Talk:Catholic Church

Ok, now we have an issue here. Catholic church belives in evolution and also condemns Creationism as pseudoscience that is pushed by fundamentalists. So i feel necesary to 'strike back'. If my edits regarding this organisation that i see as false church and its leader as false christ, will be reversed, and criticism of Catholicism silenced and removed Im quitting this project and will stop any contributions. User:BAmed


 * This site is a collaborative effort and as such will only succeed if people work together. Its simply not the appropriate forum to "strike back" at others and cause such conflict. --Ashcraft - (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (PDT)


 * This wiki isn't about YOUR edits and YOUR view. It is the Creationist Point of View that is supported. If this is a majority position within creation science then by all means expound on it. If it isn't perhaps you will get some debate and a reversal of your edits, just make sure you present the case fairly and objectively most of all. Please do not quit this project, but merely prove your case if that happens.
 * What I would actually suggest is that you make another section within the Catholic Church article detailing this view instead of putting it right underneath the opening paragraph.--Tony 15:22, 24 August 2010 (PDT)


 * Are you just copying mass amounts of text from Wikipedia into Creationwiki regarding the inquisition? --Tony 15:39, 24 August 2010 (PDT)

Yes Tony becouse I find it objective, and good spelled. Second of all, Creationsts dont hold Catholciism positive views that re presented in this article. History is teaching us about future. People must know what is this system all about. If there will be needed to put refrences for any statemant in this article go forward. I'll add as many as neccesary.User:BAmed


 * Instead of copying amounts of text from Wikipedia we should form our own articulations... You might want to ask Ashcraft about that.--Tony 16:20, 24 August 2010 (PDT)

BAmed, the Catholic Church does not, nor has it ever, believed in evolutionism or considered Creationism 'pseudoscience.' In fact, it completely rejects and condemns the notion as anathema. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is the infallible and inerrant word of God. Vatican I also declared that all those things in the written word of God must be believed with divine and Catholic Faith.


 * Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Sess. III, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”


 * Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (# 20), Nov. 18, 1893: “For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.”

You say "Creationsts dont hold Catholciism [sic] positive views" yet, there are many nominal and traditional Catholics who are Creationists—the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation is just one example. Therefore, your anti-Catholic position is definitely not a majority position within Creation Science. The post-Vatican II "Church" headed by Antipope Benedict XVI, which falsely claims to be 'the Catholic Church', however does say that it is "permissible" to believe in evolution. This, however, is irrelevant to what the Catholic Church teaches because Benedict XVI and his four predecessors (John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, and John XXIII) were/are manifest heretics who openly denied Sacred Scripture and Catholic dogma; this disqualifies and invalidates them as being "popes", making them antipopes (i.e. false claimants to the Papacy). They, therefore, hold no jurisdiction in the Catholic Church. Pope Paul IV solemnly declared in his Apostolic Constitution Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (1559) that a heretic cannot be validly elected pope, even with the unanimous consent of the cardinals.


 * St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."


 * St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: " Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ..."


 * St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

There have been 260 valid popes in Church history and more than 40 antipopes (not counting the last five). There have been more than 200 papal vacancies (periods without a pope). The Catholic Church is, and has been since 1958, in a state of sede vacante ("vacant seat"), just as when a true pope dies, and has now been reduced to a remnant in a situation similar to the Arian crisis of the 4th century.

Indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is. The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church. It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days. This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.


 * The Catholic Church's enemies—Communists and Freemasons—made an organized effort to infiltrate her [PDF file]

The Freemasons are known to have devised a plan called "Alta Vendetta" that was designed to take control of the Papacy. According to the Grand Master of Italian Freemasonry, John XXIII was initiated into a Masonic Lodge in Turkey before he became "pope." John XXIII (a.k.a. Angelo Roncalli) was a radical heretic who was suspected of Modernism as far back as 1926. He was frequently seen fraternizing with Communists and other radicals who hate the Catholic Church. He was the man who had the "inspiration" to call Vatican II and get the major part of the Great Apostasy rolling. John XXIII has all the marks of a conspirator on him, and much evidence indicates that he was not the first to be elected in the 1958 conclave. After his death, John XXIII was praised by Freemasons and Communists as a great liberal and a revolutionary who supported their ideals – the former even labeled his encyclical Pacem in Terris "a vigorous statement of Masonic doctrine."

The post-Vatican II "Church" is actually a counterfeit "Catholic" sect with new teachings, new practices and a New Mass – which all contradict the Catholic Faith of all times and the teaching of the Catholic popes in history. Vatican II (also known as the Second Vatican Council) was a council which took place from 1962-1965; this council started a revolution against the Catholic Faith and gave birth to this new counterfeit "Catholic" sect. This website proves in tremendous detail that this post-Vatican II sect is not Catholic, that its leaders are not Catholic, that its fruits and teachings are not Catholic and not holy, and that this counterfeit sect was predicted in Sacred Scripture and in Catholic prophecy to arise in the last days as part of the Devil’s final assault on mankind (i.e. The Great Apostasy).

Further, you state "there are many Bible believing Christians, who see Roman Catholic Church as a 'Mother of Harlots' just as was seen by almost all Protestant reformers (including Wycliffe, Luther, Cranmer etc.). It's practices and doctrines have often been described as anti-Christian, and its spiritual leader is still seen as anti-Christ by many (if not all) Protestant fundamentalists (those who understand Bible litteraly [sic])."


 * The Great Apostasy and a counterfeit Church predicted in the New Testament and in Catholic Prophecy [PDF]
 * Is the Vatican II sect the Whore of Babylon prophesied in the Apocalypse?
 * Pope Leo XIII’s supernatural experience and Original Prayer to St. Michael predicting apostasy in Rome in the last days [PDF File]

In the Gospel, Our Lord Jesus Christ not only informs us that in the last days the true faith would hardly be found on the Earth, but that “in the holy place” itself there will be “the abomination of desolation” (Matthew 24:15), and a deception so profound that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived (Matthew 24:24). St. Paul says that the man of sin will sit “in the temple of God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). The Book of Revelation describes in detail the Whore of Babylon, a false bride (i.e. a Counter Church) which arises in the last days in the city of seven hills (Rome) and which spreads spiritual fornication all over the Earth. The fact that the last days are characterized by a spiritual deception intending to ensnare Catholics proves, rather than disproves, the authenticity of the Catholic Church.


 * Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ ... the Church will be in eclipse.”

This is a very important introductory audio program:


 * The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, Part 1, Part 2 [2 hrs. each part]

As for claims regarding the Inquisition, see the following resources:


 * Catholic Inquisition Myths Busted
 * The Inquisition
 * The Holy Inquisition: Myth or Reality?
 * The "Holy" or "Bloody" Spanish Inquisition
 * The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition
 * Beyond the Myth of The Inquisition: Ours Is "The Golden Age"
 * The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition
 * The Inquisition Myth
 * The Protestant Inquisition

In conclusion, BAmed, the edits you have made to this article are erroneous and are based on anti-Catholic bigotry (à la Jack Chick) rather than any real facts.-- CelticCreationist 18:37, 24 August 2010 (PDT)


 * OK. now I see that someone removed part that I didnt copy paste and that said that there are those who don't belive in Catholic claimes. I see that CelticCreationist is Catholic and that he has strict 'hold' of article regarding Catholic church, If part I have written myself and have not copy pasted from wikipedia is not put back, Ill sease to make any other contributions and will leave this project.


 * CelcticCreationisist is antiprotestant and you support it. Even worse he believes that Jack Chick is using anti Catholic bigotry what is false. By holding his side you support him and openly show where and on whose side you stand on.


 * Also Ashcraft you support lies written in this article regarding papal claimes and this nonsence telling that Peter was first roman pope etc becouse you reject and criticism of those claimes. As you're here founder and senior administrator I find you're actions even more disturbing. You show what you're policy is and to such policy i can not hold. Im out of this project.


 * You even allow Celtic Catholic to write article about Purgatory which doesnt mention at all that purgatory is non existant place and false doctrine taking people to hell. Actually there is no criticism of purgatory at all, just plain popish claimes... Thats sick and pushing such material on creationist website is SICK.User:BAmed


 * BAmed, I have not made one single "anti-Protestant" remark, yet you, on the other hand, have made numerous anti-Catholic remarks. As for Jack Chick not being an anti-Catholic bigot; that's a laugh. His material on Catholicism consists primarily of rehashings of The Two Babylons by 19th century pseudo-scholar and rabid anti-Catholic, Alexander Hislop. In other words, his material (at least regarding Catholicism) is fraudulent and is based on twisted interpretations of Catholic beliefs. The fact that you consider him to be a valid source doesn't say much for your own credibility as an editor.


 * There are no "lies" in this article, aside from what you had previously posted. If you had perhaps read the article, you would notice that it says "it [the Catholic Church] maintains that ... etc." It is merely stating what the Catholic Church maintains. You may want to interpret that as being a definite statement but, as the context clearly shows, it is not.


 * Might I also suggest that you actually try reading the article on Purgatory, particularly the Evidence sub-section? If you can provide any evidence to the contrary then, by all means, present your case but, all you have provided thus far is anti-Catholic canards based on biased revisions of history. The main body of Christians have always believed in the existence of a place between Heaven and Hell where souls go to be punished for lesser sins and to repay the debt of temporal punishment for sins which have been forgiven. Even after Moses and David were forgiven by God, they were still punished for their sins (Deuteronomy 32:48-52; 2 Samuel 12:13-14). The Early Church Fathers regarded the doctrine of Purgatory as one of the basic tenets of the Christian faith. St. Augustine, one of the greatest doctors of the Church (and who, I might add, is held in high regards by Protestants such as Lutherans), said the doctrine of Purgatory "has been received from the Fathers and it is observed by the Universal Church." Further, the Second Book of Maccabees (which was dropped from the Scriptures by the Protestant Reformers) says: "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Maccabees 12:46). Ancient Christian tomb inscriptions from the second and third centuries frequently contain an appeal for prayers for the dead. In fact, the custom of praying for the dead—which is meaningless if there is no Purgatory—was universal among Christians for the fifteen centuries preceding the Protestant Reformation.


 * So, yes, it is very clearly is a Christian doctrine, just not a doctrine that all Christians (today) accept.


 * It appears that you just want to re-write this entire article to fit your own views, rather than taking a neutral and factual encyclopedic position. What you, apparently, fail to understand is that not every Creationist or member of this site is an anti-Catholic Fundamentalist Protestant like yourself. As Mr. Ashcraft pointed out, this site is a collaborative effort between Christians from different denominations who are united on the issue of Young-Earth Creationism. What is sick and disturbing is your virulent and ignorant hatred of Catholicism and Catholics, subjects which you clearly know very little about, aside from the misinformation about them that you've uncritically and erroneously accepted as 'fact.' -- CelticCreationist 01:19, 25 August 2010 (PDT)


 * For the record, it was not the placement of criticisms that caused BAmed's edit to be reversed. The remarks that were inserted into the introduction were obviously inflammatory and as such would not be allowed. But in any event, it is perhaps best to address concerns on a separate article with a mere abstract placed in the original. We have taken the same position with other subjects such as Progressive creationism wherein criticisms are detailed within a separate article (Arguments against progressive creationism).


 * It can be difficult to maintain objectivity when writing a critique from a position of disagreement, but that is what must be done. Only on matters of the creation, does the CreationWiki take a position (CPOV).--Ashcraft - (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2010 (PDT)


 * To be clear, we do not encourage criticisms of Christian ministries, individuals, or denominations - and allow them with much reservation. Our purpose here is to provide a resource for the study of Biblical creation apologetics. While articles on the above are permitted, their primary aim should be supportive and uplifting, rather than critical. That denominations exist, testifies to the disagreements which have so often caused division within the body of Christ. It is important to keep this in mind as we collaborate in the development of this resource. --Ashcraft - (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2011 (PDT)