• 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!

Your view on Catholics

Status
Not open for further replies.

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
I think it's a little more complicated. The catechism clearly states that only Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation. Catholics generally affirm that the "Church" referrs to not only the Roman Catholic institution, but also the whole of all Christian believers who accept and affirm Christ as the mediator and the way of salvation.

This is what Catholics tell us over and over again with consistency and frequency, yet we continue to tell them what we think they're supposed to believe. We accusing them of following blindly what they'er told, yet when they tell us otherwise, we tell them what we think the RCC doctrine is supposed to be, and then get mad at them for not following blindly what they are told.

I understand the frustration and the need to be accurate. But in this "everybody is a member of the catholic church" idea - the RCC itself is very clear that such is not the case.

For example - "the New Covenant" is not applicable to non-Catholics according to the RCC. Hint - this means that you and I are not saved under the Biblical New Covenent - by Catholic standards.

Christ said "this is the cup of the New Covenant in my blood" - Catholics argue that this is very specifically - the Catholic Eucharist. While they allow this for Eastern Orthodox as well - they do not allow it for Baptists, or Methodists or Seventh-day Adventists etc etc.

Hence - they do not practice open communion.

In the Catholic model - those non-Catholic groups are saved by some "other method" other than the New Covenant method of scripture.

I've got as much issue with RCC practices as the next person, but we seem to be rather hypocritical in the above area.

I agree with you that accuracy is an important point to keep in mind.

in Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
The ECF's did have some differing viewpoints but for the most part they handed down from their teachers, the apostles, the true faith. Infant baptism, liturgical worship, the eucharist, etc. But to my knowledge not one of them advocated the baptism or worship of bovines.

In Acts 20 Paul predicts that "after my departure" men would arise within the church "from among your own selves" that would teach false doctrine and cause apostacy. How many of the ECFs came in "after Paul's departure"?

In 1Tim 1 - Paul says that Timothy was to remain at Ephesus to combat the upsurge of false doctrine already creeping in to the early NT church.

Titus is given the same command in Titus chapter 1.

In 2Thess 2 - Paul predicts a gross apostacy in the Christian church of the future "the falling away" that he sees so clearly in that future is mentioned there in his discussion of future events for the world.

Augustine comes to mind.

Augustine

Many historians have wisely observed that Augustine (354-430) rejected the New Testament faith to such a degree and wielded such vast influence that he laid the foundation for the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. Benjamin Warfield said that "in a true sense" Augustine is "the founder of Roman Catholicism" (Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, p. 22). The Roman Catholic Church itself acknowledges Augustine as one of its "major Church Doctors," and has canonized him as a saint.

Augustine was a persecutor, and the father of generations of persecutors. "Augustine of Hippo did not shrink from giving a dogmatic basis to what had come to be the practice of the church, and even professed to find warrant for it in Scripture. 'It is, indeed, better that men should be brought to serve God by instruction than by fear of punishment, or by pain. But because the former means are better, the latter must not therefore be neglected. Many must often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal suffering, before they attain the highest grade of religious development. . . . The Lord himself orders that guests be first invited, then compelled, to his great supper.' And Augustine argues that if the State has not the power to punish religious error, neither should it punish a crime like murder.

Rightly did Neander say of Augustine's teaching, that it 'contains the germ of the whole system of spiritual despotism, intolerance, and persecution, even to the court of the Inquisition.' Nor was it long before the final step was taken in the church doctrine of persecution. Leo the Great, the first of the popes, in a strict sense of that term, drew the logical inference from the premises already provided for him by the Fathers of the church, when he declared that death is the appropriate penalty for heresy" (Vedder, Our New Testament, pp. 97,98).

...Augustine, akin to the other "doctors" and "fathers" of the Catholic Church, was polluted with many heresies. Like Jerome, he was baptized in Rome, the very seat of apostasy. He adopted some of the allegorical methods of biblical interpretation which were championed by Origen, and he redefined the church and the kingdom of God as an ecclesiastical-political alliance in this present world.

He was the father of a-millennialism. "Augustine was the first who ventured to teach that the Catholic Church, in its empirical form, was the kingdom of Christ, that the millennial kingdom had commenced with the appearing of Christ, and was therefore an accomplished fact" (Encyclopedia Britannica).

Augustine taught that salvation was by grace alone, but he confused the issue by claiming that the sacraments were actual means of grace, therefore perverting the Gospel of the grace of Christ and intermingling works with grace (Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, pp. 206,207).


Augustine also taught that Mary is sinless, blasphemously claiming for her that which belongs exclusively to the immaculate Lord Jesus Christ. He also taught a form of purgatory.


To his credit - near the end of his life Augustine recanted his life long rejection of the book of Genesis.
 
BR: In the Catholic model - those non-Catholic groups are saved by some "other method" other than the New Covenant method of scripture.
HP: Ah, don’t be too hard on the Catholics. I hear some non-Catholics around here developing a theory of yet ‘another salvation’ for the fetus in the womb that has no capacity to hear and understand the only gospel taught in Scripture, i.e, via repentance and faith in Christ. That certainly appears to be another gospel to me as well. :thumbsup:
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Augustine was not the only one with a checkered record of beliefs.

Origen -

Perhaps the man who did the most, however, to blend the Scriptures with Gnosticism was Origen (185-254 A.D.). Also, to his discredit, no one ever championed more apostate teachings that found a permanent place in history, than he. Yet, his influence upon Christianity, from his day to ours, can hardly be measured by words. Not only did his ideas captivate the attention of the catholic Church forever, but also nearly all of the Protestant scholars of this century have been swayed by the power of this one man's thinking. While his genius and insight into the Scriptures were extraordinary, his preference for Gnosticism, Platonism, Mysticism, and the early heresies made him anything but a safe guide or teacher. His doctrines were repulsive. Though considered the greatest theologian of the third century, he taught that stars have souls, devils would be saved, and such errors as purgatory and transubstantiation. He also taught (through his application of the Greek) that Jesus was created and did not eternally exist as God. Little wonder why such a man would have said: "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written."

Origen deliberately changed the scriptures to suit his own confused philosophy and, in the process, made many of the deletions we now find in modern translations of the Bible. ...

When Constantine (280?-337 A.D.) became the Emperor of Rome he endeavored to form a union between Christianity and paganism. Since Origen had successfully blended Christianity with pagan philosophy, Constantine commissioned Eusebius, a great admirer of Origen, to prepare fifty Bibles based upon Origen's corrupted Scriptures for use in the churches.
from http://www.bmts.com/~bostock/church/index.html
[/quote]
 
"When Constantine (280?-337 A.D.) became the Emperor of Rome he endeavored to form a union between Christianity and paganism. Since Origen had successfully blended Christianity with pagan philosophy, Constantine commissioned Eusebius, a great admirer of Origen, to prepare fifty Bibles based upon Origen's corrupted Scriptures for use in the churches. "

HP: Lets see. If in fact one of those manuscripts happened to be preserved for various reason (climate where the manuscript happened to be stored etc.) and if it could be shown that it was the 'oldest' surviving manuscript.......(are you with me so far?:)) ........ Would older necessitate 'better' as so many claim??? :eek:
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter


HP: Lets see. If in fact one of those manuscripts happened to be preserved for various reason (climate where the manuscript happened to be stored etc.) and if it could be shown that it was the 'oldest' surviving manuscript.......(are you with me so far?:)) ........ Would older necessitate 'better' as so many claim??? :eek:

That would be where textual criticism comes in. "Older is better" is not the truth because a copy of the original can have a massive mistake whereas other copy families do not. That is why having so many manuscripts really works toward figuring out which is good and which is not.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
HP: Lets see. If in fact one of those manuscripts happened to be preserved for various reason (climate where the manuscript happened to be stored etc.) and if it could be shown that it was the 'oldest' surviving manuscript.......(are you with me so far?:)) ........ Would older necessitate 'better' as so many claim??? :eek:

Agreed - "Older is not always better".

In fact the very fact that the 50 copies that Constantine tried to push off on the church were not being overwhelmingly accepted is an indicator that the fractured-Bible of Constantine was deemed to have been flawed.

When we see version-A being accepted and version-B being rejected it is hard to then justify coming along later and saying "We should all use version B because I found an old copy of it" --

As I recall the Sinaticus document was recovered from a trash can and was loaded with mistakes and omissions.

The Vaticanus document was kept locked up and was not used by Christians at the time it was initially written.

in Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Cats are evil. They know when something good is on the PC and then try to walk on your keyboard.

They also will not shake, rollover, sit or come when you call them.

They treat us like dogs.

We need to rise up against them - and declare our freedom.
 

grahame

New Member
So now I discover that any scripture that has been used and believed upon by the church all these centuries and that I happen to use in order to defend a certain doctrine is counted by those who oppose that doctrine as being corrupted?

So really we are all wasting our time using the scriptures because the other person doesn't believe in this or that particular manuscript? If that is so then we might as well all pack up and go home and join forces with the atheists. For at least they are all united in their enmity against Christ.
But Christians it seems to me are always arguing about what is inspired and what is not inspired and if a certain scripture militates against my pet doctrine then that scripture must obviously be among those chosen by Constantine.

By the way it is not to Constantine you should look, but to Athanasius. And the contention was not about what scriptures are inspired, but about whether Christ was Divine or only human.

For goodness sake brethren get you acts together. There are real enemies of Christ out there in the big wide world. Why are we always fighting one another? For if you are not straight on these basic truths of the Christian message then I doubt if we are saved at all? No wonder the world doesn't believe our message. What were the words of our Lord? "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"
 

Johnv

New Member
What is going on often is that the Catholic defenders....
Therein lies a fundamental flaw in the mentality of many here. If someone doesn't share the same view of Catholics, then they're "Catholic defenders". Not only is that incorrect (as evidenced by the fact that many of those supposed "catholic defenders" have also voiced criticism with Catholicism), but it's rather pharasaical and unrighteous.

We're not content to have Catholics tell us what they believe. We instead continue to tell them what we think they believe, regardless of whether that's what they believe or not. That's not dialogue and discussion, it's pontification.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
So now I discover that any scripture that has been used and believed upon by the church all these centuries and that I happen to use in order to defend a certain doctrine is counted by those who oppose that doctrine as being corrupted?

So really we are all wasting our time using the scriptures because the other person doesn't believe in this or that particular manuscript? If that is so then we might as well all pack up and go home and join forces with the atheists.

I cannot tell what post you are addressing.

What text did you quote - that was labelled "corrupted"?
 

lori4dogs

New Member
Therein lies a fundamental flaw in the mentality of many here. If someone doesn't share the same view of Catholics, then they're "Catholic defenders". Not only is that incorrect (as evidenced by the fact that many of those supposed "catholic defenders" have also voiced criticism with Catholicism), but it's rather pharasaical and unrighteous.

We're not content to have Catholics tell us what they believe. We instead continue to tell them what we think they believe, regardless of whether that's what they believe or not. That's not dialogue and discussion, it's pontification.

You are absolutely right! If Catholic tell you what we have been taught and believe then we are proselytes. Anyone who knows either by being an ex-Catholic or by study of actual Catholic teaching (not Jack Chick style) are Catholic defenders and suspect of being actual 'closet Catholics'. Rarely does a thread begin discussing a particular Catholic teaching or dogma than the rants begin:

You worship the Saints
You worship the Virgin Mary
You believe Mary is more important than Jesus.
You don't believe that Jesus shed blood on the cross is sufficient to cover all sins.
You believe Purgatory is a second chance to get into heaven.
The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon
You re-sacrifice Jesus at every mass
Your believe your pope is sinless.
You are not 'true believer, you worship another Jesus or worse yet Mary instead.
Christ did not found the church upon Peter and the keys to kingdom were conferred to only the apostles living at the time when Jesus did this.
The ECF's were all heretics and can't be trusted for anything.

There is such a strong anti-Catholic (and sometimes outright hatred and bigotry demonstrated by some of the posters on this board) that it often seem senseless you engage in discussion.

Thank you, John V, for speaking up
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
You worship the Saints
You worship the Virgin Mary
If you pray to either, you are in fact worshiping them.
You believe Mary is more important than Jesus.
Quote from Pope John Paul " I do not know when it will come but I place this moment, like all other things, in the hands of the Mother of my Master: Totus Tuus. In these same motherly hands I leave everything and Everyone with whom my life and my vocation have brought me into contact. In these Hands I above all leave the Church, and also my Nation and all humankind"
You don't believe that Jesus shed blood on the cross is sufficient to cover all sins.
You believe Purgatory is a second chance to get into heaven
If the first is true, what is the second for?
The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon
I don't think the catholic church is ever stated as such...the RCC is.
You re-sacrifice Jesus at every mass
No, you just eat Him.
Your believe your pope is sinless.
You do call him the Vicar (substitute) of Christ. Logical reasoning would assume if Christ is sinless, His alleged substitute needs to be as well.
You are not 'true believer, you worship another Jesus or worse yet Mary instead.
Like anyone, true of some, false for others.
Christ did not found the church upon Peter and the keys to kingdom were conferred to only the apostles living at the time when Jesus did this.
Correct...Christ founded the Church.
The ECF's were all heretics and can't be trusted for anything.
Not sure what ECF's are.
There is such a strong anti-Catholic (and sometimes outright hatred and bigotry demonstrated by some of the posters on this board) that it often seem senseless you engage in discussion.
This song is getting old, not to mention the martyr syndrome (no pun intended). You are on a Baptist Board primarily, with the majority of doctrine disagreed on. It's silly to keep harping on this.
 

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
lori4dogs said:
You worship the Saints
You worship the Virgin Mary

Are you telling me that Catholics really do not build statues of Mary and other dead "saints" and bow down to them in prayer?

You believe Mary is more important than Jesus.

Actually, I've been told by many Catholics that Jesus is obligated to obey Mary. And I've already shown you where Catholics believe it's Mary who crushes Satan's head, and not Jesus.

You don't believe that Jesus shed blood on the cross is sufficient to cover all sins.

Again, are you really saying that Catholics don't believe in Purgatory?

You believe Purgatory is a second chance to get into heaven.

Again, several of us have already shown you using Catholicism's own sources that Catholicism does, indeed, teach this.

The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon

While "Whore of Babylon" in the Biblical sense is debatable, the Catholic Church certainly is a whore and a wicked and Unbiblical cult.

You re-sacrifice Jesus at every mass

Again, several people have already backed this claim up using Catholicism's own sources.

Your believe your pope is sinless.

Again, this is something I've been told this by many Catholics.

You are not 'true believer

This much is made obvious by the heretical view of justification of Catholicism.

Christ did not found the church upon Peter

This is true. The Bible states that Christ founded the church on Peter's confession and not Peter.

The ECF's were all heretics and can't be trusted for anything.

Who here has ever said that?

Now, don't forget to go back to Catholic.com and tell your tall tales about us.
 

Marcia

Active Member
Therein lies a fundamental flaw in the mentality of many here. If someone doesn't share the same view of Catholics, then they're "Catholic defenders". Not only is that incorrect (as evidenced by the fact that many of those supposed "catholic defenders" have also voiced criticism with Catholicism), but it's rather pharasaical and unrighteous.

We're not content to have Catholics tell us what they believe. We instead continue to tell them what we think they believe, regardless of whether that's what they believe or not. That's not dialogue and discussion, it's pontification.

We shouldn't go by what Catholics say they believe - they could be wrong, for one thing. We should go by the official teachings as they are in the Catechism and official declarations of the Pope or Magisterium.

I think it's rather pharsacaical of you to say what you say in the 1st paragraph - you always decry judging others but you do it all the time, as you do above.
 

Marcia

Active Member
Instead of knocking straw men, let's look at some Catholic teachings.

Here is something on the church at 2030 from the Catechism:

From the Church he receives the grace of the sacraments that sustains him on the "way." From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary; he discerns it in the authentic witness of those who live it; he discovers it in the spiritual tradition and long history of the saints who have gone before him and whom the liturgy celebrates in the rhythms of the sanctoral cycle.
(underlining added)

Here's just one statement (there are others) at 967 on Mary and the Church:

By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus)510 of the Church.
(Underlining added)
So Mary is the "exemplary realization" of the church? So you here who are mad at us who point out unbiblical Catholic doctrine are okay with this?


Here's another choice statement from the Catechism:

958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective.
Not just prayer for the dead, but the belief that our prayer will help them be "loosed from their sins." This is a direct attack on the atonement of Christ being insufficient. But I'm sure the Catholic defenders here will try to rationalize this so it is not saying what it really is saying.
So you guys who think some of us are being unfair are okay with this? This is a teaching of the RCC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Marcia

Active Member
Some doctrine on Mary:
492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137
493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.



963 Since the Virgin Mary's role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."502 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."503

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.517

I have not made one inaccurate statement about Catholic belief here because I have backed up everything with the Catechism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top