Having recently published our misconceptions list about Islam, I promised a commenter that I would also publish a list of misconceptions about the Catholic Church – of which there are millions. With this list I am honoring that promise. I have taken ten of the most believed or written about misconceptions about Catholics or the Church and debunked them (with evidence wherever possible). I certainly hope that you all find it interesting and readable.
Misconception: The Church discourages Bible reading
The very first Christian Bible was produced by the Catholic Church – compiled by Catholic scholars of the 2nd and 3rd century and approved for general Christian use by the Catholic Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). The very first printed Bible was produced under the auspices of the Catholic Church – printed by the Catholic inventor of the printing press, Johannes Gutenberg. And the very first Bible with chapters and numbered verses was produced by the Catholic Church–the work of Stephen Langton, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury.
At every Mass in the world everyday, the Bible is read aloud by the priest. In the traditional Mass there is one reading from the general body of the Bible (excluding the gospels), and two from the Gospels. In the modern Catholic Mass, there are two readings from the general body of the Bible and one from the Gospels. All Catholic homes have a Bible and the Bible is taught in Catholic schools (as is its perennial tradition).
This myth has come about because Bibles were often locked away in Churches in the past, but that was not to prevent people having access – it was to prevent them being stolen. These were hand written Bibles which were incredibly valuable due to scarcity. Furthermore, people think the Church forbade people from reading the Bible by putting it on the Index of Forbidden Books, but the Bibles placed on the Index were Protestant versions (lacking 7 books) or badly translated versions – the most famous of which is the King James Version which Catholics are not supposed to use.
Misconception: Catholics worship Mary and are, therefore, committing idolatry
In Catholic theology there are three types of worship – one of which is condemned in the Bible if offered to anyone but God:
1) Latria – this is adoration which is given to God alone – giving this type of worship to anyone else is considered to be a mortal sin and it is the idolatry condemned in the Bible.
2) Hyperdulia – this is a special type of worship given to Mary the Mother of Jesus – it is only given to her and it is not considered to be idolatory as it is not adoration, merely reverence.
3) Dulia – this is the special type of worship given only to the saints and angels – it is also not idolatrous as it, too, is a form of reverence.
The distinction was made by the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787 AD. The council was called to condemn the people who claimed that it was idolatrous to have statues and images of saints. The canons of the Council can be read here.
Just to clarify: “Latria is a Latin term (from the Greek λατρεια) used in Orthodox and Catholic theology to mean adoration, which is the highest form of worship or reverence and is directed only to the Holy Trinity.” – there are lower forms of worship (as is implied here). A Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it. The images of saints (whether it be in statue form or painting) serves as a reminder of the holiness of the person depicted.
Misconception: Catholics aren’t Christians
In fact, Catholics are the first Christians. When reading over the early Christian writings, you can see clearly that their doctrines and teachings are the same as the Catholic Church today. You hear of Bishops, virgins living in community (nuns), priests, confession, baptism of infants, the Bishop of Rome as head of the Christian religion, and reverence for the saints. Here are some comments by the early Church fathers who were, in many cases, the apostles of the Biblical apostles:
Bishops: For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily. — Pope St Clement, Letter to the Corinthians 1, A.D. 96.
The Papacy: “[From] Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (St Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
Holy Communion: “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” — St. Justin Martyr, “First Apology”, A.D. 148-155.
Infant Baptism: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (St Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Confession: “[A filial method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, “I said, to the Lord, I will accuse myself of my iniquity.” ” (Origen, Homilies in Leviticus 2:4 — A.D. 248)
From these quotes it is obvious that the practices of the modern Catholic Church are the closest to the practices of the apostles and early Christians. It should also be said that the majority of historians accept that the Catholic Church was the first Christian Church as it is verifiable from ancient texts.
Misconception: The Pope is infallible in all things
Roman Catholics believe that only under certain circumstances is the pope infallible (that is, he can not make a mistake). The Catholic Church defines three conditions under which the Pope is infallible:
I. The Pope must be making a decree on matters of faith or morals
II. The declaration must be binding on the whole Church
III. The Pope must be speaking with the full authority of the Papacy, and not in a personal capacity.
This means that when the Pope is speaking on matters of science, he can make errors (as we have seen in the past with issues such as Heliocentricity). However, when he is teaching a matter of religion and the other two conditions above are met, Catholics consider that the decree is equal to the Word of God. It can not contradict any previous declarations and it must be believed by all Catholics. Catholics believe that if a person denies any of these solemn decrees, they are committing a mortal sin – the type of sin that sends a person to hell. Here is an example of an infallible decree from the Council of Trent (under Pope Saint Pius V – 16th Century):
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the 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 figure or force, let him be anathema.
The last section of the final sentence “let him be anathema” is a standard phrase that normally appears at the end of an infallible statement. It means “let him be cursed”. The most recent pronouncement that can be seen as falling under Papal Infallibility was when Pope John Paul II declared that women could not become priests.
Misconception: The Catholic Church is opposed to science and rejects evolution
In fact, may great scientific advances have come about through Catholic scholarship and education. The most recent and interesting case is that of Monsignor Georges Lemaître (pictured above, center) a Belgian priest who proposed the Big Bang theory. When he proposed his theory, Einstein rejected it, causing Monsignor Lemaître to write to him: “Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable.” Eventually Einstein came to accept the theory.
Also, unlike many of the American Protestant or evangelical religions, the Catholic Church does not reject the theory of evolution. Right from the early days of the theory, the Church remained mostly silent on the issue. The first public statements specifically regarding evolution came from Pope Pius XII who said: “The Church does not forbid that…research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”
In 2004, a Theological Commission overseen by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) issued this statement: “According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. [...] Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.”
Catholic Schools all around the world (including the US) teach scientific evolution as part of their science curriculum.
Misconception: Indulgences let you pay to have your sins forgiven
First of all we need to understand what an indulgence is. The Catholic Church teaches that when a person sins, they get two punishments: eternal (hell) and temporal (punishment on earth while alive, or in purgatory after death). To remove the eternal punishment of hell, a person must confess their sins and be forgiven. But the temporal punishment remains. To remove the temporal punishment a person can receive an indulgence. This is a special “blessing” in which the temporal punishment is removed if a person performs a special act such as doing good deeds or reading certain prayers.
In the Middle ages, forgers who were working for disobedient Bishops would write fake indulgences offering the forgiveness of sins (removal of eternal punishment) in exchange for money which was often used for church building. Popes had been long trying to end the abuse but it took at least three centuries for the sale of indulgences to finally end. True indulgences existed from the beginning of Christianity and the Church continues to grant special indulgences today. Wikipedia has an excellent and honest article on the abuse of indulgences from the Middle Ages. You can read it here. Here is a BBC article on a new indulgence granted by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007.
Misconception: Emperor Constantine invented the Catholic Church in 325 AD
In 313 AD, Emperor Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan, which removed penalties for professing Christianity. At the age of 40 he converted to Christianity and in 325 he convened the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Because of the importance of this council, many people believe that Constantine created the Church, but in fact there had been many councils (though not as large) prior to Nicaea and the structure of the Church already existed. Constantine was at the council merely as an observer and the Bishops and representative of the Pope made all of the decisions. Before the council of Nicaea, priestly celibacy was already the norm, baptism of infants was practiced (as were all 7 sacraments), and the structure of priests and Bishops was already 300 years old.
Misconception: Catholic Priests can’t get married
This has appeared on a previous list, but it is well worth including it here as well. In order to clear this one up, we need to first understand the nature of the Catholic Church. Within the universal Church there are sections (also called churches but not in the sense that they are separate) – the most common one is, of course, the Roman (or Latin) Catholic Church. Then there is the Eastern Catholic Church (not to be confused with the Orthodox which is a different religion). Both of these churches fall under the jurisdiction of the Pope and all believe the same doctrines. There are a lot of differences between the two groups but these are all in matters of style of worship and certain rules. In the Eastern Church, priests are allowed to be married – but a married priest can’t become a Bishop.
It also happens that occasionally in the Latin Church, pastors who convert from other religions such as the Church of England are allowed to become priests even though they are married, so married priests can be found in all parts of the Roman Catholic Church. Pictured above is a Greek Catholic priest and his wife. Don’t believe me? Here is proof. And here is more proof.
Misconception: The Church added books to the Bible
The Catholic version of the Old Testament differs from the Protestant version in that the Catholic edition contains seven more books than Protestant Bibles. These “extra” books are the reason that many people consider the Church to have added to the Bible, but in fact these books were considered the official canon (list of books) by all Christians until the Protestant reformation during which Martin Luther (leader of the revolution) removed them. Interestingly some of these books contain affirmations of Catholic doctrines which Luther rejected. The reason that the Catholic Church uses the Greek edition is because the apostles used it exclusively in their preaching.
Luther decided to use the Jewish Masoretic canon (circa 700 – 1000 AD) instead of the Apostolic canon. The seven books he removed were: Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch. While initially wanting to remove at least one book (The Epistle of James, because it contradicts Luther’s teaching that faith alone is needed for salvation [James Chapter 2]) from the New Testament, Luther ultimately decided to keep the Catholic New Testament in full.
Interestingly, Hanukah is mentioned only in 1 and 2 Maccabees, which is not included in either the Jewish or Protestant versions of the Old Testament.
Misconception: The Papacy is a medieval invention
The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and from the beginning of Christianity he was considered the head of the Church. This fact is alluded to in many of the early Church documents and even in the Bible itself: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Greek for "rock"]; and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and he led the Church until his death in 64 AD, at which point St Linus became the second Pope. St Irenaeus mentions him here:
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate . Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy [2 Timothy 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus [third Pope, pictured above]; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement [4th Pope] was allotted the bishopric. — Against the Heresies, 180 AD
St Irenaeus goes on to mention another six Popes and the various tasks they undertook during their reigns – such as the imposition by Pope Linus of the rule that women cover their heads in Church (a rule which, though often ignored, still exists today).
i am a little surprised with 8 being in this list, this is such a arguing point (perhaps that is why you put it in here) The Catholic Church has essentially ignored 3/4 of the book of Hebrews et al that discuss Jesus as being our high priest, hence the papacy and the priesthood. jesus was on earth to become our high priest and remove the need to go through a "middle man" to get to God. The Catholic church has kept this middle man in the matter of priestly confession. "does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord" Jesus is that priest we can confess to not a priest
The priest does not act as a "middleman" or mediator between God and the individual confessing their sins during the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Rather he is acting in persona Christi, or in the person of Christ. Christ is working through the priest so that we as humans can associate with a being that we are farmiliar with. If God in all of His glory came to a person in the confessional that person would either die of shock or weep with joy at seeing such a sight. Jesus came to Earth to die for our sins and to offer us a way to be forgiven for those sins and the priest is His way of doing that. I hope this helps. Another place to look for answers would be the Cathecism of the Catholi Church.
No middle man? Why then did Jesus say "whose sins YOU shall forgive, they shall be forgiven them"? Clearly Jesus was telling the apostles they were to be middle men. You need to jump through serious hoops to find a way around that. Incidentally, it is John 20:23.
The verse you are talking about is Christ specifically telling his disciples that if a sin is committed against them, and that if they forgave the person who sinned against them, then the sin would be considered forgiven by God. Which is the pattern that was set before the Catholic church twisted it by using it to grant bishops the power to forgive sin (which is where many scholars think the Roman Catholic Church first erred and started to set itself apart from the catholic church that was in place at the time).
Paul was a lot closer to being the first Pope than Peter was, to be honest. And Paul was the great deceiver of humanity.
deceiver of humanity? can you please elaborate…
im not an extensive bible reader but i find paul’s writings/teachings to be very important and vital.
Well isn’t it a bit redundant given that Jesus already told them via the Lord prayer “for give us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”? Furthermore based on the context of the verses, your interpretation is problematic. Why would Christ interject such teaching while speaking of the power of the Church? Why would Christ speak of such redundancy before He ascend to heaven? All these add up does not make any sense.
A man comes and steals my wallet. He returns the next day, gives back the wallet and says “I am sorry, please forgive me”. I say OK, you are forgiven. Not much of a hoop.
i was a roman catholic believer before..but since childhood, i kept on wondering why i have to worship statues..and mary..and other saints when it is stated that there should only be one God to worship..and that (statue worshipping)is a sin, as per the 10 commandements.. then i found out that i am supposedly not to become a catholic my whole entire life.. i decided to become a Baptist Christian believer.. that's when i saw what i was looking for all those years…
i agree with you. i can also relate with you. good thing we have seek the truth.
in addition, the bible says that call no man on earth your Father for you have only one Father of your soul, He who is in heaven. If the roman catholics read and understand the bible, then, why do they call their pope as their holy father? and why does their pope lets the catholics call him like that? doesnt he know that he is claiming the title which should be given and be called only to our one and only GOd who is in heaven? (and not in Rome).
I suppose you should study how to enterprise the Holy Bible, sir.
What do you call your biological male parent?
You need to understand that what is being referred to here is not the precise use of the word “father,” but that you shall put no one else on the same level as God the Father, in other words, following the 10 commandments, you shall have no other God besides me.
What do you call your biological male parent?
You need to understand that what is being referred to here is not the precise use of the word “father,” but that you shall put no one else on the same level as God the Father, in other words, following the 10 commandments, you shall have no other God besides me
In Scripture, Paul declares that he was made Father of his community by the Gospel. James call those of his community children. The term Father itself was used multiple time, by Christians long before the Bible was ever canonized. It is this kind of literalism and short sighted interpretation that causes the Reformation and myriad of other problems needs not to exist between Protestants and Catholics. Moreover, like someone here has said, what do you call your biological male parent?
Catholics never worship those images. It is just signs or reminders to us that like them, we humans too can love and serve God and therefore have the space given by God to his kingdom. If that is the side of other religions, why they don't criticize the state also for making the statues of Rizal, Bonifacio and other heroes?…
Catholics do worship idols. Can’t you read it clearly? I quote number #9 “there are three kinds of worship” you can’t lie to us on this one mind you! I used to be a catholic and I used to kiss, wipe my handkerchief, give flowers and candles, touch these statues because I worship them but as soon as I knew the truth that they were idols, I tore the images and broke the powerless statues!
They do not criticise statues of Rizal because they do not worship them.
So if you kiss a photo of your mum are you worshipping her as a goddess?
the sad truth is that many Catholics dont know why they kiss statues and only do it because they see well-studied Catholics kissing statues.
NO CATHOLIC unbder any circumstances should worship a statue as a god because that is blatant pagan blasphemy, but myself as well as millions of other Catholics kiss the feet of a statue of my Lord and say “I hope to kiss you in heaven one day”
NOT
I hope you bless me with good health and weatlh because I just kissed YOU , that’ll be pagan …
God bless you my Christian brother
keep waiting for somebody to mention the “communion of saints”; forgive me if somebody already covered this & i missed it.
this concept basically says that every soul created by God is eternal, and there can exist relationships between living souls on earth and the souls of the dead in Heaven. we are able to communicate with (ie “pray to”) them, and they are able to intercede on our behalf. either you believe it or you don’t.
i was raised in a very strict Catholic home, and was always taught that while we do “pray” to statues, we never “worship” the statue itself or who it represents. worship is for God alone. i’ve never heard about the 3 levels of worship.
You weren't a Roman Catholic if you thought you had to worship statues and images and the virgin Mary. You were a heretic. Catholics are not allowed to do any of those things. The images and statues are as innocuous as any photo of your mother or statue of a president. They serve to remind us of the example set by people in the past.
Also, if Catholics don't read the Bible, how did you know that the Bible says something against what the Church does? Because a Baptist convinced you they were right and made you reject the faith. Where did the Bible come from? The Roman Catholic Council of Nicaea. You accept the book but reject the source. Why were they right then but not now?
You said yourself that there are three different kinds of "WORSHIP", and that Mary is the subject of one of the kinds of WORSHIP and the saints are the subjects of another form of WORSHIP.
You can twist definitions all you like, but worshipping others in God's place is wrong.
Also, I was told by a convert to Catholicism that "Catholics don't believe that Mary is God, they just think that she never sinned and that she was also born of a virgin."
That's what people don't understand, when you see "Church of the Immaculate Conception", that isn't talking about Jesus, it's talking about Mary.
Yeah, no problem with that.
it is not worshiping them, it is honoring, just like you have to honor your father and mother. You cannot compare yourself to God in any which way but you can associate yourself with a saint because they were just people/humans. Everyone understands Mother Theresa was a human, but an incredible one, you do not worship her, only honor, look up to.
And what people also don't understand, as neither do you, is that Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception are not one in the same. Catholics don't believe Mary was born a virgin birth, we believe she was born of Immaculate Conception, without sin by the grace of God.
Have you read any part of the bible which says Mary was born sinless? Have you read in Luke 1:47? If mary was sinless why did she need a savior? why did she need to be rescued, saved? The immaculate conception was made without biblical basis by a council about a hundred years after she died in order to support that she was assumed. Man, know your history, even catholic scholars admit that it has no biblical bearing! Read the catholic encyclopedia and know the truth! If you catholics continue to make doctrines out of context and without biblical truth sooner or later you will be worshiping saints with dog faces…oops I’m sorry, you already do! I was a catholic but not anymore and now I am glad that I am now worshiping God in Spirit and in truth as a truly saved believer.
@The Guy with a Lot OS X’s in His Name:
How about “Hail, full of grace” (the literal translation is “who have been filled with grace,” which means that this had occurred in the past, at conception. Who is more of a Savior: the one who keeps someone from falling into a pit or the one who pulls a person out of a pit? Therefore, God is still the Savior of the Theotokos). The Immaculate Conception was actually defined in the 1800s, although you can see it in the writings of some of the Fathers.
why would catholics need to WORSHIP Mary and other saints? If you are already WORSHIPING one true God, why would you need to divide your attention to some characters in the bible. why would you need to build churches, statues, etc?
Our true God Lord Jesus Christ wants ALL our praise and attention to be given unto HIM only..You dont need Mary, and some saints to be saved, you only need Lord Jesus Christ. I still believe that you dont anyone to communicate with HIM,you dont any middlemen or saints or Mary, all you need to do is pray to HIM.
I dont intend to have any debate on this issue, but I just want to ask people specially catholics if they have ask themselves why are they doing such things.
@a byzantine catholic- 2 Timothy 3:16 -All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. You cannot just invent things like saving someone out of a pit, Give me a VERSE a SCRIPTURE that will support your claims. The Bible does not support Marian birth, marian assumption, Mary as medaitrix or that Mary was sinless. read the Bible and see that there are people in the old Testament that were righteous and perfect and even blessed but we do not consider them as a Saviour. Marian worship is only based in catholic idea and not on facts.
It is a remnant of old Babylon’s pagan worship to astaroth and astarte and the queen of heaven that is why if you search for images on the net about it you will notice a distinct similarity to Mary and the child. It is not Christian but pagan. It is like believing in Jesus but contradicting what he says in John 14:6 – Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Jesus alone and that is it. Mary did not die for me on calvary and what did she do to merit anything that can save me. Does the Bible say anyone saved by Mary??? Use the Bible and see the truth, not Doctrines made by man because in the end, Doctrines made by God will stand and ideas made up by man will fall.
@Oneness Being that Jesus Christ was and is sinless, would he not have perfectly followed the commandments, including HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER? Being that God the Father is His rightful and full father and Mary is His Mother, do you not think that Jesus would bestow great honor upon her as only God could do? Why is it then that you think He does not want us to partake in that perfect honor of his dearly beloved Mother? What you communicated shows that you still have much to learn from our Lord. I ask that you pray to Him for understanding. Rather than repeating the rhetoric of false teachers, trust in the one true teacher and ask Him how we should treat His Mother. Ask him how he would like us to honor her as members of the Christian family under God the Father established by Christ!
@jxm First and foremost we have to clarify one thing: Mary is not in any way a savior for Catholics nor will she ever be. Christ is our salvation and Christ alone! So let’s leave that argument behind.
Also, let’s leave behind the notion that Mary is equal to other virtuous old testament figures. That is simply not the case. Out of the entire spectrum of human existence, Mary was chosen to bring God into this world in union with the Holy Spirit. So, based on that fact alone, out of all human existence, she has the most substantial and unique calling of any human second to Christ. That cannot be refuted, without Mary’s response in Luke 1:38 “Be it done to me according to thy word,” there would be no Christianity in that Mary was the chosen mother of God in the line of David. She is also a prime figure in the book of Revelation and thus a thread lovingly woven through our salvation history. After her conception we get an even greater look into the role of Mary. In Luke 46, we get the following from Mary, “And Mary said: My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is His name.” First of all, we must take these words to be true as Luke found them important enough to include within his Gospel. All generations are to call Mary blessed and not just that, all generations through all ages until the end of time. I think that is a pretty special commendation given to her as Mother of God. Out of all women in human history, Mary was uniquely chosen to bring our savior into this world and she answered that call. So it would be foolish not to give her respect.
This ties directly into the biblical basis for the immaculate conception. Regarding the immaculate conception of Mary, there is in fact scriptural evidence. Throughout the course of the Bible, it is very rare when an angel intercedes within the lives of humans. When they do appear they often appear as messengers of divine authority to communicate a message to mankind. They never call out to man in reverence as they are divine beings without sin. However in the case of Mary, the angel Gabriel says, “Hail, full of grace” prior to her conception of our Lord (Luke 28).
The Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is the belief that God preserved Mary from any inclination to sin, the inheritance of original sin passed on to all mankind from our first parents, Adam and Eve. The belief of the Immaculate Conception of Mary says nothing about Mary and personal sin (Rom 3:23). Christian belief holds that every human being through faith and through baptism is freed from sin – original sin and personal sin – through the grace of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholic Christians simply claim that Mary was the first one to whom this was done.
The basis for the belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary can be found in the Biblical revelation of holiness and the opposite of that state, sinfulness especially in regards to pregnancy throughout the Bible.
First, God is revealed as perfect interior holiness. “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!” they (the Seraphim) cried one to the other. No sin or anything tainted with sin can stand in the face of the holiness of God. “Enmity” is that mutual hatred between Mary and sin, between Christ and sin. I will put enmity between you (the serpent, Satan) and the woman (Mary), and between your offspring (minions of Satan) and hers (Jesus); He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel (Gen 3:15).
For the birth of God as a human being, God was interested in the condition of the mother’s womb. For even a great, but imperfect, judge of Israel, Samson, God was directive about the state of the mother during the pregnancy. The request for the mother to be pure is repeated for emphasis.
An angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Though you are barren and have had no children, yet you will conceive and bear a son. Now, then, be careful to take no wine or strong drink and to eat nothing unclean” (Judges 13:3-4) “But he (the angel) said to me, ‘You will be with child and will bear a son. So take neither wine nor strong drink, and eat nothing unclean. For the boy shall be consecrated to God from the womb, until the day of his death” (Judges 13:7). The angel of the LORD answered Manoah, “Your wife is to abstain from all the things of which I spoke to her. She must not eat anything that comes from the vine, nor take wine or strong drink, nor eat anything unclean. Let her observe all that I have commanded her” (Judges 13:13-14).
How much more would God be interested in the state of His own mother’s womb!
The salutation of the Angel Gabriel is different from the usual angelic greeting. It indicates that Mary was exceptionally “highly favored with grace” (Greek: charitoo, used twice in the New Testament, in Lk 1:28 for Mary – before Christ’s redemption; and Eph 1:6 for Christ’s grace to us – after Christ’s redemption). And coming to her (Mary), he (the angel Gabriel) said, “Hail, favored one (kecharitomene)” (Lk 1:28). (God) chose us in him (Jesus), before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will, for the praise of the glory of his grace (echaritosen) that he granted us in the beloved (Eph 1:4-6)
Note that the angel’s salutation preceded Mary’s acquiescence. Mary was already highly favored. God’s grace was not given in time after Mary accepted the angel’s word. The Church believes that this grace was given from the very beginning of Mary’s life. It is clearly grace because at the time of Mary’s conception she could have done nothing to earn it. The constant faith (paradosis) of the Church attests to the belief in the special preparation of the holiness of the person of Mary to bear in her body the most holy person of the Son of God. At the time Mary was conceived, she was baptized by the Word prior to His incarnation. She was filled with Grace and set to be “blessed” for all time.
I agree.The only person that was sinless was Jesus technically.I also spoke to a catholic ,they said they believe Mary had powers too.
Wow, you spoke to one Catholic? That’s a great source of information there.
@Oneness
And I would like to ask you a question. Why do you insist on ignoring Mary, when her son, Jesus, never did? Read your Bible. When did Jesus ever ignore his mother?
@jxm
“What did she do to merit anything that can save me?” How about giving virgin birth to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? I bet people do that everyday.
Matthew 12.47
Gentle man,
Catholic did not worship any statue or Mary and will never worship them. We use statues as the visible sign of our faith. And we ask Mary and saints to intercede for us, and nothing more. Because they can make a better prayer than we do.
Did you even read the article???? Catholics do not worship statues! They are no different than a beautiful painting and are meant to help bring us closer in prayer to the person they depict who we do not worship either but revere for the good works they did for our Lord during their lifetime. In all things, Jesus Christ is the center of Catholic life and spirituality.
I really do hate it when people say that we “worship” Mary and the saints because it simply isn’t true. We ask them for their intercession, or to pray with us TO GOD. It is no different than asking your neighbor to pray for your father who has cancer. As for the statues, I do not know the traditions of the church that you went to as a child, but I must say that we as a universal church are not idolatrous. The statues are simply reminders of what is important, and that is GOD.
worship….we can use the word worship in many ways….
for example I worship my mother as ny Parent meaning I respect her…
I worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as my One and only God
worship is reserved for God and God ALONE
Where did the word, "catholic" and/or "christian" come from… Where can I find it in the bible, just curious….
A Christian is one who believes in Christ, specifically in Jesus Christ. "Catholic" just means "universal", as in we're the universal Christian Church.
As a simple answer, the word "Christian" comes from Christ and the word "Catholic" means universal.
Acts 11:26 the first Christians. They worshipped God only, accepted Jesus as their saviour only, did not worship mary, did not worship idols, did not call their leaders priests, were not celebate, and they were not Catholics. Catholics come from the word universal, when constantine wanted to unite christians and pagans into one in order to save his empire in chaos. This is why cathollics are idolatrous, treat their leaders as living gods (popes-old roman emperors who are vicars of pagan gods), worship mary in replacement of astaroth, even celebrate the same roman dated celebrations in order to honor thier pagan gods. This is why cathollics celebrate flores de mayo with constantine and reina elena, and this is why CATHOLICS are false CHRISTIANS.
Obviously you didn’t read the list properly. Catholics do not worship statues. Catholics do not worship Mary. If God forbid your mother died, and you had a picture of her by your night stand so that every morning you would wake up to see her in picture form, and you stare at it, and think of her, are you worshiping your mother? I hope not. It’s the same with Mary and the Saints.
The Bible says to honor your mother and father. Not worship them. So why then can I not honor Mary for being the amazing woman – that God picked out of hundreds of other women – who gave birth to our Lord and Saviour?
26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”
The reason it’s reffered to as worship is that it’s from a time where worship and honour meant the same thing, the reason that royalty would be addressed to as “Your Worship”, and the same way that a judge is refferered to as “Your Honor.”
But at least the Pope knows that condoms don't help against HIV.
then what do you suggest?
abstinence – a guarantee against ALL *****ually transmitted diseases.
Just as not driving is a guarantee against a fatal collision while driving a car.
Very informative list! But it seems that what people are most curious about is why child abuse isn't somewhere in there.
Well, it's simple: Child abuse within the church is not a misconception, or a stereotype. It's a REALITY.
(Of course it's not true that "everyone in the Church is a paedophile", that's just silly.)
You only need to take a single report to realize it: the 2009 Irish Child Abuse Commission Report. This report by the Irish Government detailed the abuse of thousands of children within Irish Catholic institutions over 70 years. This report isn't just suggesting anything; it demonstrates through and through thousands of cases of child abuse by the Church, and there have been many consequences from this. Now, this is just one of many reports and cases of child abuse by the Church that exist, but it more than proves the reality of pedophilia in Catholic institutions. (If you want to know more check out the Wikipedia page on this report:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_to_Inquir…
The problem is not simply that there are "pedophiles who decided to be priests", but the fact that the church's traditional practices of secrecy, celibacy, guilt and punishment, among many others, promote this kind of behavior in many cases. Again, this last bit isn't something made up; the many reports and cases over the years have led to these conclusions. Check out this page for much more info about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_*****_abuse_c…
It has been proven that *****ual abuse of minors is 100 times more prevalent in schools than in the Catholic Church: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040101… http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/miscond…
It is not the Church's fault that these abuses have happened. If you really want to play it that way, there are also studies by prominent psychiatrists that blame homo*****uality for the abuse: http://vivificat1.blogspot.com/2010/04/psychiatri… http://www.catholicleague.org/images/upload/image…
I'm not saying that it's correct, I'm just saying that you can get evidence to prove any backwards theory by quoting the right sources.
And Wikipedia? Really? You do know that ANYONE can edit that, and link to biased web pages, right?
Right. Most of the priest who commited the acts were in fact commiting it towards their own gender, if I recall correctly.
@stizzy (69): Wow. Let me explain the science to you, cause i happen to be decent at biology. A gene is passed from parent to child. Genes code for proteins, and proteins build what needs to be synthesized for life. Science hypothesizes that a gene is present in homo*****uals that cause a protein to not be coded for correctly, making something called epistasis occur, where one protein has many effects. Homo*****uals thus have different brains and a hormonal change, as hormones are proteins. This means that it is not the fault, choice, or sin of homo*****uals to be homo*****ual, rather, a genetic difference. As times change and nex discoveries are made, the science-less bronze age beliefs, like those in the bible need to be altered with the change in the times. If god wrote the bible, and he is all knowing, he would have known homo*****uality is genetic, and would not have condoned them being stones. Therefore, a conclusion can be drawn that god did not write the bible, and that the church will not revise bronze age beliefs to fit the changing times and new scientific discoveries, one of the man reasons religion needs to be changed or dropped entirely.
If there were a “Gay gene”, as you seem to be reffering to, than anyone with a homo*****ual identical twin would also have those inclinations. Therefore, we have to assume that there is no one factor that causes homo*****ual feeling, but there are most likely different genes that make it more likely to happen.
And also, we differentiate between homo*****ual acts and inclinations. For us it’s the difference between sin and temptation. No one was ever guilty for being tempted.
Let the Religous Debate Begin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is poorly written article for several reasons. First of all there was no ‘catholic’ church at the beginning of it all. There was Christianity. Distinction came after the great schism between west and east when western Christians started calling themselves roman Catholics and eastern Christians called themselves orthodox(orthos means ‘straight’ and doxa ‘belief’ in free translation from Greek). Both churches use Greek adjective ‘catholic’ which comes from ‘catholikos’ in Greek -whole,complete. As for the debate which of the churches is following it’s apostolic origins more faithfully answer is not clear but it most certainly isn’t roman catholic church exclusively. Orthodox are by many accounts more ‘original’ then it’s western counterpart. They had very few decrees and even less dogmas helping them follow their origins as close as possible. There is no stylized communion but rather a feast with real bread and wine. There is also no confession with priest as there was none at the beginning. List goes on and on and is beyond the scope of a fast reply so I suggest author of this article to pull his head out of his ass and carefully dissect through vast information about the matter with objective mind. Just because something is prevalent as roman catholic church doesn’t mean you should take vatican bulletins as your sole source if info. I am roman catholic who grew up in the seminary
Your history is very far off, my friend. First, “Roman Catholic” was a term coined by the Anglicans ~500 years after the Great Schism. “The Church” was the original designation for Christians, as the term “Christianity” was coined once the Church got to Antioch. Roman Rite Communion is unleavened BREAD. The true debate is whether or not the bread should be leavened or not, not whether the Roman Rite uses true bread or not. And WHERE do you get the idea that the Orthodox do not confess to a priest? I recently listened to an Antiochian Orthodox podcast that mentioned confession. Granted, their rite is different from the Roman Rite, but it is still confession to a priest. Plus, the Eastern Catholic Churches still maintain the same rites of confession as our Orthodox counterparts.
Thank you! I was about to do the same thing…but you beat me too it. Thank you my brother.
Marko, you grew up in the seminary?
hmmmm what next? misconceptions about Atheism?
Umm … well, pretty interesting & thought provokin list but … Lets wait for some debate o begin
good list……another battle on its way……What about the edition of Bible over time………I mean there are some verses present in older versions that have been removed from the newer ones.
They have not been removed from the Roman Catholic Bible there are 7 books removed from the Protestant Bible not from the Roman Catholic Bible
jfrater-
didn’t we already have this list? i had that big debate with you that culminated in the statement “roman catholic latin rite priests can sometimes be married, but cannot “get” married post-ordination…”
Wow long list but a good read none the less.
oops, i was skimming, now i see the link
I wouldn’t consider it a misconception of the alter boys and priests . I don’t think I’ve lived in a town where there hasn’t been an acusation( probably spelt that wrong). Right now, I live in Colorado Springs where ted haggard is from lol it may not be catholic but it just show most religious leader are messed up in the head. Thats why i’m of no religion why listen to a bunch of lies.
Televangelists aside, the large majority of religious leaders have not been involved in scandals, so the claim "most religious leader are messed up in the head" is just based on your own prejudices, it does not follow from the rest of your argument.
I was raised Catholic but got out when I was 14. The problem is not the aceesiblity of the bible but the context of it. It’s foundations are contradicitions, it preachs religious intolreance,forces a conformist society, one half, the old testament teaches that god is something to fear whilst the other the new testament traches he is something to love. This is a problem with christianity, the catholic church cannot however be criticised as a whole organisiation for it is too vast. You either prepare to be ignorant or you don’t.
Actually, the whole "Fear of God" thing is yet another misconception – Fear of the Lord is not like a fear of punishment or disaster, it is supposed to mean that you respect and revere him above everything. We also actually had a whole lesson, too, on respecting and tolerating anyone who isn't Catholic… like other Christians or atheists. For example, there's a girl in my class who doesn't believe in God, but my teacher isn't forcing her to believe anything or make her write the journal about our relationship with God. I wonder what was part of your theology curriculum, if you studied it in school. Most people who I've heard complain about the Catholic church say things that are filled with misconceptions, not true, or show that they don't even know what they are talking about. They are ignorant of all the truth, reason, and explanation that is provided by Catholicism and just see us as craziness and lies. Also, although the Catholic church is vast, it is one, universal, and apostolic and all of its rites and orders are clearly defined. It is actually quite easy and legit to criticize it as a whole. But before one should criticize a religion, he or she should at least study it first or not even be worth arguing with. I may be just a freshman in high school, so maybe reading this comment reply was just a waste anyway.
Reading this comment was not a waste of time at all. As a senior in high school, and learning what you have said (only as a freshman!) last year, which, may i remark, is recent, i want to say that you, kind madam, are on your way to being a good promulgator of Truth.
Keep learning. Keep striving. You give me hope. 
@Jamie, May stipulate i am not trying to convert you, merely present Truth that God has given me, and hope and pray you see the value in it. Ergo, i am not FORCING you. Rather, i'm not trying to…
Regardless, you use the word FORCE in your response to this article, regarding how the bible forces, or imposes its ideals upon society.
But I think that the Bible, if read in the correct context, linguistic correlations to other readings, and OBJECTIVELY to what the divinely inspired writers were trying to say, you'll find that the ideals are not IMposed, but PROposed.
God does not judge us by our results, rather, he Loves us for our EFFORTS of striving to reach our End, our Purpose.
This purpose is to be beside Him in heaven.
This is the difference between the Old and New Testament.
In the Old Testament, God teaches, "Thou shalt not kill." but the New Testament is the beautiful uplifting, fulfillment of the Old, going beyond the prior quote, and now teaching, "Thou shall love your enemy" with the given information of Natural Law: "Thou shall not kill."
@lo (8): that was a general misconceptions list – it is linked above I think
I actually didn’t know about No.6 as I’m way too preoccupied at laughing at American creationist theories but its true that scientific advancement was only made possible with the implementation of Christianity and Islam.
All religions have misconceptions anyway because each sacred text can be interpreted in numerous ways. For the bible, the two sides of god can be examined with the smiting/murder/favouritism in the Old testament and the forgiving god of the New. How else did religious fundamentalism arise without all the debates and uncertainties?
We need more lists! Maybe stuff on Hinduism – Buddhism – Judaism and the Mormons
i agreed with you, all missconception, from bible version till islam's terrorist is just because bad translations, HUMAN ERROR!!lol.
I agree with the number 2. No mention of the paedophilia, eh?
About 6:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
this will be controversial again!
i am from the Philippines, and we are the only catholic country in Asia
the only thing i hate in Catholicism is worshiping statue saints, those image,! it is like they threat that thing as god, king and more than people who live! they almost forgotten who really god is! our country is full of superstitious belief, almost of them is all about our religion, some of them are lame and very doubtful idk why people here believe that!
Some go overboard, I agree with you. But basically and generally, it's the same kind of reverence as you do, perhaps, with of a loved one. Sometimes you'd stare at it, and even kiss it, right? Of if you're a fan of someone, you post a poster of him/her in your room, have it as desktop wallpaper or something. It's pretty natural. This is form of devotion. So I guess this helps you understand why we people in the Philippines do this so-called "worshiping statue saints."
Also, please read the writer's description above for an explanation on your concern.
#2 The Church added books to the Bible
I have a questions, what about the NUMEROUS number of books that didnt make it into the bible canon? There were many books that were read back then that we dont read today, how can a “man” decide which books are “ok” to go in the bible, and which ones are not “ok”?
Because a man can tell when something's fake. That's why we have some fields such as forensics, anthropology, etc. The Church, in the same way, is the expert in its field, and can tell.
it wasn’t one man, it was councils of experts, and a process that took a couple of hundred years…some books were rejected because they directly conflicted with church theology, but most were rejected because of doubts about their authenticity or their age (too recent).
Im a stubborn atheist, i hate debates about religion.
me too..but unfortunately i have a religion..
Excellent reply there, jfrater. Couldn’t have said it better myself. As for the stubborn atheist he needs to keep with his kind cause I believe he get along better with atheists
hmmm…correct me if i’m wrong…but i think #3 could clearly be considered as “the exceptions that prove the rule”.
Not entirely. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, yes it is the exception that proves the rule.
But the Eastern Catholic Church, which people forget about (or sometimes confuse with Eastern Orthodoxy which is similar but not in full communion with Rome like the Eastern Catholic church) allows marriage as a general practice, not just 'if you married before converting' like in the Latin Rite.
The Eastern Catholic Church is smaller than the Roman Catholic Church, and lesser well-known in the U.S. but still, priestly marriages are not an exception in that rite. It's more of a "lots of people don't realize that there are multiple Rites that are in communion with Rome/the Catholic Church, but priestly celibacy is mostly a Latin Rite thing" than an exception that proves the rule.
The catholic church concealed the scriptures from it’s people for centuries. In the middle ages the bible was only available in latin, and even then only to persons educated enough to read it and wealthy enough to afford it. Translation into the language of the people met with strong resistance. Arguably, this enabled the clergy to maintain power and influence as the sole source of the revealed word of god. While the bible is now readily available in all modern languages today, it is debatable whether many more catholics actually read it.
cosmicshambles : Actually you are wrong about the Bible being kept in Latin – there are many versions in languages other than Latin that well predate the Middle ages. And let’s not forget, it was called the “vulgate” because it was in the vulgar tongue – ie, most people spoke Latin. here is a 12th Century Middle English translation of parts of the Bible. You also seem to have missed my point: every day in every Catholic church in the world, the Bible is read.
the bible is read at least 3-4 times a day for daily mass…
The Catholic Church NEVER concealed Scripture.
1. The homily, which is the part of the Mass in which the priest explains the readings, has ALWAYS been in the vernacular.
2. What do you think the origin of stained-glass windows are? They're not just pretty decorations! They show depictions of stories in the Bible for those who cannot read.
Don’t lie. here in the Philippines, people are refrained from opening the Bible and telling people that only priests can properly interpret. They even say that only bibles that are signed by priests can be used. I know because I have heard it from my own ears.
Then the Filipinos that you’re hearing this from are crazy. As a Roman Catholic, I can honestly say that I trust myself to interpret the Bible. I read it almost daily as well as attend mass, and worship services (often with my protestant friends).
For priests to tell people that is not common practice I assure you.
I agree with you, Lauren. Roman Catholics are free from reading the Bible and interpret it the way we understood it’s messages. Further, RC priests encourage, rather than prevent/refrain/prohibit, us to read the Bible, and if possible, in a PRAYERFUL manner to understand it more clearly. By the way, I’m also a Filipino.
I’m a Filipino and the Catholic school I studied in (Jesuit run, in fact) encourages all of us to have Bibles for both academic and personal reasons.
Just to share, aside from allowing evolution and the big bang to be taught, the priests told us to respect Protestants, Muslims, and other faiths instead of bashing them…unlike some religious leaders do.
this is crazy.Im a Filipino?ikaw ba?o ayan nag tagalaog na ako.of course not!we are allowed to open the bible in the philippines.we have 5 in our house and anytime we can browse and read them.the problem?even though we have the holy book,we seldom read
I just want you to know the truth, it is not because it is not happening in your parish that it will automatically be true with the rest. I am Filipino and this is true. I am a Sakristan and a devout catholic before and I have been through Catechism and even Masses even in Badian Cebu and in Simala where priests strictly say that only they can interpret the Bible and we are not allowed to use Bibles that are not signed by priests first.
My family and my relatives all left the religion because the parish priests had *****ual relations with my aunt in our parish and they aborted the baby. This was a big scandal and the priest had to be removed. We started reading the bible and we are now saved Christians. I wish all filipino families would read the Bible more often so that they may see the real truth.
Images and Disallowing the reading of the Bible are all remnants of Spanish Prayles who colonized the country, even my lolo remebers keeping the Bible inside the Cavan because priests in his time said that reading it will drive you crazy. But the apostles and Jesus never allowed it and it completely contradicts the Bible. read the Bible and ask your parish priest PERSONALLY what Bible to use and if you are allowed to interpret it. Ask about Salvation and how early Christians received Jesus as their saviour and got saved through belief alone and not good works. Me, my family and my relatives have all left RCC and we are now saved Christians.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
John 4:23-24
23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Latin was the international language of its day…you are just showing your stupidity.
The Bible was concealed, yes…but to prevent them from being stolen. Obviously the printing press was not invented until far later, so the Bibles were extremely valuable.
You gotta be kiddin’ me. Nobody would steal a bible because the majority of people were plain illiterate. Only the church officials and a few others could read and write. The real reason was to prevent the truth from being known. The catholic church was and still is the counterfeit church, the mother of all harlots if you like.
Or they would steal them because bibles of the day took years to write, were decorated in gold leaf and were extremely expensive since it was all written by hand. Just saying. You are making yourself look like an idiot.
latin was the “language of the people,” at least those few who had learned to read. also the average person couldn’t afford any books.
it should be pointed out, too, that many of the literate at the time learned to read from priests…now why would they teach people to read if they were trying to keep them from reading the bible?
@brandiwine (11): Have your opinon, but please try to stay respectful. While you may consider the church ‘lies,’ as is your right, try to be respectful of the beliefs of others.
You lack of belief does not make you any better or worse than those who believe.
I think you would agree that people should be allowed the liberty to decide if they should believe or not…and as tolerant people, we can respectfully disagree with their choices.
Insulting eachother helps nothing.
i agree with you… its up to the people whether they will believe or not… or to whom they will believe or to what…. the bible and all other information is already out in the open, all people have access to anything and everything.. "insulting each other helps nothing" —correct!
the catholic church, while far less radical than the osycho-mega christians, function through christianity with a hypocritical and wealth saturated beaurocracy. The mega churches and rare metals used in the megachruches characteristic of all branches of christainity (not red-letters), would disgust jesus. The catholic church also condones intolerance towards various groups of people. Bottom line, unless you’re a red letter (I am not a christian at all) you are a hypocrite
Joliver
I beleive East Timor is also predominantly Catholic.
nice list nuthin controversial
@jfrater
u skipped many controversial points
is that to avoid contoversy or arent they misconceptions
I’m still hoping for an atheist list.
All this religion is just silly. We need to move beyond worshipping our fairy tales and towards solving real problems.
the bible is not a fairy tale…dont be an atheist…
does your fairly tale solve your real problem?
i bet when you say "oh my god" at least twice a day
Be an atheist. Solve your problems atheistically. Who's stopping you??
It is true that believers tend to be happier; I suppose one might not want them to be; but they probably like it that way, so what can you do…
You don’t want to believe in God, fine. That’s you’re choice to make. But by insulting our religion you are just showing your own prejudices, the same ones that atheists are always harping about the religious having.
Top 5 Unfortunate Truths About The Catholic Church
5. The Blood On Their Hands.
By no means exclusive to the Catholic Church, but i think it’s fair to say that of all the mainstream religions catholicism really does punch with the big boys when it comes to atrocities. We have the Vatican to thank for such wonderful and enlightening episodes as the Inquisition.
4. Their Archaic Attitudes Towards Homo*****uality.
Over to Pope John Paul II….
‘Homo*****ual acts are against nature’s laws. The church cannot silence the truth, because this would not help discern what is good from what is evil.’
Tosser.
3. Pedophilia.
The age of consent at the Vatican is just 12 years old, the lowest in Europe. I think the less said about this one the better.
2. The Catholic Church And World War Two.
I think ‘unfortunate’ is the very least that can be said to describe the Churches actions during WW2. ‘Disgusting’ is maybe a better way of putting it. Their are too many separate cases to go in to detail here, however i do recommend you have a browse at the following website as an introduction in to the church’s actions. For a more detailed *****ysis i recommend ‘The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany’ by Guenter Lewy.
http://nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm#anchor2
1. Faith.
Coming in at number 1 is the undeniable truth that the Catholic Church and all who follow it worship a God who simply does not exist. The actual existence of a God can, of course, never be 100% disproved. However, as a defence of religion Bertrand Russell blew this idea out of the water some time ago with his ‘teapot’ argument. The evidence against a God or creator of any sort is overwhelming, and i think it’s time that we all grew up and came to terms with this simple fact.
BONUS!
Mel Gibson.
Mel Gibson, the man responsible for ‘Braveheart’, a movie so historically inaccurate that it is said David Starkey started to bleed from the eyes whilst watching it, is himself a Catholic. This alone is surely reason enough to be wary of the Vatican.
- Most Vatican laws, like the age of consent, are the same as in Italy. It's actually 14. Oh, sorry, you fell for a misconception, which is described at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_E…
- I recommend that before you form an opinion of the Catholic Church's role in the Shoah you read books from several perspectives before accepting the popular view, which is derived from John Cornwells "Hitler's Pope" – which has been lambasted by historians, but given excessive coverage. One such historian lambasting it has been Rabbi David G. Dalin, author of "The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis." Sure, some Catholics did some disgusting things, but don't generalise. 4000 to 7000 Jews were sheltered in the Vatican itself. The Pope negotiated with the Third Reich so that Jews who had converted to Christianity would be safe – thus allowing priests to issue thousands of fake baptismal certificates. Pinchas E. Lapide, another Rabbi, estimated that the Catholic Church saved up to 860,000 Jews – making it by far the single biggest force AGAINST Nazi Germany. The Catholic Church in Poland was particularly resistive (unlike the Church in Germany, which had far less influence).
5. You apply this equally to all religions – so it is not a Catholic issue. The inquisition is misunderstood and if you read about it (which you haven't – you are just repeating the myths you have heard) you would realise that. The inquisition still exists today (congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Where are the atrocities?
4. This is the biblical attitude – it is not unique to Catholicism – it is unique to all who believe the Bible holds the truth. And the fact that homo*****uality goes against nature comes from Aristotle who existed before Christ.
3. Someone else has proven this to be false.
2. This is a complete myth dispelled everywhere. The chief Rabbi of Rome became Catholic after the war as a result of the efforts of Pope Pius XII to help the Jews.
1. You are an atheist – fine – but this just shows that you are simply arguing against the Catholic faith from the biased perspective of your own religion.
Pope Pius saved so many Jews during WW2 that the Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to the Catholic Church. Catholic clerhgy and laity alike saved thousands of Jews. You Sir and just an anti Catholic piece of sh………
interesting you bring up bertrand russell, who was a philosopher…we all know how definitive philosophy is….
This list is as much whitewashing as the one about Muslims is.
1- I don't care what you call it, "reverence" for Mary is still showing a form of worship for her. Plus, Catholics think that she was born of a virgin birth, too, that part isn't too widely talked about.
2 – That infant baptism bit is from a non-Biblical source.
3 – Catholics not only discouraged reading the Bible, they put Tyndale and Wycliffe to death and burned Bibles when those two men published translations that allowed common people to read the Bible. Hmmmm… kind of the same way they started hassling Martin Luther when he translated the Bible into common language, you know?
4 – The "catholic" church that started in the first days was the universal church. It is not the same thing as the "Roman Catholic" church. Eastern Orthodoxy is closer to the first churches, but even they got wrapped up in idolatry. The Roman Catholic church lost its way when it granted the authority to forgive men of their sins to bishops.
It’s worship only in the sense of giving honor, which is what the word meant long ago. Immaculate Conception refers to having been concieved without sin, not having been born of a virgin. The Bible never says Infants cannot be Baptized, and the Catholic belief of Baptism is about more than just recieving Jesus into your heart. The power to forgive sins is already mentioned in the Bible, it was nothing new.
Here, read this. If you just skim it, go down to “7 marks of a true church.”
As for the other issue, I’ll have to look into the history. As is the case with Galileo, often people blame us for things that didn’t actually go down the way they think it did.
What I don't get about christianity, and catholisism by extention, is why did Jesus have to die? Could god not have simply forgiven us, sans the blood, pain, and death? Could he not have decided to declare his love for us in a way that encourages love for each other (how many atheists would still be that way if "I love you. -God" was written on the moon?)? I'd be much more likely to believe in a moral, just, all loving god if pain and death weren't so intrinsic to his worship.
And why does he need to be worshipped? Seems kind of petty.
Basically, the point was that he died the death we deserved by our sin. While he could have just snapped his fingers, he seems to be more into action than that. I don’t know for sure, ask someone on Catholic.com; they’re better at this than I am. To sum up: The point was sacrificial love.
And he doesn’t need the worship. But it’s absolutely vital to a relationship between him and us. To worship a creature, knowing that God is true, is likened in the Bible to cheating on one’s spouse. I suppose it’s about our choosing him.
Excellent list Jamie – raised as a semi-catholic (my mom was excommunicated because my dad wouldn’t agree to have us baptized and raised as catholic), I was familiar with most of these. Not all of them. I did know that the reason that bibles were originally in Latin is because it was the language of scholars. And of course most of the rest of the populace couldn’t even read.
The Church’s sin when it comes to the child abuse scandals has nothing to do with pedophiles becoming priests – folks need to realize that pedophiles consciously or unconsciously (I’m thinking the former) choose professions/vocations that put them in contact with children. That means coaches, clergy, librarians, boy scout leaders. Their sin was one of “keep quiet, for the good of the Church”. This type of organized abuse was not confined to the Roman Catholics. Have a read about our treatment of native children at Residential schools. Fiery bible thumping protestants that was. Or at the woman’s detention centre on the east coast. For that matter I’ve been reading lately about something similar happening in the LDS church.
By the way my family read their bible – aunts and uncles and grandparents but they kept their religion close to their hearts – not on their sleeves. Many a fundementalist fire and brimstone protestant could take a lesson from them. It irritates me no end that a relatively new religion (read up about the reformation folks) would try and take us back to the dark ages. My goodness, I watched a video yesterday where a US senator said publicly that the earth was 6000 years old. What the hell? Who votes for these yahoos?
It's funny to mention that a proportionately high number of child abuse scandals also happens in other religions, and for some reason, the focus remains on Catholicism due to the common stereotyping. Distinct lack of informed people are making assumptions against religion (or for it) without actually bothering to research on the subjects that may debunk their personal theories. There are many sinners and they come in all kinds, regardless of beliefs.
All religion, beliefs, political systems had their fair share of blood, yet no government nor belief can truly be established without the sacrifice of many, and in the progress of time, misunderstandings as well. Some unnecessary, some necessary, but it's quite certain that our current civilization wouldn't have lasted long if it weren't for religion, as our very laws are also based on religion itself.
Most major religions are going for a neutral view anyway (especially the main sects), and aren't really prosecuting anyone in a large-scaled manner unlike that of the past, due to the pressure of modern society, the very society they helped created throughout the centuries.
Personally, God is greater than we all may comprehend, seeing as in Him he had created us, little wannabe gods who think they know everything until the day of our deaths, when we realize that the Creator is superior to its creations in every way, regardless of how we deceive ourselves in the physical world. We inherited emotions, reasons, thinking and beliefs from God, as well as the ability to create, shape, or destroy the world.
Mary was not born of a virgin birth herself. She was born without sin. Big difference.
wrong answer, Mary was not born “sin-less” as you state! She was under Moses’ law and the old covenant.
Mary was “conceived without sin”. Thus, she was born in a state of perfect grace. It’s perfectly clear.
Where exactly did you see this
Where exactly did you see this
13 years (k-12) Catholic school religion class, various catechisms, 100s of sermons over the decades. It’s a basic tenet of the Catholic faith.
jfrater : I am sure there were some translations of all or part of the bible into vernacular languages in the middle ages. I should not have stated that the scriptures were only available in latin. I maintain however that latin was not the common language of the people, it would have been some form of middle english with Norman influences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English). I did not miss your point – I posted my comment because your list item made it seem that the catholic church had always encouraged the reading of the bible. The last line of my comment was meant as a throwaway jibe.
Where is the common misconception that all catholics are peadophiles?
@18 Mastermind
Yes, it was a group of “men” that made up the Council of Nicea and it was “men” who chose the books that made up our modern-day Bible. But how were their decisions made? Did they choose as men choose with debates and arguments or were their decisions Godly-influenced?
As a Muslim, it is good to know about this and I appreciate the work of those who took time to compile it.
Now let us see how much hatred from Muslims, if any, this list will generate compared to the ‘Misconceptions about Islam’ list.
What about the priests and young boys. And the Pope dares to condemn the homo*****uals ! !
@12 Jamie
I think you’re misinterpreting the word “fear.” In context to God, it doesn’t mean to be afraid of Him. It means to have an attitude of respect, which includes not wanting to displease Him. The fear of the Lord is about reverence toward God, respect for Him, love and appreciation, holding Him and His beloved Son in high esteem.
I teach Sunday School at my church and I have at least one child every month ask me about this.
great list there mate
but I sort of disagree with the part that you say that Catholics were the first Christians.
The first Christians were Jewish people who followed Jesus and called themselves Followers of The Way. This is a documented fact. Don't hear many Catholics talking about it.
The equivalent concept to “Islam” is not “The Catholic Church”. It is “Christianity”.
Interesting list…I knew many of these myself, although I don’t believe in any of it. Too much shoved down my throat when I was a kid, kind of made me jaded.
As for number 2….To me, that sounds more like truth then being false. Humans wrote the book so I can see where mistakes/additions/changes/removal of passages could happen. It would be very easy.
Religion is ok for those who want it. Just as long as you keep your views to yourself and not force it on others, then there shouldn’t be a problem. Worship what you want but don’t tell others what they can or cannot worship themselves.
I follow Inari and my daughter is Babtist. I wouldn’t dream of forcing her to follow the Shinto religion and I won’t have her try to convert me to hers. It works fine for the both of us that way.
Would that these atheists would heed you and stop proselytizing! I don't care if they don't believe; I just wish they'd stop pushing their belief system on me. It gets *really* tiresome. I don't try to convince them to believe and never would; wish that respect worked both ways….
oochan said that she is shinto, which is an Japanese religion… All she said is that she converted and doesnt believe in a form of christianity, not that it was wrong.
Great List. Can you do Top 10 Misconceptions About Buddhists.?
@Enigma (35): Indeed.
Mr.plow (23) One of my main reasons I don’t care for what the Christian religion speak of is plain and simple. WTF with the virgin Mary? I’m sorry but virgin ha if you look into the history of that region now and back then not much has changed . You have a child out of wedlock you are stoned, burned , scorn , and even murdered. Now here’s an interesting way to think about it have you ever thought Mary lied to save her life? made up this story about gods baby . It funny we praise this woman but laugh when a girl tries saying she got pregnant while swimming and sperm in the water got inside her. who is to say that wasn’t gods child. science plain and simple not child with out *****ual intercourse, or invetro fertility. I’m pretty sure they didn’t have that back in the time Christ was conceived.
I’ll preach what I want to preach since God is thrown in my face all the time why can’t I throw anti-god in yours? I have pamphlets left at my door, have to hear god in my pledge on my money. I’m sorry but till you can truly prove all you say is true I’m not going to believe it. Now I’m entitled to my beliefs you yours , but I will say this do I hate people who believe in god? No , My grandmother is catholic. I just believe they have a false sense of reality and are giving their money to a worthless cause. what is the point of building these big churches? To each there own I choose to be agonistic I don’t believe in your god no , I believe their is something out there but I just don’t believe in the bible.
How can you say you don't like having belief systems thrust on you when you do that very thing to others?
I would never try to convince you to believe as I do, still less insult you for believing as you do; and I would be tremendously grateful if you would return the favor.
Interesting list… I never knew that Catholicism uses more books in their Bible.
mom424, #31 – “The Church’s sin when it comes to the child abuse scandals has nothing to do with pedophiles becoming priests – folks need to realize that pedophiles consciously or unconsciously (I’m thinking the former) choose professions/vocations that put them in contact with children. That means coaches, clergy, librarians, boy scout leaders. Their sin was one of “keep quiet, for the good of the Church”.”
I think there is something to be said for the effect of the seminary system on a young man’s development. It is essentially stunting their *****ual growth, and disallowing them the natural development of their personality, and to come to grips with their urges as most young people do. They are also required to distance themselves from women, and therefore when they seek human relationships they find themselves stuck with a choice between their male elders and peers, women to whom they can offer nothing, and children under their care. For many of these men, being emotionally crippled and essentially cut off from both the realisation of childhood and the acceptance of adulthood, the attraction towards children (though perhaps innocent at first) soon becomes something unnatural and wholly abominable to normal people.
Jesus. I did not intend to write that much….
Although the list was very well put together, I believe it has nothing really that stands out for debate!
Maybe because the Catholic Church is so spread out in the world and “advertised” most people know pretty much all their is to know.
“Most Common Rumors about the Vatican”, now that would stir some comments!
For those of you pointing out the paedophilia cases it wouldnt fit in this list, cos its about misconceptions! And no one ever heard that the Catholic Church supports such digusting behavior!! Besides, paedophilia has been reported in several religious groups its not a “catholic thing”!!
@Travis (45): Oh, hold on a second.Its okay for you to slam any ‘stereotype’ about Islam but when someone brings up a stereotype about catholicism it is disgusting.
That made me laugh.
¿How about a list of misconceptions about the Spanish Inquisition? From the top of my head:
1.Unusually bloody: If we take the highest estimates, around 5.000 were killed, but that was in more than 3 centuries. The state of Texas could beat that, easily.
2.Backwards: In fact, the Inquisition offered the first true foundations of “due process”. Of course, it is seriously flawed by modern standards, but it was an advancement at the time.
3.The Church executed the convicts: Merely a technicality, perhaps, but it was the secular authorities who killed the people.
4.Killing of jews and muslims: The authority of the Church only applied to those baptized . Therefore, only jews and muslims who had accepted baptism could be tried and executed. It is true, however, that those jews and muslims who refused baptism faced expulsion from the country.
5.Torture: It was quite rare and less brutal than the contemporary secular practices. It was also limited to the purpose of extracting a confession, as opposed to torturing as a punishment in other jurisdictions.
6.Religious motivation: The Inquisition was often used by the secular authorities to pursue secular crimes, and also because regular courts were limited by the fragmentation of jurisdictions inside Spain (roughly, Castilla and Aragon), but the Inquisition didn´t have those limitations.
Not that the Inquisition was a good thing, just not the sadistic killing machine it is purported to be.
Good list! Ya really banging the drum for religious understanding eh? I wonder why everyone attacks Christians, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, I mean to an outsider all these beliefs may seem strange. It seems however that there are a lot of people who really get into not believing anything. They attack believers with the banner of the atheists shaky science I mean is the big bang really any more credible than creation? Further to the Atheist laughing at “American Creationists” when did Creation become American? Its all there in Genesis. America had nothing to do with it. I don’t feel like going on about it, but I have to wonder why so many self proclaimed atheists feel the need to convert people to atheism? is there an atheist bible or some sort of manifesto that requires you to win people over to Atheism? Or are you so narrow minded and critical of the idea of spirituality because you’re afraid you could be wrong and you feel threatened? I think that right now it is the hot thing to live on a purely existential level. Ok but why not just live? Why berate everyone else because you are spiritually crippled?
when the atheist have bible, so they just eat their sh*t in, how could the god nonbeliever had a bible..funny.
We are not trying to convert you we are just making fun of your stupidity, and since when spirituality is good? Religion is ilogical, when somebody says something ilogical to you in a normal situation you dont believe it, but when its is religion you believe it because its FAITH. FAITH=Believing in something illogical with no proof. Religion has been pulling humanity down, thats why i feel the necessity of talking about this and diss religion. In the other hand thanks to science i can live twice as long as people did 100 years ago. I can enjoy things in life twice as long. When has religion brought anything good to society, NEVER.
@ SpaceAge (46) :
First of all, when have I ever slammed any stereotype about Islam?
Second, all I was trying to say is that paedophilia isnt only a Catholic Church problem… many other religions have been related to the horrible act! Its got nothing to do with religion!
And last, I didnt say that bringing up the topic was disgusting, I said that the act itself, of paedophilia, was disgusting!
My understanding of 10 was that Catholics, rather than being discouraged, simply weren’t encouraged to search the scriptures in their own personal time for themselves. That said, of the catholics I have known, none of them do read the Bible in their own time.
On 9, despite Mary being the mother of Jesus, I think she is given unjustified reverence beyond that of any other. Statues just give the wrong impression, as does praying to her or before the statues. One doesn’t need a statue to remember the holiness of the saints. If they read the Bible, that would be enough.
I also disagree that Catholics were the first “Christians”. If by “Christians” you mean those annointed with the Holy Spirit, who regularly fellowshipped together and broke bread, that would be the 120 who received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Then you have those from the 3000 who also accepted Jesus on that day, followed by the churches the apostles built. The church in Rome, compared to the rest of them, was faily late.
On 7, considering the Bible says that all have fallen short of the glory of God, and God is infallible, it doesn’t hold that the Pope can be infallible even on theological matters. For starters, if a Pope can accept that there’s no conflict between abiogenesis, evolution via common descent and the Bible, he’s hardly making an infallible theological judgement.
Indeed, the church is not anti-science, but “anti-evolution” is a tricky one. It depends on what is meant by “evolution”. I believe a consistent Christian will agree that natural selection happens, but they would not agree with abiogenesis and common descent.
For 2, the reason the rest of the church does not accept the 7 apocrypha is because they were written during a 400 period between the OT and NT where it’s acknowledged that there was no revelation from God and no prophets speaking.
To quote from an article on this subject:
The 11 to 16 books of the Apocrypha were written in the 400 years between the close of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New. While the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches treat some of these books as Scripture, Protestant Christians never have. Why is this?
1.The Jews never considered them as part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They believed that there was, throughout that period, no voice of the prophets in Israel. They looked forward to a day when “a faithful prophet” would appear (1 Maccabees 9:27). For the Jews, God’s revelation of the Scriptures through the prophets ended around 430 BC with the book of Malachi.
2.Jesus and the Apostles never considered the Apocrypha as part of the Scriptures. Although there are hundreds of quotations and allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament, never did Jesus or the apostles quote from the Apocrypha. Incidentally, the authors of the Bible do refer to other books, but this does not make them Scripture. For example, Jude 14–15 refers to the book of Enoch, which is not part of the Roman Catholic Apocrypha.
3.Unlike the Old Testament prophets, none of the books of the Apocrypha ever claimed divine authority.
4.Some parts of the Apocrypha contain historical blunders.
5.The community who copied the Dead Sea scrolls never gave the same authority to books of the Apocrypha as to the Old Testament books
Finally, the Matthew 16:18 quote is often misinterpreted. If you read it in context (not only of the chapter and book but also the Bible as a whole) you get a different picture.
“When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus said that those who confess Him before people, He will confess them before His Father. Those who don’t, on the day of judgement He will say that He never knew them. He is confessing Peter here by acknowleding his full name and also the name He gave Him. (The book of Revelation speaks of people being given new names by Jesus on the New Earth).
Jesus was saying here that on the principle that He is the Son of God, He will build His church. What He used here was essentially a play on words (a device He also employed in His parables which isn’t clear in translation).
It’s useful to see the writings of Peter himself and what he said on the subject:
“So as you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but chosen and priceless in God’s sight, you yourselves as living stones are built up as a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood and to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it says in scripture ‘Look, I lay in Zion a stone, a chosen and priceless cornerstone, and whoever believers in Him will never be put to shame’
So you who believe see His value, but for those who do not believe, the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone, and a stumbling-stone and a rock to trip over.” 1 Peter 2:4-8
Indeed, all who confess Jesus are the precious stones with which He builds His house, however He is the chief cornerstone. The founding rock that supports the house, and part of that rock is the principle that Jesus is the Son of God.
Thus, all are on equal standing before God, whether Bishop or not. Indeed “bishop” means a supervisor and it isn’t an office that one uses to laud authority over others. It is an office of loving, carefilled service to the people they have been placed within. It is not the head of the entire church as Jesus is the only head of the church.
wow..what a long explanation…i'm too lazy to read it
Oh wow, I can already feel the “Misconceptions about Islam” arguments migrating over here….
Great list by the way.
This is a pretty decent list I say. It clears off some things, like I didn’t know priests CAN get married
WELCOME TO LISTVERSE : WHERE SMART PEOPLE FIGHT OVER STUPID *****, AND GUESS WHAT? I’M THE ONLY RASTAFARIAN BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS EITHER A CATHOLIC FANATIC OR A MOSLEM TERRORIST
please turn off you caps lock key, you weed smoker.
“Mr.plow (23) One of my main reasons I don’t care for what the Christian religion speak of is plain and simple. WTF with the virgin Mary? I’m sorry but virgin ha if you look into the history of that region now and back then not much has changed . You have a child out of wedlock you are stoned, burned , scorn , and even murdered. Now here’s an interesting way to think about it have you ever thought Mary lied to save her life? made up this story about gods baby . It funny we praise this woman but laugh when a girl tries saying she got pregnant while swimming and sperm in the water got inside her. who is to say that wasn’t gods child. science plain and simple not child with out *****ual intercourse, or invetro fertility. I’m pretty sure they didn’t have that back in the time Christ was conceived.”
Actually, if you read the account in the Bible as it was originally written and understood, Joseph was greatly distressed when he found out Mary was pregnant if not infuriated. He considered quietly getting rid of her. But, he instead bowed to the standard that is greater than the law (that which Jesus came to proclaim) which was grace. He acted out of grace and compassion and decided to still take Mary as his wife and indeed to protect her from being stoned.
It’s also implied that many didn’t believe Mary’s pregnancy was miraculous, and Joseph only became aware of this after he was visited in a dream which led to his decision not to quietly get rid of her.
Plus the whole point of it being a miracle is that it’s something that would be beyond normal experience. Miraculous virgin births without a human father are hardly common. That modern science says it isn’t (normall) impossible further points to the fact that it was an act of God.
Admittedly, you would think that Mary’s story would be an encouragment for the church to look with compassion upon women carrying children outside of marriage. Not in a way that condones it, but also not in a way that condemns them either.
It’s also a good example to the fathers to take some damn responsibility by following Joseph’s example.
i totally agree with you stizzy! nice one!
Yeah Nobkin, I agree with u
Hey, I wonder when will the list ‘Top 10 Misconception About Judaism’ come?