Do Roman "Catholic" dogmas contradict the Bible?

aceventura27

Master Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
119
Yeah the never-ending catholic vs protestant arguments just get pretty tiring to read.

Protestant: Emphasis on Paul Catholic: Emphasis on Peter

Protestant: Faith only Catholic: Faith together with works

Protestant: Sola scripture Catholic: Prima scriptura

I have went to both and neither identify with both. I don't need to score brownie points from God by trying to prove which is right or wrong. I believe faith is exactly as this verse says. And I agree with you wholeheartedly that men over-complicate things. We are all fallen, sinful beings and therefore do not deserve to judge each other except for God.

(Hebrews 11.1) "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

The title of the thread is pretty straightforward. “Do Roman Catholic dogmas contradict the Bible?” In your mind, is this a yes or no?
 

fsg316

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
17,053
Reaction score
289
Yeah the never-ending catholic vs protestant arguments just get pretty tiring to read.

Protestant: Emphasis on Paul* Catholic: Emphasis on Peter

Protestant: Faith only* Catholic: Faith together with works

Protestant: Sola scripture* Catholic: Prima scriptura


By the way, this is incorrect. Tradition and the Roman Magisterium are put at an equal footing as scripture for Romanists. (CCC 80-82, 85-88, 100). In practice, it's really the Roman Magisterium above everything, i.e. Sola Ecclesia.
 

fsg316

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
17,053
Reaction score
289
Being a follower of Christ, is about putting ego away and respecting each other, whether believer or not. Even though I don’t agree with most here, but it’s alright.


You are conflating respecting the individual and respecting their ideology. As a Christian, you are to hate false ways (Psalm 119:104, 128). Jesus and the Apostles had very harsh words for false teachers and false teaching. The basis for polemics is 2 Cor 10:5.

The prophet Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:20-40).

Jesus condemned the pharisees to hell and called them broods of vipers, after pronouncing seven woes on them (Matt 23)
Matthew 23:33
You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?


Paul condemned the Judaizers in this way, even calling them to castrate themselves.
Titus 1:16
They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

Galatians 5:12
I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!


Same with Peter.
2 Peter 2:1*-‬3
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.


James 4.12, 2 Timothy 5.1

2 Tim 5:1 doesn't exist.

You are misusing James 4:12. The context of this verse can be found here

James 4:1
What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?

James 4:4
You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

James 4:11
Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.


This passage is talking about squabbling between fellow believers. V2-3 expounds this in greater detail. V4 explicitly says that if being a friend of the world makes one an enemy of God. Jesus repeats this in John 15:18-19. This is what you are doing, preaching tolerance and unity at the expense of the truth.

The greek root word for v11 of "speaks evil" is katakaleo/katalalos. It has the sense of to slander or defame. That's what v12 is about. It's warning against slandering a fellow believer. I'm not slandering nor do I consider a Romanist to be a brother. I'm speaking the truth.

1 Cor 5:9-13 explicitly says to judge those inside the church who bear the name of brother, but not those of the world. This is what I'm doing in examining the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of Romanism.

Since Romanists claim to be Christians, they will be judged with a Christian standard.

1 Corinthians 5:9*-‬13
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
 
Last edited:

Kuudere

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Messages
25,601
Reaction score
16,723
The title of the thread is pretty straightforward. “Do Roman Catholic dogmas contradict the Bible?” In your mind, is this a yes or no?

I believe it does contradict to some extent, but I don't abide by sola scriptura. Not everything can be explained by focusing only on the scripture.

You are conflating respecting the individual and respecting their ideology. As a Christian, you are to hate false ways (Psalm 119:104, 128). Jesus and the Apostles had very harsh words for false teachers and false teaching. The basis for polemics is 2 Cor 10:5.

The prophet Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:20-40).

Jesus condemned the pharisees to hell and called them broods of vipers, after pronouncing seven woes on them (Matt 23)



Paul condemned the Judaizers in this way, even calling them to castrate themselves.



Same with Peter.





2 Tim 5:1 doesn't exist.

You are misusing James 4:12. The context of this verse can be found here




This passage is talking about squabbling between fellow believers. V2-3 expounds this in greater detail. V4 explicitly says that if being a friend of the world makes one an enemy of God. Jesus repeats this in John 15:18-19. This is what you are doing, preaching tolerance and unity at the expense of the truth.

The greek root word for v11 of "speaks evil" is katakaleo/katalalos. It has the sense of to slander or defame. That's what v12 is about. It's warning against slandering a fellow believer. I'm not slandering nor do I consider a Romanist to be a brother. I'm speaking the truth.

1 Cor 5:9-13 explicitly says to judge those inside the church who bear the name of brother, but not those of the world. This is what I'm doing in examining the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of Romanism.

Since Romanists claim to be Christians, they will be judged with a Christian standard.

After hearing what you have to say and have talked to similar people with your viewpoints in the past, I still don't agree entirely with what you have to say but I will think of it in this way: “When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall.” (CS lewis Mere Christianity)

You can speak truths, but we have a limited capacity of knowledge. All of us have to make a choice which door to take. At the end of the day, the final judgement is by God only. The way you and I understand truth, is very different. I will stop commenting from this point, have a nice day!
 
Last edited:

aceventura27

Master Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
119
I believe it does contradict to some extent, but I don't abide by sola scriptura. Not everything can be explained by focusing only on the scripture.

I see, thanks for this, appreciate it. One last question if you don’t mind, do you believe that non Roman-Catholic Christians are saved? According to your church of course.
 

fsg316

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
17,053
Reaction score
289
I believe it does contradict to some extent, but I don't abide by sola scriptura. Not everything can be explained by focusing only on the scripture.

Then you have a poor understanding of Sola Scriptura. See Westminster Confession Ch 1 or any other traditional confessions.


After hearing what you have to say and have talked to similar people with your viewpoints in the past, I still don't agree entirely with what you have to say but I will think of it in this way: “When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall.” (CS lewis Mere Christianity)

You can speak truths, but we have a limited capacity of knowledge. All of us have to make a choice which door to take. At the end of the day, the final judgement is by God only. The way you and I understand truth, is very different. I will stop commenting from this point, have a nice day!


And I also have met many Christians who have similar viewpoints, that truths are subjective. Now, I can understand if you are an atheist. What you folks fail to understand is God's truths are objective.

Forever, O Lord , your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.
Psalm 119:89

I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
1 John 2:21

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,* who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20


Did you test the words of CS Lewis for truths (1 Thess 5:21)? If they contradict God's word, then you take the word of God over that of CS Lewis (1 John 5:9).

As the scriptures say,
Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.


As Augustine stated,

Augustine (354-430): We do no injustice to Cyprian when we make a distinction between his epistles and the canonical authority of the divine Scriptures. Apart from the Sacred canonical Scriptures, we may freely pass judgment on the writings of believers and disbelievers alike…For that reason Cyprian’s epistles, which have no canonical authority must be judged according to their agreement with the authority of the divine writings. Thus we can accept from Cyprian only what agrees, and safely reject what does not agree, with Scripture. De Cresconium 2.39–40. Cited by A.D.R. Polman, The Word of God According to St. Augustine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), p. 65.


And both Augustine and Basil agreed,


Augustine (354-430): For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. NPNF1, Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter CXLVIII 15

Augustine (354-430) : However, if you inquire or recall to memory the opinion of our Ambrose, and also of our Cyprian, on the point in question, you will perhaps find that I also have not been without some whose footsteps I follow in that which I have maintained. At the same time, as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place NPNF1, Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine,, Letter LXXXII, Chapter 3, Sections 24–25, Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, p. 799

Augustine (354-430): On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writing I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, “Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!” (NPNF1, Vol. 1, Augustin, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter LXXXII, Chapter 1, Section 3). Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, p. 786

Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379) : Rule Twenty–six: That every word and deed should be ratified by the testimony of the Holy Scripture to confirm the good and cause shame to the wicked. (Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, Ascetical Works, The Morals, Rule 26, Cap. 22, pp. 106).

Basil of Caesarea (AD 329-379) : They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth. NPNF2: Vol. VIII, Letters, Letter 189 - To Eustathius the physician, §3.


Basil of Caesarea (AD 329-379) : But you stand round me rather as judges than as learners. Your desire is rather to test and try me than to acquire anything for yourselves. I must therefore, as it were, make my defense before the court, again and again giving answer, an again and again saying what I have received. And you I exhort not to be specially anxious to hear from me what is pleasing to yourselves, but rather what is pleasing to the Lord, what is in harmony with the Scriptures, what is not in opposition to the Fathers. (NPNF2, Vol. 8, Basil, Prolegomena, p. lxi). Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Pg 105

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379) : What our fathers said, the same say we, that the glory of the Father and of the Son is common; wherefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you. NPNF2, Vol. 8, Basil, On the Holy Spirit 7.16. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Pg 160
 
Last edited:

70secs

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
4,658
INTRODUCTION

A) From 590 to 1517, the Roman Church dominated the western world. The Roman Catholic Church controlled religion, philosophy, morals, politics, art and education. This was the dark ages for true Christianity. The vital doctrines of Biblical Christianity had almost disappeared, and with the neglect of true doctrine came the passing of life and light that constitutes the worship of the One True God as declared in Christ.

B) The Roman Catholic Church was theologically sick and its theology led to atrocious corruptions. It was spiritually exhausted, enfeebled and almost lifeless. Rome had seriously departed from the teaching of the Bible and was engrossed in real heresy.

C) There can be no appreciation for the Reformation until one sees the great spiritual need of the western world in the 16th century. No Christian, Roman Catholic, Protestant or Independent can gloss over the period of history from 590 to 1517. This period is a "black spot" to all who name the name of Christ, but it is Christian history.


ROME'S THEOLOGY BEFORE THE REFORMATION

A) Infallibility of the Pope. While this was not an officially declared dogma of the Roman Church (it became official dogma in 1870), it was an assumed fact. As early as 590, Gregory the Great called himself "the servant of servants," believing that he was supreme among all bishops. Another pope, Hildebrand or Gregory VII (11th century), held that, as vicar of Christ and representative of Peter, he could give or take empires. Everyone from the lowest peasant to the highest ruler was to recognize him as Christ's representative on earth and supreme ruler over all religious and political matters. Another pope (14th century) Boniface VII, said,

"We declare, state, define and pronounce that for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pope is altogether necessary for salvation" (Caper, The Church in History).

B) Salvation in the Roman Church Only. Rome taught that all who did not acknowledge the pope as God's representative on earth and the Roman Catholic Church as the only true church were damned. Salvation was confined within the teachings of the Roman Church. Every person who disagreed with the Roman Church was in line for a heresy trial and perhaps excommunication. Excommunication meant the loss of one's soul.

C) Salvation by Works. By the 14th century, Augustinian theology was lost or badly neglected. Rome had accepted almost in totality the freewill teaching of Pelagius (5th century) that it had formerly repudiated. Salvation was not caused by God's grace through a supernatural new birth, but by assent to Roman Catholic dogma and practice. Faith was not trust in Christ for salvation, but submission to the church. Salvation was not by grace through faith in Christ alone, but by faith in the church and good works prescribed by the church. Practically speaking, "good works" consisted of mere external obedience to the church, and did not necessarily flow from a life of faith in Christ. The Roman Catholic Church stressed external actions, legal observance and penitential works. Man actually gained heaven by his works.

D) Complete Sanctification. Rome taught sinless perfectionism. They confused justification and sanctification, teaching that men were justified by God's work in their own hearts and experience. Justification became subjective rather than objective. God was said to infuse grace and transform the sinful nature. By this transforming change within him, the believer was said to be made just in God's sight. As the Christian received more grace, he was said to become less sinful and therefore more just in God's sight.

"Rome held out to men the possibility of becoming pure and sinless saints (ontological perfection), and those who attained this perfection reached sainthood and were qualified to enter heaven at the hour of death. Those who did not become perfect and absolutely sinless in the flesh would need to go to purgatory after death and thus be made completely just and qualified to enter heaven" ("The Great Issues of the Reformation," Present Truth).

E) Worshiping of Saints. The more a person practiced external works, the more saintlike he became and the closer he came to heaven. Some men, who were good enough to be called saints, lived lives advanced in holiness beyond what was required of them. They were made saints by the church. Many of these saints were worshiped by the Roman Catholic Church and became mediators between God and man.

"When Pelagianism laid down the doctrine that man could attain a state of perfect sanctification, it affirmed also that the merits of saints and martyrs might be applied to the Church. A peculiar power was attributed to their intercession. Prayers were made to them; their aid was invoked in all the sorrows of life; and a real idolatry thus supplanted the adoration of the living and true God" (J. H. Merle D'aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, 1848).

F) Exaltation of the Clergy. The doctrine of sinless perfectionism strengthened the position of the Roman hierarchy. The clergy were thought to be more holy than the average people. Being more holy, they were special channels of the grace of God. Thus, the clergy had the authority from God to dispense God's grace.

"Salvation, taken from the hands of God, fell into those of the priests, who set themselves in the place of our Lord. Souls thirsting for pardon were no more to look to heaven, but to the Church, and above all to its pretended head. To these blinded souls the Roman pontiff was God. Hence the greatness of the popes - hence unutterable abuses" (D'aubigne).


ROME'S PRACTICE

A) System of Penance. From a "works" theology flowed the idea of penance. Men had to do certain external acts to prove the reality of their faith. At first penance consisted of certain public expressions of repentance for people involved in scandal, but it was soon extended to every sin, even to the most secret. Penance was considered as sort of a punishment to which it was necessary to submit in order to obtain the forgiveness of God through the priest's absolution. Instead of looking to Christ alone for forgiveness, it was sought in the church principally through penitential works.

"Great importance was soon attached to external marks of repentance --to tears, fasting, and mortification of the flesh; and inward regeneration of the heart, which alone constitutes a real conversion, was forgotten.

"As confession and penance are easier than the extirpation of sin and the abandonment of vice, many ceased contending against the lusts of the flesh, and preferred gratifying them at the expense of a few mortifications.

"The penitential works, thus substituted for the salvation of God, were multiplied in the Church from Tertullian down to the thirteenth century. Men were required to fast, to go barefoot, to wear no linen, etc.; to quit their homes and their native land for distant countries; or to renounce the world and embrace a monastic life.

"In the eleventh century voluntary flagellations were super added to these practices; somewhat later they become quite a mania in Italy, which was then in a very disturbed state. Nobles and peasants, old and young, even children of five years of age, whose only covering was a cloth tied round the middle, went in pairs, by hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands, through the towns and villages, visiting the churches in the depth of winter. Armed with scourges, they flogged each other without pity, and the streets resounded with cries and groans that drew tears from all who heard them" (D'aubigne).


B) System of Indulgences. Indulgences were a system of exchange whereby the priests employed their special rapport with God to perform certain religious acts for laymen. For a price, Clergy would pray, fast and read scripture for a person. In other words, priestly services were bought. This was later developed into buying up time one might have to spend in purgatory.

"Incest, if not detected, was to cost five groats; and six, if it was known. There was a stated price for murder, infanticide, adultery, perjury, burglary, etc. ‘O disgrace of Rome!' exclaims Claude d'Espence, a Roman divine: and we may add, O disgrace of human nature! for we can utter no reproach against Rome that does not recoil on man himself. Rome is human nature exalted in some of its worst propensities" (D'aubigne).


C) System of Confession. Since the clergy through the church were dispensers of God's grace, they also had the authority to forgive sins. Private confession was abandoned for auricular confession to the priest.


ROME'S SCANDALS

A) Immorality of the Clergy. Celibacy for clergy became Roman Church law in 1079. This mandate tempted all kinds of immorality. The abodes of the clergy were often dens of corruption. It was a common sight to see priests frequenting the taverns, gambling, and having orgies with quarrels and blasphemy. Many of the clergy kept mistresses, and convents became houses of ill fame. In many places the people were delighted at seeing a priest keep a mistress, that the married women might be safe from his seductions.

"In many places the priest paid the bishop a regular tax for the women with whom he lived, and for each child he had by her. A German bishop said publically one day, at a great entertainment, that in one year eleven thousand priests had presented themselves before him for that purpose. It is Erasmus who relates this" (D'aubigne).

B) Immorality of the People. Morality declined with the decline of faith. Take away supernatural salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and you take away sanctification and good works. Indulgences were looked upon by the common man as a license to sin, for men could buy their forgiveness.

C) Ignorance of Clergy. Many of the clergy had come to their offices through political maneuvering. In a country parish one person called the clergy "miserable wretches . . . previously raised from beggary, and who had been cooks, musicians, huntsmen, stable boys and even worse." Clergy no longer had to learn and teach the Scriptures, for the church told them what to do. Even the superior clergymen were sunk in great ignorance in spiritual matters. They had secular learning, but knew very little of the Bible.

"A bishop of Dunfeld congratulated himself on having never learnt either Greek or Hebrew. The monks asserted that all heresies arose from those two languages, and particularly from the Greek. ‘The New Testament,' said one of them, ‘is a book full of serpents and thorns. Greek,' continued he, ‘is a new and recently invented language, and we must be upon our guard against it. As for Hebrew, my dear brethren, it is certain that all who learn it immediately become Jews.'

"Even the faculty of theology at Paris scrupled not to declare to the parliament: ‘Religion is ruined, if you permit the study of Greek and Hebrew'" (D'aubigne).


D) Inquisition. This organization was designed to inquire into the spread of heresy and to call before its tribunal Catholics suspected of heresy with a view to securing their repentance. The accused were sometimes tortured and even put to death. The Inquisition was a disgrace to men who call themselves followers of God.

E) The Papal Schism. From 1378-1417 there were three simultaneous popes, each claiming to be the true pope: Urban VII, an Italian; Clement VII, a Frenchman; and a third pope elected by the Council of Pisa. For several years there were three popes anathematizing and excommunicating one another.

F) The Practice of Simony. Simony was the sinful practice of giving or obtaining an appointment to a church office for money. This was a common practice in the Middle Ages, even in the obtaining of the office of pope.

G) Relics. Rome, playing on the ignorance of people, held all kinds of relics in veneration.

"In the church of All Saints at Wittenberg was shown a fragment of Noah's ark, some soot from the furnace of the Three Children, a piece of wood from the cradle of Jesus Christ, some hair from the beard of St. Christopher, and nineteen thousand other relics of greater or less value" (D'aubigne).
 

Kuudere

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Messages
25,601
Reaction score
16,723
I see, thanks for this, appreciate it. One last question if you don’t mind, do you believe that non Roman-Catholic Christians are saved? According to your church of course.

Without getting into the details of a theological debate, yes I believe it to be the case.

Then you have a poor understanding of Sola Scriptura. See Westminster Confession Ch 1 or any other traditional confessions.





And I also have met many Christians who have similar viewpoints, that truths are subjective. Now, I can understand if you are an atheist. What you folks fail to understand is God's truths are objective.




Did you test the words of CS Lewis for truths (1 Thess 5:21)? If they contradict God's word, the you take the word of God over that of CS Lewis (1 John 5:9).

As Augustine stated,




And both Augustine and Basil agreed,

Thanks for sharing, I appreciate your response :s12:
 

MoeLanYong

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
30,252
Reaction score
28,420
Matt 23:9
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

My logic ish telling moi that all it ish take to refute chiur "correct version" ish just one verse that tells believers what they should notch do and the above "do notch do this" ish come from no other than Jesus Himself. This verse ish telling believers notch to call any man on earth with a religious or spiritual title "Father" which in moi view ish speaking directly to those who address a man with such a religious title as Papa ergo Pope. My common sense ish telling moi to ask if chiu ish calling Jesus' teachings the incorrect version or ish chiurs the cui version?:o

https://www.gotquestions.org/father-Matthew-23-9.html

V7FLkTe.gif

Not keen to argue religion online. You follow your rules and happy can liao haha
 

fsg316

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
17,053
Reaction score
289
But this quote below by FSG about Catholic mass communion is taking things to a whole different level.

“John O’Brien: The third great power of the priestly office is the climax of all. It is the power of consecrating. “No act is greater” says St. Thomas, “than the consecration of the body of Christ.” In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God himself .

When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man

. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man —not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command. Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus . For the priest is and should be another Christ. John A. O'Brien, The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, Our Sunday Visitor, 1974, pg. 255-256 (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 255-256)”


You have to understand what the mass and eucharist is fundamentally about. It's a propitiatory sacrifice.

Council of Trent Session 22

CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

CCC 1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.


What do the scriptures say?
Hebrews 9:24*-‬28
For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.


Hebrews 10:10*-‬14
And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
 
Last edited:

fsg316

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
17,053
Reaction score
289
I never felt any sombre mood. Quiet yes, but not sombre. Nobody is crying, for sure, like those in funeral.

It is just a standard procedure, everyone suppose to be quiet, remember the day Lord said it, and remember the meaning of eucharist. Everyone suppose to pray, to be ready to accept Jesus in a form of bread (and wine). You suppose to check/reflect what you did in past one week, before you accept the bread.

We don't make noise, first to concentrate what Jesus said, and second is to pray. It is just being respectful, and Catholic really believes that Jesus really is present during eucharist.

Seriously, we are have been doing busy life, with so many external noises. Now we have the time to be quiet (just one or two hours only) in mass, and do our own reflection, you want people there to be dancing around you and make noises?

Personally i prefer quiet kind of church, and that's why i return to Catholic mass, after attending many christian services. There are lots of occasions, after my own reflection during mass, i could see myself the one creating mistakes, disputes, because of ego, etc.


LOL. Augustine says people like you are foolish.

Augustine (354-430): It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood. NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98), §8. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Pg 960-961

Augustine (354-430): If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of “prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: “If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink;” and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, “for in so doing thou shall heap coals of fire on his head,” one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. NPNF1, Vol. 2, Augustin, On Christian Doctrine 3.16.24. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Pg 1272
 

ProLogic

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
14,782
Reaction score
1,451
Not keen to argue religion online. You follow your rules and happy can liao haha

My logic ish telling moi that it ish very cui to say that the "correct version" of Christianity ish about following your own rules and be happy.:s22:

tenor.gif
 

fsg316

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
17,053
Reaction score
289
My logic ish telling moi that it ish very cui to say that the "correct version" of Christianity ish about following your own rules and be happy.:s22:

Romans 6:1*-‬4
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
 

ProLogic

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
14,782
Reaction score
1,451
Yeah the never-ending catholic vs protestant arguments just get pretty tiring to read.

Protestant: Emphasis on Paul Catholic: Emphasis on Peter

Protestant: Faith only Catholic: Faith together with works

Protestant: Sola scripture Catholic: Prima scriptura

I have went to both and neither identify with both. I don't need to score brownie points from God by trying to prove which is right or wrong. I believe faith is exactly as this verse says. And I agree with you wholeheartedly that men over-complicate things. We are all fallen, sinful beings and therefore do not deserve to judge each other except for God.

(Hebrews 11.1) "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

Jude 3
while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

My common sense ish telling moi that it ish very cui to disregard the Bible's exhortation to believers to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered and also very cui to say that chiu ish dontch need to prove what ish right from wrong and that doing sho ish to score brownie points from God. :s22:

cowboy-shaking-head.gif
 

ProLogic

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
14,782
Reaction score
1,451
You have to understand what the mass and eucharist is fundamentally about. It's a propitiatory sacrifice.

What do the scriptures say?

My common sense ish telling moi that it ish very cui to alter what ish supposed to be an act of remembrance into an act of altar sacrifice.:o

cowboy-shaking-head.gif
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards, Terms of Service and Member T&Cs for more information.
Top