I was cleaning out some of my files today and came across some old articles with some still-current information about the Roman Catholic Church. These articles just give more evidence as to the apostate, aberrational and even heretical nature of that organization, proving it is just an institution founded my man.
One of the things I came across in more than one article is the foolishness of venerating relics. Not only that, but the foolish claims associated with the relics venerated!
From the Zenit Daily Dispatch, Rome, June 3, 1999: “German Jesuit Fr. Heinrich Pfeiffer reports that he has rediscovered the legendary veil of Veronica, with which Jesus wiped his face on the road to Calvary.... A small piece of stained pale cloth kept in this tiny village has long been regarded as a sacred icon with wondrous properties by Father Germano, head of its Capuchin monastery.”
Think about it: there is no biblical evidence for the person or the veil, and it was no more than a legend which came about hundreds of years later. It is rank superstition to suggest Jesus’ face would appear on a piece of cloth that someone used to wipe His face. It is rank superstition to believe this tattered fabric has “wondrous properties.” And yet Rome and its “infallible” pope supports this foolishness.
From www.carmelite.com O’Donnell, “Therese 2002,” we have this: “The place of relics: But do we really need relics, parts of the body of a saint such as a bone, a hair (called a first class relic) or cloth that has been in contact with the saint’s body (a second class relic)? IF we have a lively faith n the Eucharist, do we need something infinitely inferior to the Body and Blood of the Lord? The origin of relics was largely associated with the Eucharist, which was celebrated at the burial place of holy people. In time the custom grew in the Church that the Mass should be celebrated on the relics of the saints in the altar stone or wrapped in the corporal. Indeed, since Nicea II churches are not to be consecrated without relics, a point made again in Church law as recently as 1977 in the revised Rite of Dedication of a Church. The Church is therefore comfortable with the relics and the Eucharist being somehow coupled together. Indeed Mass begins with the priest kissing the altar, that is the relics contained in it.”
Almost 800 years after Christ died the Roman church decided a building could not be consecrated without a relic. Where did this unbiblical belief originate? This author makes a claim for its origin, but it would be interesting to see the evidence as to what time period this took place; when did this superstition begin? This is another demonstration as to the unbiblical nature of the Roman Catholic Mass.
The Roman Catholic Church has supported evolution over creation; man’s changing ideas of science over the Word of God. They think as long as God was involved in evolution, there is no conflict with Scripture. I find it interesting that evolutionists themselves see the conflict and yet the Roman Church doesn’t! Pope John Paul was a theistic evolutionist. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn called evolution “one of the very great works of intellectual history.” What a sad belief in something which has no empirical evidence to support it! Yet the Church has taught that the soul, created separately, would have been imparted into an evolved human being. What happened to Adam and Eve? And to top it all off, the Vatican astronomer, Guy Consolmagno, says that belief in a 6-day creation is pagan superstition! And good old Pope Benedict XVI says we have to listen to the earth talking to us and that it is an “absurdity” to debate creation and evolution. He claims there are many scientific proofs for evolution.
Rome has made it very clear that the Bible’s story of Creation is not factual, that God used evolution to create mankind through millions of years of mistakes. And this is the church which claims their pope is infallible and the true representative of Christ on earth!
Rome puts the Bible aside and venerates relics and promotes evolution. And yet they claim to be the one true church!
4 comments:
Yes, but "in the beginning" does not simply translate into "6,000 years ago". I don't think that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account demands a young earth interpretation. You isolate the Bible from its historic context. Young earth creationism had sectarian origins in the Seventh-Day Adventist Movement, just as did King James onlyisn. Look it up for yourself!
Anonymous,
How about trying to not be anonymous?
"In the beginning" the beginning of time, the beginning of creation. It does indeed translate to around 6000 years ago according to a proper understanding of Scripture genealogies, etc. It does indeed demand a young earth interpretation.
Evolution is a fraud based on assertions, speculations and assumptions with absolutely no facts, and was developed to do away with God.
The historic context of the Bible is young earth creationism. And your ignorance is showing by claiming YEC originated with the SDA -- Bishop Ussher in the early 17th Century spelled it out in his "The Annals of the World," and long before that Christians KNEW YEC was the correct interpretation.
Oh surely, you cannot produce a reputable secular scientist who could support your laughable interpretation of Scripture. No knowledgeable scientist in his right mind would ever have the audacity to say the earth is 6 thousand years old. They're so confident. How can they possibly go wrong? Genealogies simply do not add up.
Anonymous],
Secular so-called scientist do everything in their power to get rid of God. So what?
The genealogies do indeed add up.
Your statements/questions have been rebutted ad nauseam. You continue to display ignorance.
You are finished here.
Post a Comment