Catholicism was founded by the devil.

[jsktrogdor]

Now that I've got you in here...

There is in fact a scripture inside the LDS (Mormon) canon, within The Book of Mormon which really appears to be accusing the Catholic church of some pretty nasty things... like being "The Great Whore of all the earth". The scripture in question is 1 Nephi Chapter 13. This is quoted directly from lds.org, there are no alternate translations in Mormonism:

1 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld many nations and kingdoms.

2 And the angel said unto me: What beholdest thou? And I said: I behold many nations and kingdoms.

3 And he said unto me: These are the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles.

4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church.

5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a achurch which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

6 And it came to pass that I beheld this agreat and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.

7 And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.

8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the adesires of this great and abominable church.

9 And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.

Its referred to in Mormonism as "The Great and Abominable Church" or "The Great Whore of All the Earth". Its supposed to of formed not long after the death of christ, and is considered to be responsible for corrupting the Bible by removing "the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb". Now modern, mainstream mormonism officially insists this is not referencing the Catholic church. But essentially everyone who reads it on first impression typically assumes that and one of the 12 Apostles of the LDS church wrote a book in 1958 making the connection, though before he became an apostle. They insist its a "metaphorical" church, and refers to anything that goes against god.

But I mean... c'mon...

8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the adesires of this great and abominable church.

Being an atheist. I find this down right hil-aaarious. However I'm really, super curious as to what people of other faiths think, how they feel, especially the Catholics.

[The Juggernaut]

As a Catholic, I've been called worse, mostly by other Christians who believe in "Godly love". I find it hilarious as well, although in a sad, ironic sense.

BTW, like the sig.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I also don't understand protestants' seeming hate towards the RCC. Doctrinally speaking there are very few differences. Historically I can understand why early protestants would have little love for Catholics, but it seems completely misplaced in the modern context; almost like hate for the sake of keeping with tradition. I think most of the hate directed at the modern church is due to its immense popularity and success. I really do think its cross envy. Few other faiths to to the length of Catholic hate as the LDS do, but then again its the LDS. LDS is nuts.

I do find use of the term "papist" in the modern day hilarious. The past few popes have been unbelievably humanitarian and very good people. If someone referred to me as a papist I wouldn't be that offended.

I'll also add that 95% of the people I encountered when I considered myself Catholic never really mentioned it or associated the faith with anything like that. never been called a papist irl, the worst thing was just correcting people who thought catholics worship Mary. People who use the term papist or degrade catholics seem to be insecure or misinformed about something.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I also don't understand protestants' seeming hate towards the RCC. Doctrinally speaking there are very few differences. Historically I can understand why early protestants would have little love for Catholics, but it seems completely misplaced in the modern context; almost like hate for the sake of keeping with tradition. I think most of the hate directed at the modern church is due to its immense popularity and success. I really do think its cross envy. Few other faiths to to the length of Catholic hate as the LDS do, but then again its the LDS. LDS is nuts.

I do find use of the term "papist" in the modern day hilarious. The past few popes have been unbelievably humanitarian and very good people. If someone referred to me as a papist I wouldn't be that offended.

I'll also add that 95% of the people I encountered when I considered myself Catholic never really mentioned it or associated the faith with anything like that. never been called a papist irl, the worst thing was just correcting people who thought catholics worship Mary. People who use the term papist or degrade catholics seem to be insecure or misinformed about something.

The protestants are so against the papists because "teh pope is teh devil" is the whole catalyst of their existence. The protestants by definition are simply a reaction to something. And the greater evil that something is, the more divine their reaction (and they) is/are. For protestantism to be "good" the papists must be "evil."

As an Orthodox, historically I can attest to the cruelty of the papists against us throughout the centuries. Be it the popular sacking of 1204, or the less known northern crusades and the Hungarian policies against the indigenous Romanian majority in Transilvania, there's plenty of "bad blood" between us. At the same time growing up in a protestant private school, I often found myself more at peace and getting along with the papists there who were much more open minded and accepting than the protestants which looked at both of us as some sort of "idol worshiping tribalists out of some random banana republic."


I use the term "papist" the same way I would use "protestant." It's contextual and not meant in any way as an epithet. I think it is most accurate in describing the institution and religion from a theological and ideological point of view.

[Iustinianus]

The protestants are so against the papists because "teh pope is teh devil" is the whole catalyst of their existence. The protestants by definition are simply a reaction to something. And the greater evil that something is, the more divine their reaction (and they) is/are. For protestantism to be "good" the papists must be "evil."

As an Orthodox, historically I can attest to the cruelty of the papists against us throughout the centuries. Be it the popular sacking of 1204, or the less known northern crusades and the Hungarian policies against the indigenous Romanian majority in Transilvania, there's plenty of "bad blood" between us. At the same time growing up in a protestant private school, I often found myself more at peace and getting along with the papists there who were much more open minded and accepting than the protestants which looked at both of us as some sort of "idol worshiping tribalists out of some random banana republic."


I use the term "papist" the same way I would use "protestant." It's contextual and not meant in any way as an epithet. I think it is most accurate in describing the institution and religion from a theological and ideological point of view.

I have nothing against the Orthodox faith personally, as a Catholic myself. But you Orthodox Christians often seem to have a fuzzy memory in the lead up to the sack of Constantinople, as if the evil Catholic Church attacked the innocent, peace-loving Eastern Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

[Carpathian Wolf]

I have nothing against the Orthodox faith personally, as a Catholic myself. But you Orthodox Christians often seem to have a fuzzy memory in the lead up to the sack of Constantinople, as if the evil Catholic Church attacked the innocent, peace-loving Eastern Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

And the Franks like wise have a fuzzy memory that this violence was done against the Italian merchant class which abused the local populace. These riots were spontaneous popular uprisings against the greed of the merchants which the Emperor had allowed for far too long to exercise mercantile domination. Compare that to an organized military massacre and you will see we are still back at square one.

[ivan_the_terrible]

The protestants are so against the papists because "teh pope is teh devil" is the whole catalyst of their existence. The protestants by definition are simply a reaction to something. And the greater evil that something is, the more divine their reaction (and they) is/are. For protestantism to be "good" the papists must be "evil."

As an Orthodox, historically I can attest to the cruelty of the papists against us throughout the centuries. Be it the popular sacking of 1204, or the less known northern crusades and the Hungarian policies against the indigenous Romanian majority in Transilvania, there's plenty of "bad blood" between us. At the same time growing up in a protestant private school, I often found myself more at peace and getting along with the papists there who were much more open minded and accepting than the protestants which looked at both of us as some sort of "idol worshiping tribalists out of some random banana republic."


I use the term "papist" the same way I would use "protestant." It's contextual and not meant in any way as an epithet. I think it is most accurate in describing the institution and religion from a theological and ideological point of view.

To be fair to the Catholics, Innocent III did try to stop the diversion to Constantinople.

It was not, in any case, a premeditated and continuous ideologically-driven attack in the manner of Hungarian Catholicisation or German crusades in the Baltic.

[Carpathian Wolf]

To be fair to the Catholics, Innocent III did try to stop the diversion to Constantinople.

It was not, in any case, a premeditated and continuous ideologically-driven attack in the manner of Hungarian Catholicisation or German crusades in the Baltic.

Considering the crusaders also sacked Zara and other Orthodox cities along the way, considering that the riots against Italian mercantilism abuses in Constantinople as a justification, I have to wonder.

You're really calling them papists?

You haven't seen me post here often have you?

No, there is not. You just want to cling to the centuries old traditional hate because you like it, not because you want to acknowledge the unbelievable steps towards reconciliation between both parties that have been made in the last quarter century. Are you really going to continue to be pissed off about things that happened eight centuries ago and completely ignore developments that have been happening in the past 25 years? That's just sheer ignorance and bigotry at its worst mate.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/po...rios-i_en.html

Actually if you read the whole thing I wrote I said that in spite of these historical issues I see eye to eye with papists today as opposed to protestants generally. I was outlining the fact that I could have all the reason to stay pissed off at them as you accuse me to, but I don't and that I got along in school with papists better than protestants. We're all capable of reading english here still right? Did I suddenly start using Romanian mid post or something?

Or you could call them Catholics. Because that's what they are. Papist is meant as a derogatory term and once again just goes to show the arrogance some members of the orthodox church seem to have in my opinion.

But I'M Catholic. Why would I use a term that is for my belief system to someone else? Catholic is a Greek term meaning universal. When the pope in the west, motivated by the political landscape of his realm, decided that everyone in the Church had to do as he says and when nobody agreed with his non sense, he took his ball and went home, that name was relinquished from the west. They were no longer Catholic. Their main point, their catalyst, their anchor, was the vatican and the seat of the pope. That is what defined them. And just as protestants get their name from their raison d'etre, there is nothing wrong with applying the same rule to the papists. This is why Orthodox makes sense to be used by those in the east, because they maintained the original Catholic teaching. Is it semantic? Sure, but words have power, and definitions have relevance.

[eran]

Who knows what this painting is called?

[Col. Tartleton]

Who knows what this painting is called?

"The Crimson Hatted Men Sit In The Presence Of Their Living God's Bench Warmer"

Ultimately there is only one true faith: Yesua was a Pot Smoking Hippie


EDIT: In fairness I meant to say "The Scarlet Hatted Men Sit In The Presence of Their Living God's Bench Warmer"

[jsktrogdor]

I also don't understand protestants' seeming hate towards the RCC. Doctrinally speaking there are very few differences. Historically I can understand why early protestants would have little love for Catholics, but it seems completely misplaced in the modern context; almost like hate for the sake of keeping with tradition.

See this is a big reason why I still believe the scripture is referring to the Catholic church, even long after they told me it was metaphorical in sunday school when I was 10. It doesnt make sense in modern context, in fact its downright hateful. So it appears to me that modern mormons have... shifted it slightly. The same way they shifted Polygamy.

Joseph Smith grew up and lived in the early 1800's, in a heavily protestant American East coast, during the Second Great Awakening. Catholic bashing in that era & in that part of the world? Thats just the way society was.

Modern mormons may feel that this is referring to a metaphorical church. But it seems to make a tremendous amount more sense, given his environment and upbringing, that Joseph Smith was clearly referring to Catholics. Americans didnt really trust catholics for over a century beyond his time, even when Kennedy was being elected that was considered a hurdle for him.

[basics]

" I also don't understand protestants' seeming hate towards the RCC. Doctrinally speaking there are very few differences."

Pontifex Maximus,

Doctrinally speaking there are vast differences, ones that matter according to Holy Scripture. That said there are also things still repeated in Protestantism that were carried over from Rome thus making them also in great error. The problems that men and women who adhere to these still then have is that they are not entitled to be called the church of Jesus Christ because their doctrine of regeneration is not Biblical and so they are not born again Christian, the only way to be one.

[Pontifex Maximus]

A remarkably surprising view, Ponti. It seems I inferred quite a few things that aren't true from some of your previous posts.

I'm full of surprises.

The protestants are so against the papists because "teh pope is teh devil" is the whole catalyst of their existence. The protestants by definition are simply a reaction to something. And the greater evil that something is, the more divine their reaction (and they) is/are. For protestantism to be "good" the papists must be "evil."

You're really calling them papists?

As an Orthodox

Oh, that explains it. See the part of my post "cross envy."

historically I can attest to the cruelty of the papists against us throughout the centuries. Be it the popular sacking of 1204, or the less known northern crusades and the Hungarian policies against the indigenous Romanian majority in Transilvania, there's plenty of "bad blood" between us.

No, there is not. You just want to cling to the centuries old traditional hate because you like it, not because you want to acknowledge the unbelievable steps towards reconciliation between both parties that have been made in the last quarter century. Are you really going to continue to be pissed off about things that happened eight centuries ago and completely ignore developments that have been happening in the past 25 years? That's just sheer ignorance and bigotry at its worst mate.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/po...rios-i_en.html

I use the term "papist" the same way I would use "protestant." It's contextual and not meant in any way as an epithet. I think it is most accurate in describing the institution and religion from a theological and ideological point of view.

Or you could call them Catholics. Because that's what they are. Papist is meant as a derogatory term and once again just goes to show the arrogance some members of the orthodox church seem to have in my opinion.

See this is a big reason why I still believe the scripture is referring to the Catholic church, even long after they told me it was metaphorical in sunday school when I was 10. It doesnt make sense in modern context, in fact its downright hateful. So it appears to me that modern mormons have... shifted it slightly. The same way they shifted Polygamy.

For me it lies in the fact that the Catholic church has a log tradition of educating its clergy. Many other denominations have abandoned that and the result is this horrible form of uneducated, emotional religion. Considering literacy rates in the past century have just risen to the level where most people can now read the bible themselves by the age of six in most western countries, we should be wary of those reading it without any sort of filter. You cannot sit down with the bible uneducated in its ways and read it in any sort of theologically acceptable manner. The result is faiths like LDS and the southern baptists, the latter, in my opinion, being the worst, who constantly use the bible as a way to support their bigotry.

I have a good deal of respect for Catholic apologists who despite being wrong at least present an intellectual argument. I've seen little else that compares to it, though I can't speak to eastern religions.

Doctrinally speaking there are vast differences, ones that matter according to Holy Scripture. That said there are also things still repeated in Protestantism that were carried over from Rome thus making them also in great error. The problems that men and women who adhere to these still then have is that they are not entitled to be called the church of Jesus Christ because their doctrine of regeneration is not Biblical and so they are not born again Christian, the only way to be one.

You have no denomination and I consider your beliefs radical, ridiculous, and dangerous, but I think we may actually be able to have a discussion on this. The "vast differences" really aren't so vast now. They were back in the 16th century but the RCC has progressed quite a bit since then. The only major difference between Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Presbyterians is transubstantiation and marriage for the clergy. Those are three large denominations with really only one or two differences. Baptists? Transubstantiation and infant baptism. There are plenty of minor differences which really don't amount to anything. The fact is the 21st century is shaping up to be a very ecumenical (christian) era.

You've all managed to ignore that you worship the exact same god for so long because you're only interested in seeing who goes to hell for doing what five hundred years ago. Finally your leaders are moving on, with or without you it seems.

[basics]

" You have no denomination and I consider your beliefs radical, ridiculous, and dangerous, but I think we may actually be able to have a discussion on this. The "vast differences" really aren't so vast now. They were back in the 16th century but the RCC has progressed quite a bit since then. The only major difference between Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Presbyterians is transubstantiation and marriage for the clergy. Those are three large denominations with really only one or two differences. Baptists? Transubstantiation and infant baptism. There are plenty of minor differences which really don't amount to anything. The fact is the 21st century is shaping up to be a very ecumenical (christian) era."

Pontifex Maximus,

Just for the record I was born again whilst attending a Baptist church and then baptised by the same church so that should make me a Baptist but since Christianity does not have denominations, the only requirement being that one is born again, that really makes me just a simple ole Christian.

And there begins the vast difference between Christianity and religion of whatever nature. Infant baptism which most adhere to does not make anyone a Christian. So all them that belong to organisations administering this ritual are delivering a false gospel and are deluding their adherents into believing that they are Christian when that cannot be.

Put it this way, when the hand of God stretches out to anyone to reveal Jesus Christ to them, that person will be aware of his or her frailties in those moments. This is called conviction which a child, even an adult, cannot experience unless their mind is opened to such a thing. By frailties of course I mean the realisation of their own sin and the condemnation that goes with it. How can something supposedly sacred realise that he or she is really a sinner?

Now that is the very fundamental of Christianity and to teach otherwise is in direct contradiction to the word of God so as Paul says they remain under the curse of sin and therefore cannot be the church of the living God. If that is dangerous so be it because it is how God's people are made. That you cannot understand this is the very reason that I explain these things according to my own conversion experience and that laid down in Scripture and this is only a beginning of the errors made by organised religion.

[xcorps]

A remarkably surprising view, Ponti. It seems I inferred quite a few things that aren't true from some of your previous posts.

[Jingo Eugene]

As a technical Protestant, I personally believe that in the end, the Catholic Church is no better nor worse than the Orthodox or the Protestant Churches, or the Mormons or any "Christian" Church, we are all guilty of our own crimes. I often find the Pope-bashing a bit over-the-top. However, I am not Catholic not because "teh Pope is teh evils" as Carpathian Wolf said before, but instead, because there are a number of their beliefs and practices I don't believe in. Anyhow, I believe that this passage is indeed talking about the Catholics, for the reasons that jsktrogdor explained, and I don't believe that what it is saying is right in the least.

[Scipio Africanus Maximus]

I am, like Kaiser, not a Catholic because I disagree with some of their beliefs, but I have nothing really big against the Catholic Church. One of my best friends is a Catholic, and we've never had any real disagreements before. Most Protestant beliefs come from the Church, so we kinda owe them.

[jsktrogdor]

One of my best friends is a Catholic

Does he know he's a member of the Great Whore of all the Earth?

You should probley break that too him gently.

[Scipio Africanus Maximus]

Does he know he's a member of the Great Whore of all the Earth?

You should probley break that too him gently.

For one, "he" is a "she," though I won't fault you for not knowing.

Second, it's best to take anything the LDS say with a grain of salt. I had an ex who was Mormon went to a service with her. The songs all seemed to talk about how oppressed and persecuted they are. Every person who said anything began and/or ended with an affirmation that "Joseph Smith was God's Prophet" and something similar about the President of the Mormon Church. She wasn't interested in hearing any other beliefs. While the Bible contains things that are difficult to verify archaeologically and historically, the Book of Mormon in its entirety is impossible. All of it adds up more to cult behavior than Christianity. Most mainstream Christians have a view of "live and let live" when it comes to other religions.

Okay, my diatribe is over now.

[jsktrogdor]

For one, "he" is a "she," though I won't fault you for not knowing.

Second, it's best to take anything the LDS say with a grain of salt. I had an ex who was Mormon went to a service with her. The songs all seemed to talk about how oppressed and persecuted they are. Every person who said anything began and/or ended with an affirmation that "Joseph Smith was God's Prophet" and something similar about the President of the Mormon Church. She wasn't interested in hearing any other beliefs. While the Bible contains things that are difficult to verify archaeologically and historically, the Book of Mormon in its entirety is impossible. All of it adds up more to cult behavior than Christianity. Most mainstream Christians have a view of "live and let live" when it comes to other religions.

Okay, my diatribe is over now.

I love this.

"Dont listen to LDS people, they're crazy. They're not like us reasonable people. The bible contains things that are difficult to verify archaeologically and historically, like a woman birthing a child asexually whom later becomes a zombie and makes everybody eat his flesh and drink his blood. And they have these crazy ideas about this guy being a prophet of god. Normal Christians dont believe in such nonsense as a man talking with god."


BTW: The songs about them being persecuted mostly come from their people being forced from the east coast, tortured, tarred and feathered, massacred, their leader assassinated and the US government declaring war on them. You think they walked hundreds of miles through the wilderness and founded a state in the middle of no where for and giggles?