What are the Catholic "lies," and what biblical evidence shows them to be lies?

Question

Evangelical Protestants often say that the Catholic Church is teaching "lies." What specifically does the Church teach that you believe to be a lie, and what is the biblical evidence that the teaching is false? I invite Catholics to provide counterevidence from the Bible if the Catholic claims are not lies, or from the Catechism if the supposed "lies" are not Catholic ideas.

So far, only Veritas, Jesussaves, Bibliophile, and Drake have provided chapter and verse citations for their statements. Specific biblical references are needed to nail down whether Catholic ideas are "lies" or whether they have a biblical foundation.

Answer 1

I am Anglican because I do not except the Church's scriptural interpretations or reasoning for Apostollic Succession, infallibility of the teaching office, etc. But I would hardly reduce those things to teaching "lies." Quite the contrary, protestant faiths trace their history back only 300 years - they just don't tell anyone in those denominations. I love that Catholic theology requires looking at the early church's perspectives and the development of the questions and answer through time before an opinion can be formed.

For example, the idea that Catholicism is based on works is directly contradicted by the Catholic Catechism and tradition as early as the Nicene Creed. An dthe Galatians reference is bizarre in that it refers to justification through the law versus Jesus-as-sacrifice, which is a viewpoint openly shared by the Church.

The priesthood of all believers is also a tough one for me, but the Catholic reasoning goes back all the way to the structire of the early Acts church where elders and clergy are higher in the spiritual hierarchy and thus are deferred to. To argue that spiritual hierarchy in the church is a creation of the Church post-Biblical times is demonstrably false.

I love Catholicism. I wish I could be Catholic. It's just some of the reasoning I can't accept. For example, in banning artificial birth control the Church cites God smiting Onan for pulling out of his widowed sister-in-law and instead coming on the ground, thus not fulfilling his obligation to sire her children. So that is seen of condemnation of ejaculating outsid ethe vagina. What I can't understand is why it is not seen instead as condemnation of not siring your widowed sister-in-law's children - the rationale explicitly given in that story.

I can't help but think that celibate men, while their persona relationships with Christ are no doubt incredibly strong, miss too much of the human experience to be infallible conduits for believers. But wow are they every one so much smarter than 99% of protestant thinkers!

Answer 2

The carnal minded will never understand the Word of God. Pray for a spiritual mind. Adam was the Lucifer. It was not an angel. Everyone just thinks that the cherub was an angel, but no. It is used interchangeably In Eze one and ten, as the ox. He was anointed by God, to be the covering or the one who protects and teaches people of God. But he rebelled and refused to do this. So God cast him our of Eden. Later God raised up another son, Jesus, and anointed him to be our spiritual Covering. Now Jesus is the Light. Adam, Lucifer, lost his light and went into darkness. Jesus is now the Light of this world, and the bright and morning Star. I answer solely for the sake of those here who might be sincere with God. The seven eyes/horns, are the seven spirits of God. If you read the Word you could learn some of these things. Unless you change a good deal you will end up with the real ghastly beasts and spirits. But it will not be the Heavenly spirits which Jesus has. In this life, there will be the divisions as the people of God are attacked by the people of Satan. Those born after the flesh persecute those born after the Spirit. It is just what you are doing right now, persecuting Jesus. Yes, In families where some are Christians and others are not, there is that division. It will continue as long and the tares and the wheat grow together. You see how you are against those of us who love truth and Jesus? That is it. Two cannot walk together unless they be agreed. So much for your slandering today. You did not quite make it!

Answer 3

*** re chap. 21 p. 139 Christedom's Waters Revealed to be Wormwood***

Beliefs and Attitudes of Christedom

" God's Personal Name is Unimportant : The use of any proper name for the one and only God ... is entirely inappropiate for the universal faith of the Christian Church." - Preface to the Revised Standard Version.

What the Bible Really Says

Jesus Prayed that God's name be sanctified. Peter said :" Everyone who calls on the of Jehovah will be saved." (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32; Matthew 6:9; Exodus 6:3; Revelation 4:11; 15:3; 19:6)

Beliefs and Attitudes of Christendom

God is a Trinity: “The Father is God, the Son is God,
and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912 edition) .

What The Bible Really Says

The Bible says that Jehovah is greater than Jesus and is the God, and head of Christ. (John 14:28; 20:17; 1 Corinthians 11:3) The holy spirit is God’s active force. ( Matthew 3:11; Luke 1:41; Acts 2:41).

Beliefs and Attitudes of Christedom

The human soul is immortal:
“When man dies his soul and body
are disunited. His body . . .
decays . . . The human soul,
however, does not die.” (What
Happens After Death, a Roman
Catholic publication)

What The Bible Really Says

Man is a soul. At death the soul ceases to think or feel and returns to the dust from which it was made. ( Genesis 2:7; 3:19; Psalms 146:3,4; Ecclesiastes 3:19,20; 9:5, 10; Ezekiel 18:4,20)

Answer 4

I can't believe how many anti-Catholic "Christians" seem to not know anything about Christian History or The Church or The Bible.

The Catholic Church teaches only Truth as it was set up by Christ. She, therefore, is the only Church with the complete Truth.

DRAKE: there's not enough room to answer all those. How about asking a Y!A question for each one, or something?
And P.S. - stop reading Lorraine Boettner. That book is worthless. Read Karl Keating's, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians." It will answer each one of those cut and paste issues.

Answer 5

Hey there,
There are many natural ways to cure premature ejaculation. A proven natural method can be found on this site http://www.goobypls.com/r/rd.asp?gid=565

Recent polls have shown that the average length of intercourse is usually anywhere between 2 to 12 minutes. Most often those diagnosed with premature ejaculation climax in less than a minute or two, and there are even those who ejaculate before there is any sort of penetration. In all actuality, “too short” is really just a matter of opinion. The most important factor is if a man feels that he is unable to control his ejaculation and is frequently climaxing before he would like. Any man who feels that this is a problem for him may be suffering from some form of premature ejaculation.
Cheers ;)

Answer 6

I think one of the best websites out there for showing scriptural evidence of the truth of the Church is www.scripturecatholic.com. They take the doctrines of the Church scripture by scripture, even providing references to the original Greek used and what it meant. I mention this website instead of listing a bunch of verses because it's all laid out, nicely organized, just click and read. Should be one of the best resources you'll find.

God bless.

Answer 7

CJ, you need to better understand what the Catholic Church teaches with regard to Faith and Works. It is not one or the other, but both. James writes that faith without works is dead. Jesus taught the same: “Not all who cry out, Lord, Lord, will be saved. When I was hungry, you did not feed me; I was thirsty, you gave me nothing to drink; I was naked, you gave no clothes to wear, I was sick and imprisoned, and you did not visit me. Some will ask when did we fail to do these things, and I will answer, whatsoever you failed to do for the least of my brethren, you failed to do for me.”

CJ, as to your second point, the Catholic Church teaches that we are all ambassadors for Christ, but there is a distinction between the common priesthood of all believers and the ministerial priesthood. Even God Himself made that distinction when He chose the Levites to be His priests. Jesus, similarly, chose 12 men to be His apostles.

Drake, stop the cutting and pasting. That is silly. Let's just take a look at the sacrifice of Christ "offered once and for all." You need to understand that the Sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross at Calvary. In other words, at each Mass, we are actually present at the Crucifixion -- not a new or different crucifixion, but the very same Crucifixion. We are with the Apostle John, the disciple of whom Jesus loved, at the foot of the Cross. We are with Mary, the mother of Jesus, weeping at the foot of the Cross. We are the the good thief, crucified at Jesus' side, asking Him to remember us, and we are the disciples who were faithful to the Lord till the very end. By the celebration of the Mass, we follow what Jesus told us to do... "Do this in memory of me." You have to also understand that, in the Jewish tradition, to "remember" someone is more than to merely have pleasant memories and vaguely recall someone. No. To remember means that we relive the experience of being with someone. Ask any practicing Jew what the Passover really means.

Answer 8

Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.) Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history: Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin: Any merely human organization would have collapsed long ago. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with 1.3 billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20). For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28). Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19). The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

Answer 9

ledbede... said:
I love Catholicism. I wish I could be Catholic. It's just some of the reasoning I can't accept. For example, in banning artificial birth control the Church cites God smiting Onan for pulling out of his widowed sister-in-law and instead coming on the ground, thus not fulfilling his obligation to sire her children. So that is seen of condemnation of ejaculating outsid ethe vagina. What I can't understand is why it is not seen instead as condemnation of not siring your widowed sister-in-law's children - the rationale explicitly given in that story.

I respond:
This story is found in Gen 38:9-10 but did you ever try reading further? We see here that Judah (the woman's father-in-law) did not sire this woman either nor did he give his youngest son for marriage once he got older. Neither the father-in-law or the younger were ever slain. Gen. 38:11-26 - Judah, like Onan, also rejected God's command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed. The reason for that is because they did not have marital relation and refuse to respect the life-giving aspect of sex. Onan could've simply refused to marry this woman.

BTW, the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed by contracepting the marital act (withdrawal). The punishment for refusing to sire his dead brothers wife is public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7-10). So Onan did something much worse than not sire any children for his brother, he coppulated AND spilled his seed in a manner inconsistent with begetting life as God willed it from the begining of time.

God Bless
Robin

Answer 10

They must say that the Catholic Church is wrong or else why are they Protestants? Yet they must also admit that not one of their denominations has any right to declare itself to be the one True Church. And that, for the simple reason that Christ did not estab­lish any institution which could be known by men to be His Church.


They are all brought up with that impression and so they continue in religious matters to wander where they will, like people in a forest, who follow any line of tracks without bothering to ask where it leads. And they so love the risky adventure of experi­menting for themselves that they search Scripture for every possible text which they think will support them.


All Christians admit that Christ intended a unity of some kind to prevail amongst His followers. But we cannot deny for ourselves what type of unity must prevail. The "all going the one way" type of unity, whilst each goes his own way, is useless if it be quite foreign to the mind of Christ. Who can accept the in­vention of Protestants who, noting the numberless ways in which they are divided, define the unity re­quired to suit themselves in their present circumstances and in such a way that they may remain where they are.


Those who believed all that He had taught would at least be one in faith. Again, He demanded unity in worship. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," was to be the rule and baptism belongs to worship. The early Christians were told distinctly by St. Paul that participation in the same Eucharistic worship probably was essential to the unity. "We, being many, are one bread, one body; all that partake of one bread".
In other words, "The one Christ is to be found in Holy Communion, and we, however numerous we may be, are one in Him if we partake of the same Holy Communion."

Protestantism cannot preserve Christian standards in­tact. Articles of faith have gone overboard. Mortifi­cation and fasting are not required. The evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience, with their consequent inspiration of monastic life are ig­nored. Protestant writings excuse, and even approve, laxity in moral practice. Protestantism has not pro­duced anything equivalent to the canonized Catholic Saint. Many of the Sacraments of Christ are not even acknowledged by Protestantism, whilst the heart has been torn out of its worship by the loss of Christ's presence in the Blessed Eucharist. Of spiritual author­ity there is scarcely a trace. The very clergy are not trained in moral law, and cannot advise the laity as they should, even were the laity willing to accept ad­vice. The prevalent notion, "Believe on Christ and be saved," tends of its very nature to lessen the sense of necessity of personal virtue.

Protestantism was a movement of heated dissent. Error and rebellion took the first Protestants from the Catholic Church, the various forms of error, or the various countries in which the rebellion occurred, giving rise to the various sects. But any goodness which the first Protestants took as doctrinal baggage with them was derived from the Church they left. And any apparent goodness in the teachings of Protestant­ism is still to be found in the Catholic Church. Where, in the Catholic Church, cockle sown by the enemy is found here and there amidst the wheat, Satan was wise enough to allow some wheat here and there to remain amidst the cockle of Protestantism. And it is the presence of this wheat which accounts for the con­tinued existence of Protestantism. But the wheat does not really belong to Protestantism. It is a relic of Catholicism growing in alien soil. A Catholic is good when he lives up to Catholic principles, refusing to depart from them. A Protestant is good when he unconsciously acts on Catholic principles, departing from those which are purely Protestant.