesting point that has stuck with me, he basically said that Catholics were more literalists than Baptists. He then pointed to Matthew 26, John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11. Now I gave him serious pushback, but I did have to credit him at making a good point. Given that most all major theologians between the first century to the sixteenth century believed, or at least promoted, transubstantiation, you cannot call it a "blasphemous heresy."
I disagree with the practice and participate in The Lord's Supper which celebrates Real Presence.
I don't disagree with these points. The overemphasis on Mary is a problem theologically for Catholics. I have stated as such in my posts. However, she is not the central focus of their dogma or liturgical practice.
I have heard of him, but his views do not form nor stand as the official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. Though he is influential, his views were filtered by existing works of Ambrose and Augustine.
Saying he holds a priority of the position on Mariology in the RCC is kind of like saying Bob Jones Sr's view of race is what defines the position for all Baptists.
That said, I've already stated that I disagree with the RCC about their view of Mary. But in critiquing the caricatures present on this board I have noted that most are misunderstanding the point of the RCC doctrine...which I disagree with.
You're misrepresenting their position. They aren't ascribing Mary a position of divinity. They aren't making Mary part of the Triune Godhead. I would challenge you to present actual Catholic dogma, decretals, and declarations that show this (and not ancillary theological works.) Mary does receive a higher position of veneration (a practice which I also disagree with) than other saints, but she is not consubstantial with the Triune Godhead. You're misrepresenting their position.
Mary is an important figure in the NT and in the history of God's salvific plan, but she is not a functioning agent in according salvation to mankind. She bears no efficacy on salvation, but has only received it, then bore more children, and died and went to her eternal reward.
I simply disagree here. The official RCC dogma disagrees with you here. I would challenge you to produce the above listed documents to prove otherwise. Though the idea of co-redemptrix has been floated, the councils and synods have never approved such an idea. Official Catholic doctrine states that Mary herself needed salvation and was ultimately redeemed by Jesus Christ, her Son. Though she is an agent in the process she is neither the grantor of salvation nor the mediator of its efficacy. For more info on this see Ludwig Ott's Dogmatics which is available over at archive.org.
Again, I don't accept the doctrine of Apostolic Succession for a host of reasons. I don't accept their doctrine of the priesthood because we no longer need a mediator between us and God. However, the Pope's "infallibility" (which I disagree with too) is only extended to those rare times when he speaks ex cathedra. The Pope doesn't speak this way often. To my knowledge any Pope has only spoken this way seven times in 1500 years of Church history. The last one being in 1950.
So they don't use it often and it is seriously questioned by many Catholics...including my good friend who is a priest.
This is a red herring, I have stated around here often that I am exclusivist in my soteriology. One can only be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
My point is that though we can disagree with our brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church we can also recognize that they can accept the Gospel and be saved. The points you are listing above are serious doctrinal matters and are among the reasons why I could never be a Roman Catholic. They are in a mightily different place than I am as it relates to theology. However, I must also note that the core of their dogma is often very much the same foundational beliefs that I hold. We both believe Jesus is the means and grantor of salvation. That is a pretty big starting point imho. Ultimately, I hope to only foster understanding and conversation. The RCC has done a terrible job of defining itself and explaining itself over the centuries. As I've discovered the more marginal a Roman Catholic is the more they cling to ancillary doctrines like Mariology and such to help define their marginal faith. Yet when I've encountered grounded and active Catholics, I've also seen that these have a strong faith that seeks after appropriate doctrines and standards.
quantumfaith
Active Member
I see you simply want to continue to shout your talking points mantra. I enjoy the friendships I have with my catholic friends and immensely enjoy the spirited discussions we have about doctrine and theology. I know they adhere to essential tenets of christianity, the virgin birth, one ultimate mediator between God and man. Sorry you are "sickened", perhaps trying a dose of love and persuading those catholics around you to see and understand their error, when you do that, you too will understand real faith, faith that impacts and persuades rather than simply shouting disquieting slogans. Without doubt, some people will respond to shouting criticisms, most will not. Be passionate yes@!!!! but season your passion with persuasion. Seeking in prayer to be vessel of such persuasion. And stop the tangential deflection, no one has sought to "defend" or "justify" catholic doctrine or theology, rather attempts at explanation of their position and mindset. If you cannot tell the difference, then in the words of someone close to me...."I cannot help you."
As I posted before, I have MANY,MANY catholic relatives, including an aunt who's a nun, and an uncle who's a priest, who are wonderful, sweet, kind people. I KNOW what they believe. It's NOT the Gospel, and it's sending people to hell! They ARE NOT brothers and sisters in Christ. Yes, that sickens me. You "love" them, accept them, don't hurt their feelings, all you want. Love them straight to an eternity in hell.
When Catholics pray to Mary they are worshiping her. They may claim they aren't but prayer is worship. I can't say I've ever seen them kneel and pray there rosary. Yet they do repeat prayers. Christ said repeated prayer is vain and Heathens do this. May 6:7.
I have to agree with this last statement but, who's fault is it when they won't study scripture on there own. Can we Love the Lord and not want to know him as intimately as possible? Certainly not very much Love.
MB
Which Christ would be the one they hold a banner for. The dead one hanging on a cross or the risen one. In Catholic portraits and statues Christ is a small child or He is dead. I have yet to see a representation of the risen Christ.
This first statement of yours is troublesome. I'm not Brother or sister with any in the Catholic faith. It is a false cult. They in my opinion worship another Jesus, One who doesn't mind being a second to His mother.
MB
Here's a hypothetical situation that should clarify what is happening, at least limited to what Quantum faith originally posted about mary:
Let's say you have a catholic Neighbor, and one of your baptist friends comes to your house, and says to you, "Did you know that Catholics, like your neighbor here, worship donkeys, and sacrifice their children to them?" Hopefully you would DEFEND your neighbor's beliefs and practices by explaining that while he does have many false beliefs...worshiping donkeys and sacrificing his children to donkeys is not one of them. Hopefully you would not find such a DEFENSE "sickening." Attempting to accurately explain catholic belief is a worthy goal...even if it means pointing out a few places where they have it right...such as the diet of Christ, not killing babies...etc.
I will say your responses, in my opinion fit better what PreachinJesus has been saying...though I eagerly await his response to my post to see if he wants to clarify anything. And, if Quantumfaith agrees wholeheartedly with preachinJesus that catholics have just as many true Christians as baptists percentage-wise, then I would disagree there as well. But simply posting a Catholic source explaining their beliefs about Mary is not the same as defending those beliefs, but rather has the goal of better understanding them.
quantumfaith
Active Member
You pegged me 12. I would say I have no earthly idea how many practicing catholics have a saving relationship with God. And I have no mathematical algorithm which would serve to predict such. I do however, in most instances, accept the word and testimony of someone that shares with me that they have such a relationship to God.