Roman Catholicism vs Bible

[Robert]

5 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

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

Do some here claim to have a straight and accurate understanding of the Roman Church?

 

[Robert]

Ellen White: " Marvelous in her shrewdness and cunning is the Roman Church."

Cunning: "Skill employed in a shrewd or sly manner, as in deceiving; craftiness; guile." 

[Robert]

7 minutes ago, Robert said:

Ellen White: " Marvelous in her shrewdness and cunning is the Roman Church."

Cunning: "Skill employed in a shrewd or sly manner, as in deceiving; craftiness; guile." 

Rev 13:2 "And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. 3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast."

Who gives this ecclesiastical power its "seat" and "power"? 

The Roman Church claims that Christ made Peter the rock, the visible head of the church, and that Peter's successors are found in the Roman Pontiff, but the Bible states that this ecclesiastical seat and power are from Satan.

Satan is a liar and the father of lies (see John 8:44).  Naturally any seat given by him would have the same characteristics. 

 

[Robert]

Catechism #882 states: “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

Vicar of Christ:  "The pope, with reference to his claim to stand in the place of Jesus Christ"  Ref: Dictionary.com

"...Christ is the head of the church..." Ephesians 5:23

Therefore any man claiming to stand in the place of Christ is anti-Christ.

[Gregory Matthews]

Robert said below:

Robert, the implication of your statement is that you should never make any statement about the Roman Catholic Church.

Do some here claim to have a straight and accurate understanding of the Roman Church?

[Robert]

24 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Robert said below:

Robert, the implication of your statement is that you should never make any statement about the Roman Catholic Church.

 

Actually you made a statement; I asked a question.

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

Catechism #882 states: “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

Vicar of Christ:  "The pope, with reference to his claim to stand in the place of Jesus Christ"  Ref: Dictionary.com

"...Christ is the head of the church..." Ephesians 5:23

Therefore any man claiming to stand in the place of Christ is anti-Christ.

Many Protestant reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Thomas, John Knox, and Cotton Mather, identified the Roman Papacy as the Antichrist.[38] They held that the Antichrist power would be revealed so that everyone would comprehend and recognize that the Pope is the real, true Antichrist and not the vicar of Christ. The Centuriators of Magdeburg, a group of Lutheran scholars in Magdeburg headed by Matthias Flacius, wrote the 12-volume "Magdeburg Centuries" to discredit the papacy and identify the pope as the Antichrist. The fifth round of talks in the Lutheran–Roman Catholic dialogue notes,

In calling the pope the "antichrist," the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century. Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the "antichrist" when they wished to castigate his abuse of power.[39]

The Pope as the antichrist was so ingrained in the Reformation era, that Luther stated it repeatedly. For example:

"This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God”.[40]

and,

"nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist. For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny."[41]

John Calvin similarly wrote,

"Though it be admitted that Rome was once the mother of all Churches, yet from the time when it began to be the seat of Antichrist it has ceased to be what it was before. Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt .. I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy."[42]

John Knox on the Pope wrote,

"Yea, to speak it in plain words; lest that we submit ourselves to Satan, thinking that we submit ourselves to Jesus Christ, for, as for your Roman kirk, as it is now corrupted, and the authority thereof, whereon stands the hope of your victory, I no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head thereof, called the pope, to be that man of sin, of whom the apostle speaks."[43]

Thomas Cranmer on the Antichrist wrote,

"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons."[44]

John Wesley speaking of the identity given in scripture of the Antichrist wrote,

"In many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled, the son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly. He it is that opposeth himself to the emperor, once his rightful sovereign; and that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped - Commanding angels, and putting kings under his feet, both of whom are called gods in scripture; claiming the highest power, the highest honour; suffering himself, not once only, to be styled God or vice-God. Indeed no less is implied in his ordinary title, "Most Holy Lord," or, "Most Holy Father." So that he sitteth - Enthroned. In the temple of God - Mentioned Rev. xi, 1. Declaring himself that he is God - Claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone."[45]

Roger Williams of the Vicar of Christ or Pope wrote,

"the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition."[46]

Ref: Wikipedia

[8thdaypriest]

I think it's good to remember that Ellen White did NOT originate the teaching that the Pope is antichrist. 

The Bible actually says there are "many antichrists" (plural).  I John 2:18

[8thdaypriest]

17 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

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.

Point taken

[8thdaypriest]

19 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

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.

 

 

 

Gregory,

I doubt I would EVER discuss the Inquisition with a Catholic. 

Rather I would show them - from their own Catholic approved Bible, the truths of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus, of the unconsciousness in sleep of the dead, of prayer to God our Father in the name of Jesus. 

I do believe there will be many persons in the Kingdom who lived as Catholic Christians during their lives.  If they responded to the spirit of Christ, if they were kind to others, if they lived up to the light that they had concerning the Gospel - they will be in the Kingdom.  It is not a requirement for salvation, that one have perfect understanding in all things Biblical.  Who of us would be there, if that were the case.  That being the case, does this mean we should leave "baby Christians" as they are?  No.

My (formerly Catholic) friend lived in FEAR.  She has told me many times, how the truth concerning the sleep of death, and of real peace with God through Jesus, has given her immense RELIEF from the constant FEAR she once felt. 

To be sure, I want to make strong arguments against a variety of Roman Catholic DOCTRINES.  But the motivation behind these arguments is one of love. 

[8thdaypriest]

I've been looking for a book or internet site, that really explains the differences between Catholic doctrine, and Protestant doctrine.  I found this one at amazon.com.

"Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics" by Ron Rhodes.  The doctrines of Catholicism are well referenced by Mr. Rhodes. 

Missing of course, are the unconscious state of the dead, Hell as annihilation rather than unending conscious torment, and Sabbath rather than Sunday rest as ordained of God.  But those I already understood pretty well.    

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel, you know me well enough to know that:  1)  I have a great deal of respect for you.  2)  While I do disagree with you on points that we both know, I consider you to be a careful student of the Bible. 

While some of my comments have been directed at what you have posted, they have also been directed at those who are also reading them.

 

[Robert]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I think it's good to remember that Ellen White did NOT originate the teaching that the Pope is antichrist. 

True.  This happened during the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Robert]

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The Bible actually says there are "many antichrists" (plural).  I John 2:18

1 John 2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

Note the following:

• According to John many antichrist had appeared during his time.  This was before the birth of the Papacy.
• Then there's "the antichrist" to come.

"The antichrist" (singular) Paul addresses in 2 Thess 2:1-4.  Is he a future Pope?  

My thought is that no particular Pope has ever been "the antichrist".  Then do past Popes come under the plural, antichrists"?  I don't know - only God knows.  After all Saul the Pharisee was genuinely ignorant (see 1 Tim 1:13 NKJV).  We are responsible for the light we have been given.  The same is true of these Popes. 

On the other hand, Jesus did not make Peter the first Pope as the RCC claims and therefore Peter's so called successors are not Christ's Vicars.  That makes the claims of the Papacy blasphemous (see Rev 13:5,6 KJV) and haughty (Dan 7:8).  

What then constitutes an antichrist? 

• "does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God" 1 John 4:3
• "do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh (Greek: Sarx)" 2 John 1:7
• "denies that Jesus is the Christ" 1 John 2:22

[Robert]

24 minutes ago, Robert said:

Rev 13:1 Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. 2 Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority....5 And he was given a mouth speaking great things (i.e., pompous words - see Dan 7:8) and blasphemies....6 Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. 

Who is the represented by pronoun "he"?

"The beast"!

This beast from the sea is not a man - it is not a Pope.  Therefore "the beast" is symbolic of an apostate system within Christendom that will eventually lead to a falling away (apostasy).  

 

[8thdaypriest]

Robert,  

I did NOT want to get into "the Beast" and "THE Antichrist".  I just wanted to compare RCC doctrines with the Bible.  Thanks

[Robert]

Okay...

How about the Immaculate Conception?  This one, above all other RCC doctrines, attacks the gospel. In fact this is one of two doctrines that the Papacy has claimed infallibility*,

*Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of theAssumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact confirmed by the Church's magisterium. [ John Paul II (24 March 1993).  "General Audience Address of 24 March 1993"]

 

[8thdaypriest]

10 minutes ago, Robert said:

Okay...

How about the Immaculate Conception?  This one, above all other RC doctrines, attacks the gospel. In fact this is one of two doctrines that the Papacy has claimed infallibility*,

*Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of theAssumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact confirmed by the Church's magisterium

 

Mary needed to be conceived "without sin" so that Jesus could be born "without sin".  [Not Bible]

This because "sin" is passed on to every human being from Adam - the original sinner.  [Not Bible]

This is the DOCTRINE of "original sin".

It seems that "sin" is transmissible from Father to sons and daughters.  Which means we all inherit sin. 

This is the reason for infant baptism, to "bestow initial sanctifying grace" - to cover the "sin" inherited by the infant, from Adam.  [Not Bible]

The "baptism" is by effusion (pouring water over the forehead of the infant).  [Not Bible]

When that baptized person actually sins a "mortal sin", he loses most of that grace, and the "Sacrament of Penance" becomes necessary in order to restore lost grace. [Not Bible]

COMMENT:  It makes one think that "grace" is something pumped out - like gas at a filling station.   At each step Catholic DOCTRINE differs from Bible doctrine. 

 

 

[Robert]

8 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Mary needed to be conceived "without sin" so that Jesus could be born "without sin".  [Not Bible]

Here's what the RCC officially teaches:

At first glance this "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23) may appear to contradict a Catholic's belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception. However, on further examination, it is not an impossible verse to overcome. For Catholics, Mary is seen as an exception to this passage, as are children under the age of reason, and mentally disabled people. With both of these examples, these groups are unable to sin because of their lack of reasoning. For example, a child who does not understand what sin is cannot sin, because the child is unaware of what is right and wrong. Now granted, a child who does not understand sin is not entirely like Mary, but it does show that there are exceptions to the "all have sinned" rule.  

Ref: http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/why-catholics-believe-in-the-immaculate-conception.html

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

At first glance this "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23) may appear to contradict a Catholic's belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception. However, on further examination, it is not an impossible verse to overcome. For Catholics, Mary is seen as an exception to this passage, as are children under the age of reason, and mentally disabled people. With both of these examples, these groups are unable to sin because of their lack of reasoning. For example, a child who does not understand what sin is cannot sin, because the child is unaware of what is right and wrong. Now granted, a child who does not understand sin is not entirely like Mary, but it does show that there are exceptions to the "all have sinned" rule.  

Ref: http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/why-catholics-believe-in-the-immaculate-conception.html

RCC theology teaches that the "all" in Romans 3:23 doesn't mean "all".  Then they use the following example:

"A child who does not understand what sin is cannot sin, because the child is unaware of what is right and wrong."

Well, this is easily refuted:

Turn to Romans chapter five.  I'll use the "Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition" (RSVCE).

Verse 12:  "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned—13 sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."

Did Adam break a known command?  Yes!  See Gen 2:16,17.  

When Adam knowingly broke a known command he became a transgressor.  He was therefore guilty because he knew God's command, but he sinned anyway. 

What was the result of Adam's sin?  Was it not both spiritual and physical death?  Yes!

Adam's descendants - those between Adam and Moses (where the law was posted)  - didn't know of the law yet they were dying even though their "sins were not like the transgression of Adam".  Why?  

They were dying, not because they were transgressors like Adam, but rather because all of them shared Adam's fallen humanity indwelt with iniquity. Keep in mind iniquity is a condition, not an act.  Iniquity is our bent-to-self.  Paul calls this "sin living in me".  See Romans 7:20

Because of Adam's transgression all of us are born sinners.  Note I did not say all of us are born transgressors.  Transgression requires a knowledge of the law.  Justly speaking, "sin is not counted where there is no law"!  

Children are sinners. Mentally disabled folks are sinners. But God's law does not charge them with transgression until they are aware of right and wrong.  When they become transgressors they become guilty of sin.

Mary was first a sinner and then as she reached the age of accountability she naturally became a transgressor. She too needed a Savior. So when Paul states "all have sinned" he is absolutely correct.  Paul does not say "all have transgressed"!

 

 

 

[Robert]

I contacted  info@catholiceducation.org and sent them the above reply.  I'm sure they will correct their theology and accept this truth.  No?

[Robert]

13 minutes ago, Robert said:

Mary was first a sinner and then as she reached the age of accountability she naturally became a transgressor. She too needed a Savior. So when Paul states "all have sinned" he is absolutely correct.  Paul does not say "all have transgressed"!

Sin results in the 1st death, of which there is a resurrection. 

The 1st resurrection is unto eternal life.

Transgression results in "the curse of the law" - the 2nd death.

The 2nd resurrection is unto eternal damnation - goodbye to life forever with no hope a future resurrection. 

 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, Robert said:

Here's what the RCC officially teaches:

At first glance this "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23) may appear to contradict a Catholic's belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception. However, on further examination, it is not an impossible verse to overcome. For Catholics, Mary is seen as an exception to this passage, as are children under the age of reason, and mentally disabled people. With both of these examples, these groups are unable to sin because of their lack of reasoning. For example, a child who does not understand what sin is cannot sin, because the child is unaware of what is right and wrong. Now granted, a child who does not understand sin is not entirely like Mary, but it does show that there are exceptions to the "all have sinned" rule.  

Ref: http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/why-catholics-believe-in-the-immaculate-conception.html

Sins done in ignorance - also called unconscious sins - were covered by the continual (daily) sacrifice.  They are "covered" by the blood of Christ UNTIL such time that they become "known".  When the person becomes aware that he has sinned against the Law of God, then he must confess his sin and repent (turn away from sin, to the way of the LORD).

[Robert]

1 minute ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Sins done in ignorance - also called unconscious sins - were covered by the continual (daily) sacrifice.  They are "covered" by the blood of Christ UNTIL such time that they become "known".  

Sins done consciously are still covered by the blood of Christ through faith in His righteousness. 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

Sin results in the 1st death, of which there is a resurrection. 

The 1st resurrection is unto eternal life.

Transgression results in "the curse of the law" - the 2nd death.

The 2nd resurrection is unto eternal damnation - goodbye to life forever with no hope a future resurrection.

So you're using "sin" to mean "unconscious sin", and "transgression" to mean "conscious (known) sin". 

The "sin" is the SAME.  "Transgression of the Law" IS "sin" (whether known or not).  

God is not treating the "sin" differently.  He is treating persons differently - based upon their awareness of Him and His Law.  Awareness makes the difference.  The LORD "overlooked the times of ignorance, but now commands all men to repent" WHEN they hear the truth.  This is JUST. 

Every human being has "sinned" (consciously or unconsciously) therefore their "sin" must be "covered" by the blood of Christ or they will die eternally.  This includes Mary.  

This tells me that Jesus did not "sin" - even before He reached the age of understanding.  This is only possible if He was filled with the spirit of His Father - from birth.   

Those who die in ignorance HAVE sinned.  They are "covered" by the blood of Jesus.  But they still cannot receive eternal life.  Not yet anyway.

One must knowingly CHOOSE to serve God before he can receive the gift of eternal life.  Those who died in ignorance could not CHOOSE, therefore they must be resurrected to continue their lives, then be taught the ways of the LORD, then CHOOSE to serve Jesus Christ as LORD before they can receive eternal life.  The only good time frame for this resurrection is the 8th millennium.  "The rest of the dead" are NOT the rebellious wicked from 6000 years.  They will be those who lived and died in ignorance, who never had the opportunity to CHOOSE.