If the Roman Catholic Church is so bad...

Similarity between Buddhism and Catholicism

All other religions except True Christianity have many common aspects:
Let me tell you the similarity between Catholic and Buddhism:

- Compulsory celibacy of their priests
- Praying with Beads ( Rosario prayer) to count the numbers
- suffering at the monastery
- Idol making, Idol worship
- wearing long robe
- pay respect to the skeleton of the dead saints ( Buddhist - Saree, Catholic - remains of Saints)
- Halo surrounding the Saints ( brightly shining around the head of Buddha and around Mary and the saints)
- Provide new names to the new believers
( when they are baptized)
- shearing hairs ( even now Catholic has some monks shorn)
- they are sometimes called both Monks.
- kindling candles and incense at the mass
- reciting holy mother prayer, Rosario, while Buddhist recite Chunsoo Kyong, Kumkang kyong, etc.
- reading and reciting their bible or prayer text in the language which they do not understand ( Sanskrit vs Latin)
- gathering 2 hands while they pray

There may be more spiritual similarity between 2 religions.

All the other religions except the True Christianity will find no problem in uniting each other and Roman Catholic will be the center of such integration of all the other religions except the True Christians.

 

What does wearing a robe have to do with anything?
Your about 50 yrs behind the times with the language thing. The Jews used incense in temple ceremonies.

If you are going to discount the RCC because of similarities to other religions you better do the same thing with Biblical Christianity such as getting rid of the Law, no singing of hymns, require bald ministers to wear wigs or hats so nobody mistakes them for a person who shaved their head.

 

Syphillis has been around a long time, too, but I don't want that, either.

 

Buddhism prospered over 2500 years too, but it doesn't disprove its paganism, though they didn't have Inquisition.

 

Burning incense is often found in OT:

One of them is in 2 Kings 16:4

4 And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree( Christmas Tree)

 

On this thread, I think what we have to deal with mainly are :

1) Inquisition
2) Idol making and Idol Worshipping
3) Papacy and Papal Infallibility
4) Purgatory - this was partly dealt before.

Because the title of the thread is "So Bad" aspects of RC.

The advocators must explain about those things.

 

I simply adore these circular arguments where everyone goes around and around the mulberry tree...

As Eliyahu as succinctly summarised the RCC in 4 bullet points....it has all been explained and done to death before, but those who do not wish to see will not see...a bit like poor old doubting Thomas.

The RCC will not go away and the endless bickering will never end, but nevertheless the RCC still a major religion with millions of followers.......

 

Have any of you actually read the Catholic catechism?

The Catholic Church teaches that Salvation is through Christ alone , it is the initiative of God's love for us , salvation is a gift from Christ , that Christ dies for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures , and that, apart from the Cross, there is no other ladder by which we can get to heaven . Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

[ February 20, 2006, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

 

Hello, Matthew,

Yes and no to reading the RCC Catechism. I was born and partially raised in the RCC, having attended parochial schools and catechism classes when in public school. This was during the 1950's. I was never "confirmed", but was throughly brainwashed by age 12, when we became Methodists. We became NRP's (no religious preference) within a couple of years. I have since been into Agnosticism, Mormonism, etc, etc.

Then Jesus saved my soul.

One thing I have noticed about the RCC in the past 50 years is a lot of changing. That is why I call it the "Errata/Addendum" religion.

Regarding:"...the Christian faith is not a 'religion of the book'", I disagree. Without sola scriptura, there is no rule of faith and practice. All of the traditions of men are exactly that: commandments of men, corrupted by man's depraved nature. See John Ch. 17--the whole chapter. Real Christians are sanctified in the truth of the Word of God. It is written. He said what He meant. He meant what He said. Whether we believe Him or not is irrelevant and has no bearing of the verity of the matter.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Ah, but you know what I think of sola Scriptura ;) . Real Christians are IMHO sanctified by the Holy Spirit; sure, that can happen during the reading of Scripture, but there's more than one way for Him to skin a cat there...(what about worship, personal and corporate, the sacraments, the Church?). I'm not talking about traditions of men here; I'm talking about the teachings of Christ's Church.

 

Whenever I heard the testimonies I noticed
Salvation comes in the form of notifying Words to the person.
In my case the notice was that I was crucified at the Cross ( Gal 2:20).That phrase became my own. My pastor confessed that he was saved after 5 years service as a Pastor and the word was Gal 5:16. Luther mentioned he was saved while he was reading Romans 1:17 also Wesley mentioned about that phrase.
I notice what Holy Spirit notify first is that Sins were forgiven or our old man died already, or we are passed from death to the life ( as in John 5:23-24). Yesterday I heard a wonderful testimony by an old man who was saved at the age of 13 in 1945, reading John 3:16 at the camp.
Chiniquy was saved after many years of service as a priest of RC. John Wesley was saved after many years of his service as a priest of Anglican Church, after returning from missionary work to Georgia in America.
Someone considers that Wesley might have been saved before but had only another spiritual experience on May 24, 1738. However, his own testimony is important and he would not have become so famous if he had not had such experience.
In my experience, I was a usual Christian attending the church regularly and was baptized by sprinkling in my high school days, 5 years later I had the experience of Being Born Again. At that time I didn't know that it was the experience of Salvation. Later on Holy Spirit cleared many things and I have maintained the personal relationship with God since then.
I don't expect Holy Spirit comes in while I am watching and enjoying TV, but He is always related with Sin-forgiving and engraving the Words of Salvation into our hearts.

 

Brioni-Gloriana,

Regarding Catholicism...

No, the attempt to pull the wool over our eyes has all been attempted, but we who know the truth will simply not accept error, idolatry, and blashphemies as being christian truth.

Sadly,

Mike

 

Bro James,

Of course they are. And the thing is, those who "hold to the traditions of men over the commandments of God" have rendered themselves completly unable to see the error they are stuck in.

The truth that exposes this particular error is found in the scriptures, and yet they scoff at the idea that a born again Spirit led and guided christian is capable of gleaning truth from the scriptures.

It an absolutely masterful thing for Satan to orchestrate.

Praise God that we all can go to Gods unchanging truth standard...the scriptures...and discern truth from error. When we reject that principle, we enter the realm of the cults...

David Koresh
Mormonism
Jim Jones
Christian Science(Mary Baker Eddy)
Jehovahs Witness's
Catholicism

All of them make the poisinous claim that the lowly masses must accept them as Gods Truth Gestapo.

What a sad and tragic thing it is.

Mike

 

Cheers D28guy

No, the attempt to pull the wool over our eyes has all been attempted, but we who know the truth will simply not accept error, idolatry, and blashphemies as being christian truth.

The wool pulling depends on what side of the fence you are on and the same can be said depending on ones view point or what one sees as the Truth. Sadly we do adore in-fighting, but if it came to being in the lions den I would still prefer to be shoulder to shoulder with my Christian brothers come what may.....

 

Cheers D28guy,

Ahhh, that would be true if we did not have an unchanging truth standard to test all things against.

But we do. And when we test evangelicalism/pentecostalism against that standard we discover that they pass the test.

When we do the same with groups like the Jehovahs Wittnesses, Mormons and Catholicism we discover that they do not.

Actually, contending for the truth is a good thing. A very good thing. And its that freedom to contend for the truth that keeps evangelicalism/pentecostalism on "the straight and narrow" for the most part.

And its the prohibition against contending for the truth that causes the overflow of error to multiply exponentially and unchecked for 1700 or so years in the Catholic system of things.

Well, of course. And I agree.

If we here where to be invaded by a bunch of atheists, pagans and druids who were attempting to make their case, I would be shoulder to shoulder with you, Matt Black, and all the other Catholics, Orthodox and many others regarding the truth that their is a God, and Jesus Christ is the only hope for anyone to be saved.

I'm sure all the other evangelicals and pentecostals here would be as well.

But these "in house" discussions here, so its a different form of debate.

Cheers to you, and God bless,

Mike

 

Ahhh, that would be true if we did not have an unchanging truth standard to test all things against.

</font>[/QUOTE]Ah, yes, that 'unchanging truth standard', Would that be the cessationist or the charismatic, the dispensationalist or the covenantist, the calvinist or the arminian, the presbyterian or congregationalist, the paedo- or credo-baptist,the a-mill, pre-mill, post-mill, wind-mill,pre-trib, post-trib, partial-trib, preterist or partial-preterist, etc, etc 'truth standard'?

 

Matt Black,

Its not any one of those groups, Matt.

Thats the whole point.

Apparently you have been rendered completly unable to think of truth as being found anywhere other than the Truth Geptapo, and that truth can only be what the Truth Gestapo commands you that you must believe.

The unchanging standard of truth is not any organisation.

It is the scriptures of God....

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work"

That is in direct contradiction to the Catholic Church...

"Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" 6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' F28 8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men*--the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." 9 He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; F29 and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' F30 11 But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"--' (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

Couldnt possibly be a more clear rebuke of groups such as the Catholic Church who have a Truth Gestapo to command people what to believe, and to invent traditions to replace Gods word.

Sadly,

Mike

 

So answer my question then: which of my list of stances does Scripture say to subscribe to?

And a further question: how do you know from Scripture whether those things to which you refer are the 'traditions of men' and not the teaching of the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the Truth" (I Tim 3:15)?

 

Matt, he won't answer other than to imply that all these mutually contradictory positions--all based on "sola Scriptura", mind you--are really all somehow on the same side, because they at least aren't Roman Catholic or have a "truth Gestapo". Somehow all these ever splintering factions are really just keeping each other in check and it's all part of God's "checks and balances" system, despite that fact that these "checks and balances" continue to begat schism rather than bringing about unity. Apparently, kum-ba-yah relativism in doctrine and denominational factionalism is a "beautiful thing" \o/. (Yeah, right.... )

Indeed, a question that sola Scripturists are loathe to answer except maybe to proffer the solution that the Church is that great mass of "born again" believers regardless of denomination or doctrinal beliefs. If that's the case then that "church" would be a smorgasbord of contradictory "truthS" rather than being the "pillar and ground of TRUTH" as the Scriptures say.

Good question, Matt.