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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 829 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21. At least three of their major atonement models developed during the Dark Ages.
1- Ransom theory
2- Penal Substitution
3- Moral Influence theory
22. The doctrine of the immortal soul burning forever.

Take a look at this site...

Mary as intercessor on the Mercy Seat.

http://www.amillionsouls.com/

It is nothing but pagan worship, and scripture makes clear that Mary was in no way a intercessor for mankind....


Hebrews 7:25
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

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

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

Isaiah 8:20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Can someone explain the 3 as my mother was Catholic as a girl, but didnt tell me all the beliefs......
1- Ransom theory
2- Penal Substitution
3- Moral Influence theory

Penal substitution refers to the biblical truth (confirmed in the SOP) that law and justice requires punishment in duration and intensity proportionate to the sinfulness incurred finally ending in eternal death. Jesus was not free to disregard law and justice and pardon A&E without executing the death penalty. Jesus satisfied the just and loving demands of law and justice on our behalf by suffering and dying in our place.

Ellen wrote, "a plan was devised that the sentence of death should rest upon a substitute of superior value to the law of God. In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. {RH, March 3, 1874 par. 1} His life and death also bought probationary time for mankind and made the great controversy doable.

The moral influence theory, as I understand it, says Jesus did not live and die to satisfy the penal demands of law and justice or to exalt and honor the law. It abhors the idea that Jesus needed legal justification to pardon and save penitent sinners. Mith (moral influence theory, pun intended) teaches Jesus lived and died mainly to demonstrate His love for us hoping it will motivate sinners to desire pardon and salvation and a meaningful relationship with Jesus.

I think you missed a fundamental one.
What about Loyola, the Jesuit priest?
“From this time his visions became more frequent. Sitting one day on the steps of St. Dominick’s church at Manresa, he was singing a hymn to the Holy Virgin, when on a sudden his soul was wrapt in ecstasy; he remained motionless, absorbed in contemplation; the mystery of the most Holy Trinity was revealed to his sight under magnificent symbols; he shed tears, filled the church with his sobs, and all day long continued speaking of this ineffable vision… Loyola, at this time, bound himself to dreams and visions; and chimerical apparitions became the principle of his life and of his faith.” Wylie’s History of the Reformation, Book 10, ch.1.
The “truth” of Trans-substantiation was also revealed to him in the same manner.

In The Record, of March 4, 2000 p.3, we read:
Catholics: SDAs not a sect
“The Seventh-day Adventist Church cannot be treated either as a ‘new religious
movement’ or a sect,” declares a joint statement from the Roman Catholic and Seventhday
Adventist Churches in Poland. Recognising each other’s autonomy and independence,
the document was issued following 15 years of dialogue aimed at better understanding the
teachings and practice of both churches. – ANN.
Digging a little deeper, we find 15 years of talking obviously found more common points
than most would think of.
“During the years of the exchange, we discovered many common points but also
differences in our teachings. The Catholic Church recognises in this document our belief,
which is focused on the character of Christ and in particular our holding on the doctrine of the Trinity. On the other hand, in the last few years we have seen in the Catholic Church
an openness towards the Bible.” – Professor Zachariasz Lyko, Polish SDA Public Relation
Department.

“Shall antichrist be respected? Shall the true doctrines and principles given us by God, which have made us what we are, be ignored?” CW 95.3

So Rome no longer regards us as a sect because of our belief in the Trinity. How does that fit with the claim that our belief of the Trinity is not the same as Rome’s? Would the anti-christ approve if we moved closer to truth? Do you think a doctrine confirmed by an apparition of Mary would be true?

It is widely acknowledged that our church was non-Trinitarian in its early years.
Speaking of the 1872 Statement of Beliefs, the comment is made, “Even more significant
however, is the fact that the statement is distinctly non-Trinitarian” Issues, 39.
“Remembering our non-Trinitarian past as well as the simplicity of our landmarks
should encourage a certain humility in the church…” Ibid, 50.
“Are the modern defenders of so-called historic Adventism really prepared to return to a non-Trinitarian position?” Ibib, 39.
”The SDA Encyclopedia attributes Adventism’s gradual adoption of Trinitarianism to
the influence of Ellen White’s writings, especially key statements found in The Desire of Ages.” (1898) Ibid, 39.
Yet when diligent search is made of her writings and that claim is found to be mis-leading, we are piously told, “Oh but we must get our doctrine from Scripture.”
After studying some 6,000 references, I could not find a single one urging us to change from the truths we had held sacred for fifty years, only numerous warnings not to.

“My brethren, the value of the evidences of truth that we have received during the past half century, is above estimate. These evidences are as treasure hidden in a field. Search for them. Study the Bible truths that for fifty years have been calling us out from the world. Present this evidence in clear, plain lines. Those who have been long in the truth, and those who have recently received the truth, must now dig for the buried heavenly treasure. Let every man work to the point. Study the Word of God. Revive the evidences given in the past. "Search the Scriptures," Christ said; "for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." RH, April 19, 1906 par. 13
Seems a strange comment to make if she believed they were in fundamental error.
What Bible truth had been calling them out of the world for fifty years? All the world will wonder after the beast who is Trinitarian. The Trinity doctrine does not call us out.
Did Jesus teach a trinity? “All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him].” Matt. 11:27. If the Holy Spirit were a third equal being, wouldn’t he have known the Father and the Son?
Did Paul teach a Trinity? “But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.” 1 Cor. 8:6. And what about “In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”? Eph. 2:22.
If we asked the prophet were our pioneers in error and did we need to tear up some things and put in new timber, how would she answer?
“The word of the Lord has guided our steps since the passing of the time in 1844. We have searched the Scriptures; we have built solidly; and we have not had to tear up our foundations and put in new timbers. There is always safety in presenting a "Thus saith the Lord." We must put our trust in a "Thus saith the Lord" and be well established in the faith.”--Letter 24, 1907, 3. (To A. G. Daniells, Feb. 4, 1907.)

to the forum, Geoff!


Interesting points there. I wonder what good can come of such a long dialogue.

Regarding these points, I see no reason to believe that every doctrine held by the Catholic church should be automatically rejected on our part, just to be different. We must not base our doctrines upon whether or not some others may happen to accept Biblical truths on some points. Our only creed, Mrs. White said, was to be the Bible. As for whether or not an apparition might speak truth, it certainly might.

My great-grandmother was a spiritist/witch. She was well respected in her community for her spiritualistic powers. One day, she heard of some Bible meetings coming to town, and she happened to have a Bible in her house. She decided to attend the evangelistic meetings in order to strengthen her ability to refute Christianity. The spirits went with her. As she sat in the back listening to the sermon, the spirits would tell her ahead of time the points that the speaker would make. As the speaker mentioned a Bible verse, these spirits would actually open up her Bible for her to that verse, so that she could read it as he quoted it from the front!... Until one particular night. The night upon which the topic was the Sabbath, the spirits refused to open her Bible for her. She got angry with them. She tried to find the verses for herself, but of course she wasn't too familiar with the Bible. I don't remember all of the details of the story, but eventually, she left spiritism and became an Adventist.

Why would the spirits speak truth? Why would they refuse to say anything on the topic of the Sabbath?

The devil will happily mix 99% truth with his 1% error. Just because the devil said it, does not make it untrue. It might be tainted, or it may just be the truth.

One of my favorites is the story of the witch of Endor. The spirit spoke almost pure truth to King Saul--except for pretending to be Samuel, of course. The spirit even said "Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?" Why didn't the spirit talk about "coming down" instead? Was Samuel "up in heaven?" Or did the devil actually say what I think he said--the truth about Samuel being down in his grave?

And remember how the demoniacs spoke truth about Jesus' identity? The devil didn't lie. He has the ability to speak truth when it suits his cause, and he does so frequently.

Ellen White does not ask us to change our beliefs, but she does ask us to grow in them. Such growth is also evident throughout her own lifetime. I'm sure you remember how she wrote to one pastor telling him not to teach against the eating of pork. Five years later, she received the vision on the health message, and from then on she taught against pork herself. Should she have held on to her earlier belief?

The question regarding the trinitarian view is a bit more complicated than that, but much of the confusion around this seems to be more related to what others among the pioneers believed and taught than what she herself was teaching. Some among our pioneers could hardly accept Jesus as God because He was a "son." How could a "son" be equal to God? Nevertheless, Ellen White seemed quite clear on this point, and she accepted that Jesus was fully God and fully man at the same time.

She is not saying anything in that quote about beliefs. She is saying that we need to review the "evidences." The evidences and facts may not change, but our understanding of them and interpretation of them certainly may. Consider that Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same evidences and arrive at vastly different conclusions. A few years from now, they will still look at these same evidences, and base their understandings upon them. But their understandings may have grown, as new evidences are aligned with the old to form a more complete picture.

I think the question to ask following this statement would be "What did Mrs. White consider to be our 'foundations'?" I'm sure that the sanctuary, the Sabbath, the state of the dead, the second advent, and perhaps a few more would be among them. But I'm not sure that any case can be made for Ellen White having ever been non-trinitarian. Certainly, she never used that word at all. She spoke of the "Godhead." The Godhead was three distinct persons to her. That is nearly identical to what most people understand the Trinity to be.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Now, this is the issue that I think needs a closer examination. The Catholic belief of the Trinity differs from the Adventist veiw, but I have not been able to find a good explanation of the differences. Just what Adventist who were former Catholics who keep bringing this point up, I wonder if anyone can shed some light on this.

Welcome, Geoff!

About what you said,

The pioneers didn't believe in a "heavenly TRIO." They also didn't believe the Holy Spirit was "the third person of the Godhead."

Good point, it took years to bring about a true understanding of the Godhead and even then people keep reaching wrong interpretations and going off on paths that are clearly against what SOP and the Bible teaches...