List of Un-Biblical Catholic Practices

[Stonez]

Hi, everyone this is my first post on this awesome website!

And on that note, some of the items on that list I have seen before. Such as Peter the Hermit and the rosary for example. My mom showed me a little pamphlet she grabbed from her non-demoninational church. Trying to show how our bible (He cited the NAB) contradicted the Catechism. The pamphlet was promulgated by an ex-Catholic who now runs an anti-Catholic ministry proclaiming the gospel (I think) and the website, not that it really matters, is at (Link removed as irrelevent).

 

[RCCDefender]

…the website, not that it really matters, is at (Link removed as irrelevent).

More BBBUUUUNNNKKK!!! Oh, by the way, welcome to CAF!!

 

[Scottgun]

By the way, where are the other Catholic inventions like the Trinity, and the list of the 27 books of the New Testament, didn’t they make this list?

Yeah, gee, Boettner must have been having an off day when he wrote that list!!

That would be in his history of the Reformation:

1517–God drops a fully compiled Bible from space directly into the hands of Martin Luther.

 

[LSK]

there is one thing I will never, EVER understand about people who accuse us of ‘praying to dead people’ and yet still claim to be Christians.

Apparently, everyone prior to THEM ceases to exist when their bodies give out.

When THEY die, because they have 'accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior" and NOTHING ELSE, they will live forever in Heaven.

Now, the Catholic Church teaches that all human beings will live forever, eventually to be reunited with the bodies, at the General Judgement. The only question is, where will you be living?

As a friend of mine put it…smoking or non-smoking?

So, because I know that my Grandmother Crocco, who died in 1974 is alive and well and either in heaven now or on her way there, what in the world is wrong with me having a conversation with her, praying with her and asking her to pray for me or praying for her myself? I do NOT get this, no Protestant has EVER been able to explain it to me properly unless they ignore passage after passage after passage in Holy Scripture of people praying for and with those who have died.

Oh, and a Baptist friend of mine told me that WHERE they will live in heaven is determined by how they lived on earth - and she uses the one scripture passage about there being ‘many’ rooms/mansions etc in 'My Father’s House".
So apparently she does not believe what the Bible states about nothing unclean entering into heaven…I just do not get it.

 

[Eden]

Oh, and a Baptist friend of mine told me that WHERE they will live in heaven is determined by how they lived on earth - and she uses the one scripture passage about there being ‘many’ rooms/mansions etc in 'My Father’s House".
So apparently she does not believe what the Bible states about nothing unclean entering into heaven…I just do not get it.

I actually just finished watching a video of Barbara Walters interviewing Ted Haggard (the leader of the Evangelicals who has recently been in the headlines) and he said heaven has “neighborhoods” and that we can eat everything we wish “without getting fat”. Why is the beatific vision not enough for some people?

 

[runandsew]

Hi, everyone this is my first post on this awesome website!

And on that note, some of the items on that list I have seen before. Such as Peter the Hermit and the rosary for example. My mom showed me a little pamphlet she grabbed from her non-demoninational church. Trying to show how our bible (He cited the NAB) contradicted the Catechism. The pamphlet was promulgated by an ex-Catholic who now runs an anti-Catholic ministry proclaiming the gospel (I think) and the website, not that it really matters, is at (Link removed as irrelevent)

Have you ever noticed that their argument that “our beliefs and practices go against the Bible”, is actually against their “interpretation” of the Bible?
They fail to mention that “our beliefs and practices” do not go against our “interpretation” of the Bible.
We claim that the Church can infallibly interpret scripture, while they admit that they cannot infallibly interpret scripture.
If they cannot infallibly interpret scripture, then how can they say that “what we believe and practice” goes against scripture?

I hope this makes sense, it sounded better in my mind before I tried to write it down.

 

[Zooey]

Maybe a good approach is to focus on refuting the dates or the implications of a few of the “big” items on the list. Once doubt is cast on some of the big items, the whole list becomes suspect.

BTW, I have read the claim that this list comes from the anti-Catholic bible, Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism”.

Yeah, I knew it was the Boettner list when I saw “wax candles” in there…
I would post more, but I have to turn off the computer along with the rest of the electric, & go out and buy some olive oil to burn in a bowl until the whalers come in with more blubber…

 

[jmcrae]

Use the magic words: “prove it”.

Have him provide three independent, unbiased and scholarly sources for each date. (I could have been even harder and said “primary sources”).

Oh, and for a great many of these there are some other equally magic words: “so what?” I mean, so what if the rosary was thought up in 1090, or the Jesuits were founded in 1534?

Oh, and that one about the deuterocanonical books being added at Trent is just plain false. Actually, all the books in the bible were added at Trent.

It would be more accurate to say that the Old Testament was added at Trent - we had the New Testament at Hippo, in 483 AD, and it was promulgated to the whole Church in 405 AD by Pope St. Innocent I.

St. Jerome included a 46-book Old Testament in his Vulgate Bible though (published - if hand-copying qualifies as “publishing” - in the early 400s AD) - the same one that was officially canonized at Trent in the late 1500s, and the same one that the Evangelist Matthew was quoting from in his Nativity narrative, some time around 65 AD.

 

[Zooey]

That would be in his history of the Reformation:

1517–God drops a fully compiled Bible from space directly into the hands of Martin Luther.

You left out the part about it being the 1611 King James version, in the revision of 1769, with the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha left out, as per the American Standard revision of the 1880s…
Mind you, I have no idea how Luther managed to read the Bible in English, but hey! Let’s not get in the way of a fantasy.

Sheesh!! I’m just the Friendly Neighborhood Methodist, & I know this is all carp when I smell– I mean, when I see it!!! See it, see it, that’s what I meant…

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I remember sometime back, someone called something like “Beggar King” did a point by point refutation of that list. I have not been able to relocate his response online. Maybe, someone has his responses archieved and will share them?

This is where beggar king was located online, now blank pages
catholicsites.com/beggarking/answer/errors2.html
catholicsites.com/beggarking/answer/errors.html

Here is a partual response to parts of the list
hometown.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num4.htm

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Maybe a good approach is to focus on refuting the dates or the implications of a few of the “big” items on the list. Once doubt is cast on some of the big items, the whole list becomes suspect.

BTW, I have read the claim that this list comes from the anti-Catholic bible, Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism”.

There are various forms of Boettner’s list of “Roman Catholic Inventions and Heresies”. In the fifth edition of his book (published 1989; slightly revised), the list includes 45 items.​

His list (which appeared in the first edition of his book in 1962) may be based (in part at least) on a book published in 1855, called “Catholic Controversy”, which refers for the items it mentions to a French work. Which is as far back as I’ve been able to trace the list. To discover what connection if any there may be between the 1855 book (which is Scottish: not from the USA) and “Roman Catholicism”, one would need to have a reasonably extensive knowledge of Victorian anti-Catholic literature

A few items are almost certainly taken from Hislop’s “The Two Babylons”. Hislop discusses wax candles, & Boettner quotes him once, in the chapter of “Roman Catholicism” which discusses Purgatory.

Hope that helps ##

 

[Eden]

Yeah, I knew it was the Boettner list when I saw “wax candles” in there…

I don’t understand the specification of “wax” candles in that list either. Is the objection to candles or specifically candles made of wax?

 

[Zooey]

I don’t understand the specification of “wax” candles in that list either. Is the objection to candles or specifically candles made of wax?

I know, I’ve wondered about that myself!! I mean, it’s dumb enough to object to candles in general, but it would be even weirder if the “wax” part of it was the objection…What could be wrong with wax??

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The person who made this list and the people who pass it around don’t have a handle on “reading comprehension”. Check these out:

“Veneration of angels and dead saints, and use of images; 375”

AND

“Canonization of dead saints, first by pope John XV; 995”



Apparently, Catholics were venerating “dead saints” over 600 years before the first “dead saint” was canonized.

[In role as *Advocatus Boettneri] It’s a reasonable enough pair of claims - the first papal canonisation was in 993, centuries after the veneration of the saints had begun.​

Until canonisations were reserved to Rome (1170 ? 1216?), the bishops dealt with them.

He got the date wrong, but there is no contradiction here.

[steps out of *AB role] ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I found this one to be one of the oddest things I have ever heard. How do you think the bible came about? Do you honestly believe that those who brought about the existence of the bible would honestly tell people not to read it!? Also who do you think was out buying the bibles at this time and how?

The Bible was in fact forbidden at this time - unless it was in Latin. The Acts of the provincial council of Toulouse (not Valencia; I’ve often wondered why he made that mistake) have been preserved, and canon 4 forbids the circulation of the Bible in the vernacular.​

The other mistake he makes is to bring in the Index of Forbidden Books. It had the same function as canon four of the Council of Toulouse in 1229 - but it was a completely separate agency, and was not set up until much later. He may have been confusing it with rule four of the Index, which forbade the reading of the Bible in the vernacular without permission.

As to the item about Honorius III - I think Boettner is probably confusing two things: recognition of the Eucharist as being worthy of adoration, & the practice of elevating It at the consecration. That it was adorable, was recognised from very early on - practices demonstrating this recognition, are of various dates: the elevation of it is unknown before the Middle Ages, & reservation for the express purpose of adoration is also mediaeval; the Forty Hours’ devotion is 19th century, IIRC​

I really think on this quote one only neeeds to take a step back and think,“okay now in about the 1500’s a couple of men decide that they knew more thatn the Holy Spirit and decided to rearrange the bible to their own liking.” Now in my own opinion that is a bigger red flag than the one stated above.

my two cents.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I know, I’ve wondered about that myself!! I mean, it’s dumb enough to object to candles in general, but it would be even weirder if the “wax” part of it was the objection…What could be wrong with wax??

Bearing in mind that Boettner was a Calvinist, there are probably two reasons for the appearance of wax candles on his list:​

1. Calvinist Church order does not allow as legitimate for Christian worship anything not clearly laid down in the NT. This is why they don’t have feast-days, musical instruments, candles, & so on.
2. A second objection to wax candles in particular seems to be that they are pagan (& therefore, again, not permitted to Christians) - wax candles are denounced in great deal in “The Two Babylons”, which Boettner quotes in his own book.

Here’s the link:
Chapter V
Section V
Lamps and Wax-Candles

It’s not accurate, BTW - at all. But at least it should explain why, if one quotes this author on Purgatory (as Boettner does), one is not likely to think that wax candles are a Good Thing. As Boettner mentions wax candles only in his list, without further explanation, one has to guess at his intentions a bit ##

 

[Eden]

[In role as *Advocatus Boettneri​

] It’s a reasonable enough pair of claims - the first papal canonisation was in 993, centuries after the veneration of the saints had begun.

Until canonisations were reserved to Rome (1170 ? 1216?), the bishops dealt with them.

He got the date wrong, but there is no contradiction here.

[steps out of *AB role] ##
But that is not what Boettner is claiming.

The claim is that the *first *canonization of a “dead saint” took place in 995 by Pope John XV. The distinction is not being made that the canonization was the first papal canonization. You are giving the author of the list too much credit by expecting that he knew the distinction between papal canonizations and those by bishops.

 

[patrick457]

That would be in his history of the Reformation:

1517–God drops a fully compiled Bible from space directly into the hands of Martin Luther.

I thought it was…

'1517-Martin Luther discovers the Ancient KJV hidden deep in the Vatican Library by the Pope many centuries ago after years of digging. He was originally trying to plant a tree in his Monastery, when he dug out deep into the ground, and he accidentally reached Rome and the Vatican Library.

This Gold-lettered, Leather-bound KJV, written in Early Modern English was dropped from Heaven to Jesus’ hands who then ordered His disciples to preach the ‘Gospel (King James Version) to All Nations’. The Apostles quoted from this KJV, until Constantine and the Pope, in a conspiracy, hid it so people would not know the True, Holy, Incorruptible, Leather-bound, gold lettered, Word of God, written in Early Modern English.’

Martin Luther read it, then translated it into German (those stories about him translating it from Greek and Hebrew are invented by Protestants who do not believe the KJV is the ORIGINAL Version of the Bible.) His translation changed the course of Christendom for the Centuries that follow.

Sadly, this reminds me of a preacher who claimed the KJV was first written in Hebrew, then Greek, then English.
So does that mean that the Original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible are KJV Versions?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But that is not what Boettner is claiming.

The claim is that the *first *canonization of a “dead saint” took place in 995 by Pope John XV. The distinction is not being made that the canonization was the first papal canonization.

All the same, his words can be taken in the latter sense - so I would give him the benefit of the doubt; especially as he can’t answer for himself.​

You are giving the author of the list too much credit by expecting that he knew the distinction between papal canonizations and those by bishops.

I very much doubt he did, given the general standard of accuracy in his book - but then, how many people do: even including Catholics ? For the average man (which is probably 99% percent of people), canonisations are “things the Pope does”.​

My guess is that he knew of fourth-century veneration & 10th-century papal canonisation, without knowing how the two were related. That both were facts, would be enough for the purposes of his list. AFAI recall, he does not build anything on either point, so he is not committing himself to much - though he does, like any author, lay himself open to criticism if and when he makes mistakes (as he does). As there are all those mistakes, it seems a pity not to put in a word for him when what he says can be given a meaning which does not tell against him. ##

 

[BobCatholic]

Have you ever noticed that their argument that “our beliefs and practices go against the Bible”, is actually against their “interpretation” of the Bible?
They fail to mention that “our beliefs and practices” do not go against our “interpretation” of the Bible.
We claim that the Church can infallibly interpret scripture, while they admit that they cannot infallibly interpret scripture.
If they cannot infallibly interpret scripture, then how can they say that “what we believe and practice” goes against scripture?

I hope this makes sense, it sounded better in my mind before I tried to write it down.

When I’ve debated sola scripturists trying to slam the Catholic faith, almost 100% of the time they confuse their interpretation of the Bible WITH the Bible - they actually try to get me to believe that both are the same. In other words, they want me to believe that their tradition (interpretation of scripture) is exactly the same as scripture.

To which I then reply: Then find me your interpretation in the Bible. They won’t find it.

So then I ask them “OK then, please prove that Christ and the Apostles held to that interpretation, if it is not in the Bible”

They can’t.

So then basically it becomes like this:

"Let me get this straight. You tell me your doctrine is 100% biblical, but when I ask you for the Biblical citation, you give me them + your interpretation of those verses - you don’t just give me Bible verses alone, you present them with your tradition (interpretation). When I ask you where your tradition (interpretation of the Bible) is in the Bible, you cannot find it, but expect me to accept on blind faith that it is 100% true, with no proof that Christ and the Apostles actually held to that tradition.

I have faith in Christ. I, however, have no blind faith in your tradition."

It all comes down to the fact that sola scriptura cannot be practiced. They always have some interpretation of scripture, which is a tradition. Are those traditions of theirs man-made? Only if they’re not from Christ and the Apostles. Which they cannot prove that they are from Christ and the Apostles.