http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/listofheresies.htm




_________________________________________


"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Jesus In John 8:32

Notice:-These dates are in many cases approximate. Many of these heresies had been current in the Church years before, but only when they were officially adopted by a Church council and proclaimed by the pope as dogma of faith, did they become binding on Catholics.

And doctrine to be true must conform to the Word of God. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)

At the Reformation in the 16th Century these heresies were repudiated as having no part in the Religion of Jesus as taught in the New Testament.


_____________________________


A.D.

1. OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ....310

2. Wax Candles introduced in church about....320

3. Veneration of angels and dead saints about....375

4. The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted....394

5. The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus in....431

6. Priests began to dress differently from the laity in....500

7. The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great about the year....593

8. The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I, 600 years after Christ....600

The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (I Cor. 14:9).

9. The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church about....600


(Matt. 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18)

10. The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas, in the year ....610

This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface 111, first assumed title "pope. "

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Lk. 22:24-26; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1: 18; 1 Cor. 3:11).

Note:-Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome.

11. The kissing of the Pope's feet began in....709

It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Rev. 19:10; 22:9).

12. The Temporal power of the Popes began....750

When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by Pope Stephen 11, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. (Read Matt. 4:8-9; 20:25-26; John 18:38).

13. Worship of the cross, of Images and relics was authorized in....788

This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian 1, pope of Rome at that time.

Such practice is called simply IDOLATRY in the Bible, and is severely condemned. (Read Ex. 20:4; 3:17; Dent. 27: 15; Psalm 1 15).

14. Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized in....850

15. The veneration of St. Joseph began in....890

16. The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV, in the year.......965

17. Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV in....995

Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:2).

18. Fastting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed in the year....998

Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. (Bull, or permit to eat meat), some authorities say, began in the year 700. This is against the plain teaching of the Bible. (Read Matt. 15:10; I Cor. 10:25; I Tim. 4:1-3).

19. The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.

The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord's Supper. (Read Heb. 7:27; 9:26- 28; 10:10-14).

20. The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII, in the year....1079

Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read I Tim. 3:2,5, and 12; Matt. 8:14-15).

21. The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedan....1090

The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ. (Matt. 6:5-13).

22. The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion....1184

23. The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin, began in the year....1190

Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic, and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

24. The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year....1215

By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Bible condemns such absurdities; for the Lord's Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord's Supper. (Read Luke 22:19-20; John 6:35; 1 Cor. 11:26).

25. Confession of sins to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III, in the Lateran Council, in the year....1215

The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psa. 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; I John 1:8-9).

26. The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius in the year....1220

So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24).

27. The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia in....1229

Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (John 5:39; 1 Tim. 3:15- 17).

28. The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, and English monk, in the year ....1287

It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. This is fetishism.

29. The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance in....1414

The Bible commands us to celebrate the Lord's Supper with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. (Read Matt. 26:27; 1 Cor. 11:26-29).

30. The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence in....1439

There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read I John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Rom. 8: 1).

31. The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed in....1439

The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Read Matt. 28:19-20; 26:26-28).

32. The Ave Maria, part of the last half in....1508

It was completed 50 years afterward and finally approved by Pope Sixtus V, at the end of the 16th century.

33. The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible....1545

By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Col. 2:8; Rev. 22:18).

34. The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent in....1546

These books were not recognized as canonical by the Jewish Church. (See Rev. 22:8-9).

35. The Creed of Pope Plus IV was imposed as the official creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostles, in....1560

True Christians retain the Holy Scriptures as their creed. Hence their creed is 1500 years older than the creed of Roman Catholics. (Read Gal. 1:8).

36. The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in the year....1854

The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Rom. 3:23; 5:12; Psa. 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47).

37. In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility....1870

This is a blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and of the anti-christ predicted by St. Paul. (Read II Thess. 2:2-12; Rev. 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18).

Many Bible students see the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18), 666 in the Roman letters of the Pope's tittle: "VICARIVS FILII DEI." -V-5, I-1; C-100, I-1; V-5, I-1; L-50, I-1; I-1; D-500, I-1-Total, 666.

38. Pope Pius X, in the year 1907, condemned together with "Modernism", all the discoveries of modern science which are not approved by the Church....1907

Pius IX had done the same thing in the Syllabus of 1864.

39. In the year 1930 Pius XI, condemned the Public Schools....1930

40. In the year 1931 the same pope Pius XI, reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "the Mother of God".....1931

This doctrine was first invented by the Council of Ephesus in the year 431. This is a heresy contrary by Mary's own words. (Read Luke l:46-49; John 2:1-5).

41. In the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary....1950

CONCLUSION

What will be the next invention? The Roman Church says it never changes; yet, it has done nothing else but invent new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible, and has practiced rites and ceremonies taken bodily from paganism. Some scholar has found that 75% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church are of pagan origin.

Note:-Cardinal Newman, in his book, "The Development of the Christian Religion," admits that "Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and season of devotions, processions, blessing of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ... are all of pagan origin..." (Page 359).

HERESIES are those doctrines and practices which are contrary to the Bible. They are also called "human "&dons" or "doctrines of men". Both Peter and Paul predicted and warned that In the later times "false teachers' I would rise within the Church and bring In "damnable heresies" and "doctrines of devils". (Read II Peter 2:1-3, and I Tim. 3:2-5). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, for they transgressed the commandments of God by keeping their traditions. "In vain," He said, "they worship me by keeping for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:3,9).

The real heretics therefore, are the Roman Catholics and the true orthodox are the Evangelical Christians.

BRETHREN! The Word of God commands us to get out of Babylon, saying: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Rev. 18:4). All true Christians will remain faithful to the religion of Christ as taught in the Bible, and heed the warning of the Apostle Paul, who said: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8).

Prayers for the dead date to at least 160 BC and are described in 2 Maccabees which was considered as scripture by all generations of the church until Luther stripped it out of the Bible in the 1500's



Candles used in the temple see Exodus 25 and 37
2 Chronicles 13:11 And they burn unto the Lord every morning and every evening burnt sacrifices and sweet incense: the shewbread also set they in order upon the pure table; and the candlestick of gold with the lamps thereof, to burn every evening: for we keep the charge of the Lord our God; but ye have forsaken him.

Perhaps your concern is that candles are also used in pagan rites. However flags are used in military funerals. Pagan's also use flags for prayer. As the wind waves the flag a prayer goes to the god's. Does this mean that all flags are pagan?
Also could you provide a reference which shows the introduction of candles in 320AD and proves that they were not used earlier.



Would it be wrong to venerate the temple? Remember to venerate simply means to consider it Holy and/or grant it great respect or honour such as you would when you bow to a King. It DOES NOT mean worship. This can get confusing to the protestant mind because both can involve bowing down or kissing. But it is the attitude and heart and aspect behind the bow which determines whether it is idolatrous worship or honour and respect.
So if it is all right to honour the temple. How much more is it appropriate to honour and venerate the bones which were once the temple of God, or the living man in whom dwells the Spirit of God, or the statue or likeness which represents the saint who held the Spirit of God? The cloths of Paul were venerated as healing sickness Acts 19. The shadow of Paul was venerated

In 156AD the Church at Smyrna sought the bones of Polycarp saying ""we took up his bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom."

Please provide evidence that veneration of saints started in 375 AD and did not exist prior to that. Justin Martyr in 150 AD states "host of good angels was held in the greatest veneration"

Christians venerate the Bible and if you think they don't then you do not understand the meaning of venerate.

Again be very careful when deciding this matter. VENERATE DOES NOT MEAN WORSHIP it means to greatly respect and honour.
REVERE means to regard with respect tinged with awe; venerate: The child revered her mother.
To regard with awe, deference, and devotion.

Its a very fine line between reverence and worship I admit, and it is in the heart of each individual to examine their heart. There is a special adoration and worship of God which we must afford only to him as the Lord of all. But he sanctified objects in the temple. Men were struck down by fire from heaven because the Ark of the Covenant was not properly revered. What did it contain? Lumps of rock and bread and a few bits of pieces some might say. But these were Holy Sacred relics in the eyes of the Israelites. The bones of Joseph were venerated.

I have on a number of occasions argued that many Catholics sin grieviously on this point and do in fact worship Mary and the Saints, but the Protestant reaction to this is to afford the saints and mary virtually no respect and that is not right either. The Iconoclasts of the Reformation treated nothing as holy and destroyed every object formerly considered sanctified and holy as a thing to be destroyed and spurned. Even nuns and pipe organs were ravaged.

In difficult matters which question men's hearts it is easy to judge and condemn. But God calls us to show a forgiving and merciful heart, to see other men in the best light and not to be harsh in judgement so that God will not be harsh in his judgement upon us, because we all sin in those areas where there is a fine line. For example Watching TV is idolatry if it takes us away from prayer. But how long do we pray for and how long do we watch TV? It's a fine line there which we tread. So we should throw out our TV right? Yes but if you do that you are legalistic "Taste not, Touch not". So let us do right not erring to the left or to the right. Do we wish God to judge us harshly as we judge others?

================================================================

I have not got time to go through every point but I daresay that if we had a soft heart and kind disposition toward Catholics we might present these questions in a manner that seeks understanding instead of a manner that seeks to sink the boot in.

Perhaps if we took the time to search out a matter instead of just cutting and pasting a heresy list from an anti-catholic web site we might come to some very different conclusions.

Perhaps I might tackle each of these points one by one as I have time. It is an interesting study and a great way to learn about the early church.

To the question "Have they changed" the answer is YES.

Many times .

C

Oops I just noticed Dennis Mann looking at this thread. Get ready for some classic anti-catholic rhetoric from Dennis.

Thanks, Shekel............there's some things there that i hadn't thought about.

it's so wonderful to hear Truth, in a world so full of lies.

the Pharisees murdered Jesus...........what was their reason?...........they claimed that He said that He was God.

Jesus did say it,........and He was God.
But, the Pharisees were wrong to murder Jesus.

the popes claim to be God..........they call themselves the HOLY FATHER........(the name of Jesus' God, John 17)

if the Pharisees were here today, what would they think of the pope's blasphemy?

today, 1 billion RCC people agree with the pope,...........that the pope is god.

a mere sinner is claiming to be god.
Why does God tolerate this rebellion?..........He is giving us plenty of opportunities to believe the Gospel, and repent of our blasphemies, and be saved from our sins.


why don't the popes be more blatant about it?...........they could claim that their name is HOLY YAHWEH JESUS REDEEMER SAVIOR GOD OF ISRAEL ANCIENT OF DAYS EVERLASTING FATHER WONDERFUL COUNSELOR SHILOH CREATOR MOST HIGH GREAT GOD.




and
the popes are not alone,.......
the mormons think that every good mormon man will become a god like Jesus.

satan told Eve that she would become like god.

evolution tells us that we are evolving ever-upwards toward PERFECTION-GODHOOD.

satan wanted to be like the MOST HIGH..........a third of the angels joined satan in his foolishness.

i think it's CHRISTIAN SCIENTOLOGY, where you're already a god,.......you just can't remember that you're a god, and you have to be talked-into it ,persuaded that you're a god.

Dear Shekel,

I am wondering if you have looked into any of these issues on your own rather than adopting someone elses work. I did, and the Lord guided me through a difficult terrain of history. You see, most things on this list are misrepresentations or distortions. Others are out right lies. I ask you to pray over this deeply with an innocent heart. I would like to point out a couple of discrepencies on this list, then understand that where there is smoke, there is fire.

First of all, the Lombards were not an Italian tribe. Now, if this work was of God it would not have contained a mistake like that. While we may make mistakes as humans in our understanding, facts are facts and are not subject to interpretation. The Lombards were a German tribe.

The books that protestants call Apocrypha were not added at the council of Trent in 1560. These books were included at the Council of Nicea. They were removed by protestants around the period of 1560. This, too, is a fact. Please, before you lash out at me on this, I ask you to look into this yourself.

Finally, I would like to point out that naming pagans or attacking different words as translating history dictates makes no sense. As everyone who was not a Jew was a pagan. Of course as the lands of the gentiles converted they would have translated the Good News into their own tongues. So the appearence of certain words or terms at different points in history does not mean that the practice was new. And I suspect that the person who composed this list knew better and was taking advantage of less educated people.

In 107 a.d. St Ignatius wrote often about the church as "the place of sacrifice". He wrote to the Philadelphians "Take care, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one alter, as there is one bishop, along with the priests and deacons, my fellow-servants."


God bless.

sojourner

You probably won't answer but just out of curiosity, are any of those here defending Catholicism priests?
Jesuits perhaps?

Outstanding post Sojourner. One of your best.

i forgot a name,...........add THE PRINCE OF PEACE to the inquisitor's titles.
i'm not a catholic-basher...........the pope has bashed me........the pope has bashed CHRIST..........there's 125 anathemas against all non-RCC people in the RCC COUNCILS

CHRIST is not RCC, so the pope has anathematized Christ.


many people (not just the popes) have deified THEMSELVES.

they worship no-one, except the SELF.

they consult no-one, they thank no-one, they trust in no-one, except the SELF.

and this creates conflict, when all these SELFs , acting as gods, with their own ideas of truth, interact with each other, and can't agree on issues.

dad against son, mother against daughter, .........all these SELFs are pulling against each other, instead of loving each other.

the LOMBARDS were Germans, who migrated to Northern Italy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards

I knew you wouldn't lie...because then you would have to go through a big ritual.

i also ask

are sojourner and excubitor and kansasdad priests, popes, cardinals, paid professionals working for the RCC, etc?
do they get a check from the heirarchy?
are they the heirarchy?

i asked a local RCC priest............how many years of college do you have...........he answered 8 or 11..(some big number like that)

why do RCC people need a PHD to minister to the Saints?.............Peter didn't have a PHD

I'll try Miki.

Are you stipended by the Catholic church Ex?

Excubitor, you keep mentioning the book of Maccabees as though before Luther it was considered inspired.

However...

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/A...phaArticle1.htm

Apocrypha Article 1
The Apocrypha should not be added into the canon of the Holy Scriptures because the church fathers say so, or councils that contradict one another say so.

Why I believe the Apocrypha ought not to be included
in the Canon of Holy Scripture.
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

=======



See the link for this article. I would have posted it here but his copyrite excludes it.

Errr. Excuse me Shekel, but all of these confessions are protestant confessions which are POST Luther and all spring from Luther's original decision to boot out the said Apocryphal books.

The declaration of the Council of Trent is Catholic but when it refers to the Old Testament it is including the books protestants consider apocryphal such as 2 Macc. In fact one of the most important objectives of that Council was to reinforce that the apocryphal texts which the catholics call Deuteroncanonical WERE in fact scripture as had been understood by all Christians for the entire Christian period and also for a couple of hundred years prior. These books were found in the Septuagint which the apostles used.

Surely you can see the incongruity. Luther denies the teachings of the church on the basis that they are not established by sola scriptura. Then on the other hand he is overthrowing the teachings of the church by kicking out those scriptures which support the church teachings.

This is sheer hypocrisy. Plain as day.

If you are suggesting that these protestant declarations are true then I must most vigorously deny it. No distinction was made between the deuterocanonical books and other books by Christians. They were all considered inspired to the same degree as any other scripture by all Christians throughout the ages.

Also the protestant statements that they do not establish any doctrine is false. They certainly establish the doctrine of prayers for the dead which is mentioned in 2 Macc. And as i point out. If we pray to the dead then it must be to relieve some suffering which they are undergoing which establishes the doctrine of purgatory, and if our prayers reduce that suffering then that establishes the doctrine of indulgences. Not that this verse is the only authority for these doctrines, but it is an important one.

Wow your fast!


As soon as I posted it I realized it was post-Luther. Opps!


So that is why I changed my post. However, here is a good link to answer you.


============================

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/A...phaArticle1.htm

Apocrypha Article 1
The Apocrypha should not be added into the canon of the Holy Scriptures because the church fathers say so, or councils that contradict one another say so.



=======


See the link for this article. I would have posted it here but his copyright excludes it.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/A...phaArticle1.htm

There is also no numeric pattern found in any of the Apocryphal books. It is a fact .

All the books now included has a numeric pattern that follows through them all.

C

Good point C!!!

God is sovereign, right?

I can't verify that about the numerics, although you may be correct. But when I reads the Apocrapha, the Holy Spirit does not bear witness to my spirit that it is scripture. It is either good history, or in the case of Bel and the Dragon, or whatever its called, it reeks of fantasy.



Nevertheless, they are important books if for no other reason than that they affected the way people thought in the first century becuase they were held in high esteem. But I don't think they were as highly esteemed as the prophets. For one thing, Jesus never quoted from them, nor Paul, and they both quoted a whole lot from the Old Testament (the bible of their day).



Even the Jews today do not have the Apocrapha in their canon of Scripture.



I guess they liked Luther and went his way eh! (To use our Canadian expression!)



However, in fact, they hated Luther because Luther, it seems, hated them. So why then do the Jews also, like Luther, not include the Apocrapha?



I am not a Luther fan by the way! But do know God used him to a degree, but it has been overstated in my opinion. (Sorry Martin!)

Yeah, I agree Dean. What's great about him though is that he searched the scriptures for himself. Too bad many people stopped searching and claimed his theology and his walk as their own. I don't think that was what Martin would have wanted... or at least I hope not.

I am listening to you, but those errors that you quote are small. (They may not even be errors as someone else just quoted wikipedia to the contrary.)

So the point is very valid. The RCC is constantly changing to suite the culture. To a degree this is always right, but not to the degree that the RCC has. Jesus did not come to die only to be hidden behind a million dead rituals.

O don't think that the popes claim to be God openly. But they do bear many names that are only meant for God to have, and so they do blaspheme.

The RCC is the greatest stumbling block to Jews being saved, for the reason that you said, and for many other reasons, such as Mary adoration and the inquisitions. The very year that Columbus sailed to discovered America, Catholic Spain decreed that all Jews leave their country.

But who are "her daughters"?

Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels that had the seven bowls, and spake with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the judgment of the great harlot that sitteth upon many waters;
Rev 17:2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and they that dwell in the earth were made drunken with the wine of her fornication.
Rev 17:3 And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness: and I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stone and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations, even the unclean things of her fornication,
Rev 17:5 and upon her forehead a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF THE HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered with a great wonder.

SEE.........means

Etymology 2

From Latin sedes (seat), referring to the bishop's throne or chair (confer seat of power) in the cathedral; related to the Latin verb sedere (to sit).

[edit] Noun

Singular
see


Plural
sees

see (plural sees)

1. A diocese; a region of a church, generally headed by a bishop

[edit] Translations


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/see



HOLY SEE............a seat of episcopal power


episcopal...........belonging to or vested in bishops


***************

the pope claims to be the APOSTLE PETER's successor in the office of APOSTLE

Peter was a prophet, he predicted future events...........2 Peter 3;3,7,10,13

does the pope claim to be a prophet, just like Peter?
will the pope be the FALSE PROPHET of Revelations?
the pope claims to be god.........he calls himself HOLY FATHER (THE FATHER IN HEAVEN)


of all the false prophets in the world today, who is the GREATEST false prophet?............the pope.

Shekel asked:
who are her daughters?

you ask hard questions!

the protestants have a lot of errors , sins, abominations,

the Jews (non-Messianic) have no excuse,..........they should accept Christ today.

the atheists, evolutionists, etc.....have spoken abominations.

i saw scads of abominations on my daughters' television , tonight............WWE Wrestling..........i can't imagine why they watch that stuff!
some redneck wrestler hosed down the whole place with beer.

and there was abominations in my heart, until i surrendered to Christ.

PTL!

I realise that there are excellent arguments for and against considering the Apocrypha as scripture. These have been thrown backward and forward for hundreds of years so there is nothing new about this debate we are having here. It was all settled generations ago. Certainly there have been Catholics at various times in history which cast suspicion upon the Apocrypha. As the link you provided shows, Jerome had this debate back in the 400's with Augustine. Augustine defended the Apocrypha as scripture. I really don't understand what makes us think that we are in a better position to make a decision on this matter in 2007 than these great doctors of the faith were in 400AD just after the period of the early church. The fact is that the church made its decision and I'll get to the criteria by which it made its decision in a moment.

As for Jerome and Augustine, its interesting to note where their alternative viewpoints came from. Jerome had been translating his new official Latin Vulgate and was in high brow discussions with Hebraic Jews and was biased toward using the masoretic texts of the Old Testament. Which was fair enough. However he became overly impressed with the opinions of these Jewish scholars and used their arguments in opposition to the generations old traditions of the early church. So which opinion do we value more greatly? If we value Sacred Tradition then we should follow the traditions and teaching of the saints and of the church before us. If we value scholarship and the opinions of unbelievers then we will follow the latest trendy "clever" argument.

The fact that the Apocrypha was highly esteemed as scripture is evident in its use in lectionaries of the early church of which we have an enormous abundance. These lectionaries are documents which outline how to work through the scriptures in a logical pattern throughout the year. In these lectionaries the apocryphal books are used with equal distinction as are the other books of the Bible showing that the early church considered them scripture.

Clearly therefore when the church decided on the canon at various councils, Carthage they decided as the always have done to honour the traditions of the church over the clever teachings of scholars, unbelievers and philosophers. Who can fault them for that. Much of our mayhem in our modern translations is due to this very fault. Christians spurning the traditional readings of the scriptures for new eclectic readings cooked up by clever scholars with clever arguments and sophisticated techniques.

The other point often made is that the Jews defend the oracles of God. Jews don't recognise the apocrypha therefore they are not the oracles of God. This is only partly true. Hebraic Jews who spoke and wrote in Hebrew did not include the books that is true, probably because they were not written in Hebrew but in the despised language of the Greeks. But in fact the majority of Jewry was dispersed throughout the world. There were synagogues all throughout Asia Minor and these hellenised Jews used the Greek version of the Old Testament which is the Septuagint. The apocryphal books, called Deuterocanonical by the Catholic church are in the Septuaging and were used as Holy Scripture by Jews in every Greek speaking city. They used them and guarded them as the oracles of God every bit as much as the Hebraic Jews guarded the Hebrew Scriptures. The apostles also used the Septuagint and gave absolutely no indication in any place that the Septuagint scriptures contained uninspired scriptures. Instead they said the exact opposite saying 2 Timothy 3:16 ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God.

The fact is that Jerome was a blip in the radar on this point as far as the great wave of testimony of the general assembly of the saints throughout all of history spread over wide geographic regions. Most people don't even know that Cartejan thought this way until I read the article I didn't either. Luther is not fit as an authority on this subject. He actually removed James out of his Canon as well because it didnt fit with his theories on Sola Fide. Most of his followers didnt agree with him either and the book of James and the apocrypha was put back in most protestant bibles. Of course they hedged their bets by putting them in appendixes and other strange configurations. This is the similar duplicity which is shown by the NIV which removes scores of verses from the Bible indenting them or putting them in the margin.

Did you know that all the early English protestant bibles contained the apocrypha often in appendixes with a disclaimer notice with some comment about papism blah blah. Even the original 1611 KJV contained the apocrypha. Large numbers of Bible continued to be sold containing the apocrypha up until 1820's when the British and Foreign Bible Society refused to distribute Bibles which contained copies of it.

So folks if it were not for the Internet, none of us would probably have ever read the apocrypha and who can we thank for that? The British and Foreign Bible Society in the 1800's, not the hebraic jews or jerome, or cajetan or Luther or even King Henry VIII who said "as to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist". You can tell King Henry thought that one through. Kind of like Dennis Mann on a throne.

Some who read these books with a hard heart of unbelief and a natural protestant bias find that the spirit does not move them. Nevertheless for generations of Christians these books have moved them in the Spirit for 2 thousand years.

As for Bible Codes. I have great fascination for them which is how I ended up here, but I must consider the Sacred Tradition of the church to be a weightier authority.

Ex said:

Some who read these books with a hard heart of unbelief and a natural protestant bias find that the spirit does not move them. Nevertheless for generations of Christians these books have moved them in the Spirit for 2 thousand years.



my thoughts:

it is not the HOLY SPIRIT that moves them.............it is demons, loathsome spirits, filthy birds.........Rev 18;2.......AMPLIFIED BIBLE

Jesus said:

Mat 15:6....... And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition.

Ex said
a natural protestant bias

my thoughts:
what does the RCC bias believe?..............that the pope is god? (he claims to be GOD......THE HOLY FATHER)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0344263.html

blas•pheme

Pronunciation: (blas-fēm', blas'fēm), [key]
—v., -phemed, -phem•ing.

—v.t.
1. to speak impiously or irreverently of (God or sacred things).
2. to speak evil of; slander; abuse.

—v.i.
to speak irreverently of God or sacred things; utter impieties.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.

*************

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=45;

EXODUS 20 AMPLIFIED BIBLE

7You shall not use or repeat the name of the Lord your God in vain [that is, lightly or frivolously, in false affirmations or profanely]; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

8[Earnestly] remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (withdrawn from common employment and dedicated to God).


the pope claims that he is the HOLY FATHER.

the pope has broken the COMMANDMENT
Exodus 20;7

You do realize that in the NT believers are called "saints", which from the Greek is interpreted as "holy ones"...

When did the pope say that he was god?

Caneman

I am not sure where this question comes from, But I can tell you, as I have posted on many occasions, I hold no official title in the Catholic Church, other than I am not a volunteer religious ed coordinator for our youth and adult classes. They were desperate and I was the only one who would say yes. I am just a parishiner. I am married with two children and hold a very stressful job. I also know that Sojourner is just plane ole folk like me. Excubitor isn't Catholic, and I don't know Caneman well enough to answer, But I doubt it.

Can I ask why you would think this, or feel this was important to ask?

God Bless,
Kansas Dad

why would any-one continue to believe in the TOP HEAD BLASPHEMER OF THE WORLD (the pope) after we have told you many times, that he is a blasphemer?

unless you're NOT a believer, and you're being PAID to post here?

your position doesn't make any sense!..........from a believer's point of view

IMO, JPII was a holy man. Not sure about the current pope, but time will tell.

Caneman

Great research Shekel. I know several people who have escaped from the RCC and their general response is they were unsaved while they were there. A web site of a former catholic priest, who doesn't spend a great deal of time expounding on the harlotry of the RCC, but rather presents daily teachings on Sola Scriptura, would be a good starting point for catholics seeking the truth. His home page talks about his experience.
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/index.htm
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/roadsign.htm

I am not sure where you got that he was a priest. I only see that he was born Catholic and left.

Also I would point out, as Ex and Sojourner pointed out, what Shekel posted has many errors, misrepresentations, and quite false statements in it. This was not good research. It was posting some ones else's work without doing any research on the validity or facts. Sorry Shekel but that list is not good research. If one has truth on your side, you have absolutely no need to misrepresent, or mislead facts. When you see a list such as Shekel posted, that uses misleading assumptions and mis leads facts to support its conclusions, you should really be cautious in jumping on its ban waggon.

God Bless,
K.D.



I am sure Miki is quite capable of answering this question given to her with out your spin on it.

I just made a statment above about this list let me show you some of what I am refering to,



I am not going to go through all 41 of the points made by this Author but it becomes painfully obvious that he is at best misinformed, but most likely intentionally misleading. If he has truth on his side he would have no need to employ such deceptive measures to prove facts.

God Bless,
K.D.

Fine piece of work KD,
What frustrates me is that you have had to go to all that trouble.
How easy it is to cut and paste a list from somewhere else. 5 minutes work at tops, and then someone else is left with an hour of work or more to defend the faith.

This is a great injustice. We wouldn't plaster allegations about an individual onto the Internet without thoroughly checking out that it was true. That would be slander. And yet we feel that we can plaster allegations about a church on the Internet with impunity. There should be no difference in the way we treat a group or an individual.

In defense of the rcc, I'll mention some good changes that I've noticed in the last 40 some years.

You can now understand the priest, he's no longer speaking Greek.
They are allowed to read the bible now. Let me rephrase this one, they are now encouraged to read the bible.
They have music.

All positive changes IMHO.

the creation (pope) is not the Creator...........but the pope claims to be the Creator.

the pope claims to be the HOLY FATHER (HEAVENLY FATHER, JOHN 17)

the pope slanders the Creator, when the pope claims that a sinner is the Creator.

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/text.html#1

On Sunday, 4 November, Memorial of St Charles Borromeo, prior to leading the recitation of the Angelus with the faithful in St Peter's Square, the Holy Father delivered the following Reflection, translated from Italian.

(quote from pope benedict)
Recalling my venerable Predecessor John Paul II who bore his name with devotion - today is his name day - let us entrust to St Charles' intercession all the Bishops of the world, for whom we invoke as always the heavenly protection of Mary Most Holy, Mother of the Church.

un-quote


my thoughts:

Mary would have to be God, to do what the pope has asked her to do........."heavenly protection"

Mary is not "Most Holy".
God is MOST HOLY.
notice how the pope has elevated Mary's Holiness above the Holiness of God!
Who is Holiest of all?.........God is.
but the pope says that Mary is Most Holy.

Mary is not the "Mother of the Church"

obviously, this RCC mary is not Mary-of-the-bible............She is a demon, masquerading as Mary.

and this pope is not an apostle of Christ..........he is an impostor, a false prophet,........he is masquerading as a prophet............he has contradicted the Scriptures, many, many times.

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.


the MOST HOLY is not mary,..........it is the Lord God.

but the pope says that mary is the MOST HOLY

the pope is a blasphemer

Mary is not the MOTHER OF THE CHURCH.
the pope said that Mary is the MOTHER OF THE CHURCH.


http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/marymother.htm

CounterCentral hit counters

Written and Posted in Christian Love
Is Mary The Mother Of The Church?

249 pages contrasting the
Mary of Catholicism with
the Mary of the Holy Bible.
click the book

mary blessed virgin catholic mother

Certainly, one of the most important titles ascribed to Mary by Catholicism is the Mother of the Church. The Roman Catholic institution gets this Mary-exalting teaching primarily from the words of Jesus, as He hung from the cross:

When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home (John 19:26,27).

Mary Was a Widow at the Cross
There is another way to interpret the above passage, which is much more consistent with other Scriptures describing Mary and how the original Christians viewed her. Before we look at these other relevant passages, let's examine the context of John 19:26,27. At that point in time, Joseph was dead leaving Mary a widow. This is derived from the last time we ever hear of Joseph, which was in Luke 2 when Jesus was in the temple at the age of 12. Eighteen years later when Jesus began His ministry, Joseph is never mentioned again with Mary, which is easily understandable if he had died, as many think. Instead of Joseph being with Mary (which is what we would expect) during Jesus' earthly teaching ministry, at the cross and in the Upper Room, Mary is frequently cited with only her other children (Mt. 12:46-49; Mk. 3:31-34; Lk. 8:19-21; Jn. 2:12; Acts 1:14) or alone (Jn 19:26,27).
Mary's Other Children were Unbelievers When Jesus Died
Furthermore, Mary's other children, born after Jesus, were all unbelievers during his earthly ministry. Scripture says:

After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life. But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." For even his own brothers did not believe in him. (John 7:1-5)

So when Jesus was dying on the cross, Mary was a widow and her other children were not believers at that point. (Soon afterwards that changed.) Jesus, therefore, commissioned John to take Mary into his house and care for her, as he would for his own mother in the natural, which would make John like a son to Mary. The wiser and stronger takes care of the weaker and more feeble, so John took care of Mary. To misuse John 19:26,27 by reading into it that Mary was made Mother of the church has lead many to an unscriptural focus on Mary for one's spiritual needs, instead of looking to Jesus as the Bible declares.
Christians Care For Widows
Also, remember that taking care of widows is foundational to Christianity:

But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. (1 Tim 5:4)

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27)

Jerusalem is our Mother
Let us now consider other Scriptural evidence regarding this subject of Mary being the Mother of the Church. First, is this title ever given to her or anyone? Shockingly, it is found in Gal. 4:26, but not ascribed to Mary:

But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

Clearly, the Lord's apostle taught the heavenly Jerusalem is the mother of the church and not Mary. It should also be mentioned that the last time Mary is mentioned in the epistles is in this same chapter, but she was not named, even in the slightest way, as having any exalted role, as would be expected, if she was then the mother of the church. This is how Mary was referred to:

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, (Gal 4:4)

Mary is shown in Galatians 4 to be just a woman and nothing more. Had Paul believed Mary was the Mother of the Church he had a golden opportunity at Galatians 4 to mention it but didn't!
"Who Has Been a Mother to Me"
Furthermore, in his epistle to the Romans, Paul mentioned who had "been a mother to him," but it was not Mary, the mother of Jesus:

Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too. (Rom 16:13)

Rufus' mother was like a mother to Paul and the only mother figure he mentions. If Mary was the mother of the church, as some read into John 19:26,27, could Paul have stated this without a mention of Mary? Never!
Jesus Never Exalted Mary Over His Other Disciples
It should also be stressed that the Lord Jesus never exalted Mary above his other disciples. Ponder Jesus' eternal words carefully:

Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." (Mat 12:49,50)

"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:33-35)

Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you." He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice." (Luke 8:19-21)

Interpret Scripture With Scripture
According to Jesus, all of his disciples are equal to Mary. She is not honored above the church as their mother, according to the Lord. Why then should anyone interpret John 19:26,27 in a way that is contradictory to these other related Scriptures? We need to let Scripture interpret Scripture.

One must also wonder why John never exalted Mary, or even mentioned her, in any of his epistles! The same can be said about Peter, whom Catholics were taught was the first pope. Certainly, he should have exalted Mary, like so many other popes have done throughout the centuries, but he apparently didn't think she had any special role in the various subjects he addressed in his epistles, which included salvation and prayer.
Jesus Refuted Her Publicly
Getting back to Jesus, ponder his eternal teaching, which publicly refuted a woman who tried to exalt Mary on the basis that she gave birth to Jesus:

While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." (Luke 11:27,28)

It was as though a present-day Catholic, who was trying to over-exalt Mary in Jesus' presence, was there and was openly refuted in public by the Lord.
Mary In The Upper Room
One final Scriptural passage needs to be cited, which occurred after Jesus' death on the cross and when the disciples numbering 120, including Mary, were all gathered together:

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus—he was one of our number and shared in this ministry." (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) "For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms, "‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, "‘May another take his place of leadership.' Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection." So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:14-26)

Peter and John were present, but again there is the absence of any kind of special honor that was given to Mary, even though she was supposed to be the Mother of the church at this point and allegedly declared such just several weeks before!
The Disciples Didn't Rely on Mary's Intercession
Furthermore, the disciples had an important prayer request, but didn't have Mary present it to God! Apparently, they also didn't consider her intercession as being more powerful than their own nor did they think she was mediatrix of all graces. Instead, they prayed directly to God and without going through a saint, such as Abraham, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc.
Ponder This
Finally, ponder these about Mary's mothership of the church. Prov 1:8,9 read:

Listen, my son, to your father's instruction and do not forsake your mother's teaching. They will be a garland to grace your head and a chain to adorn your neck.

If Mary is the Mother of the Church, why don't we have any words of wisdom from her to guide us? She wrote no New Testament books. Also, why aren't we shown that Mary was gently caring for the new converts to Christianity, as we would think is fitting for such a role:

But we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children. (1 Thess 2:7)

But the point to all this is Mary is never shown by title or inference, in the whole of Scripture, to be the Mother of the Church, as Catholics think. In fact, there is more Scriptural evidence to deny this Catholic teaching than to affirm it.

To focus exclusively in on Jn. 19:26,27 to get this teaching is to mislead precious souls away from the truth and into something different than what the Bible declares about this issue, which has lead to the spiritual destruction of people who are trying to reach out to God, but doing it in an unscriptural manner. Salvation is only found in Jesus. We get to Him by going to Him sincerely and repentfully, but never through Mary.

(Please see our other related articles.)

Return to Evangelical Outreach
www.evangelicaloutreach.org

Contact Us Or Join Our Email List

Thank you Adonaicole: I would like to point out as well that these are all changes in presentation, not doctrine.

God Bless,
K.D.

My wife was one of them.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

However, the list I quoted from looked like the standard list that I have seen many times all over, including printed works. Yes, I assumed that it was accurate because of how often I have seen such a list.

The bottom line is that the practices of the Roman Catholic Church were slowly added over the centuries so that she bears little resemblence to the simplicity of New Testament Christianity.