Roman Catholicism vs Bible

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/13/2016 at 2:03 PM, phkrause said:

Yes, but it doesn't say to go to so and so and confess to him or her, for what you did to so and so. You still need to confess to Jesus not some person who has nothing to do with what was done! In my way of thinking, if I did something to you, lets say, I not only confess to Jesus, but I need to go to you and say I'm sorry! Even if you don't forgive me, Jesus will!

I think the example of prayer that Jesus Himself gave:  "The LORD's Prayer"  is a good answer to praying in the name of Mary or to any other now dead "saint".

We pray TO God the Father, saying "forgive us our trespasses".  So Jesus was telling us to ASK God the Father FOR forgiveness. 

John 16:23 "And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you." (NKJ)

John 15:16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you."

John 14:13 "And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."

 

[8thdaypriest]

Anyone have a good answer for the doctrine of "trans-substitution" - the doctrine which says the wafer and wine, during the Mass, actually become the literal body and blood of Jesus.  Worshipers should therefore BOW before the wafer, and the wine.  I understand it is not usual for the worshiper to partake of the wine - just the wafer.  The priest drinks of the wine, as a representative of the worshipers. 

[Robert]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Anyone have a good answer for the doctrine of "trans-substitution" -...

Do you mean transubstantiation?

[JoeMo]

22 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Anyone have a good answer for the doctrine of "trans-substitution" - the doctrine which says the wafer and wine, during the Mass, actually become the literal body and blood of Jesus.  Worshipers should therefore BOW before the wafer, and the wine.  I understand it is not usual for the worshiper to partake of the wine - just the wafer.  The priest drinks of the wine, as a representative of the worshipers. 

As Robert says, the doctrine is transubstantiation.  As a former "good" Catholic, I know the reasoning for this thinking comes from the Last Supper - "This is My Body ... This is My Blood".  Catholics take this literally rather than "this 'represents' My Body ...".  They believe that the "power" to do this comes from apostles who allegedly had the ability to pass this down directly to other ordained priests.  I still believe that a Catholic service called Benediction, they actually worship the wafer because they believe it literally is the body of Christ.  When I was a kid, if someone dropped a wafer or threw up after communion, the priests would actually cut the defiled piece of carpet out of the church and burn it; putting the ashes in a special receptacle.

Also, in most Catholic Churches, worshippers can and do partake of the wine.  They usually all drink from the same cup (chalice).  EEEWWW!

[phkrause]

5 hours ago, JoeMo said:

They usually all drink from the same cup (chalice).  EEEWWW!

EEEWWW! is right!!

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/15/2016 at 4:51 PM, Robert said:

Do you mean transubstantiation?

Yes Robert.  Thanks

I think the cry of Jesus, "It is finished!"  He does not need to be sacrificed again and again. 

Hebrews 9:25 "not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another-- 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (NKJ)

This verse also casts doubt on the teaching that animal sacrifice will be continued.  Jesus did NOT say we should "remember" His death, or "show the LORD's death" by sacrificing animals (by blood sacrifice). 

The idea that a "god" comes down to literally inhabit an image, or a Temple was common to all pagan worship.  In the case of transubstantiation, their God comes down to inhabit a wafer, and the wine in a chalice. 

[8thdaypriest]

Prayers for the dead - with lighting candles and offering gifts to the church, to hasten the exit of the deceased from Purgatory, and their entrance into Heaven.

I don't yet understand just how many people are believed to spend time in Purgatory.  Is it everyone but those designated "saints"? 

[JoeMo]

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I don't yet understand just how many people are believed to spend time in Purgatory.  Is it everyone but those designated "saints"? 

According to Catholic theology, there are four places people can go after death:

Heaven - for all those who have live perfect lives or received absolution and said "penance" (like 3 "Our Fathers and 5 "Hail Marys)  Only those individuals who have several "miracles" attributed to them are canonized as saints.

Limbo - A place where children under the age of reason and mentally incompetent people go to spend eternity.  The best way I can describe it is like what SDA's believe about the righteous dead before the resurrection.

Purgatory - the place where you are punished for your "venial" (minor) unconfessed and/or unforgiven sins.

Hell - a place of eternal punishing for those who have unconfessed "mortal" (major) sins.

 

I assume that most people would have to spend some time in purgatory - maybe 1,000 - 10,000 years to purge their venial sins.  Of course, there are indulgences for saying various prayers and going to certain church services - kinda like bail.

[8thdaypriest]

Thanks Joe. 

Limbo sounds like the SDA version of what happens to those who died in ignorance - like the ignorant slave.  He is just left dead "like the beast". 

The RCC teaches prayers for the dead - to pray them out of Purgatory - as if God is swayed by such prayers.

Is there a verse which says that prayers for the dead are useless? 

Or is it just refuted by the truth that "the dead know nothing".

[8thdaypriest]

 I don't understand how the Pope could apologize for the Inquisition.  Wasn't the Inquisition blessed and approved of by a past Pope.  I thought past and present Popes are thought to be infallible.

[JoeMo]

17 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

 I don't understand how the Pope could apologize for the Inquisition.  Wasn't the Inquisition blessed and approved of by a past Pope.  I thought past and present Popes are thought to be infallible.

I guess 20/20 hindsight trumps infallibility?  Don't some historic SDAs look at the pronouncements of EGW the same way Catholics look at papal infallibility? 

[Gregory Matthews]

Robert said below:

Robert, it looks to me like you either have never read the 1st Amendment, or you have failed to understand what it actually says.

Club Adventist is a private forum.  The 1st Amendment to the Federal Constitution does not give you any rights to post here.  In this forum, your right to post here is strictly limited to whatever the owner of this forum wants you to have.

Call it what you wish, but that in no way should stop our first amendment rights. 

 

[Robert]

17 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

 I don't understand how the Pope could apologize for the Inquisition.  Wasn't the Inquisition blessed and approved of by a past Pope.  I thought past and present Popes are thought to be infallible.

They are very crafty.  They always give themselves plenty of wiggle room.

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel said below:

Rachel, you are incorrect.   In a Catholic (more than Roman Catholic) service the wine is distributed to the worshipers along with the wafer.   To be more specific, the priest does not normally have the authority to conduct the Mass without giving the wine to the worshipers.  To conduct the Mass without the wine would require a much higher authority than that of the local priest.

My comments are based upon the following:

1)  I have attended Mass many times, and the wine has always been given to the worshipers.

2)  I have an official book of Roman Catholic Canon Law.

3)  I have the official priests manual of the Roman Catholic Church that gives the requirements under which the priests must operate, which include conducting Mass.  This document was published by the Military Ordinate for the United States of America.

4)  In working closely with Roman Catholic priests I have had many conversations with them on Roman Catholic doctrine, which has included beliefs held by members which are not required doctrine.

5)  I have often read, in an official RC publication a monthly article on RC official and required belief as opposed to beliefs that some may hold that are not required  and/or official belief. 

 

NOTE:  The priest drinks the left-over wine at the end of the Mass as the blood of Christ should not be placed in the garbage or flushed down the drain.

 

 

 

 

Quote

I understand it is not usual for the worshiper to partake of the wine - just the wafer.  The priest drinks of the wine, as a representative of the worshipers.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel said below:

In RC Doctrine, the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.  Most of the time the pope does not so speak.

Under RC doctrine the Church was not responsible for the inquisition.  It was the civil authorities who were responsible for the inquisition.  The responsibility of the Church lies in the fact that the church only turned people over to the civil authorities.  At that point the civil authorities became responsible.

 I don't understand how the Pope could apologize for the Inquisition.  Wasn't the Inquisition blessed and approved of by a past Pope.  I thought past and present Popes are thought to be infallible.

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel asked below:

Under RC doctrine,  Purgatory may be the stopping place for anyone who is on their way to heaven.  That can include the Saints. 

I don't yet understand just how many people are believed to spend time in Purgatory.  Is it everyone but those designated "saints"? 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel said below:

Rachel, I agree with what you said below.

However, I must say that I consider you to one of those who does not really understand Catholic doctrine.

I stated in an earlier post some of the reasons why I take the position on their doctrine that I take.  But, there is another reason:

I have had extensive conversations/discussions with Roman Catholic apologists.  Those were well able to defend their faith.   I have learned much from my discussions with them.

Official, required Catholic  beliefs may differ from actual beliefs of the members,  just as that is true of the SDA Chruch.

 

 

 

Quote

Rather, I believe that most Adventists do not understand Catholic DOCTRINE, and therefore are not prepared to meet it with Bible.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jo Mo said below:

The member does not take the chalice in his/her hands and drink from it.  Rather the person assisting the priest holds the chalice in his/her hands and touches it to the lips of the  member.  After the member has partaken of the wine, the chalice will be wiped clean at the point where the lips have touched prior to the chalice being given to another person.

NOTE:  The RC Church claims that there has never been a case where disease was transmitted between persons from the use of the common chalice.

 

They usually all drink from the same cup (chalice).  EEEWWW!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

18 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Jo Mo said below:

The member does not take the chalice in his/her hands and drink from it.  Rather the person assisting the priest holds the chalice in his/her hands and touches it to the lips of the  member.  After the member has partaken of the wine, the chalice will be wiped clean at the point where the lips have touched prior to the chalice being given to another person.

NOTE:  The RC Church claims that there has never been a case where disease was transmitted between persons from the use of the common chalice.

 

that was also how the "wine" for Communion was given to us at Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, the SDA seminary in Austria... we all survived..

[8thdaypriest]

6 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rachel said below:

In RC Doctrine, the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.  Most of the time the pope does not so speak.

Under RC doctrine the Church was not responsible for the inquisition.  It was the civil authorities who were responsible for the inquisition.  The responsibility of the Church lies in the fact that the church only turned people over to the civil authorities.  At that point the civil authorities became responsible.

 

 

The line between Church authority and civil authority was very thin during the Middle Ages.  The "civil authority" could only remain in power IF the RCC approved.  Even kings lived in fear of being excommunicated.  They feared their subjects would revolt for fear their immortal souls would go to Hell.  

So the RCC may have doctrine saying she was not "responsible" for the inquisition, but that is a lie.   The Inquisition was started by and led by a Jesuit priest, WITH the approval of the Church. 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote

The Inquisition was started by and led by a Jesuit priest, WITH the approval of the Church. 

the Inquisition is generally thought to have begun in in 1231.  The Jesuit order wasn't founded until 1541 by Loyola.  

Tomás de Torquemada was named Grand Inquisitor in 1483, but again, he was not a Jesuit; rather, he was a Dominican friar.  Interestingly, Torquemada's bones were incinerated in 1832 (334 years after his death) in a form of an auto-de-fé (public penitence) for his part in the Inquisition. 

[Robert]

The Roman Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christlike garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of the papacy that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. The papacy that Protestants are now so ready to honor is the same that ruled the world in the days of the Reformation, when men of God stood up, at the peril of their lives, to expose her iniquity. She possesses the same pride and arrogant assumption that lorded it over kings and princes, and claimed the prerogatives of God. Her spirit is no less cruel and despotic now than when she crushed out human liberty and slew the saints of the Most High.

http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc35.html

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel:

Pope Gregory IX was a primary leader in establishing the inquisition in 1232.  Dates may vary in minor ways.  Pam, who says 1231 is  just as correct in her date as I am in mine.

Loyola, in 1540, along with two others, founded the Jesuit order of priests.  Early leaders, along with Pope Gregory IX were Dominicans, as Pam has correctly stated.

The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges its role in the inquisition as long as that role is confined to the determination of theological error.  Once that error had been determined, it will say that the person found to be in error was turned over to the civil authorities for what ever they should determine should be done to that person.  The RC so denies that they were responsible for that civil punishment.

You may disagree with the above.  I am not saying that I agree with everything above. 

What I am saying is that if you, or anyone, wants to work with Roman Catholics, they should clearly understand the RC position. 
They will be most effective if they work from within that positon. To misrepresent a RC position is going to bias them against you.  When you commit historical error in stating that the inquisition was started by a Jesuit priest, You will simply have lost the battle with any informed Catholic.

Frankly, I have some understanding as to why you made such a statement.  The word "inquisition" is used with different meanings.  In the right context, your statement might be considered to have some merit.  But, again, you are swimming against the tide in making such a statement to informed people who do not attach the same context to your use of the word that you attach.  In failing to understand this, you are setting yourself up for rejection when you really did not need to do so.  Some things are just not worth arguing about.  Discuss on more important levels.

 

 

 

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Discuss on more important levels.

Like?

[Gregory Matthews]

This thread is entitled "Roman Catholicism vs. the Bible."  A discussion of an actual RC doctrinal teaching and how it compares with the Biblical teaching (you chose which one) is fundamentally more important than to sidetrack a discussion with a RM member over the date for the Inquisition and whether or not a Jesuit priest founded it. 

But, to do that one must have their history, theology and understanding of the RC Church straight and accurate.