The Heresy Of This Roman Catholic

[WinePusher]

Inspired by this thread: Question for Roman Catholics I'd like to post some thoughts.

Things that WinePusher Accepts:

1) I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church that was founded by Christ, and is the one true Christian Church, but that protestants churches also hold an equal amount of truh.
2) I believe that the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church were also established by Christ.
3) I accept Roman Catholic Teachings such as tradition and scripture, and faith and works
4) I believe in Transubstantiation and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
5) I affirm many of the Catholic Church's social teachings, such as the preservation of marriage, the theology of the body and sex, the theology and consistent ethic for life and so on.
6) I love Roman Catholic Rituals, such as the Easter Vigil being at Sunset, the MidNight Mass, the rituals of Extreme Unction, Confirmation, the use of sacred images in worship, the prayers for the dead and the sacraments as outward signs of God's grace.
7) I accept the Catholic Position on Evolution, and am turned off by Fundamentalists who see some type of conflict.
8) I love Catholic interpretation of Scripture, and their willingness to look at all aspects of Scripture, not just the literal text.
9) I love Catholic multiculturalism. How they incoporate different languages into worship and so on.

Things that WinePusher does not accept, or has trouble accepting, and some of WinePusher's ideas:

1) I do not believe in the infalliblity of the Papacy or the Pope when he speaks Ex Cathedra.
2) I think Priests should be able to marry.
3) I think that to much emphasis has been placed on Mary. I accept the Immaculate Conception, but do not accept the Assumption of the Blessed Mother.
4) I do not think that church is infallible in things concerning faith and dogma, the body of christ and the people of god should not be taught to be infallible.
5) I think the Church needs to focus much more on developing a personal relationship with Christ.
6) I do not accept tales of Stigmata.
7) I think that Saints were people who lived sinful lives, but strived to become better with the help and grace of God. They shuold not be imbued with supernatural powers.
8) I absolutly disagree with these Catholic Hierarchial officials and their stance of illegal immigration. I think these "Bishops" and "Cardinals" have sold themselves and are cowards for blasting the Arizona Law, supporting the infant stage of Obamacare, and their generous views on Welfare and governemnt handouts.
9) I am very skechy with the doctrine such of purgatory. Christ paid the price for our sin, purgatory seems superfluous.

-Am I a Heretic and should I be ex-communicated from the Church?

This is open for all to participate, but I would specifically like the perspective of Slopeshoulder, Joshua Patrick and Ann as they are fellow Catholics.



Edited many times beause I kept thinking of new things to add to the list.

[WinePusher]

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church that was founded by Christ, and is the one true Christian Church, but that protestants churches also hold an equal amount of truth.

Where a Protestant position is mutually exclusive from Catholic dogma, do you concede that the Catholic dogma might be in error?

I would have to approach it and see whether or not it is consistent with scripture, however at the present time I cannot think of a doctrine that is protestant and is mutually exclusive from Catholicism.

1) I do not believe in the infallibility of the Papacy or the Pope when he speaks Ex Cathedra.

I [...] do not accept the Assumption of the Blessed Mother.

These two points have been rather strongly stated as being dogmatic truth by the Catholic Church. Not once, not trivially, not just by a fringe group, but repeatedly by councils, popes and cardinals. The church hierarchy has made it abundantly clear that these are not negotiable items. If the Roman Catholic Church is the one True Church, founded by Jesus Christ, what is it that makes you feel that you can pick and choose which of its dogmas to accept and which to ignore?

Just because the church is one and founded by Christ does not mean it is infallible. Infallibility via Ex Cathedra and the assumption, and immaculate conception, of Mary have no biblical basis and I am unsure of their origins.

[WinePusher]

1) I do not believe in the infalliblity of the Papacy or the Pope when he speaks Ex Cathedra.

Then ipso facto you are not a Catholic. You might look into joining the sect called "The Old Catholic Church." These heretics rejected Vatican Council I, a dogmatic council.

I did not realize that the prerequisite for being a Catholic was accepting the infallibity of the Papacy. Can you tell me what biblical basis there is for this doctrine?

To say that the Papacy, and the Church, is infallible is to say it never changes. It obviously has, it's retracted its claims about a human/earth centered universe and its practices of indulgences. That claim is unwarrented, and it makes the Church seem like an institution with special powers. It isn't, it's a community of like minded people who follow Christ and strive to overcome their sinful nature. It is fallible, and it has succumb to change.

[Slopeshoulder]

If I read her correctly, Ann considers Benedict XVI a heretic and an illegitimate pope. She believes the church has no pope currently. Yet she calls herself a loyal catholic. The details are in another thread, and will hopefully remain there. Consider that this who is judging and advising you.

Dude, you're catholic, K?

[WinePusher]

If I read her correctly, Ann considers Benedict XVI a heretic and an illegitimate pope. She believes the church has no pope currently. Yet she calls herself a loyal catholic. The details are in another thread, and will hopefully remain there. Consider that this who is judging and advising you.

Dude, you're catholic, K?

Thanks for the reassurance . I was almost not allowed to teach religious education in my Church because I was a little bit to open with these beliefs of mine.

[Ann]

1) I do not believe in the infalliblity of the Papacy or the Pope when he speaks Ex Cathedra.

Then ipso facto you are not a Catholic. You might look into joining the sect called "The Old Catholic Church." These heretics rejected Vatican Council I, a dogmatic council.

I did not realize that the prerequisite for being a Catholic was accepting the infallibity of the Papacy. Can you tell me what biblical basis there is for this doctrine?

To say that the Papacy, and the Church, is infallible is to say it never changes. It obviously has, it's retracted its claims about a human/earth centered universe and its practices of indulgences. That claim is unwarrented, and it makes the Church seem like an institution with special powers. It isn't, it's a community of like minded people who follow Christ and strive to overcome their sinful nature. It is fallible, and it has succumb to change.

The dogma of Papal infallibility is rooted in Divine Revelation.

Luke 23:31-32: “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.� It is important to remember that in the Greek text we see that when Jesus says “Satan has desired to have you� the “you� is in plural, but is singular when He says, “But I have prayed for thee [Peter]�

Christ prayed for Peter alone, that his faith fails not.


The changes we have seen since Vatican II (a false council) have been drastic, but people need to realize that the situation going on today has been predicted in the Bible and Catholic prophecy. What many people perceive as being the Catholic Church is not the Church, but a counterfeit Church headed by a heretical anti-pope. For the true Catholic Church (which has not changed) has been reduced to a remnant.

St. Athanasius: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition were reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church.�

[Ann]

Dude, you're catholic, K?

You prefer to take the Emperor’s New Clothes approach in trying to convince yourselves to be Catholic, but even a child can see the silliness in that. Do you both consider yourselves pioneers in trying to make religion an indoor sport?

[fewwillfindit]

I did not realize that the prerequisite for being a Catholic was accepting the infallibity of the Papacy. Can you tell me what biblical basis there is for this doctrine?

The dogma of Papal infallibility is rooted in Divine Revelation.

Luke 23:31-32: “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.� It is important to remember that in the Greek text we see that when Jesus says “Satan has desired to have you� the “you� is in plural, but is singular when He says, “But I have prayed for thee [Peter]�

Christ prayed for Peter alone, that his faith fails not.

You were asked for scripture that proved papal infallability. This scripture does nothing of the sort, unless you pile heaps of tradition and church authority on top of it. The fact that Jesus prayed for Peter has no bearing on the veracity of some guy who sits in the Vatican 2000 years later. In order for papal infallibility to be proven as truth, it must be proven plainly from scripture else it is a manmade doctrine. It would be wise to remember Jesus' words to the Pharisees in Matthew:

Matthew 15:8-9

8 This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

[Slopeshoulder]

If I read her correctly, Ann considers Benedict XVI a heretic and an illegitimate pope. She believes the church has no pope currently. Yet she calls herself a loyal catholic. The details are in another thread, and will hopefully remain there. Consider that this who is judging and advising you.

Dude, you're catholic, K?

Thanks for the reassurance . I was almost not allowed to teach religious education in my Church because I was a little bit to open with these beliefs of mine.

You'll find a more wecloming audience in seminaries, catholic universities, among jesuits, and behind closed doors. The average parish preist is a foot soldier; you're thinking like an officer. Bishops area mixed bag, ever since JP2 packed the house with mediocre yes men (this is well documented).

[Slopeshoulder]

Dude, you're catholic, K?

You prefer to take the Emperor’s New Clothes approach in trying to convince yourselves to be Catholic, but even a child can see the silliness in that. Do you both consider yourselves pioneers in trying to make religion an indoor sport?

Your metaphors are lost one me.
But I suggest looking at the overwhelming majority of catholic theology, seminary training, catholic university theology departments, and poll results among american catholics to see that 99.9999%of catholics agree with us and .00001% agree with you. I mean, you deny the validity of vatican II for chrissakes (IMO the only good thing the church has done in the centuries before) and say that Ratzinger is an anti pope. indeed! I think he's an asshat, but at least he's legitimate.
Do you really think that outside of your self-ghettoized little circle that your judgments upon others will be taken seriously? I have no wish to honor your views by debating them, but I must point out that you do not get to decide; your own catholicism is called into question, even in this forum, by other conservative catholics. Upon what basis should we heed your judgments?
And comparing us to children is uncivil, especially when the giants of catholic theology agree with us. As do all my catholic professors and priests who filled my head with what I think. Were they all imposters? Nonsense.

[Roman]

Two of the centermost dogmas of Papism are the “infallibility� and the “primacy�. The purpose of these dogmas is the reinforcement of Papism, and the subsequent acceptance of any heretic teaching whatsoever by its faithful. However, these dogmas also constitute the very building blocks of the heretic edifice of Papism itself. These are dogmas that are opposed to every Christian logic and tradition. They are opposed to the very Gospel itself.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/alathito1.htm



Did Christ really give Peter absolute power in the Kingdom of Heaven?
Did the “keys� that Christ gave him render him a Pope (in the Papist sense)?
So, why were the “keys to the Kingdom� given (to him specifically)?

http://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/kleidia1.htm