Overview of how Catholic faith contradicts the Bible

Petey · #11 (**permalink**) 04-26-2008, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LisaSaprano

What religion are you that you are so anti-Catholic?

None. I'm just pointing out some facts about Catholicism being the false doctrine of the Vatican.

LisaSaprano · #12 (**permalink**) 04-26-2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petey

None. I'm just pointing out some facts about Catholicism being the false doctrine of the Vatican.

Are you an athiest?

You are spewing a boat load of lies here.

A. Crowley · #13 (**permalink**) 04-26-2008, 10:09 PM

Obviously, Catholisism is a boatload of lies.

LisaSaprano · #14 (**permalink**) 04-26-2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. Crowley

Obviously, Catholisism is a boatload of lies.

Obviously?

A. Crowley · #15 (**permalink**) 04-26-2008, 10:14 PM

I grew-up as an Irish Catholic.

Too many freaky pedophiles to be truth.

Petey · #16 (**permalink**) 04-27-2008, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LisaSaprano

Are you an athiest?

You are spewing a boat load of lies here.

No, I'm not an atheist. Can you point out what i posted was a lie?

Zoetrope · #17 (**permalink**) 04-27-2008, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petey

[b]Conclusion: How the Catholic church views the Bible[*]Yes I know Matthew 23:9, seems to condemn calling me "Father", but you are not able to understand the Bible like I do.[*]Yes I know is appears like Jesus condemned the repetitive prayer of the Rosary beads in Matthew 6:7, but Mary appeared to St. Dominic in 1208 AD and revealed to him the Rosary Beads herself![*]Yes Matthew 13:55-56 seems to indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but these were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage or just cousins.[*]Yes, I agree that 1 Timothy 2:5 sounds like Jesus is the only mediator between god and man, but the Pope decided she was indeed also a mediator between God and man[/list]

Yes Christ and Paul did command every Christian to drink of the communion cup in Matthew 26:26-28; 1 Corinthians 11:23-28. And Yes I know that two early popes condemned withholding the cup, (Pope Leo I [died 461 AD] and Pope Gelasius [died 496 Ad]; but in the 12th century the practice was begun, and formally approved by the Catholic Council of Constance in 1415 AD.
Was every living Christian in the church in Corinth called a saint?
Yes I know that in the Bible (1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Romans 1:7) every Christian was a saint and every saint was a Christian. Yes I agree, the Bible uses the word saint as interchangeably synonymous with being a Christian, but the Roman Catholic church has the power to change the Bible.
Yes I know that in the apostolic church (1 Peter 2:5,9; Revelation 1:6; 5:10), every Christian was a priest and the two terms are used interchangeably synonymous with being a Christian, but the Roman Catholic church decided that only leaders should be called priests.
Yes I know that the Bible appears to teach that 1 Timothy 3:2-5 bishops must be married with believing children, but you can’t even understand the Bible anyway, why do you ask? Just trust me because only Catholic priests can understand the Bible.
Yes I have read 1 Timothy 4:1-3, and is seems to condemn forbidding the marriage of Catholic priests, but the Pope decided that unmarried men are more holy than married men.
Yes I know that Mark 1:30; 1 Corinthians 9:5 say that Peter had a wife 23 years after Christ died on the cross (53 AD), but Pope Gregory VII decided in 1079 AD from that time onward, that church leaders cannot marry.
Yes I know that sitting through a Latin Mass service can be very boring for many Catholics in the pews. And yes I know that 1 Corinthians 14:19 condemns conducting a church service in a language the average member does not understand, but the Pope decided that Latin sounds real holy and has both historical and mystical qualities.
Yes I know the early church did not begin to celebrate Christmas until the 4th century. And yes I know that Galatians 4:10-11 condemns the keeping of such holy days not found in the Bible, but the church at Rome needed a way to convert the pagan worshippers of Mithra, the god of light... and it worked!
Yes I know that Acts 20:7 commands Christians to have weekly communion services and that the early church did not celebrate Easter as is done today, but having a yearly communion service was something later church leaders wanted to add to worship.
Yes I know that the Roman Catholic church deleted the 2nd commandment (Exodus 20:4) in order to hid from the masses God’s condemnation of bowing down and kissing images of Mary and Peter, but Mary revealed herself to us in a vision.
Yes I know that Jesus was baptized by full immersion in the Jordan River (Matthew 3:16), and that sprinkling was not officially approved until 1311 AD, but it sure is more convenient.
Yes I know that babies have no faith and cannot repent, and are therefor not really valid candidates for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37; Acts 2:38). But the Pope invented the idea of where the faith and repentance that the infant lacks, is exchanged for the faith and repentance of a "God Parent". Yes I know none of this is in the Bible, but the Pope is the "holy see" and he must know what he is doing!
Yes I know Ezekiel 18:20 proves the doctrine of total hereditary depravity (inherited original sin) contradicts the Bible, but you cannot understand the Bible anyway, only the priest can correctly interpret it.
Yes I know that Matthew 18:2-3 teaches that children are better models of purity and conduct than adults, but the Pope teaches that infants are wicked defiled sinners condemned to hell until a Catholic priest baptizes them and removes the curse of original sin.
Yes I know Ephesians 3:4 plainly seems to say that when you read the Bible by yourself, you can have the same insight that the apostle Paul had into spiritual things, but we Catholic priests cannot teach all our false doctrines that contradict the Bible unless we convince you that you can’t understand the Bible unless the priest helps you.
Yes I know that 1 Peter 3:15 teaches every Christian should be able to defend from the Bible what they believe, but isn’t that what us Roman Catholic priests are supposed to do? Do you want to put us out of job and rob us of all our power and control?
Yes I know that human traditions that contradict the Bible are condemned in Mark 7:7-9, but all the doctrines that contradict the Bible which the Pope through up were revealed to him directly by Christ and therefore, although they contradict the Bible, they are divinely approved by Christ himself.

o YES NO o

I do have to agree with the witholding of the cup, and the calling of another man as 'Father'. I cannot reason my way out of any of those. However, I think whoever wrote this mostly has a big thing against the Pope, and there are many things which are written off as 'because the Pope said so', that were in fact reinterpretations and not denials of the word of Christ. In Matthew 18:2-3, the word commands that children are models, living paths to God's will, but we cannot deny original sin, either. All of Judaism and Christianity is based on a denial of some aspect of our nature, and none are innocent of this. A child is a better model, not perfection, for perfection is God, and noting the child as a sinner is an important way of distinguishing the child's ideal humanity from the ultimate, unachievable ideal of God's grace.
The repetition of the beads is a tough one, because in its conception Jesus advised against it, but there is not only declaration in these acts, but internal preparation, a focusing of worship. Jesus is rejecting the idea of cheapening God into terms of 'how many prayers'. Most importantly, I want to indicate that in Timothy 2, it is not Christ forbidding intermediaries, but an intermediary for Christ. This is, to me, confounding, and perhaps you have an explanation. However, it does make perfect sense if we establish the idea that Jesus is the only physical intermediary, the transposed being of God. The idea is that we cannot accept another man's word and being for God's truth and will, and this includes Timothy 2 (read a little further for sexist enforcements). There are many paths to Christ, and his teachings reflect this, subjective but of a developed technical peace. Catholicism is at its heart separate from the Papal authority as we see today, because admittedly the legitimate lineage preserving the witness of Christ has long drowned in the sea of man (look only to popes of the 10th and 11th century to see how men cheated the position and lost the gift of the Apostles). Catholicism is simply a play on Christ's mercy, defying and forgiving their own falterings in the material practice, at the expense of stern misconceptions, to simply defy and simply forgive the small falterings in the spiritual practice, like clowns of God.

Petey · #18 (**permalink**) 04-27-2008, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoetrope

I do have to agree with the witholding of the cup, and the calling of another man as 'Father'. I cannot reason my way out of any of those. However, I think whoever wrote this mostly has a big thing against the Pope, and there are many things which are written off as 'because the Pope said so', that were in fact reinterpretations and not denials of the word of Christ. In Matthew 18:2-3, the word commands that children are models, living paths to God's will, but we cannot deny original sin, either. All of Judaism and Christianity is based on a denial of some aspect of our nature, and none are innocent of this. A child is a better model, not perfection, for perfection is God, and noting the child as a sinner is an important way of distinguishing the child's ideal humanity from the ultimate, unachievable ideal of God's grace.
The repetition of the beads is a tough one, because in its conception Jesus advised against it, but there is not only declaration in these acts, but internal preparation, a focusing of worship. Jesus is rejecting the idea of cheapening God into terms of 'how many prayers'. Most importantly, I want to indicate that in Timothy 2, it is not Christ forbidding intermediaries, but an intermediary for Christ. This is, to me, confounding, and perhaps you have an explanation. However, it does make perfect sense if we establish the idea that Jesus is the only physical intermediary, the transposed being of God. The idea is that we cannot accept another man's word and being for God's truth and will, and this includes Timothy 2 (read a little further for sexist enforcements). There are many paths to Christ, and his teachings reflect this, subjective but of a developed technical peace. Catholicism is at its heart separate from the Papal authority as we see today, because admittedly the legitimate lineage preserving the witness of Christ has long drowned in the sea of man (look only to popes of the 10th and 11th century to see how men cheated the position and lost the gift of the Apostles). Catholicism is simply a play on Christ's mercy, defying and forgiving their own falterings in the material practice, at the expense of stern misconceptions, to simply defy and simply forgive the small falterings in the spiritual practice, like clowns of God.

How can Catholicism be seperate from Papal Authority if the Pope is the commander? The pope is in place of Jesus for the members of the Catholic Church.

Zoetrope · #19 (**permalink**) 04-27-2008, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petey

How can Catholicism be seperate from Papal Authority if the Pope is the commander? The pope is in place of Jesus for the members of the Catholic Church.

I reject papal authority because the pope isn't even the pope anymore. The present guy was ordained by guys ordained by.....ordained by guys who murdered the previous guys instead of getting ordained. The ceremonial lineage has long been broken, and it can never be repaired. One thing no Catholic should argue is that people are infallible. This includes the pope. Also, I'm pretty sure the Pope is covering for Peter. I am no theologian, and I am full of technical holes. The right quote from Numbers or John could blow me wide open.