Is Catholicism Biblical, or is it a perversion of the Scriptures, either intentional through malicious intent, or unintentional due to misunderstanding of what it says?
Let's discuss Catholicism.
Let's discuss Catholicism.
Catholicism and the Bible
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
Thread has been re-opened! Discuss!
Last edited:
(Tagging a few people here to get the ball rolling: [MENTION=15077]Idolater[/MENTION] [MENTION=13925]Grosnick Marowbe[/MENTION] [MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION] [MENTION=17501]ok doser[/MENTION] [MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION]
Feel free to tag others who would benefit from this discussion)
Feel free to tag others who would benefit from this discussion)
turbosixx
New member
What is your definition of biblical, as in what writings?
The 66 books in the Bible.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Per Rome's own declaration it cannot be biblical:
Council of Trent Session 7, 1547
Canon 8. If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema.
Denying justification by faith alone places Rome outside the camp.
The rise of what would become the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) began around the fifth century as Rome was collapsing under Barbarian invasions (Alaric the Visigoth, the Huns under Atilla). So we have a group that tyrannized the bodies of men (Rome) soon to be replaced by a group that would tyrannize the souls of men.
The actual establishment of the political and ecclesiastical Roman Catholicism owes its genesis to three popes: Hildebrand, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII. With Innocent III the papacy was cemented as a controller of church and state. His Fourth Lateran Council defined RCC's seven sacraments, required confession, and made the penitential treadmill necessary as the only way to salvation. Finally Boniface's Unam Sanctum made submission to the Pope necessary for salvation.
By the thirteenth century the true church was in the wilderness existing in part among some within the RCC and the Waldenses. Justification by faith alone, the divine way of forgiveness and salvation had yet to be officially denounced and condemned (that would come later with Trent). Lastly, the church had yet to declare that its interpretation of inspired Holy Writ was infallible and solely legitimate. So the true church was there, but, as noted, scattered in the wilderness wherein the elect did hear our Lord's voice above that of the false shepherds, much like the blind man heard Jesus as the Christ in John 9.
The Reformation was soon to come on the heels of men like Wyclif, Hus, Lyra, Valla, Erasmus, and Ockham. Indeed, God wills righteously what men do wickedly. Those last four Renaissance minds of natural men were used by God to show the likes of Luther the more true path. At the time of the Reformation it was clear that the RCC had long since departed from the true church and it was necessary that they be called to return from their apostasy by the Reformers. That call to return continues even to this day.
Summarizing, do not buy into “the RCC has been the one true church for two thousand years” rhetoric and historical revisionism you may run across. The RCC today is four or five generations removed from its beginnings. The ancient form held to Nicene orthodoxy and was in fellowship with other churches. The medieval version insisted on Roman supremacy, embraced transubstantiation, and thusly separated itself from other Christian churches. At that time justification and the place of tradition were still open to discussion. At Trent, the Tridentine form (1545–1563) of the church moved it beyond its medieval form by condemning views that had remained open to discussion and adding many more. Next came Vatican I (1868–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). These post-Tridentine versions of Rome theoretically are to be upholding the decisions of Trent, but when one examines the practices of the RCC, they have moved outside the bounds and against Trent. For example, rather than supplementing Scripture with tradition, post-Tridentine Roman Catholicism uses tradition to usurp Scripture.
Why one should not be a Roman Catholic:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-to-Catholic&p=3888300&viewfull=1#post3888300
AMR
Council of Trent Session 7, 1547
Canon 8. If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema.
Denying justification by faith alone places Rome outside the camp.
The rise of what would become the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) began around the fifth century as Rome was collapsing under Barbarian invasions (Alaric the Visigoth, the Huns under Atilla). So we have a group that tyrannized the bodies of men (Rome) soon to be replaced by a group that would tyrannize the souls of men.
The actual establishment of the political and ecclesiastical Roman Catholicism owes its genesis to three popes: Hildebrand, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII. With Innocent III the papacy was cemented as a controller of church and state. His Fourth Lateran Council defined RCC's seven sacraments, required confession, and made the penitential treadmill necessary as the only way to salvation. Finally Boniface's Unam Sanctum made submission to the Pope necessary for salvation.
By the thirteenth century the true church was in the wilderness existing in part among some within the RCC and the Waldenses. Justification by faith alone, the divine way of forgiveness and salvation had yet to be officially denounced and condemned (that would come later with Trent). Lastly, the church had yet to declare that its interpretation of inspired Holy Writ was infallible and solely legitimate. So the true church was there, but, as noted, scattered in the wilderness wherein the elect did hear our Lord's voice above that of the false shepherds, much like the blind man heard Jesus as the Christ in John 9.
The Reformation was soon to come on the heels of men like Wyclif, Hus, Lyra, Valla, Erasmus, and Ockham. Indeed, God wills righteously what men do wickedly. Those last four Renaissance minds of natural men were used by God to show the likes of Luther the more true path. At the time of the Reformation it was clear that the RCC had long since departed from the true church and it was necessary that they be called to return from their apostasy by the Reformers. That call to return continues even to this day.
Summarizing, do not buy into “the RCC has been the one true church for two thousand years” rhetoric and historical revisionism you may run across. The RCC today is four or five generations removed from its beginnings. The ancient form held to Nicene orthodoxy and was in fellowship with other churches. The medieval version insisted on Roman supremacy, embraced transubstantiation, and thusly separated itself from other Christian churches. At that time justification and the place of tradition were still open to discussion. At Trent, the Tridentine form (1545–1563) of the church moved it beyond its medieval form by condemning views that had remained open to discussion and adding many more. Next came Vatican I (1868–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). These post-Tridentine versions of Rome theoretically are to be upholding the decisions of Trent, but when one examines the practices of the RCC, they have moved outside the bounds and against Trent. For example, rather than supplementing Scripture with tradition, post-Tridentine Roman Catholicism uses tradition to usurp Scripture.
Why one should not be a Roman Catholic:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-to-Catholic&p=3888300&viewfull=1#post3888300
AMR
turbosixx
New member
As do I. In that case I would say they are not biblical because much of what they do/teach cannot be found in scripture.
I would agree.
But as far as what can be found in scripture (or at least, what is thought of as being based in scripture), is what they teach incorrect because of malice? or simply because they're misreading what is written?
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Thanks for the invite.
Catholicism is biblical.
In the Bible, I read about the institution of the episcopacy (the college of authentic pastors called 'bishops'), and it is their job to teach, and to lead us in worship. They never stopped doing this, for going on 2000 years. Catholicism is the bishops' product, and process. They have been fine-tuning for centuries.
The New Testament Scripture shows us from varying---but not from all---view points, what was going on in the early first century, regarding our Lord's life and ministry on earth, His Passion and Resurrection, and then the very beginnings of His Church, starting at Pentecost in ~AD 33. The Bible shows us the institution of the episcopacy, the very first Church council, and some of the danger that the first Church lived through (but not all of it).
History has no gap between the Apostolic age as recorded in the New Testament, and what happened shortly thereafter. We know about the martyrdoms of the Apostles, all of them save John. We know that bishops were the focus of Church worship. We know who each bishop of Rome was, and roughly when they reigned. We know that Christian martyrdom was not rare, something only hinted at in John's Revelation of Jesus Christ (Nero was not named, but only mentioned in code, as Mr. 666), and that many Christians condemned to an unjust death for their faith, considered it glorious to be burned, disemboweled, beheaded, eaten up by lions.
The bishops held everything together, and many of them went to their own martyrdoms. The Church's test for orthodoxy then, was whether or not a given diocese's pastor was authentic, and if he was not, then that community was not in full communion with the rest of the Church until they were under the authority of a bishop.
That is, the way the Church tested for orthodoxy was not through inspection of the Bible, but through inspection of the bishop. Which is biblical.
Catholicism does not contradict any Apostolic teaching in matters of faith and morals, whether that teaching is found in the New Testament (many of them are; and by this measure, Catholicism is biblical) or not (many of them are not, which I know doesn't interest Protestants, but just fyi).
As an example of the latter, the 'Didache,' which was written within the first century, mentions specifically that abortion is against God's law, and is not approved by the Apostles. Abortion is never mentioned explicitly in the New Testament, but it was prohibited as grave sin by the Apostles by word-of-mouth, which is where this explicit teaching against abortion in the Didache came from.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
One should be in full communion with the Catholic Church, 'Roman' or otherwise. 'Roman' Catholicism just means parishes celebrating the Roman/Latin Mass and sacraments. Other Catholic parishes celebrate other rites. 'Roman' is not required, but Roman rite parishes are the vast majority of Catholic parishes.
And, by 'should,' I mean the answer to 'What should I do?' What you need to do, is believe in Christ, believe in His Resurrection, believe the Gospel, which is included in 'be in full communion with the Catholic Church,' since you cannot be in full communion with the Catholic Church unless you believe in Christ, in His Resurrection, in the Gospel.
Full communion or perfect union depends upon our self-examination preceding our partaking of the validly celebrated Lord's Supper or Eucharist (1Co11:28KJV). If we have committed grave sin and have not repented and confessed, or if we do not mentally assent to the bishops' authoritative teachings in all matters of faith and morals, then we are prevented from being in full communion.
But it doesn't forfeit our eternal salvation to be out of full communion with the Church. It is just much better for us to be in full communion, now on earth. It isn't from spite that the Lord authorizes the bishops to teach us to be in full communion with the Church, but from love. He wants the best for us all. Being in full communion with His Church is part of that.
Right Divider
Body part
No, it's not.
:rotfl:
That day of Pentecost was a lawfully required feast day for Israel. The twelve apostles for the twelve tribes of Israel were there keeping the law. There was no new "church" started that day, though much of Churchianity claims that there was.
Paul was NEVER under the authority of the Israelite apostles. Paul was give a special commission directly from the RISEN and ASCENDED LORD Jesus Christ.
Blah, blah, blah to the rest of your propaganda.
Last edited:
Where?
Please provide a reference so people know what you're talking about.
We're talking about whether Catholicism is Biblical, meaning there should be scripture being posted to support one's arguments.
Then why does it claim to be Biblical, if it comes from men?
"Fine-tuning"? What, was Jesus' work not complete or something?
Again, Where?
And what about what Jesus said in the Parable of the barren fig tree and how it relates to His ministry and one year following, followed by Paul's conversion?
So where does Paul fit into all of this?
Not once have you mentioned him yet, yet HE wrote NEARLY HALF of the New Testament!
Except it does.
Infant baptism, worshipping and praying to Mary the mother of Jesus, confirmation, confessing sins to priests, I could go on and on and on and on and.....
All of these go against what the Bible teaches.
Name a teaching of catholicism that can be found in the New Testament.
Which, for all intents and purposes, means that much of catholicism is not Biblical and should be discarded as such.
Laws against murder and against killing the innocent are found in the Bible, which also defines the life in the womb as a person made in God's image.
The question, though, is where does the Didache get it's source material (either directly from or second- or third- etc, hand)?
Is it from the Bible? or is it from some other source?
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Acts 14:23 KJV is as good a place to start as any.
Those men, by virtue of their ordination, which is biblical, are biblical also, themselves.
In a sense, no, but not in a salvific sense. He completed His work on the cross. But if all the work was done, why commission His Apostles? Why not just tell them, "OK boys, all set here---see you in a bit." He wouldn't even need Apostles at all if all the work was done. Who was going to go out and tell the world about Him?
1st Timothy 3:1 KJV, Paul mentions the office of bishop, and commences instructing Timothy about things to keep in mind when choosing men to ordain himself.
I'm not sure.
Paul was an Apostle. But he too was ordained for ministry by the imposition of hands. Acts 9:17 KJV
Paul consecrated Bishop Timothy with his own hands. 2nd Timothy 1:6 KJV
2nd Timothy 2:2 KJV shows Paul instructing Timothy about ordaining new bishops. This is the beginning of Holy Orders, and that it wasn't to cease with the deaths of the Apostles, but was to continue. And it has.
To be fair, none of those things goes against what the Bible teaches. They are just not explicit in the Bible. And that's not the same thing (confer our discussion/disagreement about abortion).
The Eucharist. Baptism. Holy Orders. The Church is the Body of Christ. There are some others in there.
That's only true if bishops are not biblical.
We've had the discussion. Do you yet at least confess that 'abortion' is not explicit in the Bible? I understand your argument, and we agree on the status of abortion as grave sin, but do you at least concede that 'abortion' is not found explicitly in the Bible?
Yeah, of course. What we know for certain is that it's a very old document, and that it is claimed to be of Apostolic origin. But, the Church did not include it in the canon of Scripture. I see it as like a 'newspaper of record,' which sheds some light on what the earliest Church believed and practiced. Among them, is that abortion was prohibited. The Church has believed this, even though 'abortion' is not found in the Bible, from the earliest.
Answered above. It was written either during the Apostolic era, or shortly thereafter.
turbosixx
New member
I don't have expert knowledge of the RCC but I personally don't think it's from malice. I believe what they teach is a misunderstanding of truth, many years of it. I think that misunderstanding is strongly driven by two things. The RCC is like the government. They 1, skew scripture to control the people to retain power and 2, the leaders want to be relevant. They issue edicts to make a name for themselves and have a lasting legacy. Therefore they have to come up with something original that appears to be based on scripture.
There's a lot of division out there, the RCC are not the only ones to misunderstand the truth.
turbosixx
New member
Hi Idolater. I'm curious what you see as the hierarchical structure of the church.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I don't think they know what is written. I never once saw a Bible when I was a Catholic, and I went to Catholic middle school. Seems like I should have seen one in all that time.
Right Divider
Body part
There was no "ordaining" there. That is PURE fiction in a vain attempt to support your fairy tale!
turbosixx
New member
My wife grew up Catholic and she knew nothing about scripture. She was blown away by gospel preaching.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
There are pastors, and then everybody else. The pastors are responsible for administrating the Church, and teaching the authentic Christian positions in matters of faith and morals. In all other things, and under the law of the land, the faithful and the clergy are equals.
Right Divider
Body part
I know many, many Roman Catholics and none of them read the Bible.... ever.
They rely on what they are told from the "clergy". It's sad.