As Purpledawn has noted, this is
OFF TOPIC . I won't respond to answers in this thread.
Faith writes:
They put Church tradition on the same level as the Bible and in fact in practice tradition usually trumps the Bible
Tradition is important, however it does not, nor has it ever taken the place of Biblical understanding according to the Catholic Church.
Funny, that's a major theme of the Reformers against Rome. Apparently there are different sources of information.
This is why when I taught youth group, it was important to look to the Bible for what it had to say on certain topics. Tradition is important mostly to the structure of the Mass and the internal structure within the Vatican. As for how one lives their life? That should come from the Bible according to Catholicism, most importantly from trying to emulate Christ's actions.
This is AMERICAN Catholicism which wants to look good in Protestant eyes. Are you even aware that they denied the laity the Bible altogether for most of history, that they persecuted and killed the men who translated it into the people's languages, that even in the 19th century they discouraged priests from reading it according to ex-priest Chiniquy, and that Richard Bennett who was a priest from Ireland and served in Trinidad, was discouraged from reading it and criticized for it when he did? There are at least two Catholicisms, one that plays to Protestantism, the other that does its usual thing. They hate the Bible, but they pretend to think it necessary and important when it suits them.
Faith writes:
They put the Pope on the level of God. "Vicar of Christ" puts him on the level of the Holy Spirit who alone according to scripture deserves that title.
They call him "infallible." Nobody is infallible but God.
Incorrect, mainly because you seem to not know what the word Vicar means:
Vicar - a representative, deputy or substitute; anyone acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior (compare "vicarious" in the sense of "at second hand"). In this sense, the title is comparable to lieutenant.
Catholicism is very good at manipulating words to tone down the ugly truth. No human being can act in the place of God, that's what makes the concept blasphemous. "In the place of Christ" is what the word vicarious means, and is what the Holy Spirit is for Christ, something a mere man cannot be. I guess you don't know about the various decretals that treat the Pope as if he's God.
Nowhere does this word mean that the Pope takes the place of God or the Holy Spirit, but rather that the Pope is, according to Catholic dogma, God's current representative on this planet.
Even that mealy mouthed way of putting it is blasphemous.
I know of the one line you are referring to that mentions the Holy Spirit as the Vicar of Christ, but that line does not limit someone else from being Christ's representative/Lieutenant/Stand in as well.
And that concept too is blasphemous. The Holy Spirit is the only representative of Christ on earth, no man has any right to that role.
As for the infalliable part, Yes, Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible........in religious matters.
That puts him in the place of God.
This does not mean that the Pope is right in political manuvering or any other area and it does not mean that the Pope cannot sin. Rather, when the Pope decrees scriptures to mean something or that a tradition should be adjusted to become more in accord with God's will, then as the representative of Christ, he is considered infallible.
Yes, blasphemy, putting a man in the place of Christ, even daring to speak for Christ, words He never spoke and never would speak. Such as words that have bestowed immaculate conception on "Mary" and so on. Have you noticed that Popes seem to like to pray to "Mary?" Just google "Popes pray to Mary."
Faith writes:
Praying to "saints" and "Mary" This is pure paganism
WRONG!!!!! Until you are willing to remove your Protestant bias from your mind when looking at this, you will continue to be WRONG!!! Catholics and the Catholic Church do not pray TO the Saints and Mary. I have tried to explain this to you from someone who taught it to others and you simply refuse to accept that you are WRONG! Rather, they pray through these individuals for GOD to answer their prayers.
This is word games and sheer delusion. You cannot pray THROUGH a dead person. If you speak in any way at all TO a dead person who is presumably in heaven that is what prayer is. Scripture tells us that Christ is our intercessor and that we are to pray directly to God the Father. Doesn't matter how you shift the words around, Catholics are praying to Mary and the saints. And even if you teach them your gobbledygook formula to convince them they aren't, go look at the peasants who DO pray to Mary as if she's God, walking on their knees around statues of "Mary" such as in Medjugorje and petitioning HER for everything that only God can give. And NOBODY tells them they are wrong to do that. Priests stand by and let them do it.
-
It is not Mary or the Saint that answer prayers according to Catholic Dogma, but rather they intercede with God on your behalf.
THEY CANNOT DO THAT, and asking them to do it is PRAYER, no matter how you twist words to try to hide the fact. And again, scripture tells us to pray DIRECTLY TO GOD.
This is how it is in the Roman Church, accept it or not, but stop lying and saying that these people are praying TO anyone other than God. Catholics know who they think answers their prayers and it is not Mary.
Who ANSWSERS THEIR PRAYERS is not the point, it's who they are petitioning FOR the answer I'm talking about, and as a matter of fact if you petition a "saint" to intercede for you God will NOT answer your prayers anyway.
Faith writes:
Requiring celibacy of their priests, which has led to rampant sexual immorality throughout the history of the "Church," both heterosexual and homosexual. The Bible specifically refers to "forbidding to marry" as an offense that some in the "Church" will come to embrace.
While I understand the church thoughts that Priests are supposed to be wed to the God, his Church, and the Faith, I agree that this is an outdated system and should be changed. However, I do not see this as anything that should remove them being considered Christians, it is simply a different way of worshipping the same God.
In the latter days perilous times shall come when evil shall abound and one of the evils is that they shall forbid to marry. Are you the slightest bit aware of the "Pornocracy" as it's been called, the hideous sexual immoralities that used to go on in the Vatican and still go on? Luther and others were appalled at the degradation they witnessed when they went to Rome. You need to know about this stuff. You've left the "church" presumably, why do you still defend her? It's rotten to the core.
As for the abuse and suffering that was felt by many at the hands of Pedophile Priests, this is not completely the fault of lack of marriage for Priests. Rather there was a structure that gave unsupervised access between an authority figure and young children who were taught to listen to everything that this authority figure said. Why, because he is speaking for the church and God (although infallibility only applies to the Pope, many Catholics misunderstand this point). The other problem was the attempt to hide the problem from the public to safe the Church's image. Had these events been reported correctly right away, the Church could have stopped many children from being abused and determined how it was continuing to allow individuals who would take advantage of those they had authority over to become Priests and fixed it. The choice of turning a blind eye was the problem in this situation, rather than the lack of marriage rights for Priests.
Your problem is that you think this was some sort of mistake on the part of the Church rather than business as usual. You really need to read up on this stuff from some other sources. You've bought the party line.
Faith writes:
Covering up the criminal actions of the pedophile priests and paying bribes for silence by the thousands
Agreed that this was a terrible, terrible thing. However, it does not change anything about whether or not the Roman Catholic church teaches belief in Jesus Christ, making them Christian.
Somehow if you teach belief in Jesus Christ while molesting children you are really teaching Christ?
Faith writes:
Also "forbidding meats" which at least up until Vatican II they did on Fridays.
WRONG!!!! Where do you get this information from? The Catholic Dogma of not eating meat on Friday (only during Lent, it is not a year round thing) is actually something that can be derived through Scripture and your argument against Catholics states that they do not listen to scripture. During Lent, giving up meat on Friday and something precious are supposed to represent the fasting that Jesus went through for forty days in the desert.
Oh there's always SOME reference to scripture here and there, I know that, and the liturgy contains scripture, although it used to be in Latin so nobody understood it anyway. There is no call to imitate Christ in that way you describe but there wouldn't be anything wrong with it that I can see if it were a choice and not required. But when I was a child the Catholic kids told us they couldn't EVER eat meat on Friday, it always had to be fish and there was always fish on the menu on Fridays at various restaurants, all year round. Perhaps things have changed? That's why I thought perhaps Vatican II changed that rule. The scripture says they FORBID meat, and that's what they did on Fridays.
In addition, there is some historical evidence that Catholics were allowed to eat Fish on Fridays during Lent because it would help the fisherman to sell product. But, still nothing in this would remove Catholics from being Christians. Why? Because they do all of this to honor God the Son, or Jesus Christ, whom they believe in making them Christians (no matter how you try and spin it).
I believe the point is in the FORBIDDING of meat, not in any of the nice stuff. That's in 1 Timothy 4 I believe.
Faith writes:
Treating Mary as a special intercessor; Christ is according to scripture our Intercessor.
Hey, you got one right! Yes, the Catholics do believe that Mary and the Saints can intercede on their behalf. However, it is important to remember that any blessings or gifts are not considered o be from Mary but from God.
Not the point at all, it's who you pray to to intercede for you that is the wrong action, and again, there are lots of Catholics in third world countries who DO expect to get the blessings directly from Mary, which nobody bothers to disabuse them of, and again, the chances that God Himself is going to answer prayers not directly to Himself as scripture commands is very iffy.
Faith writes:
Imputing immaculate conception to Mary; Christ alone was conceived pure
This stems from the birth of Mary, where if Mary had been born with original sin, then it would be impossible for Jesus to be born without original sin.
Typical Catholic nonsense. Jesus was born without original sin because His Father was God Himself and sin is inherited through the father, not the mother. Mary was a sinner who looked to her Redeemer for salvation.
Mary had to have a special birth for herself (minus original sin) in order to give birth to the blameless Son of God. She was not immaculately conceived either, rather she was born free of original sin. This way the Sin of Adam and Eve could not be passed onto Jesus through his birth as a man.
See above. Bunch of crackpot traditions of men.
Question for you. How in your Protestant faith do you avoid Jesus being born with Original Sin, if his mother who birthed him was guilty through her own birth of original sin? Catholics state that Mary was born to her parents (normal humans) but that God allowed her to be born without Original Sin. This was the only way to ensure that Jesus was born clean...since Original Sin is passed from parents to children and Jesus had one human parent...
I just explained this. The idea is that sin is inherited through the father not the mother, which scripture certainly seems to support by tracing genealogies through the father, and Jesus' Father was God Himself.
Faith writes:
Calling Mary Co-Redemptrix with Christ; Christ alone is our Redeemer.
I would like to see some evidence that this is stated in Catholic Dogma, preferably from a non-biased source. As far as I was taught and I ever taught all salvation comes through Jesus who died for our sin. Good works were required as well, but that was because those show your faith in Jesus.
Yep, you've got the whitewashed Americanized version. You probably need to spend some time in a Catholic country.
As for co-redemptrix, as I understand it, it isn't yet part of dogma, but it's appealed to here and there and probably on its way to becoming dogma.
Faith writes:
Transubstantiation or the magical transformation of a piece of bread into the actual body of Christ
This is simply a difference in translation that leads to a huge difference between groups.
Catholics take the words, "This IS my body" to mean that it actually IS the body and blood of Christ.
Protestants take it as a metaphor, meaning it represents his body and blood.
This is interesting since if the Bible is infallible in your eyes and the source of all answers, then why should we interpret most of it as literal and this segment as metaphor. Jesus said it IS, therefore it IS. Catholics stand by that, but it also is not enough to make them un-Christian.
And I understand that sometimes it even BLEEDS real blood and that's considered a MIRACLE.
All I know is that the Reformers taught against transubstantiation, Reformers who had been priests and ought to have known since they had the job of magically transforming it (Luther took that very seriously and it terrified him that he was given such power), and nobody taught THEM it was wrong,, they came to it on their own through scripture. Also, denial of transubstantiation was the main reason Rome slaughtered so many Bible believers down the centuries before the Reformation.
Faith writes:
Not sharing the cup of wine with the congregation, only the bread
Ummmmmmm....not until recently. Prior to perhaps the last couple of years the congregation was given, from third grade on, the chance to partake in both the body and the blood of Christ. You would walk forward and take the body from the first Eucharistic minister and then move slightly to the side and receive the blood from a second Eucharistic minister. So...unless you are talking about recently, when the health scares made the Church decide to stop sharing a cup between many people, you are stating a complete falsehood.
Or you are ignorant of the facts, having believed only what you've been told or your own particular experience and don't know it doesn't represent much beyond your narrow situation. This particular bit is very common knowledge. But of course Catholicism likes to try not to offend Protestants and it sounds like you were in one of those churches.
Faith writes:
Indulgences; Yes they still have them
Lies! Unless you have proof, please retract this statement that they still practice selling indulgences.
Heard it only recently, I'll have to look it up.
Faith writes:
Praying for the dead; people paying for masses for the dead
People are not required to pay any money to have the names of their dearly beloved read at any Mass. The money given in donations is considered separate. In fact, even without a donation it is possible to have an entire Mass said in honor of someone you know who has passed. And how is praying to God or Jesus for the dead un-Christian?
We have one life only and then the judgment. There is no intermediate state. The dead are dead. Praying for them is futile and if you pay for it you're a dupe.
Faith writes:
The Mass itself, a resacrifice of Christ; that is blasphemy
It is a symbolic reference to the sacrifice Christ made. Yes, Christ is present in the Body and the Blood, but as Catholics, they were instructed to partake in that meal by Christ. Also, the Mass is set up in the order it is far more by tradition and how the early Church began than specifically as a resacrifice of Christ. Rather, it is similar to the set-up one would see at a Mass taking place in a secret location. There is a greeting, then the good word is heard. Someone discusses the good word and what God intended with it. Then, you celebrate the sacrifice of Christ for all of us once-fallen mortals. Then there is a dismissal and people go on their way. Also, nothing in this practice that makes them believe in Christ any less, nor is it Blasphemy...Hence, still Christians.
Yep, obviously Protestants who have written about and condemned the Mass since the Reformation are all just foul liars. And probably so did dissidents before the Reformation. Yep, all liars.
Faith writes:
The belief that they have the right to persecute, torture and murder people they call "heretics" according to their false doctrine. Yes, this is still canon law.
Right and the persecution, torture, and murder of Irish Catholics by Irish and English Protestants was completely okay...
JFirst keep in mind that you are comparing a local situation with the systematic murder of something like 50 million Protestants over six centuries, and some put the figure much higher.
Second, I have an audio I should try to dig up for you about the situation in Ireland, saying that the English were at fault at times for sure, but not English Protestants, just your usual secular English. If you mean Cromwell, he was putting down Roman violence and has suffered the usual slanders from Rome ever since. But most of the violence in Ireland is from Catholics to Protestants, certainly INSTIGATED by Romanists though Protestants may fight back. , Fomented by Rome and as usual they try to blame it on the Protestants. Ian Paisley speaks out against these lies that try to exonerate Rome and put the blame on Protestants when it's the doing of the Romanists in every case. It is always Rome that does the violence, always Rome that covers their tracks, always Rome that lies through their teeth. Rome is incredibly evil but they manage to deceive many.
...not going to say the Catholic Church has not made mistakes. However, I have not heard of one instance of this Canon Law being applied in modern times. Perhaps you could point me to one. Otherwise, I will just chalk it up to your paranoid delusion that the RCC is planning on instituting another Inquisition.
Right now they're just trying to maneuver themselves into power.
Faith writes:
Their denial of salvation by Christ alone through faith alone, in fact they anathematize/curse those who believe this
Yes, because they believe that sitting in a corner and believing in Jesus with all of your heart is not good enough to get you into Heaven.
Talk about a LIE. That's a WHOPPER. Protestants teach that faith leads to works for crying out loud and you've NEVER seen Protestants sitting in a corner believing in Jesus. That's a disgusting lie.
Which makes complete sense, what good is a religion preaching to treat people well, if you do not go out and take part in the World in this manner. They feel that if you truly had faith in what Jesus taught, you would live that faith through works.
And we do. But Rome attaches salvation to works, go read the anathemas of Trent for proof, whereas we know our salvation is nothing we can affect ourselves but comes entirely by the grace of God through faith in Christ whose death was sufficient to save those who believe on Him.
Faith writes:
Their accumulation of vast wealth which they hoard
Ummmmm........welcome to the Earth. People with large amounts of Authority tend to accumulate wealth. This is just how it is. I am sure that Pastor Billy Graham simply lives in a ramshackle building, and Martin Luther only wore a sackcloth, and Kent Hovind uses all the money he receives for either religious purposes or gives it back to the poor. Should they do this?....No. Am I surprised that a group with as much power and authority as the RCC has had for as long as it has is extremely wealthy....nope. Still doesn't remove the Christ believing part, still making Catholics Christians.
You should see if you can get yourself hired by the Vatican.
Faith writes:
Their ambition to recover the worldly power they had in the "Holy Roman Empire."
In America, take a look into a Catholic service. At this point the Church would just like to stop the extreme numbers that are dropping the faith as important. There is a Priest shortage and a congregation shortage within the Catholic community. Churches are combining with neighbor parishes and one of them closes the doors on their church. Do they want to have power again, I am sure that they do. Why? Because they strongly believe what they follow, so they want to help anyone get into heaven... While this is idiotic to me, wanting everyone to accept what you are sure is right is absolutely no different from what you ask people to do Faith...They just have a better centralized authority. Whine all you want, but Protestants all wanting things exactly their own way is why they continued to splinter and shrink while the RCC just grew larger.
I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with Rome's intent to recover the Holy Roman Empire. But if that topic interests you the information isn't going to be in American Catholicism, you'll have to get into European politics to get a clue about that.
Oh I suppose they think by recovering power they would be saving people, I'm sure that's in there somewhere. But they even think they save people by torturing and murdering those who refuse to accept their doctrines.
Faith writes:
They are a political entity as well as a religion, seeking worldly domination.
All I will say to this is evidence please?
You need evidence of the political entity, the sovereign Church-State of the Vatican?
Faith writes:
They've historically supported the murdering Catholic tyrants, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, the Croat leader, can't ever remember his name, and many others, many Catholic tyrants whose Catholicism is ignored by the media. They considered Hitler to have been doing the work of the "church" as a "Christian" in his murders.
A case can also be made that Hitler had given up his Catholic ways and was far more into practicing Protestantism when he began to come to power.
Hitler considered himself a Catholic to the end, though what he practiced is something else. It certainly wasn't Protestantism, possibly occultism. But he was regarded by the Pope as a Catholic, and by Franco, whose newspaper praised him on his death as a true son of the Church doing the work of Christianity.
Yes, he was born Catholic but as an intelligent person (albeit crazy) I would expect him to begin to question the Catholic faith.
He may have but it suited him to consider himself a Catholic to the end anyway, and again, he was regarded as a Catholic by the Pope and others. He modeled the Holocaust on the Inquisition, and his cronies modeled the SS on the Jesuit order. Lot of catholic influence there.
As for the comment about doing the "work" of the church, not going to argue that they said that, nor that many protestants also took part in the decimation of the Jewish people. The Nazis simply gave people an excuse to let their anti-semitism rise to the surface. Also, the mentality that existed in that day can be seen in the treatment of Asian people, Jewish People, or Black People. There was far more violence in general against different races.
There's always room for spreading some blame around, but there is no doubt whatever that the Vatican supported Hitler to the max, and was responsible for transporting thousands of Nazis to safe havens in Catholic countries after the war, mostly South America, to keep them from the war crimes trials. It's famous, known as the "Vatican Rat Lines."
Faith writes:
Their weird garb goes back either to pagan Rome or to Babylon. What's Christian about all that finery, those jewels etc
Nothing. But, there is also nothing un-Christian in them in the fact that Christian means believing in Jesus as Christ. That is it...your arguments against Catholics never touched on this one important fact. Are they Gaudy? Yes. As much as the Greek Orthodox churches? No. Does it matter toward them being Christian? Nope. Should they reevaluate and find a way to make the finery work toward good in the world? Yes, but doing so would not make them more or less Christian, since they already believe in the divinity of Christ.
Again, you're so good at rationalizing this stuff you should apply to the Vatican for a high paying position. They don't care what you believe.
As Purpledawn has noted, this is
OFF TOPIC . I won't respond to answers in this thread.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...
™ Version 4.2
(1)