What Catholic Doctrine or Beliefs are in error, and where does it come from?

Here are some of the doctrines that are considered unbiblical teachings.
1. The veneration of angels and dead saints
2. The Mass
3. The veneration of Mary and praying to her
4. The doctine of Purgatory
5. The transference of the solemnity of the Sabbath to the first day of the week
6. Latin being the official language of prayer and worship
7. The establishment of the position of Pope
8. Worship or veneration of relics, images, statues, or idols
9. Canonization of dead saints
10. Celibacy of the clergy (though I understand this may have changed)
11. The use of the rosary
12. The sale of Indulgences
13. Transubstantiation
14. Confessing of sin to priests and the belief that priests can forgive sin
15. Adoration of the wafer
16. The Scapular (though I don't know if this practice continues)
17. The 7 Sacraments
18. The declaration that tradition is of equal authority as the Bible
19. Papal Infallibility
20. Infant baptism



Let us therefore briefly list the main doctrines challenged by the reformers and reconfirmed by Rome during the Council of Trent. This Council was called by Pope Paul III between 1545-1563 and met in three sessions where Protestants were present during the second meeting.

DOCTRINES REAFFIRMED: transubstantiation, justification by faith and works, the medieval mass was upheld, the seven sacraments were confirmed, celibacy was maintained, the doctrine of purgatory was maintained, indulgences were reaffirmed, papal power was increased by giving the pope the authority to enforce the decrees of the Council and requiring church officials to promise him obedience.

Transubstantiation is the doctrine, which claims that Jesus is offered every time the mass is held:

"Marvellous dignity of the priests, in their hands as in the womb of the blessed virgin Mary the Son of God becomes incarnate. Behold, the power of the priest! The tongue of the priest makes God from a morsel of bread, it is more than creating the world.
Canon 1: If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or a figure or force, let him be anathema."

The Bible, however clearly states:
Because by one sacrifice he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy.Hebrews 10:14 NIV
Grace can only be sought in the merits of Christ and sacraments cannot contribute to one’s salvation.

If by one sacrifice Christ justifies the sinner who comes to Him in repentance, then it also follows that the doctrine of purgatory has no Biblical basis. In fact, Catholic doctrine completely negates the ministry of Christ and replaces it with salvation by the system. The Pope becomes the supreme leader, the priest becomes the one who forgives transgression and Mary becomes the mediator between man and God.

The Catholic Church has elevated Mary to the level of mediator, advocate and co-redeemer of man in clear and direct contradiction of the Scriptures. In 1854, Pope Pius IX declared Mary ‘immaculate’, and in 1951, Pope Pius XII defined and enforced the doctrine of the Bodily Assumption of Mary, thus placing Mary in a position to act as mediator and supporting the long list of claims made by Catholic saints over time.

Statements on Mary by Catholic saints:
..."He falls and is lost who has not recourse to Mary. Mary is called the gate of heaven because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her. The way to salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary. The salvation of all depends on their being favoured and protected by Mary. He who is protected by Mary will be saved: he who is not will be lost. Our salvation depends on thee. God will not save us without the intercession of Mary."

Mary takes the place of Jesus in Catholic teaching. Instead of the faithful looking to Jesus, the author and finisher of their faith, they look to Mary. In Mary they find access to God, in her the Church is all holy, in her they learn obedience to God and the list goes on and on. Not one of these doctrines can be supported by Scripture, in fact, the Scriptures teach the exact opposite. Mary takes the place of God and she herself is treated like a goddess.

Article 829 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle, the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their eyes to Mary: in her, the Church is already the “all-holy."
Mary – Eschatological Icon of the Church. Article 972, The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"After speaking of the Church, her origin, mission and destiny, we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. In her we contemplate what the Church already is in her mystery on her own “pilgrimage of faith”, and with her she will be in the homeland at the end of her journey. There “in the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,”“in the communion of all the saints,” the Church is awaited by the one she venerates as Mother of her Lord and as her own mother. In the meantime the Mother, in the glory, which she possesses in body and soul in heaven, is the image and the beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth, until the day of the Lord shall come, a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People of God. "
The title Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate in particular should raise serious objections as it so obviously contradicts the plainest teachings of Scripture. The Bible clearly teaches that there is but one Redeemer, Mediator and Advocate for the people of God, the man Christ Jesus.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 1John 2:1

Yet, the Catholic Church is willing to accept Mary in the place of Jesus Christ thus depriving Christ of His mediatorial role. Even more surprising is the willingness of the Catholic Church to carry the teaching on Mary to the extreme and to acknowledge Mary as goddess and part of the Godhead.

Roman Catholic teachings seem determined to minimize the role of Jesus in the salvation of souls and at best to place Him on a par with any of the founders of the religious systems of the world. Either Jesus is God, and as such the only one in heaven and earth that can save us, or He is not. Compromise on this issue is impossible no matter how much one bends the rules to suit the aspirations of all groups.

The Bible clearly states that:
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12

Lets take a look at confessing of sin to priests and the belief that priests can forgive sin...

Rome says we should confess our sins to priests, yet the Word doesn't teach this. James wrote, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." James 5:16 (KJV). This is not the same as confessing sins to a priest, but rather means that we should confess our faults to each other, and pray for each other. David wrote, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord, and You forgave the iniquity of my sin." Ps. 32:5. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9. Thus we should confess our sins to God who alone can forgive. The practice of confessing one's sins to another sinner is not only degrading to the confessor, but harmful to the hearer. Paul said "it is shameful even to speak" of certain sins. Eph. 5:12. If we sin against someone, we should make it right with them, but otherwise, we should not confess our sins to another sinner. If we do, we are planting the seeds of evil in another mind. Paul wrote, "Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers." Eph. 4:29. If we confess our sins to a priest, we are disobeying this Word, and will only impart evil "to the hearers." We should confess our sins to Jesus Christ! He can handle it, and He will forgive us.

And here is what Christ said on calling them a spiritual 'Father'..

Matthew 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven

Some of these beliefs clearly seem to be coming from paganism or beliefs related to it and changed and incorporated to 'Christianize' it enough to allow it to be incorporated as a Christian belief, what are your thoughts...?

I'd be interested in reading the statements on justification by faith that have been agreed to by both the Catholic Church and the Lutherans.

I'm also very interested in how to communicate the truth of the Bible to my Catholic relatives and friends.

One thing many of us don't consider is the fact that the average Catholic is not aware of all the details of the official teaching of their church. For instance, I am sure that if I named some of the beliefs on the list given in your post, a lot of Catholics would not even recognize them.

From my standpoint, one of the most dangerous teachings of the Catholic Church is that tradition and decisions of church counsels are authoritative for determining what is truth. A lot of Catholics don't know this.

Throughout all this, it's very important to understand that God has millions of honest, good people who love Jesus in the Catholic Church. I believe that God is calling them out of that organization and into the full truth of the gospel.

>>>...From my standpoint, one of the most dangerous teachings of the Catholic Church is that tradition and decisions of church counsels are authoritative for determining what is truth. A lot of Catholics don't know this...

I'm sorry, but how is that different from SDA?

Bill Ross

From my standpoint, one of the most dangerous teachings is the lies about hell.

I completely agree. The concept of God having given untested humans an immortal soul seems a very unwise decision to many people. It has caused a lot of people to give up their faith entirely in the God of the Bible.

While the decisions of the SDA Church in general session may be authoritative, they are ALWAYS subject to the authority of Scripture, never equal to it nor can they ever supersede it.

Gerry

The problem with 'scripture' being the authority is the foundation of the New Testiment itself. Bill was right about it being dangerous to give authority to church counsels but that is just what happened when the New Testiment was formed. As an investigative lawyer, I would suggest we use ONLY the words of Jesus, given to us by eyewitnesses, for determining what is truth. Luke, Paul and the unknown writer of Hebrews never even met Jesus. John 14:26 and 15:15 points out that Jesus told his 12 what His Father wanted Him to tell them and that the Holy Spirit would cause THEM (only) to remember what He said. My weekly live internet radio show called "The Bible On Trial" (google it) will prove my point.

Dr. Rich

If we only used the literal words of Jesus to discover truth, the Bible would be very thin indeed! But the testimony of Scripture is:

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things..." Heb 1:1,2 ESV.

The testimony of Paul who claimed to have received what he taught by revelation is:

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." 2 Tim 3:16,17 ESV.

And Peter's [who talked, ate, listened, to Jesus] testimony is:

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses......
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Pe 1:16,21.

If you read Acts 15, not much doctrine was decided by the Jerusalem Council.

Gerry

A huge problem with your thesis is the fact that many so-called Bible scholars aren't even sure what Jesus actually said. When they start separating Jesus' words from what they believe has been added by editors, etc., they end up with only a very small portion of the Gospels.

Peter called the letters of Paul "scripture," and said that people distort them to their own destruction. If the apostles and disciples cannot be depended on to tell us the truth, then we are really better off throwing out the whole thing. Why would you think we can depend on Jesus' words alone when they were written by the same men you claim cannot be depended on to tell the truth? Maybe those words also are distorted and changed. And that is exactly the conclusion that many Bible scholars-- accepting the assumptions of higher criticism-- have drawn.

Those who believe this completely reject of course the bulk of the New Testament, particularly 2 Tim 3: 15-17. Not much is left.

Have you studied what Bill's beliefs are as they appear on his website? For him the entire Bible is merely a human-made document with nothing supernatural about it. He doesn't believe in salvation or in the Holy Spirit, etc. (Bill refers to the Spirit of God as "holy breath" and believes Acts 5: 3 should be translated as "fake themselves holy breath"!!!!) Such is the result and perhaps even the reason for his not accepting the NT.

Therefore, it begs the question what do I believe if I don't think anything is true except the words of Jesus, a good portion of which-- who knows for sure which portion?-- is deemed by many "liberal" scholars to be not genuine?

>>1. The veneration of angels and dead saints<<

Venerate:
To regard with respect, reverence, or heartfelt deference.

Like, that’s wrong with exhibiting a deep regard for Gd’s heavenly, and sinless, messengers? And, per “dead” saints... Umm, isn’t that a bit relative and dependant upon how one has been Biblically taught?

Perhaps, one meant to take issue with the ‘adoration’ of Saint Mary; but, is that wrong? Nah, adoration is simply loving admiration.

>>2. The Mass<<

That’s, basically, the Catholic version of ‘communion’, yes? I think all .orgs show some “error” re that sacrament.

>>3. The veneration of Mary and praying to her<<

Isn’t she the mother of Gd? So, for that reason, we should show no deep regard, admiration, nor respect for/to her?

>>4. The doctine of Purgatory<,

Compare

KJV Rom 10:9 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
YLT Rom 10:9 that if thou mayest confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and mayest believe in thy heart that God did raise him out of the dead, thou shalt be saved,

with

KJV Phil 2:11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
YLT Phil 2:11 and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

or the more affirmatively English

NAS Phil 2:11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
ISV Phil 2:11 Then every tongue in one accord, will say that Jesus the Messiah is Lord, while God the Father praising.

Question: by any other name, where does the soul/spirit dwell until such time as “every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” and be saved...?

Jesus Christ, in the Beatitude chapter (5) of the Book of Matthew advises and warns...

Matt 5:25 ... and thou be cast into prison.
Matt 5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

against running afoul of the law.

One is mindful that Jesus Christ taught, at times, in allusive or obscure manner – and wonders what “prison” He references in the above texts – or, those following...

1 Pet 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

1 Pet 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

>>5. The transference of the solemnity of the Sabbath to the first day of the week<<

They sanctified the NT Sabbath with their celebration of the “first day of the week” as a day set aside unto the Lord Gd. I suppose there might be ‘inferred’ a transference; however, it was Gd through His prophets Hosea and Jeremiah who caused the OT Sabbath to cease, to be forgotten – to be hidden away until such time as Gd Himself will once again reveal it – during the millennial Succoth.

>>6. Latin being the official language of prayer and worship<<

Though it may appear arbitrary – what is wrong with using Latin, song, the groaning of Spirit, or other – as language in worship? It would be the preference of whichever individual or group most immediately concerned.

Would you have the same objection to ‘Hebrew’ being used in Synagogues?

>>7. The establishment of the position of Pope<<

It may be that the Book of Revelation takes issue with a Nicolatanes’, or hierarchical system, of church organization; but, one must concede that all .orgs indulge – with the difference being one only of terminology and degree.

>>8. Worship or veneration of relics, images, statues, or idols<<

...or the practice of iconolatry? Yes, one agrees that it is wrong to worship, per se, “relics, images, and such”; then again, do we not ‘worthship’ photos of our loved ones? even to carrying them around in wallets and purses? that we might look upon them at singular moments of veneration and adoration?

And what of OT ‘worthship’ re the proper placement of ancestor’s bones – and the ‘powers’ inherent them?

What of the visual reminders that were commanded to be embroidered upon the shawls of the COI?

>>9. Canonization of dead saints<<

Yes, for the church to appropriate to themselves the ‘authority’ to decide who is or is not beatified, canonized, or other such – is supremely wrong-headed. The NT believer has no need for canonization – he or she being, already, a saint.

>>10. Celibacy of the clergy (though I understand this may have changed)<<

They took a page from St Paul:

1 Cor 7:1 ... [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman.
1 Cor 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
1 Cor 7:8 ... It is good for them if they abide even as I.

It's more than a deep regard for the dead saints, including Mary. They pray to her and to the saints in order to ask them to appeal to Christ. Of course, Mary and the saints are dead and unconscious, unable to help them.

People should be taught to pray only to God, as the New Testament teaches, and not to the dead. Christ needs no one to appeal to Him to answer our prayers, because He Himself loves to answer them.

The Catholic Church teaches that at the mass, the priest is able to offer Christ in an unbloody sacrifice. They believe the priest is able to create the body and blood of Jesus Christ. For them this is not symbol but reality.



No, Mary is not the mother of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, the man. She is not the mother of the divine nature of Christ. He had/ has both a divine and human nature. His human nature began with his conception in Mary's womb. Therefore it is perfectly correct to say Mary was Jesus' mother. But Eternal God Himself has no mother. The book of Luke speaks of Mary as the "mother of [Elizabeth's] Lord," but that is a reference to Jesus after His conception as a human and not to the pre-incarnate Christ.

There is nothing wrong with showing respect and high regard for Mary. But that does not include praying to her or in any way worshipping her. Her image should not be prayed to, and people should not be made to feel that Mary is alive and able to hear them or answer their prayers, nor should they be taught to burn candles to her for their loved ones in purgatory. None of this is in harmony with the Bible's teachings.

Scripture does mention certain humans who are now "in Heaven" but nowhere does it say that there may not be others who are not mentioned. We should not catagorically state that there can not be others who are presently there. mel

Let us consider these:



These teachings on the Lord's supper are biblical for starters,should give one a view of what is right and what is wrong regarding this subject.

>>It's more than a deep regard for the dead saints, including Mary. They pray to her and to the saints in order to ask them to appeal to Christ.<<

Are not the 24 elders of Revelation 5:8 redeemed from the earth? Yet, St John portrays them before Jesus Christ the Lamb [seemingly presenting Him] with the “prayers of saints”. One assumes those “prayers” are of those presently on earth...

>>Of course, Mary and the saints are dead and unconscious, unable to help them.<<

What of the 24 elders? Are they ‘dead’? What of Moses? Is he ‘dead’? Others?

Jn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: v26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Can Psalms 45:9

“Kings' daughters [were] among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.”

with verse 6 “Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom [is] a right sceptre.”

its antecedent – be parsed to portray a “Queen of heaven”; that is, the ‘standing’ mother of the sitting Regent? Or, is one doctrinally compelled to re-interpret the Elohim Gd of verse 6?

>>People should be taught to pray only to God, as the New Testament teaches,<< and not to the dead.<<

Agreed, as far as it goes. It is my thinking that one need only approach Gd, that is, Elohim.

>>...and not to the dead.<<

But, that’s just it! Are the saints ‘dead’ as in dodo ‘dead’?

>>Christ needs no one to appeal to Him to answer our prayers, because He Himself loves to answer them.<<

So, Revelation 5:8 – what’s THAT?

>>The Catholic Church teaches that at the mass, the priest is able to offer Christ in an unbloody sacrifice.<<

Not sure where you’re coming from re “unbloody sacrifice”. I hope that you are not one of those who assert a simile between the efficacy of the Catholic Mass to Cain’s sacrifice of the fields?

Good grief.

Did not Jesus Christ, in the communion of the Lord’s Supper, leave us the example. No bloodiness there. Is there bloodiness in your .Org’s communion services?

Bear in mind also, that St Paul adjures

1 Cor 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

My read of the text encourages one to partake in the sacrament of the communion as often as the heart leads, which would be, imho, more than 2, 3, or even 4 times a year.

>>They believe the priest is able to create the body and blood of Jesus Christ. For them this is not symbol but reality.<<

Transubstantiation, eh? What if the RCCs called it “real Presence”, or “receptionism”, or “virtualism” – as other .orgs do? Okay, mebbe, a compromise or ‘sanitization’ is in order; like, consubstantiation?

Jn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
Jn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Jn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Jn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Jn 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Jn 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Should those who believe that the passage above was offered as more than figurative language – likewise, “walk no more with Jesus Christ” – or stand condemned vis-à-vis Protestor’s Theological constructs?

If the Bible doesn't tell us that certain individuals have been resurrected and are in heaven, we're not to believe tradition that puts them there for the purpose of praying to them.

Are you referring to Mary?

Do you agree or disagree with the Catholic Church in its dogma as described below?

>>These teachings on the Lord's supper are biblical for starters,should give one a view of what is right and whta is wrong regarding this subject.<<

The matter, as presented in this post, seems to turn upon “unworthily”, or, in the Greek anaxious. Let’s not forget that “unworthily” is an adverb addressing the verb, or act of taking communion – and not upon the condition of the person – or his doctrinal beliefs.

The act of taking communion is not about the person’s belief system, as the act would then center upon him or her – rather than upon Jesus Christ.

The focus ought to lie with and remain upon Jesus Christ.

Remember, that St Paul wrote: “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Cor 11:26)

The key words are “Remember” and the “Lord’s death”.

If you study Roman Catholic catechisms, you will see that they teach that the Mass is a true sacrifice, and describe it as an "unbloody sacrifice."

The following are official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church:

We know not which are not as it is not mentioned anywhere, however we know of 3 that are definitelly there, Moses, Elijah and Enoch.

Somehow it makes me wonder why the RCC did not canonize any of these, I never heard St. Moses, St. Elijah or St. Enoch, funny hey?

Prehaps it is because these are true saints and are really mentioned as being in heaven for sure! But do not fit into their esoteric religion?

Let's just agree that IHS, stands for Iris, Hosiris and Seth, now isn't that funny? So they esoteric thinking is father, mother, son? Wow!

>>No, Mary is not the mother of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, the man.<<

But of course St Mary is the mother of Gd. It is indisputable, except by resort to questionable semantics.

However one might define Jesus Christ, He is Gd; ipso facto – St Mary, mother of Gd.

>>She is not the mother of the divine nature of Christ.<<

Nor is she the mother of the other corporate aspects of Elohim; nevertheless, she is the mother of Jesus Christ, Gd.

>>He had/ has both a divine and human nature. His human nature began with his conception in Mary's womb. Therefore it is perfectly correct to say Mary was Jesus' mother. But Eternal God Himself has no mother.<<

Indeed, be that as it may, yet St Mary was and is – mother of Gd; that is, Jesus Christ, Gd. Syllogistic.

>>There is nothing wrong with showing respect and high regard for Mary. But that does not include praying to her or in any way worshipping her.<<

Though I agree with your statement re Biblical worship of any but Gd, I bear in mind - that the RCCs say their regard for St Mary is one of veneration. It is probable that they are the best qualified to define their own terminology.

I’ve seen upon these very boards requests for prayer from one and all. Those requesting prayer obviously expect that Gd will hear and bless. How much more might one expect from the intercession of Jesus Christ’s mother?

>>Her image should not be prayed to,<<

I’m in agreement upon this point.

>>...and people should not be made to feel that Mary is alive<<

Yet, people should be made to believe that Moses is in heaven? translated by tradition, yet, not St Mary, of whom Jesus Christ said, "whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die"? Or, mebbe, we simply do not accept that St Mary, mother of Gd, believed in her Son...?

>>...and able to hear them...<<

Yet, angels and elders, redeemed from earth, can?

>>...or answer their prayers,<<

Disabuse me, but it is my understanding that even the RCCs believe it is Gd who answers prayers; St Mary intercedes through her Son.

>>nor should they be taught to burn candles to her for their loved ones in purgatory.<<

Candles? equivalently, the ABC bookstore for generating income?

“Purgatory”? By any other name, the same? Howabout ‘prison’?

>>None of this is in harmony with the Bible's teachings.<<

Umm, John317, is vegetarianism a Biblical teaching? Matter of fact, it has origins in paganism...

Anyway, St Paul said that he became all things to all men that by doing so he might save a few. I suppose that the RCC .org took a page from St Paul and Holy Writ.

Are you prepared to catagorically deny that Jesus' mother Mary is in heaven? Where is your proof text? mel

I'll step to the plate. Yes, we can categorically deny that, she ain't there, mate!



and then...let's see who actually is in Heaven that we can substantiate from the bible:



From the above we can see that Enoch went to heaven, so he was the first human.



We could find some more to show how each one is taken up, but it will be unecessary.

There is not one verse though saying that Mary is in heaven, not one, so now I ask you, where is your proof text that she is? Its not there right? So how can we assume anything that is not in the Holy Writ? It is a lie!

God's messengers are the prophets, Mary did not fit into that category, now I've just show from scripture that she cannot be in heaven.



Adoration is forbidden as explained below, admiration is different, but we all admire her, for being chosen of God to bear our saviour! That, however, does not make her into a goddess, now does it?



Have you noticed some of the catholic paintings, she bears the marks of the nails in her hands, how on earth? Is she supposed to replace Christ?

We don't need a proof text showing someone is NOT in heaven. What we need is a text saying someone IS in heaven.

If it was a matter of needing a text that says someone is NOT in heaven, I guess we could pretty well say that almost everyone is there, couldn't we? But that is not the way we determine who is in heaven at this time. Or is that how you do it?

If the Bible doesn't say she is in heaven, then we have no reason to believe that she is.

Are you prepared to say that you know she is in heaven? (Perhaps you believe that all the dead go immediately to heaven.)

If someone tells you that Peter is in heaven, are you also prepared to believe it, simply because the Bible does not say he is not there?

What if I tell you that my mother is there? Are you prepared to state categorically that my mother is not there? Where is the text that says my mother is not there?

If the argument is good for Mary or any other dead person, why not for my mother or for anyone else, including the popes or maybe even Hitler?

Fortunately that is not how we decide that someone is in heaven.

My wife used to pay money to priests to pray that her mother would be released from Purgatory into heaven. Why? Because she was not sure if she was in heaven or not. And the priests could not tell her for sure. So she worried.

My wife knows what the Bible teaches about death now, so she no longer worries about her mother. She knows her mother is sleeping in the grave. "The dead know nothing." Eccl. 9: 5.

>>We know not which are not as it is not mentioned anywhere,<<

I suppose you missed my reference of Revelation 5:8. That does not yet recourse to other texts in Revelations that reference sentient saints – being already, in heaven.

>>...however we know of 3 that are definitelly there, Moses, Elijah and Enoch.<< [ed.jasd]

Respectfully, that would be error, imho.

>>Somehow it makes me wonder why the RCC did not canonize any of these, I never heard St. Moses, St. Elijah or St. Enoch, funny hey?<<

They probably left that up to jasd – as Holy Writ already canonized the saints.

>>Prehaps it is because these are true saints and are really mentioned as being in heaven for sure!<<

Holy Writ called the NT Xtians – saints. I wonder at the hubris of many Protesting .orgs, which steadfastly refuse, or otherwise, unknowingly, do not follow Writ upon this matter. Though the RCCs are somewhat confused upon the issue – at least they go farther in expositing text re saints – then do the Protestors.

>>But do not fit into their esoteric religion?<<

Given, that Alexander Hislop, et al, is/are reputed to have unveiled “the secrets” of the Universal Church, it is laid rather bare and esotericism would hardly define that which is not hidden, yes? One might have to search farther afield, or redefine dogma, to identify the “Mystery woman”, yes?

>>Let's just agree that IHS, stands for Iris, Hosiris and Seth, now isn't that funny? So they esoteric thinking is father, mother, son? Wow!<<

The early Xtian symbol IHS really identifies with “Iris, Hosiris, Seth”? Okay, some hooplaphile said this, yes?

So, my use of the chi X as in Xtian – is more esoterica than it is sigla?

Actually, there are more than several meanings ascribed to the monogram IHS; one being, that it is an abbreviation for the Christ name IHESUS.

That said, the histories of man are replete with the “father, mother, son” motif.

Should I seem to ramble, it is because I am rambling - I am watching the Olympic ceremonies. Never could multi-task.

((((((( yawn )))))...
mel

>>...and then...let's see who actually is in Heaven that we can substantiate from the bible:<<



>>From the above we can see that Enoch went to heaven, so he was the first human.<< [ed.jasd]

Not so, Fausto.

Jn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.

It may be that he was translated, but he did not go to the third heaven or the heaven of heavens. It may be that he did go to other worlds...



Matt 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Jesus defines the ‘transfiguration’ as a vision. Granted, this ‘vision’ carries the sense of the spectacle; however, one might select his or her own vision of spectacle - it yet remains a vision.

Anyway, bear in mind the previous words of Jesus Christ in John 3:13.

>>We could find some more to show how each one is taken up, but it will be unecessary.<<

Per “taken up”: several years after Elijah was ‘taken up’ 2 Chronicles 21:12-15 records Elijah as writing a letter to King Jehoram. Bear in mind John 3:13.

>>There is not one verse though saying that Mary is in heaven, not one, so now I ask you, where is your proof text that she is?<<

So, what is it!? the words of Jesus Christ as recorded in John 11:26 “And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” is given for naught?

You seem to say that "Thou believest not this.”

Yet, though contraindicated by the very words of Jesus Christ in John 3:13 – the .Org persists in purporting that Enoch, Elijah, and Moses, all – were in heaven and even now are - though, sans the mother of Jesus Christ, Gd. And what of the elders of

Revelation 5:8? Maybe, one of those elders is, in fact, St Mary, yes? [/kidding]

>>Its not there right? So how can we assume anything that is not in the Holy Writ? It is a lie!<<

Speaking of lies: John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.

Enoch, Elijah, and Moses – all lived before Jesus Christ. It is only now - post crucifixion, that we are permitted to expositorily proffer by construction - that Enoch, Elijah, and Moses may be or are in heaven. However, to do so, one is compelled to admit as much for St Mary – else, one engages in deceptive exegesis.

Of course I believe it, but you know there are conditions and one can never "go to town" based on one single verse it is a weak argument!



I looked at it but seriously (I'm glad you joking)! We don't knwo who they are!