why Christians reject Roman Catholic church

[Red Sky at Morning]

The RCC does not argue that tradition is equal to Scriptures. It argues that its doctrines are based on Tradition and Scriptures.

I add that Scriptures are based on Tradition because the selection of the books that would make up the former is based on the latter. In short, what determined the Biblical canon is the Council of Rome.

I am intrigued now. What is it about the history of the Popes that gives you confidence that the traditions they helped shape would lead to greater truth?

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

What's the point in sharing personal experiences? in a forum with no ID verification, you can make anything up about yourself.

The topic is that the RCC is wrong because it's "unbiblical":

why Christians reject Roman Catholic church

Unlike Roman Catholics like to tell us, the RC teaches a great deal that is UNbiblical. No mention of purgatory in 66 books of bible. Excessive honour to Mary and saints. Works righteousness. Multiple extra biblical teachings and traditions. No knowledge of the Gospel. That is the tip of the...

vigilantcitizenforums.com

The point is illogical because the selection of the Biblical canon is itself unbiblical!

You sure are fixated on my personal experiences! I already told you why i brought it up, and that it is irrelevant if you believe me.

And thank God there is no ID verification! Is that what you want, the end of (semi)anonymous internet? Probably the kind of thing your communist pope would endorse...

So unless you're going to answer why your roman church is the "true" church and not the eastern one (since compiling the scriptures thru "tradition" appears to be your main point, and the eastern church was involved), or defend why the idolatrous worship of Mary by absorbing pagan feasts and titles became doctrine, we're done with this.

There is clearly nothing new you have to say.

 

[A Freeman]

From: The Way home or face The Fire by JAH:-

9:16 There are more religions now, than ever before, and the priests teach the breaking of the COMMANDMENTS (idolatry, etc.), of whom, the pope is by far the worst. All the priests on this planet think that they are working for God, but they are really working for the devil, by teaching and perpetuating organized-religions, and thereby preventing people from having their own direct-contact with the Lord (Matt. 23)(Hosea 4:9 & Malachi 2:1-3).
9:17 The catholic cardinals even wear the Devil’s colours - red - and the others wear black (darkness and evil). I have never seen a priest wearing God’s colours.
9:18 I said do not be a priest (Matt. 23:8), and yet the priests are waiting for my Second Coming, thinking that I am going to come and be their friend. How stupid can they be? I said to the Jewish priests, that they encompassed land and sea to make a convert, and that when they have made a convert, he is then twice as much a child of Hell, than the priests themselves (Matt. 23:15). I also said that even the publicans (tax-collectors), and prostitutes, would go into the Kingdom of God, before the priests (Matt. 21:31).
9:19 Read ALL of Matt. 23, and substitute the word priest for rabbi; lawyers for scribes; and politicians for Pharisees. Rabbis, scribes and Pharisees were the priests; lawyers and politicians of that time.
9:20 On the Last -Day, the pope; the priests and ANYONE who teaches organized-religion, will be the first into The Fire (Matt. 5:19-20)(Sura 57:27).
9:21 There is no such thing as a christian priest; except in your minds. It is NOT POSSIBLE for there to be such a thing as a Christian priest. I said that anyone, who believes in me, must NOT be a priest, or religious teacher (Matt. 23:8)(Sura 9:31), and that there is only ONE teacher - ME - and to call no MAN upon the Earth your father, because you have only one Father - God in heaven (Matt. 23:9).
9:22 How is it possible then, that there are thousands of men on Earth, who claim to be something it’s IMPOSSIBLE to be, i.e. a Christian priest? Many of them even have the audacity to call themselves Father, the worst of whom, by far, is the pope, who has the SUPREME audacity to not only call himself Father (Matt. 23:9), but the Sainted or Holy Father. That means that he is blasphemously claiming to be God the (Holy) Father. Read 2 Thessalonians 2:3, N.B. v 4 then 7 & Revelation 17:5, 7-9, 18.

 

[A Freeman]

Did the Roman Catholic church give us our Bible?

The Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. It was the Jews who gave us the Old Testament and Christians recognized the New Testament

carm.org

 

[monkeylove]

I am intrigued now. What is it about the history of the Popes that gives you confidence that the traditions they helped shape would lead to greater truth?

What you're looking for isn' t the history of the Popes but the conditions followed for the Biblical canon.

 

[monkeylove]

You sure are fixated on my personal experiences! I already told you why i brought it up, and that it is irrelevant if you believe me.

And thank God there is no ID verification! Is that what you want, the end of (semi)anonymous internet? Probably the kind of thing your communist pope would endorse...

So unless you're going to answer why your roman church is the "true" church and not the eastern one (since compiling the scriptures thru "tradition" appears to be your main point, and the eastern church was involved), or defend why the idolatrous worship of Mary by absorbing pagan feasts and titles became doctrine, we're done with this.

There is clearly nothing new you have to say.

You mean the opposite. As I said, this forum requires no ID verification, so whatever you say about yourself can' t be proven. Given that, your points are irrelevant, and the only one obssessed with your personal experiences is you.

What you're looking for isn't the Roman Church but the Catholic Church, which consists of 24 particular Churches. And there's no idolatrous worship of Mary, etc. You're an utter ignoramus on this matter.

Finally, your stance is based on Biblical Christianity, which is intellectually bankrupt because it's based on a Bible that was formed by forces that are outside it.

 

[monkeylove]

Did the Roman Catholic church give us our Bible?

The Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. It was the Jews who gave us the Old Testament and Christians recognized the New Testament

carm.org

Complete and utter nonsense. The question isn't who "gave" the Bible but who chose the works that would make up the same. That's the Catholic Church, which consists of particular Churches, and is led by the Roman Catholic Church because it's the largest.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

Compared to the New Testament, there was much less controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.

The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.

Source

 

[FilthPig]

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@DavidSon

On Biblical Literalism:

“About the times of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition.”​

Sir Issac Newton

 

[A Freeman]

Complete and utter nonsense. The question isn't who "gave" the Bible but who chose the works that would make up the same. That's the Catholic Church, which consists of particular Churches, and is led by the Roman Catholic Church because it's the largest.

What you(?) call "complete and utter nonsense" is actually a very well-written, logical, fact-based article.

Did the Roman Catholic church give us our Bible?

The Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. It was the Jews who gave us the Old Testament and Christians recognized the New Testament

carm.org

Obviously the RCC did not "choose" the Old Covenant, which was well-established centuries before the RCC even existed (the RCC didn't exist before the 4th century AD, regardless of what propaganda/lies they promote).

And, in reality, the RCC didn't "choose" the New Covenant material either. The RCC only chose what they decided would be promoted within their own organization, along with their lies and traditions that they were somehow in control of it.

It's understood you will continue to argue for and try to defend these very obvious RCC lies and made-up traditions, which you foolishly place ABOVE The Word of God/Scripture of Truth, as the article correctly points out. But that doesn't prove any of your false claims; it only proves you don't know what you're talking about.

Homosexual and paedophile priests, and a hierarchy covering these crimes up, along with the brazen idolatry, Mary worship and pagan holiday rituals should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that the RCC is satanic, which is why they and their followers are repeatedly condemned throughout Scripture.

Learn to accept the truth, for only the truth can set you free.

 

[Lyfe]

1,000+ Communist Priests Infiltrated the Catholic Church in America

Bella Dodd was a committed Stalinist, who worked to undermine democracy in America and orthodoxy in the Catholic Church. Dodd's charm and wit helped her succeed in a once-considered conspiracy theory

rumble.com

1,000+ Communist Priests Infiltrated the Catholic Church in America

 

[DavidSon]

Not claiming to be Orthodox or Roman but great explanation of why Church tradition is superior to doctrines of the counterfeit, self-appointed Protestant reformers:

...if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. - 1 Tim 3:15

Going through Dyer's explanation again I would think it's important for Christians to understand the Orthodox position on the Church's authority.

If one claims to be Christian, acknowledging the canon, apostolic succession, and the declaration of God as the Trinity- it's contradictory to ignore the characteristics of the true Church declared at Nicea, which is that it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

The tenets of the 16th century rebel Reformers are incoherent, ahistorical, and unbiblical. In the first 1000 years of the Church, none of the councils or Church Fathers taught sola fide or sola scriptura exclusively. Traditionally scriptures are included with oral teachings in the liturgy (worship service). Scriptures were never intended for private devotion.

Protestantism is not one- it's actually a fractured myriad of 50,000 self-created religions. There's no apostolic designation. In Christian belief, God through Jesus and the Apostles did not grant some random Joe-Bob the authority to pop up a new church in a strip-mall or a burned out car dealership lol. I think that's why we see the insanity of modern Christianity, an ocean of competing doctrines vying desperately for attention.

Followers of a religion don't pick-and-choose their practices, doctrines, etc. It's senseless to support the divinity/authority of God through Jesus to Peter and his successors as representatives of the covenant with Israel, and yet promote your own anti-Christ doctrines.

 

[Wigi]

If one claims to be Christian, acknowledging the canon, apostolic succession, and the declaration of God as the Trinity- it's contradictory to ignore the characteristics of the true Church declared at Nicea, which is that it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Men can declare whatever they want, if we see something else in scriptures then the right stance, the only viable stance, is to choose Holy scriptures above men's hype.

The tenets of the 16th century rebel Reformers are incoherent, ahistorical, and unbiblical. In the first 1000 years of the Church, none of the councils or Church Fathers taught sola fide or sola scriptura exclusively. Traditionally scriptures are included with oral teachings in the liturgy (worship service). Scriptures were never intended for private devotion.

In fact Paul already was appealing to a sola scriptura approach

"For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures"
1 Corinthians 15:3‭-‬4

I won't quote every verses reinforcing that stance but for sure it was what God intended since He prefered to give scriptures rather than traditions which Jesus would rebuke.

There's no apostolic designation. In Christian belief, God through Jesus and the Apostles did not grant some random Joe-Bob the authority to pop up a new church in a strip-mall or a burned out car dealership lol

The problem from my perspective is that you didn't really get the real root of Christianity. The core identity of Christianity is that anyone can be close to God and it's certainly not reserved to religious elites wearing beautiful garments.

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus."
Acts 4:13

God doesn't care about outward appearance and in fact He proved He'd rather want humble things as Himself would come as human in Jesus.
I know this is totally abject to you, you'd rather think God doesn't need to come here and certainly would not accept this cross because He's Holy.

Indeed He's Holy but in this struggle between good and evil, God had to prove He is inherently good. In order to show He is inherently good, He had to prove He is inherently virtuous by forgiving people not deserving forgiveness and embracing humility although He could submit us against our will instead.

Pharisianism which represented religious traditions in the past are the anti-thesis of God's identity and I see now why Jesus was this severe toward them, because none of that represents God at all.

 

[JoChris]

...if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. - 1 Tim 3:15

Going through Dyer's explanation again I would think it's important for Christians to understand the Orthodox position on the Church's authority.

If one claims to be Christian, acknowledging the canon, apostolic succession, and the declaration of God as the Trinity- it's contradictory to ignore the characteristics of the true Church declared at Nicea, which is that it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

The tenets of the 16th century rebel Reformers are incoherent, ahistorical, and unbiblical. In the first 1000 years of the Church, none of the councils or Church Fathers taught sola fide or sola scriptura exclusively. Traditionally scriptures are included with oral teachings in the liturgy (worship service). Scriptures were never intended for private devotion.

Protestantism is not one- it's actually a fractured myriad of 50,000 self-created religions. There's no apostolic designation. In Christian belief, God through Jesus and the Apostles did not grant some random Joe-Bob the authority to pop up a new church in a strip-mall or a burned out car dealership lol. I think that's why we see the insanity of modern Christianity, an ocean of competing doctrines vying desperately for attention.

Followers of a religion don't pick-and-choose their practices, doctrines, etc. It's senseless to support the divinity/authority of God through Jesus to Peter and his successors as representatives of the covenant with Israel, and yet promote your own anti-Christ doctrines.

You are spouting the usual pro-Roman Catholic church rhetoric. The earliest church fathers taught faith was necessary for salvation, they didn't add the word ONLY because from what they say it **should** be obvious to anyone with reading comprehension. The RCC sees what it wants to see. It creates loopholes for its traditions and false doctrines that way.

The protestant and baptist churches all agree on core doctrines that the bible teaches and the RCC rejects.
They agree on the Gospel. They believe the Bible only. They believe in one Saviour, one Mediator.
Some different denominations are due to physical locations and immigration - over time differences develop like every other culture and people.
Some differences are relatively minor like the timing of the Rapture.
Some have been ridiculously trivial like colour of carpets or personality clashes. Blame that type of issue on human failings, but don't pretend that is a different religion altogether.

 

[DavidSon]

Men can declare whatever they want, if we see something else in scriptures then the right stance, the only viable stance, is to choose Holy scriptures above men's hype.

I agree in modern times the general mindset is towards individuality, personal interpretation. I think Dyer is reminding us that attitudes were not always this way, basically for 1500 years before the Enlightenment period. I wouldn't call a 1000 year tradition "hype". Sure man can choose to create their own form of worship but they could also choose to follow the orders of the established, historic, and classical Church. Would a person rather live alone as more of hermit or be part of a well-known congregation?

In fact Paul already was appealing to a sola scriptura approach

"For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures"
1 Corinthians 15:3‭-‬4

I won't quote every verses reinforcing that stance but for sure it was what God intended since He preferred to give scriptures rather than traditions which Jesus would rebuke.

As you know but there are probably over a dozen threads here at the VC forum specifically debating "works vs. faith", which as I've said might be the most essential concept within the broader understanding of Christian "salvation". I hope you listen to the video as Dyer addresses (from the Orthodox Christian POV) the fallacy of sola scriptura directly. Dyer is a philosophy major who attended a Protestant seminary before reverting to Catholicism and Orthodoxy; I had to copy his talk almost word-for-word so am in no position to properly explain his reasoning. In my heart I know the understanding requires balance, and I gather from former threads there's a consensus here that works and faith are indivisible.

The problem from my perspective is that you didn't really get the real root of Christianity. The core identity of Christianity is that anyone can be close to God and it's certainly not reserved to religious elites wearing beautiful garments.

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus."
Acts 4:13

God doesn't care about outward appearance and in fact He proved He'd rather want humble things as Himself would come as human in Jesus.
I know this is totally abject to you, you'd rather think God doesn't need to come here and certainly would not accept this cross because He's Holy.

Indeed He's Holy but in this struggle between good and evil, God had to prove He is inherently good. In order to show He is inherently good, He had to prove He is inherently virtuous by forgiving people not deserving forgiveness and embracing humility although He could submit us against our will instead.

Pharisianism which represented religious traditions in the past are the anti-thesis of God's identity and I see now why Jesus was this severe toward them, because none of that represents God at all.

My impression is what Dyer is trying to share is that even with the absolute humility of recognizing God the Father of All, there's a reality of the physical body of Christ and the transference of bishopric authority from leader to leader, chosen by God. Your sentiment for the equal nature of God's blessing is a beautiful notion but one might say the direction of the Church was determined by God and therefore successful because of the fact. The Eastern or Roman empires were organized by hierarchies- there's no other way they could have prospered without them.

Again I'm only looking at the history as a neutral observer but it seems worthwhile to consider the Orthodox Church's view.

 

[Lyfe]

I agree in modern times the general mindset is towards individuality, personal interpretation. I think Dyer is reminding us that attitudes were not always this way, basically for 1500 years before the Enlightenment period. I wouldn't call a 1000 year tradition "hype". Sure man can choose to create their own form of worship but they could also choose to follow the orders of the established, historic, and classical Church. Would a person rather live alone as more of hermit or be part of a well-known congregation?



As you know but there are probably over a dozen threads here at the VC forum specifically debating "works vs. faith", which as I've said might be the most essential concept within the broader understanding of Christian "salvation". I hope you listen to the video as Dyer addresses (from the Orthodox Christian POV) the fallacy of sola scriptura directly. Dyer is a philosophy major who attended a Protestant seminary before reverting to Catholicism and Orthodoxy; I had to copy his talk almost word-for-word so am in no position to properly explain his reasoning. In my heart I know the understanding requires balance, and I gather from former threads there's a consensus here that works and faith are indivisible.



My impression is what Dyer is trying to share is that even with the absolute humility of recognizing God the Father of All, there's a reality of the physical body of Christ and the transference of bishopric authority from leader to leader, chosen by God. Your sentiment for the equal nature of God's blessing is a beautiful notion but one might say the direction of the Church was determined by God and therefore successful because of the fact. The Eastern or Roman empires were organized by hierarchies- there's no other way they could have prospered without them.

Again I'm only looking at the history as a neutral observer but it seems worthwhile to consider the Orthodox Church's view.

In your interpretation what is the purpose of Christ's Church?

 

[Maldarker]

Since the church is the born again believers in Christ then the purpose of the church would be to proclaim the gospel aka the " GOOD NEWS of a RISEN SAVIOUR" aka the before mentioned CHRIST to everyone.

 

[monkeylove]

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

Compared to the New Testament, there was much less controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.

The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.

Source

The last paragraph contradicts itself and is contradicted by preceding ones. The four points given are part of the "human process." The early Church is essentially the "Christian Church" mentioned earlier, consisting of the personalities given plus the councils that they formed. BTW, they consisted of human beings who were also flawed, which is why together with the Biblical canon they debated on various doctrines and even ended up excommunicating some of their own for heresy.

In short, the explanation proves my arguments while its conclusion is contradicted by the same explanation.

 

[monkeylove]

There were dozens of Gospels, but many of them were written even way beyond the last book of the Bible, Revelations. But why Manly Hall? Why not Brant Pitre, and for balance, Bart Ehrman? And these are the youngest experts on the matter.