What's wrong with Catholicism?

[BrianT]

Originally posted by mountainrun:
Brian, I suggest you get a catechism and read it.
You will then see what they are saying.

Already in progress, I am reading cover to cover. I am curious: Have you taken you own advice?

========
[Brian]
Tell me, what makes a Church "Christian" in the first place? Does Rom 10:9-10 have a "unless you are a Catholic" disclaimer in it that I don't know about?
========

Yes. The same disclaimer that excludes Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, who believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Of course, the obvious difference is that Mormons and JWs believe in a different Jesus, one who is created and not God.

The rest of their teachings deny the Jesus of the Bible and deny that faith in Him is sufficient, just like the Catholics.

Sufficient for what? (Keep in mind James 2)

When you have studied what the Catholics say about themselves, "at some point in the future",
then maybe you will be able to carry on a plausible debate about it.

I hope so.

I get the feeling that whatever you learn they believe, you will also believe.
If you don't already know it.
Otherwise, if you're going to defend it, learn it.

I'm confused about what you are saying here.

 

[mountainrun]

Yes, Brian. I have already taken my own advise.
That is how I am able to give you the numbers of the proper catechisms.
As I said, when you are fully aware of their teachings you can defend them more readily.

However, if you then choose to defend them, it will be evidence that you do not belong on this section of the board.

I have converted Catholics before but I do not waste my time on those who understand and believe the heretical doctrines of the RCC.

Including those who pose as Baptists while espousing Catholic teachings.

MR

 

[John Wells]

BrianT,

Here is a list of Catholic practices and dates instigated by papal decree that
have ABSOLUTELY NO BIBLICAL FOUNDATION:

1. Prayers for the dead .....300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross .....300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints .....375 A.D
4. Use of images in worship .....375 A D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration .....394 A.D.
6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied at Council of Ephesus .....431 AD.
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites) .....526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory I .....593 A.D.
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints .....600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics .....786 A.D.
11. Canonization of dead saints .....995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood .....1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary .....1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences .....1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III .....1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest .....1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host) .....1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion .....1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma .....1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed .....1439 A.D.
21. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent.....1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible .....1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary .....1854 A.D.
24. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council .....1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) .....1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church .....1965 A.D.

Hope this helps you in your soul search as to the veracity of Roman Catholic doctrine! Now if none of the above had anything to do with "essentials of the faith," then it wouldn't be a big deal, but upon close inspection, I think (hope) you would have to agree it is a big deal!

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

Here's a practice that is done in Baptist churches and has no biblical foundation: preaching on texts from the NT.

We can't escape the impact of a developing church tradition by simplistic biblicism--for the biblical canon is a product of the tradition.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

[The_Narrow_Road]

I love how "baptists" defend Roman Catholicism against Biblical Truth. Really, lets get real. Are you so blinded by ecumenicism that you can't see false doctrine? Roman Catholicism is a pagan goddess worshiping religion. If anyone who is in Catholicism is a Christian, they are a Christian inspite of Roman Catholicism, not because of Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism preaches a works salvation. Christ said if anyone tried to come up to Heaven any other way but by Him (John 14:6), then they were likened to a thief and a robber. Their first "work" is baptism as a babe, and it continues with the other 6 sacraments of Catholicism.

www.pro-gospel.org
www.bereanbeacon.org
www.thebereancall.org
www.justforcatholics.org
www.livingwaters.com

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

I wouldn't say that I'm definding Roman Catholiism, but allowing it a fair hearing. Sometimes we become so blinded by our own traditions about what other faiths contain that we can never really understand how similar we are. In many ways I think that the anti-catholic sentiments of some people are much more like religious racism than righteous indignation.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

[The_Narrow_Road]

Originally posted by Daniel Dunivan:
Grace and Peace, Danny

I agree, but once the Truth has been shown concerning the falsehoods of a certain religion, sect, cult, or "faith, we should not continue to justify the actions. To justify the rosary, purgatory, transubstantiation, mortal/venial sins, pope vicar of Christ, Mary mother of God, is to reject the Sacrificial Atonement made by Christ and His blood on the cross at Calvary. It is no different than someone saying Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Advetism, Moonies, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are all equal with Christianity and all will lead us to "home" in the end. Catholicism just like all the rest of the false hopes out there rejects Christ's payment and tries to gain access to God by good works/obeying the sacraments. Again, Christ said there is NO other way but by Him. All other ways are cursed and lead to everlasting punishment. How can a Christian defend something that rejects the Saving grace of God through Jesus Christ? To be in support for religions is to be against Christ.

Let the romish pagan religion speak for herself: www.vatican.va

 

[HankD]

What's wrong with Catholicism?

The river of blood which flows from the Church of Rome.

Lest we forget the mass murders of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Latin Inquisition, the slaughter(s) of the Waldenses, the Hugenots, the AnaBaptists...

When did Jesus Christ ever tell His Apostles to burn someone at the stake or strangle them to death for ANY reason?

Matthew 7
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

THE TRUE ROCK UPON WHOM THE CHURCH IS BUILT

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

 

[Mike McK]

Still grateful to the nuns and Jesuits who played such a large role in my coming to Christ.

There are a couple of people in my Baptist church who could take a lesson from them.

 

[HankD]

Still grateful to the Word of God and the Spirit of God which delivered me from the error of the Church of Rome.

HankD

 

[The_Narrow_Road]

Still grateful to the Word of God and the Spirit of God which kept me from ever entering the error of the Church of Rome. Alleluia, the LORD God omnipotent reigneth!

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
There are a couple of people in my Baptist church who could take a lesson from them.

And a couple here, too, evidently.

 

[mountainrun]

Daniel Dunivan, you are badly mistaken.

You said--

=====
Here's a practice that is done in Baptist churches and has no biblical foundation: preaching on texts from the NT.
======

Collossians 4:16. After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

1 Thess. 5:27. I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.


MR

 

[LauraB]

I, Like the Olive Branch also was Catholic for 31 years. Now that I have been reborn and my eyes have opened I have a clearer picture of Catholics. I did all that was expected of me to do within the Catholic church, ie. all my sacraments. I went to CCD class and could never once tell you what I learned. We had ONE (1) bible in the house and it was looked apon like it was a very expensive vase, never touched and never opened, boasting about how "new" it looked...

I have to laugh when I think of all the times I secretly opened it and read it, I felt like I was committing a sin.. Oh and the oh so lively mass. (NOT) All that chanting and talking about money and how if you don't make the church rich you won't have the benefits of the church and they won't lift a finger to help you. Well wake me up when the last host is givin so I could go home!

Stories in the bible? There are actually stories in there? Never has a priest really said anything of (going out on a limb here) intelligence. And why is it the Catholics treat priests like they are anything but human? I remember feeling like I was really special because I may have had a few lines of comunication with a priest! WOW, he talked to ME!

My eyes were opened and I awoke in a new light. Our MASS ( for the sake of this conversation) is lively, the pastor is a human with whom you can be friends with, you know the people who congregate with you, and we... (ok hold on to your seats) we, open our bibles, and read them and ... (are you ready for this one) we write in them for notes!! AHHHH yes I said it! Now about money, yes the church needs it, sure they would like to be rich but for totally different reasons. We support missionaries and use the funds wisely, Catholics want you to give money because they need to buy another gold plated host holder, and maybe a new statue... I believe in tithe and in offerings to go to the glory of God and his words.

I know I may have gotten off the beaten path on this thread but I needed to get it out! Thanks for listening.

One last thought, I am glad I have a bible or two!!!

 

[RTB]

BrianT

I am not an expert on the differences between Catholicism and Baptist, I have read these posts and I am more educated about Catholics than I ever wanted or cared to be. I believe it was mentioned in an earlier post in response to BrianT that searching for knowledge was commendable, I think it was worded that way. My thought on this is, without seeming narrow minded, why? Why do we need to have knowledge of Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslim, etc., besides some type of curiosity, or is it in good intentions that you learn about something that is of no use to you in your walk with Christ, except that you could tell yourself that with this knowledge I can defeat or argue with them and tell them the TRUTH by using their own words against them. It's a trap folks, that creates a confusion that is difficult to recover from. The significance of this is that although your salvation is secure, the ones that you witness to later will be led by a confused and false doctrine, not all false teachers do so with the knowledge that what they are doing is false.

BrianT, was this your intention when you started your studies? Remember that knowledge of all things is not as important as knowledge of the right things. Argue and dig for kernels of truth in an empty barrel all you like, but be careful and while you are digging, be sure that your lifeline is secured before you go too deep.

In Christ

RTB

 

[BrianT]

Hi RTB,

What initially sparked my desire to look into Catholicism was some Baptists claiming something about Catholics I knew wasn't true (I forget the specific claim at the moment). I then saw some Baptist making other questionable claims in a rude and abrasive manner, followed by kind, reasonable, scriptural responses by some Catholics. After some initial digging for myself on some of the issues raised, I quickly realized that for a large part, Catholic doctrine is often misunderstood and/or misrepresented by non-Catholics. So, I began to desire to know the truth, not the misrepresentations I've been fed all my life. Thus I started this thread to see what Baptists in general think is wrong about the Catholic church, so I have a list of things I can investigate on my own. So although I appreciate your warning about digging and my "lifeline", what do you do when you learn the Baptist "lifeline" has been giving you a lot of falsehoods about what Catholics are all about?

Brian

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Daniel Dunivan:
Here's a practice that is done in Baptist churches and has no biblical foundation: preaching on texts from the NT.

Your claim has been shown to be wrong and fails likewise on the account the that NT writings are clearly called Scripture. They were clearly given to the church as teaching for the church.

We can't escape the impact of a developing church tradition by simplistic biblicism--for the biblical canon is a product of the tradition.

But you misunderstand teh problem. The problem is not tradition, it is the authority of tradition. Tradition is fine; it has no authority. Only the Scriptures have authority. The changing traditions of the RCC through the 1500 years of its existence give ample evidence to the fallacy of "tradition authority."

The two most important issues in this debate, IMO, are the issues of salvation/righteousness and authority. The Catholics fall on the wrong side in both cases. They deny biblical salvation by teaching infused righteousness rather than imputed righteousness. They cannot, and indeed do not, believe in salvation by grace through faith alone. R. C. Sproul, in his book Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, does an excellent job of pointing out the fallacies of "we really believe the same thing." He shows that unequivocally we do not believe the same thing. One of us is wrong. There may be (and probably are) Catholics who are genuinely saved. But if they are, it is in spite of the teaching of their church and not because of it. The Mass, though many have tried to paint it in a good light, is a continual problem for those who hold to the authority of Scripture. There is no need to represent the sacrifice of Christ on a daily or weekly basis. There is nothing biblical about transsubstantiation.

The issue of authority is a second issue of serious import. All Catholicism hangs on this issue. It is the only way they can maintain their positions. Their catechism states that the church alone (through her bishops) are the only ones able and permitted to give the interpretation of Scripture. If a Catholic individual sits down with Scripture, they cannot, in light of hte catechism, come to their own understanding. They must come to the church's understanding. This authority is nowhere set up in Scripture. It stems from a day when the clergy did not trust the work of hte Holy Spirit in the life of individuals, probably because they knew their own livelihood was at stake.

These issues are not difficult ones to determine. I am not one who says that everything Catholics do and teach is wrong. It clearly is not. However, at a fundamental level, they do not teach biblical salvation and they do not have a biblical authority structure. This disqualifies them from the realm of biblical and means that if one believes what the church teaches about salvation, they are not saved.

About a year ago, a life long catholic came to my church and over a series of Bible studies through a 3 month period, she confirmed everything I have just said on the basis of her understanding of what they catholic church taught. She gave me a number of her catholic church missals and literature. In fact, she just gave me a couple more this week. I have discussed this with catholics on this board, and they all confirm it. It is a simple unwillingness to subject their thinking to Scripture. I have some good friends who are catholics, some people I regularly do business with and so there is no hatred in my heart for them. There is hurt because of their blindness. I think some of them might truly be saved. I fear that others have followed the teaching of the church for too long without thinking through it.

 

[HankD]

There is another point to be made: guilt by association. There is at least one incident where Jesus charged the "clergy" of His day with guilt by association.

Matthew 23:
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

http://www.reformed.org/books/fox/fox_martyrs.html

HankD

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

Larry,

Show me a passage from every book in the NT that claims for itself the position of scripture, otherwise you are simply wrong. (Also, once again you missed my joke ) If the tradition of the church is given the "authority" to deem what is scripture and what isn't then it is authoritative at some level. This must not mean that it is on par with scripture, but it does hold sway and needs to be listened to.

As far as what popular Catholics believe, practice, and some experience, this does not necessarily mean that this is the position or fault of the Catholic church. I too have experience with the Roman church, but it is in a formal sense--I am currently in a doctoral program in theology at a Catholic university--and many of the things thrown against them come not from true church doctrine but as a result of misunderstanding. For those who quote the recent catechism, this is not a universal church document that should be seen as equal with universal or even at time offical church teaching--it was done by one individual here in the US. One of my closest friends at the university worked for the individual during the time of its compilation.

The problem with blanket accusations is that they misrepresent the opposing position. This is what I am concerned about. I am not running off to join the Catholic church, nor would I say we believe the same thing. Simply put, I think baptists have a good foundation for understanding God, worshiping Him, and living out His purposes in a hurting world; however, I am not willing to say that we are inerrant in our teachings, nor do we have nothing to learn from other traditions (especially one that is the foundation of the universal experience of Christians for the first 1600 years of our existence.).

Glad that I was brought up in a baptist church, the son of a baptist minister, and accepted God's call to the ministry of the gospel in a baptist church, and am ordained in a baptist church. Also, glad that I have the opportunity to not stay in the baptist ghetto, because I now have a better platform for dealing with the issues faced in the real world. My heritage, my education, my calling, and my experiences have all been for the greater glory of God.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Daniel Dunivan:
Show me a passage from every book in the NT that claims for itself the position of scripture, otherwise you are simply wrong. (Also, once again you missed my joke )

I did indeed miss teh joke, if a joke it was. Paul's writings are called Scripture, as are Luke's. Peter holds his up on par with the apostles and command of Christ. These things are in taught in elementary theology classes.

If the tradition of the church is given the "authority" to deem what is scripture and what isn't then it is authoritative at some level. This must not mean that it is on par with scripture, but it does hold sway and needs to be listened to.

The tradition of the church was not given authority to deem what Scripture is and isn't. The church as a whole (not some magesterium) simply recognized what was already true about those books. And I have not argued that tradition should not be listened to. Historical theology and practice does give great insights. But the RCC does not teach this about tradition. They, in effect, hold tradition over Scripture.

As far as what popular Catholics believe, practice, and some experience, this does not necessarily mean that this is the position or fault of the Catholic church.

And this is why I say that there are some Catholics who are indeed true believers. I cannot say that about someone who knows what the church teaches and agrees with it. The church has never renounced Trent and a host of other teachings that clearly contradict Scripture. On that matter, we reject their teaching as unbiblical and assert that if someone knowingly believes that, they are indeed not saved.

The problem with blanket accusations is that they misrepresent the opposing position. This is what I am concerned about.

I too share this concern and try to be very careful with what I say and how I say it. I try to make clear distinctions between my opinion and fact. The things that I have said are things that can be shown from the catechism found on the Vatican's website as well as documented sources such as Trent and other church teachings. The church cannot distance herself from her own teachings with great ease.

I am not willing to say that we are inerrant in our teachings, nor do we have nothing to learn from other traditions

And i would agree. The teachings of any church are true only inasmuch as they conform to Scripture. The RCC has not conformed to Scripture for well over 1500 years. They have not renounced these teachings. While that does not make us inerrant, it certainly says something about the RCC.