| Subject: Catholicism |
Author:
Steve
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 22:14:27 08/06/05 Sat
The greatest enemy a person can have, whoever that person might be, is one who will--for
whatever motive--deal with them dishonestly. On the other hand, it is the person who is willing to deliver the truth--even when he knows the truth might be unpleasant--who is a true friend.
All persons, whoever they may be--Moslem, Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish; rich, poor, great, or small--who come to the Lord Jesus and meet God's conditions by receiving Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, will instantly be saved. Any time hearts cry out to God, and meet God's conditions by believing that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of mankind, and allow the Lord Jesus to come into their hearts, those people are born again. It can happen in a moment's time; it does happen daily and has happened in every country of the world.
The same is true of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. After a person is saved, no matter who that person may be or what his or her status in life may be, and regardless of how much they may or may not know about the Bible-- even though they may be steeped in error and tradition in their worship-- faith can still reach out as the light of the Holy Spirit breaks forth in their heart and life. God will baptize them in the Holy Ghost.
This doesn't mean, however, that because God has baptized them in His Holy Spirit, that their previous spiritual condition or their worship practices at the moment of baptism are necessarily that which the Lord would have them remain in. It simply means that the individual has reached out in faith and claimed the promise of God with the Lord honoring that faith by filling them with His Holy Spirit.
TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN, MUCH IS REQUIRED
However, after a person is saved ( and perhaps filled with the Spirit), many things are then
required of that person. He is expected to walk in the light as God gives the light. He is expected to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord. He is expected to follow Jesus--according to the Word of God!
If that person has been involved in error, wrong teaching, or in a church that doesn't really
believe in God-- then he is expected to come out of that church, to straighten his ways, and to allow God to work within his heart and life. Very little is required of the person who doesn't
know God. But much is required of that person after he comes into a saving knowledge of
the Lord Jesus Christ.
If a Christian, even though genuinely saved (born-again ) and baptized in the Holy Spirit
according to Acts 2:4, elects to stay in an environment of error, that Christian's spiritual
growth will ( at the least ) be stunted, and perhaps much worse will result. That individual
could be destroyed, spiritually speaking, if he insists on walking contrary to the light that
God has given in the Word.
A tremendous obligation enters the hearts of those persons who have been saved by the
blood of Jesus Christ. They are no longer their own but are bought with a price ( 1 Corinthians
6:20). That price was the indescribable agony suffered by Jesus as He hung on the cross. We are, therefore, to take up our crosses and follow the Lord Jesus (Mark 8:34 ). We are commanded to follow the Lord, wherever He may lead. It may be at the cost of losing friends, relatives (i.e. mom and dad because they won't leave the church they were born into), church, job security or even our very lives. Read Matthew 10:34-38. The Lord was very specific on this in all four Gospels and in all of His teachings.
While I am speaking specifically of the Roman Catholic church today, much of what I will say might be just as well addressed to any number of additional religions. Lest individual Catholics be offended as I speak of specific practices within their church, I hope they will realize that I speak out with equal fervor against anything I consider to be non-scriptural in any denomination.
You see, the problem lies, all too often, in our tendency to "root for the home team." If we're
Republicans, the Republican Party can do no wrong. If we're union members, the union can do no wrong. And if we're Catholic, the Catholic church can do no wrong. The truth, naturally, is that anyone can be wrong, and if we don't diligently search for the truth, we can be wrong.
Jesus said ( Matthew 7:14 ),"...narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it." He also said ( John 5:39 ), "Search the scriptures..." and again (in John 8:32 ),--
"...the truth shall make you free."
The Catholic church states that it is the true church in the world. By this, it means that it is the only church which can be traced in one unbroken line back to Apostolic (New Testament) times. It basically teaches that only those who are in the Catholic church will be saved. They teach that Christ founded his church upon Peter. They say that Peter was the first Pope, or head of the church, and that this God-endowed primacy (leadership) descends from Peter, over the years, to every Catholic Pope. Consequently, they say that only it (in the personages of individual priests) can forgive sins and deliver absolution.
In their teaching that Peter was the first Pope, they teach that he was Christ's spokesman on earth, that he resided in Rome, that he was the vicar ( earthly representative ) of Christ and exerted all of Christ's authority and power.
All succeeding Popes at Rome ( in Catholic doctrine ) inherit Peter's authority. It is taught that the Pope is infallible whenever he makes an official statement. It is further taught that Mary was bodily taken up into heaven and that she was a perpetual virgin--that Joseph never "knew her" and that she never bore any other children.
Catholic tradition suggests that prayers to Mary will be delivered to God the Father better than by any other method, and that Mary is a mediator between God and man. Catholic tradition also states that during the Mass the bread actually becomes the physical flesh of Jesus and the wine actually becomes His physical blood ( transubstantiation ). Also, tradition decrees that priests must remain celibate.
What they are doing is :"Making the word of God of none effect through
your traditions..."
Whenever Catholicism has dominated a culture, unbelievable traditions have been manufactured to obtain the devotion ( and the financial support ) of the uneducated. There have been "pieces of the true cross," "nails from the true cross," and innumerable items of this nature including the "relics" (bones), (fingers, and internal organs) of one saint or another. These are supposed to "prove" the various traditions on which Catholic doctrines are based.
The Catholic church uses Matthew 16:18-19 to establish Peter as the head of the church. I won't even go into the ( Petros and Petra issue). It has been debated too much. The Word is clear enough on this issue, if you are really seeking the truth. Colossians 1:18 says
clearly that Jesus is the head of the body, the church.
Matt. 21:42-" Jesus said unto them, " Did you never read in the scriptures, the
stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner..."
The cornerstone is the stong point of a building, that on which the foundation is built.
Do you honestly think that Jesus was talking about Peter being rejected by the Jewish people and being the cornerstone of His church?
We don't need a man made head of the church. Jesus promised to be with us , always.
Jesus said in Matthew 18:20-" For where two
or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. We also have his promise at the end of Matthew to be with us always, even to the end of the world. In Matthew
16: 18-19 Jesus was saying that upon Himself ( Jesus ) would be built His great, perpetual,
eternal church. How would Peter react to this contention that it was Jesus and not himself upon which the church would be built? Let's turn to 1 Peter 2:4-8 and see. Here Peter clearly states that Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built Further authority for referring to Christ as the rock will be found by reading Matthew 21: 42-44, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17-18, and many other passages.
Jesus' statement (in Matthew 16:19) "and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom..." is
further used as authority for Peter (and all "subsequent Popes") to exercise power over the church. But reading two words further, we see that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. And what do keys do? They provide access. They open the door! Peter, in his great Pentecost Day sermon, did open the door to heaven (salvation) to the first three thousand of the millions who would subsequently be saved over the centries. In light of this, Matthew 16: 19 is certainly a marvelous prophecy of Peter's unique role in the church, but it is hardly authority on which to build a 2,000-year political structure.
The power given to Peter to bind and loose ( Matthew 16:19 ) was shared by all the disciples. A careful reading of Matthew 18 demonstrates this very clearly. Revelation 1:18 makes it clear that this did not refer to assigning the eternal destiny of souls, because this awesome responsibility was retained only by Jesus. Revelation 20:11-15 further confirms this.
Peter himself never claimed the power to save people or to damn them. Peter never pretended that he was head of the church. There is neither record nor inference within the Word of God that he was. He never suggested he could forgive sins on his own authority ( as do Roman Catholic priests today ). Rather, Peter preached,
"To him give all the prophets witness, that
through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" ( Acts 10:43 )
There was even a time when Peter seemed to vacillate and become confused in doctrine, so
he obviously did not enjoy papal infallibility. In the matter of grace versus the law, the Apostle
Paul recorded in Galatians 2:11, "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." You should read the rest of the passage to fill out
the broad picture of the incident.
I ask anyone with an open mind, does this indicate someone who was absolute head of the
church - in other words, the Pope? Does it appear that he believed that he had the ability to
deliver or withold salvation? Absolutely not. Peter was only a man and he said so himself
in Acts 10:25-26. He was one of the disciples. He was extremely close to the Lord Jesus
Christ. He was one of the first of the twelve apostles. But he had no more authority than
Paul or any of the other apostles. When he did wrong, Paul felt perfectly free to rebuke him.
There isn't a shred of literary, historical, archaeological, or scriptual evidence that Peter went to Rome or was ever in Rome. The Bible makes no mention of Peter being in Rome, and Paul, in his letters from Rome, never mentioned Peter being there. He never extended greetings to the churches from Peter as he certainly would have done had Peter been there.Paul does mention
seeing Peter when he went to Jerusaleum. There isn't one word in secular history supporting the Catholic contention that Peter lived in Rome. Read Galations 2: 7 & 8 It says that Peter's main mission was to preach to Jews and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles.
Throughout the New Testament period, and for three hundred years afterward, there was no
Catholic Pope. Furthermore, during these same three hundred years, there was no Catholic church!
In truth, the present -day pattern of Popes began when the Emperor Constantine found it expedient to form the church, as a political device, as the state church of the Roman Empire. Read the history of this. He didn't say you must be born-again. He said, I declare the Roman Empire to be Christian.
The Bible is very clear that no one can speak for God except when he speaks under the unction of the Holy Spirit and then only in complete agreement to the written word of God. No man, whoever he may be, has any right to make any new doctrines or to change any of the Bible commandments.
( Galatians 1: 8-9 and Revelation 22: 19 ).
The Catholic church teaches that people are to confess their sins to a man- an unmarried man- and to expect him to forgive their sins. The Roman Catholic priests say, Te absolvo, which means " I forgive you." In Acts 10:43 Peter himself preached of Jesus, " To him give all the prophets
witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."
There is nothing in the Word of God permitting or accepting modern-day priests. Actually, it is contrary to Scripture to have human priests on the earth today. Any time a man says he is a priest, he is breaking the law of God. By persuading others to confess their sins to him as a priest, he is not only sinning himself but causing them to join him in sin..
There were priests, of course, before Jesus came to die on Calvary. Up until then, mankind
could not reach God except through the substitutionary sacrifices which only the priests could carry out. But since Jesus ( who took our place and purchased us with His own precious blood -I Corinthinians 6:20 ), there has only been one priest ( the great High Priest ), Jesus Christ. Paul confirms this in his letter to the Hebrews, chapter 8 and verse 1, where he says, " Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.:
Paul went on to say there were many priests before Jesus, but after that we need no human
priest to offer up sacrifices for our sins. Paul further said, in I Timothy 2 : 5, " For there is one God , and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is ( since Jesus' resurrection ) no person who has to ( or can ) intervene between man and God. Man is to go directly to God through the Lord Jesus Christ, not to some earthly middle man- even though he may choose to dignify himself with the title of "priest". By giving false assurance to the trusting, as he says, "I forgive you", the priest is denying that salvation he could have by simply accepting Christ as the propitiation for their sins ( Romans 3:23-25 ).
The celibacy of the priesthood-a condition prophesied in I Timothy 4: 1-3, where Paul said,
" Forbidding to marry... is a doctrine of devils"--has caused untold immorality in the Catholic church. Just reading the recent news headlines should confirm this to anyone .
The Catholic church teaches that during the "sacrifice of the Mass" the bread actually becomes the body of the Lord and the wine His blood. This is, therefore, a new sacrifice made every time the Mass is said. But what does the Bible say about sacrifices - as the Catholic church labels the Mass? " For by one offering he has perfected forever them that are sanctified" ( Hebrews 10:14 ).
"....their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more" ( Hebrews 8:12 )
"Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin" ( Hebrews 10:18 ).
The Catholic doctrine requires repeated sacrifices ( diametrically opposed to Scripture ), because salvation within the Catholic church works differently from the salvation described in the Bible.
According to Catholic doctrine, one becomes saved by being water baptized as an infant, then as they get older are kept "in a state of grace" by confessing their sins to a priest, receiving absolution from a priest, and then receiving communion during Mass. Unfortunately, this absolution is only temporary, lasting only until the next "mortal" sin is committed. And what is sin by Catholic definition?
It can include many things, such as missing Mass, and up until a few years ago, included eating meat on Friday, another doctrine of devils according to I Timothy 4:1-3.
There is nothing in the Bible that even suggests such a procedure. Christ was crucified once and for all, and it is barbaric to even insinuate that He has to be crucified over and over again. There were no masses in the days of the apostles. Students of church history know that the Catholic Mass did not develop until long after the time of the apostles. We know that the form of the Mass
developed slowly over the years. It was not derived from Christ nor from the apostles.
Catholic doctrine says that Mary was a perpetual virgin, that she never had additional children--although the Bible plainly lists the children of Joseph and Mary-conceived and born after Jesus' birth. They included James, who wrote the book of James; Jude who wrote the book of Jude; another named Simon; and at least two sisters who are not specifically named in the Bible. References to Mary's other children can be found by reading Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-33, and Luke 8:19.
Further confirmation that Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin is found in Matthew 1: 24-25. This
states, " Then Joseph...took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth
her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." "Knew" is, of course, the biblical expression for marital relations. And "till" means until -implicit indication that Joseph did not know Mary until Mary delivered Jesus, but that he did afterward. Anyone, with even cursory knowledge of the Bible is therefore hard-pressed to accept the Catholic position that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life.
The first century Jewish historian Josephus refers to James as the brother of Jesus. The church father Tertullian said that Mary had other children after Jesus. The church father Hegesippus refers to Jude as "the Lord's brother according to the flesh" (church history of Eusebius, 3:20).
Catholic tradition says that prayers to Mary will get through and be answered better than any other method. This stems partly from the implicit Catholic confusion on the roles of Christ and the Father. The average Catholic layman sees one God, who is at times God the Father, and at other times Jesus. As "God" answers prayers, and since God's mother asks Him for these things, He is more likely to answer them. This confusion is fostered by the Catholic doctrine that Mary is the mediator between God and man. This official Catholic doctrine flies brazenly in the face of the Word of God,- "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" ( I Timothy 2: 5 ). A Catholic will have to make his choice between God and the Pope on this issue. There is no way to pray to Mary without defying God's word.
In the first Christian centuries, there was no worship of Mary, no doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception and Mary's perpetual sinlessness, no prayers to Mary, and no Ave Maria. As
the church slipped further and further away from Christ, the apostles, and the Bible, this
doctrine of legendary "Church Tradition" developed more and more. If you will read Mark
3:31-35, John 2:4, Luke 2: 48-49, and Matthew 12 : 48, it will be obvious that Jesus did not
venerate Mary as is prescribed for Catholic church members. Jesus obviously demonstrated
that Mary was no better than other believer who followed His commands.
Confirming this further, in Luke 1: 46-47 Mary refers to Jesus as
" my Saviour, Lord, and God."
Now if anyone requires a Saviour, they must have "sinned and fallen short
of the glory of God."
Obviously, once again, the Catholic teaching is diametrically opposed to the Bible, and the
Catholic has a choice as to which source he will accept. There is no way of reconciling the
two views. Either Mary was born and lived without sin as the Catholic church teaches, or
Jesus was the only sinless human being-as the Bible teaches. Romans 3: 23-" For all have
sinned , and come short of the glory of God". Romans 5: 12-" Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all
have sinned."
I have used up a great deal of space already and have only touched on the total picture of
the Catholic church's tendency to support practices that are unalterably opposed to
scriptural admonition and practice.
I could speak of purgatory-the terrible doctrine that gives people a second chance after death, depending on how much support they receive from loved ones left behind. Nothing in the Bible even remotely suggests such a procedure. Revelation 20: 15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Only two choices- either our name is found in the Lamb's Book of Life or we are cast
into the lake of fire. No purgatory
as a temporary habitation to bake out past sins, no "indulgences" to buy the sinner out.
There are no second chances after death. All chances come this side of the grave. It is here and now that we must make the decisions that will determine our eternal condition. Such decisions as: Where will I go for the authority for my spiritual life? To God's Word? Or to a church tradition?
I could speak of praying unto saints--expecting "saints" to hear their prayers and convey them to God. Of course, there is no hint in the Bible of anyone ever praying to the dead--not even the apostles or disciples. The Bible says in Psalm 6 : 5, " For in death there is no remembrance..."Ecclesiastes 9: 19 says, "...for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." We are to pray to God in the name of Jesus ( John 16:23 ) and to no other.
I could speak a lot about the "ancient traditions" of the Catholic church--as most Catholic
traditions are implied to be. But, let's look briefly at just how "ancient" some Catholic traditions really are:
The celibacy of the priests was decreed by Pope Gregory in 1079.
Eating meat on Friday was prohibited in the late Middle ages ( and then allowed again about
a decade or so ago ).
The confessional does not come down from New Testament times. It was introduced in the
Middle Ages.
The infallibility of the Pope suddenly appeared out of nowhere in 1870. This was done at the
Council of Vatican Actually, fallible men declared the Pope infallible.
This leaves the confusing question of whether Popes were infallible before 1870 and didn't know it or whether they just became infallible in 1870. It was at this same meeting that the church powers stated officially that church traditions ( the traditions of men ) carried the same weight as God's Word-the Bible!
It is now "a point of faith" and must be believed ( in order for the person to be saved ) that Mary was taken up bodily into heaven.This fact was perhaps recently discovered because it was not Catholic doctrine or tradition before 1950 when it was suddenly announced by Pope Pius XII.
I could speak at some length on the statues which occupy a prominent position in the bulk of the Catholic churches of the world. The Bible says in Deuteronomy 4: 16 and 5: 8-9 that we should make no graven image of anyone or anything in heaven nor to bow down to it. But, what do we see in almost every Catholic church every day? Parishioners lighting candles, placing them before statues, and praying for certain special requests or needs.
The Catholic explanation is, of course, that these are not idols; they are merely to "focus the
attention" on the specific saint to whom they are praying. In point of fact, though, a statue
is a graven image, and God"s Word specifically forbids such a practice.
In closing, the whole idea of a priesthood, nuns, monks, Popes, purgatory, masses, prayers
to the dead, prayers to the Virgin Mary, statues and images were all unknown in New Testament times. The Roman Catholic "system" is not taught anywhere in the Bible. The Roman Catholic religion is not New Testament Christianity in doctrine, organization or in historical perspective.
I maintain that the bulk of the "traditions" of the Catholic church are anti-Bible. It was not that long ago that the Catholic church burned people at the stake--by the tens of thousands--for reading the Bible! Only a few generations ago Catholics were forbidden to read the Bible, the position being that if there were anything important in there the priests would tell the common people about it. Unfortunately, even the priests didn't read their Bibles all that much, being supplied instead with a much shorter, edited version known as The Breviary. Today, because of public pressure and questions raised by Catholic Pentecostals exposed to the Bible, the church's anti-Bible stance has been modified somewhat. Still, the Catholic church's doctrines are made up basically of legendary, mythical, human traditions--rather than being based on the Word of God.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 