List of Un-Biblical Catholic Practices

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Melanie01 said:
YAWN…why waste your time and skull sweat on these persons who would not believe if they were doubting Thomas…

The RCC was established by Jesus Christ and the gates of hell will never prevail. Oh and almost 2000 years and millions of people have believed in a nonsense…give me a break!🙂
Click to expand...

For several reasons 🙂​

  1. This list can look very impressive if one does not know otherwise.
  2. It can be answered
  3. If it is not answered, it may seem that Catholicism is as described.
  4. Some of us can spare the time to do so
  5. If we can spare that time, then maybe we should 🙂
  6. Seeing posts in answer to it may be the one opportunity that some people have to see that there are answers to this list & similar writings - it may even (God willing) prompt them to enquire further. A single post can have enormous effects, for good or ill.
  7. Some on this board are converts, and some of them have believed these things, or worse
  8. Faith is a gift of God - not something we inherit
  9. Some very unlikely people have been first enemies of Christ, then disciples, & are now Saints. Today’s anti-Catholic bigot, may be brought by Our Lord to be tomorrow’s saint, apostle, bishop, or martyr.
  10. We must despair of nobody’s conversion.
  11. Faith is not a right - it is a grace; a thing no one deserves to have. Yet God gives it freely. And what He does for us, He can do to others as well
  12. Sometimes people believe nonsense simply because they know of no reason not to
That is just for starters… ##
 
LSK said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t get that belief ‘Accept Jesus as your Personal Lord and Savior and you will be saved’ either. It reminds me of that line from Jesus Christ Superstar,
‘Christ you know I love you,
Did you see I waved?
I believe in you and God
so tell me that I’m saved…’ 😃

It seems some branches of Protestantism think of heaven as consisting of ‘Jesus and Me’, without other concerns and worries behind me, thus they object to the belief of Saints praying for us. Correct in a sense, but that belief is rather one-sided.
 
Zooey said:
I bet they have electric lights & central heat in winter, though!! And I want to see where in the Bible (😉 KJV only!) they found the Biblical permission for those!

Well of course!! I once had a KJV-onlyist that I was telling about having my great-grandmother’s Dutch Bible that she brought over from Holland with her, when they emigrated back in the 19th century, & the first question I was asked was: :whistle::whistle:“Oh! But is that theDutch King James?”
I only wish I was kidding…
Click to expand...
Dutch King James? Since when did the Dutch have a King named James?
It’s very much like that Baptist Pastor I saw on TV once, a KJV-onlyist, who claims the KJV was written first in Hebrew, then Greek, then English.

He applied the KJV to a Scripture Passage (something about purified thrice like gold or something like that, can anyone please look up that passage), claiming the Passage refers to the KJV.

I’m now waiting for fragments of the OT or NT bearing the words, ‘Authorized Version’ or ‘King James Version’ on it’s pages (Assuming that the Roman Church did not remove them, of course 😃 )

P.S. Perhaps these people were confused by the words ‘Authorized Version’ and think that this Version of the Bible was Authorized by God Himself. 😃
I wonder what would happen if those people found out that the Early copies of the Bible aren’t the KJV? Would they reject the original autographs of the Bible or early copies if any? :rolleyes:
 
patrick457 said:
I wonder what would happen if those people found out that the Early copies of the Bible aren’t the KJV? Would they reject the original autographs of the Bible or early copies if any? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If Forum rules allowed it, I could link you to an exchange I had with a fundamentalist Protestant who did exactly that - he rejected the Vulgate Bible (the one that really did come down from Heaven above, metaphorically speaking 😉 ) because it’s Catholic. But the KJV is God’s Bible, and any Early Church document that contradicts it (including the Alexandrian Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles) - literally anything that contradicts it is wrong.
 
patrick457 said:
Dutch King James? Since when did the Dutch have a King named James?
It’s very much like that Baptist Pastor I saw on TV once, a KJV-onlyist, who claims the KJV was written first in Hebrew, then Greek, then English.

He applied the KJV to a Scripture Passage (something about purified thrice like gold or something like that, can anyone please look up that passage), claiming the Passage refers to the KJV.
Click to expand...

Coming up right now: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_28.asp​

And see also: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/157_03.asp

Maybe the reference is to the Dutch “States’ Bible” of 1637, which has much the same status for Dutch Protestantism as the 1611 AV (aka KJV) has for many English-speaking Protestants. ##
I’m now waiting for fragments of the OT or NT bearing the words, ‘Authorized Version’ or ‘King James Version’ on it’s pages (Assuming that the Roman Church did not remove them, of course 😃 )

P.S. Perhaps these people were confused by the words ‘Authorized Version’ and think that this Version of the Bible was Authorized by God Himself. 😃
I wonder what would happen if those people found out that the Early copies of the Bible aren’t the KJV? Would they reject the original autographs of the Bible or early copies if any? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I read on the Chick site that the AV was superior to the texts of which it was a translation - here is the, er, “proof”: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_30.asp​

There is a logical fallacy in the argument - which is not to say that the argument is not interesting; it just happens to be complete rubbish as well as being interesting

As you’re doubtless aware, the Septuagint did not exist - http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_09.asp

As the author explains here: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_10.asp -

Question #10

QUESTION: What does this statement mean? “The King James Bible was good enough for the Apostle Paul, so it’s good enough for me.”

**ANSWER: **This statement is usually made in a sarcastic manner in order to embarrass Bible believers in their belief. The FACT is, the King James Bible WAS good enough for Paul. (See Question #11) But for now I’d like you to see that it was the only Bible that Luke would use…

…Thus the known Communistic liberals of the RSV and the conservatives of the NASV are in full agreement that Christ did not ascend bodily into heaven.

So now we know.

If the KJV was good enough for St.Luke, you can bet your boots it was good enough for Adam. Noah must have read his KJV during the Flood. It was good enough for the Apostles, & it was good enough for the Patriarchs. Fact is, if Eve had been reading her KJV, we would all still be in Eden !!! So accept no substitutes (especially not Communistic Bibles like the RSV) !!!

Real Christians read the the Bible the Patriarchs and the disciples & St.Paul read - real Christians read God’s Preserved Version: they read the KJV !!! ##
 
I didn’t bother to read the entire thread, so I apologize if anyone already brought this to light, but I would first like proof of the infamous “Council of Valencia” in 1229. If my knowledge of history is correct, Valencia was under control of the Turkish Moores in 1229, which would have made it pretty hard for any type of council to be held there by the Catholic Church. I don’t know of a single shred of historical evidence (or official Chruch document) to suggest that the Council of Valencia ever took place.

The wonderful thing about Catholicism is that we don’t just make it up as we go along, despite what thi s list is trying to prove. In the case of the Council of Valencia, if this were true, there would be an official Church document that originated from this council. That document would have a title, and would be easy to document as a source of valid information.
 
joshua_b said:
I didn’t bother to read the entire thread, so I apologize if anyone already brought this to light, but I would first like proof of the infamous “Council of Valencia” in 1229. If my knowledge of history is correct, Valencia was under control of the Turkish Moores in 1229, which would have made it pretty hard for any type of council to be held there by the Catholic Church. I don’t know of a single shred of historical evidence (or official Chruch document) to suggest that the Council of Valencia ever took place.

The wonderful thing about Catholicism is that we don’t just make it up as we go along, despite what thi s list is trying to prove. In the case of the Council of Valencia, if this were true, there would be an official Church document that originated from this council. That document would have a title, and would be easy to document as a source of valid information.
Click to expand...

“Valencia” is is an error for “Toulouse” - why or how, I can only guess. The reference is to canon 4 of the Provincial Council of Toulouse, which does forbid vernacular versions of scriptures, & the year is correct (though the reference to the Index is not)​

The place-name is corrected to Toulouse in the 1989 edition of Boettner’s book, which is the fifth USA edition ##
 
joshua_b said:
I didn’t bother to read the entire thread, so I apologize if anyone already brought this to light, but I would first like proof of the infamous “Council of Valencia” in 1229. If my knowledge of history is correct, Valencia was under control of the Turkish Moores in 1229, which would have made it pretty hard for any type of council to be held there by the Catholic Church. I don’t know of a single shred of historical evidence (or official Chruch document) to suggest that the Council of Valencia ever took place.
Click to expand...
Also the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1559, so a council held in 1229 could hardly have listed a book on it.
 
catholic.com/library/Catholic_Inventions.asp
But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.
Click to expand...
 
joshua_b said:
I didn’t bother to read the entire thread, so I apologize if anyone already brought this to light, but I would first like proof of the infamous “Council of Valencia” in 1229. If my knowledge of history is correct, Valencia was under control of the Turkish Moores in 1229, which would have made it pretty hard for any type of council to be held there by the Catholic Church. I don’t know of a single shred of historical evidence (or official Chruch document) to suggest that the Council of Valencia ever took place.

The wonderful thing about Catholicism is that we don’t just make it up as we go along, despite what thi s list is trying to prove. In the case of the Council of Valencia, if this were true, there would be an official Church document that originated from this council. That document would have a title, and would be easy to document as a source of valid information.
Click to expand...
catholic.com/library/Catholic_Inventions.asp Council of Valencia - fake…
 
I have a friend who constantly relies upon biased, embarassingly poor sources, to attack Catholicism. ‘Winning’ an argument against someone like that won’t change their mind. In fact, it’s debatable as to whether anyone changes their mind by losing an argument. In a sense, they are living in the realm of rhetoric and unless you are willing to stoop to that level then there is not much you can do to convince them.
 
Zooey said:
Sounds like the guy I had telling me that there was “no such thing as the Septuagint until the pope invented it”.
I managed not to laugh out loud…It was that stupid!!
Click to expand...
I agree! My favorite answer is simply, “Prove it. I don’t thnik you can because I happen to know that it’s not true.” especially if the statement is made in public.
It exposes it as rhetorical propaganda without substance.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
Yep…
I guess there was a story in the Gospel of Mark about Jesus, who just rose again from the dead, gave each of His Disciples a copy of the KJV, saying they should preach the Gospel (KJV) to all nations, only the Roman Church took these parts away and translated the Word of God into Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to fool people.
Which explains why the Gospel of Mark seems to be incomplete. 😃

Seriously, how did Jack T. Chick know that the KJV is the Original Autograph of the BIble? :confused:
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
If the KJV was good enough for St.Luke, you can bet your boots it was good enough for Adam. Noah must have read his KJV during the Flood. It was good enough for the Apostles, & it was good enough for the Patriarchs. Fact is, if Eve had been reading her KJV, we would all still be in Eden !!! So accept no substitutes (especially not Communistic Bibles like the RSV) !!!

Real Christians read the the Bible the Patriarchs and the disciples & St.Paul read - real Christians read God’s Preserved Version: they read the KJV !!! ##
Click to expand...
I’d just ask them why does that Version have the words ‘King James’ in it. If someone of us gets to Heaven, let’s ask Saint Paul if he knows this James who claims to be King. (But then again, The Catholic Church might have labeled this version such to mislead poor souls) :rolleyes:

I guess we should have to renew the KJV (AV) acronym into ‘King Jesus’ Version’ or the ‘Apostles’ Version’ . 😃
 
patrick457 said:
I’d just ask them why does that Version have the words ‘King James’ in it. If someone of us gets to Heaven, let’s ask Saint Paul if he knows this James who claims to be King. (But then again, The Catholic Church might have labeled this version such to mislead poor souls) :rolleyes:

I guess we should have to renew the KJV (AV) acronym into ‘King Jesus’ Version’ or the ‘Apostles’ Version’ . 😃
Click to expand...
I know a Protestant who is seriously convinced that it’s named after the Apostle James (he thinks it’s supposed to be the “St. James Bible”).

He believes that the Apostle James gathered up the writings of the Old Testament together with the writings of his friends the other Apostles, together with those of Mark and Luke, along with his own letter to the Church, ordered them translated into English, and had copies sent to Britain to evangelize the English speaking peoples, in response to Christ’s command to the Apostles to evangelize the whole world.

He figures all of the Apostles did the same, and that there were Bibles being sent out from the Apostles to all of Europe during the latter half of the first century. (I’m not sure what year he thinks the printing press was invented …)
 
jmcrae,
I do wonder if the whole world spoke English then, otherwise their preaching would be in gibberish (unless they speak in tongues)😃

But why is the ‘Saint James’ Bible’ the only one to survive?
What happened to ‘Saint Peter’s Bible’, ‘Saint Matthias’ Bible’, and ‘Saint Bartholomew’s Bible’? :rolleyes:

At least, if I ever get to Heaven, I’d ask Saint James if they DID spoke Elizabethan English back then. I’d also ask for a copy of HIS Bible. I only wonder why didn’t Jesus do all the compiling Himself…😃 :rolleyes:

But, At least now we know that Elizabethan English is the language of God, and the only tongue spoken by man before the Tower of Babel incident.
 
patrick457 said:
I’d just ask them why does that Version have the words ‘King James’ in it. If someone of us gets to Heaven, let’s ask Saint Paul if he knows this James who claims to be King. (But then again, The Catholic Church might have labeled this version such to mislead poor souls) :rolleyes:

I guess we should have to renew the KJV (AV) acronym into ‘King Jesus’ Version’ or the ‘Apostles’ Version’ . 😃
Click to expand...

Most of the bit you quoted was just me having a bit of a fun - though some lovers of the AV-KJV do seem to think like that. The thing about St.Luke using the AV was genuine :eek: .​

The late F.F. Bruce, in his history of the Bible in English, mentions how when the RSV came out in 1952, a preacher burned a copy during a sermon, saying it was like the devil because it was hard to burn 🙂 ; and it was also attacked as being Communist-inspired. Though why Communists would want to encourage translation of the Bible is anyone’s guess.

I like the AV, a lot - but trying to make out that it is somehow uniquely inspired, & used by the Apostles, is preposterous.
 
patrick457 said:
Dutch King James? Since when did the Dutch have a King named James?
It’s very much like that Baptist Pastor I saw on TV once, a KJV-onlyist, who claims the KJV was written first in Hebrew, then Greek, then English.

He applied the KJV to a Scripture Passage (something about purified thrice like gold or something like that, can anyone please look up that passage), claiming the Passage refers to the KJV.

I’m now waiting for fragments of the OT or NT bearing the words, ‘Authorized Version’ or ‘King James Version’ on it’s pages (Assuming that the Roman Church did not remove them, of course 😃 )

P.S. Perhaps these people were confused by the words ‘Authorized Version’ and think that this Version of the Bible was Authorized by God Himself. 😃
I wonder what would happen if those people found out that the Early copies of the Bible aren’t the KJV? Would they reject the original autographs of the Bible or early copies if any? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Cause we all know Palestine, Rome, Patmos and all the other places the NT was originally written were well supplied with kings named James :rolleyes:

I sincerely hope that Baptist pastor hasn’t been on tv since and has had his credentials revoked for such an abysmal display of ignorance. In fact it reflects badly on all Christians to have a Christian leader so publicly display such an ignorance of the history of their own scriptures.
 
LilyM said:
Cause we all know Palestine, Rome, Patmos and all the other places the NT was originally written were well supplied with kings named James :rolleyes:

I sincerely hope that Baptist pastor hasn’t been on tv since and has had his credentials revoked for such an abysmal display of ignorance. In fact it reflects badly on all Christians to have a Christian leader so publicly display such an ignorance of the history of their own scriptures.
Click to expand...
That Baptist pastor was repeating claims made by Jack T. Chick and such that it is easy to refute him, I guess.

There was also once this program in which he taught that the Woman in Revelation 12 is not Mary (as Catholics believe) , but Israel. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top