Welcome, Guest. Login or register to use the forums.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 20, 2010, 01:12:15 PM
Home Help Search Login Register
GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Bookstore | Support | Newsletter


+  Christian Forums
|-+  Christian Interests
| |-+  Organized Religion and Religious Movements Discussions
| | |-+  Catholic Forum
| | | |-+  Bible alone?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Bible alone?  (Read 3969 times)
Tantor
Guest
« Reply #105 on: October 30, 2009, 12:33:35 PM »

My reply was not proof-text, it was in context. Paul is stating that the church, not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of truth.  The Bible was given and cannonized from the church, the church was not born from the Bible.

I think it is ironic that Protestants base their entire existence on the Bible and accuse Catholics of supressing the Bible. It is the Catholic Church who gave you the King James Bible.  It is also the Catholic church who cannonized the four gospels under guidance of the Holy Spirit.

There were over 100 gospels that could have been cannonized.  You base your entire faith on the four that were cannonized.  It was the Catholic church who cannonized those four.  You say, you can't trust the Catholic church. However, if you  believe in sola scriptura, you are entrusting your entire faith on a "tradition" that was brought to you by the Catholic church.  Then you have the nerve to accuse the Catholic church of supressing the Bible and having a disdain for it..  I think you need to be a little ignorant and/or schizophrenic to be a sola scriptura protestant

1.) The bible was written by Christ's original disciples + Paul.. prior to the creation of the catholic church... it's just later on that the church decided to sift through all the writings and 'canonize' some and discard/destroy others.

2.) The Catholic church had nothing to do with the creation of the King James Bible.  The KJV was commissioned by the Anglican church in England.. who rejected the RCC.

3.) Whether or not the four were canonized or not by the Catholic church is an irrelevant argument.. it just doesn't matter.

4.) The few remaining legacies that the Protestant have brought from Catholicism are still a bone of contention for me.

5.) If protestants had found a compelling reason to alter the canon.. they would have and should.

There is so much disinformation in your post that it is quite sad.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 12:41:34 PM by Tantor » Logged
winsome
Member
***

Manna: 7
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 255


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #106 on: October 30, 2009, 01:01:30 PM »


5.) If protestants had found a compelling reason to alter the canon.. they would have and should.


Protestants had neither compelling reasons not authority to alter the canon.

Eugenio Zolli, the chief Rabbi of Rome during the Shoah who became convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah, was baptised in Rome’s Basilica of Mary of the Angels in 1945. Asked why he did not join one of the Protestant denominations, Zolli replied:
"Because protesting is not attesting. I do not intend to embarrass anyone by asking: “Why wait 1,500 years to protest?” The Catholic Church was recognised by the whole Christian world as the true church of God for 15 consecutive centuries. No man can halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve who, like me, issued from the Synagogue."

From Second Exodus by Martin K Barrack p.43
Logged

What is good has been explained to you, man; this is what the Lord asks of you: only this, to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)
Christian Forums
« Reply #106 on: October 30, 2009, 01:01:30 PM »

 Logged
Tantor
Guest
« Reply #107 on: October 30, 2009, 01:03:03 PM »


5.) If protestants had found a compelling reason to alter the canon.. they would have and should.


Protestants had neither compelling reasons not authority to alter the canon.

Eugenio Zolli, the chief Rabbi of Rome during the Shoah who became convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah, was baptised in Rome’s Basilica of Mary of the Angels in 1945. Asked why he did not join one of the Protestant denominations, Zolli replied:
"Because protesting is not attesting. I do not intend to embarrass anyone by asking: “Why wait 1,500 years to protest?” The Catholic Church was recognised by the whole Christian world as the true church of God for 15 consecutive centuries. No man can halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve who, like me, issued from the Synagogue."

From Second Exodus by Martin K Barrack p.43


Irrelevant to this discussion...
Logged
winsome
Member
***

Manna: 7
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 255


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #108 on: October 30, 2009, 01:16:36 PM »


5.) If protestants had found a compelling reason to alter the canon.. they would have and should.


Protestants had neither compelling reasons not authority to alter the canon.

Eugenio Zolli, the chief Rabbi of Rome during the Shoah who became convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah, was baptised in Rome’s Basilica of Mary of the Angels in 1945. Asked why he did not join one of the Protestant denominations, Zolli replied:
"Because protesting is not attesting. I do not intend to embarrass anyone by asking: “Why wait 1,500 years to protest?” The Catholic Church was recognised by the whole Christian world as the true church of God for 15 consecutive centuries. No man can halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve who, like me, issued from the Synagogue."

From Second Exodus by Martin K Barrack p.43


Irrelevant to this discussion...

Not irrelevant. That Protestants decided to start new versions of Christianity 1500 years after Christ founded the Church is something that should embarrass those that belong to those churches.
Logged

What is good has been explained to you, man; this is what the Lord asks of you: only this, to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)
Tantor
Guest
« Reply #109 on: October 30, 2009, 01:18:53 PM »


5.) If protestants had found a compelling reason to alter the canon.. they would have and should.


Protestants had neither compelling reasons not authority to alter the canon.

Eugenio Zolli, the chief Rabbi of Rome during the Shoah who became convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah, was baptised in Rome’s Basilica of Mary of the Angels in 1945. Asked why he did not join one of the Protestant denominations, Zolli replied:
"Because protesting is not attesting. I do not intend to embarrass anyone by asking: “Why wait 1,500 years to protest?” The Catholic Church was recognised by the whole Christian world as the true church of God for 15 consecutive centuries. No man can halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve who, like me, issued from the Synagogue."

From Second Exodus by Martin K Barrack p.43


Irrelevant to this discussion...

Not irrelevant. That Protestants decided to start new versions of Christianity 1500 years after Christ founded the Church is something that should embarrass those that belong to those churches.

And the fact that Rome did the same thing doesn't bother you even one bit?

At either September 3, 590 or 1054 AD it struck out on its own and lost it's legitimacy... which event you chose is up to you.

Protestants are the bastard step child of a bastard step child (the RCC) if you use your logic.

If Peter was the first Pope.. who was the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc.. and you will have to show me some writings where they called themselves something other then bishop.


« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 01:25:16 PM by Tantor » Logged
winsome
Member
***

Manna: 7
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 255


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #110 on: October 30, 2009, 01:49:03 PM »


5.) If protestants had found a compelling reason to alter the canon.. they would have and should.


Protestants had neither compelling reasons not authority to alter the canon.

Eugenio Zolli, the chief Rabbi of Rome during the Shoah who became convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah, was baptised in Rome’s Basilica of Mary of the Angels in 1945. Asked why he did not join one of the Protestant denominations, Zolli replied:
"Because protesting is not attesting. I do not intend to embarrass anyone by asking: “Why wait 1,500 years to protest?” The Catholic Church was recognised by the whole Christian world as the true church of God for 15 consecutive centuries. No man can halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve who, like me, issued from the Synagogue."

From Second Exodus by Martin K Barrack p.43


Irrelevant to this discussion...

Not irrelevant. That Protestants decided to start new versions of Christianity 1500 years after Christ founded the Church is something that should embarrass those that belong to those churches.

And the fact that Rome did the same thing doesn't bother you even one bit?

Not a fact at all. Just your opinion.


At either September 3, 590 or 1054 AD it struck out on its own and lost it's legitimacy... which event you chose is up to you.

Neither. The Catholic Church traces itself back to the apostles. If others broke away that is sad, but does not affect the legitimacy of the Catholic Church as the one Christ founded on Peter and the Apostles.

Protestants are the bastard step child of a bastard step child (the RCC) if you use your logic.

Not my logic, and  your description to call Protestants bastards. I shan't disagree.



If Peter was the first Pope.. who was the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc.. and you will have to show me some writings where they called themselves something other then bishop.


Here are the first 10

* St. Peter (32-67), Matthew 16:18
* St. Linus (67-76), 2Timothy 4:21
* St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
* St. Clement I (88-97), Philippians 4:3
* St. Evaristus (97-105)
* St. Alexander I (105-115)
* St. Sixtus I (115-125)
* St. Telesphorus (125-136)
* St. Hyginus (136-140)
* St. Pius I (140-155)
 
Logged

What is good has been explained to you, man; this is what the Lord asks of you: only this, to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)
Christian Forums
« Reply #110 on: October 30, 2009, 01:49:03 PM »

 Logged
Tantor
Guest
« Reply #111 on: October 30, 2009, 01:53:08 PM »


Here are the first 10

* St. Peter (32-67), Matthew 16:18
* St. Linus (67-76), 2Timothy 4:21
* St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
* St. Clement I (88-97), Philippians 4:3
* St. Evaristus (97-105)
* St. Alexander I (105-115)
* St. Sixtus I (115-125)
* St. Telesphorus (125-136)
* St. Hyginus (136-140)
* St. Pius I (140-155)
 

And none of them claimed to be Pope.  The office of 'Pope' didnt show up till Gregory.. a severe departure from apostolic tradition.

There isn't even any evidence that Linus was known by Peter or ordained by him.  (Paul mentioned a Linus at one point but not in reference to Peter..).

In fact Tertullian maintains that Clement was Peters successor so where did the other 2 come from?

And one question that no one seems to ever want to answer is this.

We know that Peter was a devout Jew and he loved his countrymen and Jesus commanded him to preach to the Jew first.. and then the Gentile... why in the world would Peter set up his successor and seat of his church in the capital of the Jews arch enemy?... it makes no sense whatsoever.  It sounds more like Peter's enemies were co-opting his name and pirating his church instead.






« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 02:02:10 PM by Tantor » Logged
normfromga
Hero
*****

Manna: 72
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 3096


One mild and lazy guy...

Blog entries (1)

View Profile
« Reply #112 on: October 30, 2009, 02:18:03 PM »


Paul tells us who are the faithful people who are to be entrusted with this teaching:
Bishops – 1 Tim 3:1-7
Presbyters & Bishops – Ti 1:5-9
Deacons – 1 Tim 3:8-13

But why are there no more such guardians of the Truth in the RCC, since all these passages describe married men?
Logged

Brain cells come and brain cells go, but fat cells stay forever!
winsome
Member
***

Manna: 7
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 255


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #113 on: October 30, 2009, 02:31:10 PM »


Here are the first 10

* St. Peter (32-67), Matthew 16:18
* St. Linus (67-76), 2Timothy 4:21
* St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
* St. Clement I (88-97), Philippians 4:3
* St. Evaristus (97-105)
* St. Alexander I (105-115)
* St. Sixtus I (115-125)
* St. Telesphorus (125-136)
* St. Hyginus (136-140)
* St. Pius I (140-155)
 

And none of them claimed to be Pope.  The office of 'Pope' didnt show up till Gregory.. a severe departure from apostolic tradition.

There isn't even any evidence that Linus was known by Peter or ordained by him.  (Paul mentioned a Linus at one point but not in reference to Peter..).

In fact Tertullian maintains that Clement was Peters successor so where did the other 2 come from?

And one question that no one seems to ever want to answer is this.

We know that Peter was a devout Jew and he loved his countrymen and Jesus commanded him to preach to the Jew first.. and then the Gentile... why in the world would Peter set up his successor and seat of his church in the capital of the Jews arch enemy?... it makes no sense whatsoever.  It sounds more like Peter's enemies were co-opting his name and pirating his church instead.



You will find these points answered in post#173 in this thread.
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/the-root-of-our-differences-is-the-authority-we-claim/165/
Logged

What is good has been explained to you, man; this is what the Lord asks of you: only this, to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)
winsome
Member
***

Manna: 7
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 255


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #114 on: October 30, 2009, 02:34:00 PM »


Paul tells us who are the faithful people who are to be entrusted with this teaching:
Bishops – 1 Tim 3:1-7
Presbyters & Bishops – Ti 1:5-9
Deacons – 1 Tim 3:8-13

But why are there no more such guardians of the Truth in the RCC, since all these passages describe married men?

Paul wasn't married. But what is your point anyway? Celibacy is a practice of Latin Rite Catholics. many Eastern Rite Catholics have married priests (but not Bishops). It is not a doctrinal issue.
Logged

What is good has been explained to you, man; this is what the Lord asks of you: only this, to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)
Christian Forums
« Reply #114 on: October 30, 2009, 02:34:00 PM »

 Logged
desertknight
Defender of the Faith
Senior Member
****

Manna: 18
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 561


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #115 on: October 30, 2009, 02:48:11 PM »

There is no "office of Pope", as such, then or today.  It is an erroneous argument.  The word "pope" simply means 'dad' or 'papa' in English.  That it is commonly used as a title today is one of tradition, not doctrine or necessity.  It is simply a term of endearment that has became the most popular of one of many official names for the chief Bishop of the Church.  That he is the inheritor of Peter's See is what makes him Pope, not what we happen to call him.  It is also not necessarily important that he be located in Rome, (The Papacy was located in Avignon, France, for a time.).  It is the traditional office as Bishop of that city that he inherents Peter's place, but it is the colloquial decision by the senior Bishops to appoint one to that chair that makes one the Pope.  There is nothing "magical" as such, about the fact that it is in Rome except of the history of Peter's place there and it's place of the importance of Rome as the capital of the empire that persecuted us.

Most Protestants get the definition of Apostolic Succession wrong as well.  Any good Catholic site will provide evidence of Tertullian or others different arrangement of which 'Pope' came before which in the list of dates.  That in the Church's best record, Linus is second is what the Church claimes.  Whether it turns out to be the case or not has no importance except to tradition and to Church historians.  That is not what the Succession is.  That Clement may have been second and not third is not important.  That he is validly ordained by proper authority is all that counts.  That is the ONLY thing that constitutes Apostolic Succession.  

Clement is the first Pope outside of canonical scripture that we have a clear record of in exercising his authority over the whole Church.  He did so in his Epistle to the Corinthians which is not only accepted as completely valid, until the compiling of the Vulgate several hundred years later, it was widely considered inspired canonical writing and included in the readings at Mass as part of scripture.  

Tens of thousands of Catholic priests are married, BTW.  All Eastern Rite Catholic priests are free to marry and most do.  Celibacy for the Latin rite is simply a discipline in the example of our Lord's life and Paul's admonition for those who wish to serve in the Church's leadership.  It is not a doctrinal issue with us Catholics and whether a priest is married or not has no bearing on their validity.  The priest of my old parish, a former Anglican priest, was married and had a large family.  It had no bearing on his validity as a Catholic priest.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 02:54:11 PM by desertknight » Logged

"Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!"
Tantor
Guest
« Reply #116 on: October 30, 2009, 02:49:40 PM »


Paul tells us who are the faithful people who are to be entrusted with this teaching:
Bishops – 1 Tim 3:1-7
Presbyters & Bishops – Ti 1:5-9
Deacons – 1 Tim 3:8-13

But why are there no more such guardians of the Truth in the RCC, since all these passages describe married men?

Paul wasn't married. But what is your point anyway? Celibacy is a practice of Latin Rite Catholics. many Eastern Rite Catholics have married priests (but not Bishops). It is not a doctrinal issue.

It actually is.. because elders are to be married.
Logged
winsome
Member
***

Manna: 7
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 255


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #117 on: October 30, 2009, 02:55:46 PM »


Paul tells us who are the faithful people who are to be entrusted with this teaching:
Bishops – 1 Tim 3:1-7
Presbyters & Bishops – Ti 1:5-9
Deacons – 1 Tim 3:8-13

But why are there no more such guardians of the Truth in the RCC, since all these passages describe married men?

Paul wasn't married. But what is your point anyway? Celibacy is a practice of Latin Rite Catholics. many Eastern Rite Catholics have married priests (but not Bishops). It is not a doctrinal issue.

It actually is.. because elders are to be married.


Where do you get that from?
Logged

What is good has been explained to you, man; this is what the Lord asks of you: only this, to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)
Christian Forums
« Reply #117 on: October 30, 2009, 02:55:46 PM »

 Logged
Amo
Senior Member
****

Manna: 37
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 986

Blog entries (9)

View Profile
« Reply #118 on: October 30, 2009, 03:01:16 PM »

Quote
Protestants had neither compelling reasons not authority to alter the canon.

Eugenio Zolli, the chief Rabbi of Rome during the Shoah who became convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah, was baptised in Rome’s Basilica of Mary of the Angels in 1945. Asked why he did not join one of the Protestant denominations, Zolli replied:
"Because protesting is not attesting. I do not intend to embarrass anyone by asking: “Why wait 1,500 years to protest?” The Catholic Church was recognised by the whole Christian world as the true church of God for 15 consecutive centuries. No man can halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve who, like me, issued from the Synagogue."

From Second Exodus by Martin K Barrack p.43

There were many disagreements in the Church even in the days of the apostles.  There always have been, and there always will be, this side of heaven.  To suggest that there were no people that had serious issues with the Church of Rome until 1500 years after Christ is utter nonsense.  They just weren't referred to as Protestants until that time.  Nevertheless, many had controversies with the Church of Rome long before anyone was called a Protestant, and many of them also payed with their lives for daring to disagree with the man of sin, and his followers.  The following are just an example of a few individuals, not to mention those who agree with them, nor the throngs of others throughout history.

HILARY OF POITIERS  (300-368)

    “ He [Hilary] begins by speaking the blessings of peace, which the Christians of that day could neither enjoy nor promote, beset as they were by the forerunners of Antichrist…….. They bear themselves not as bishops of Christ but as priests of Antichrist. This is not random abuse, but sober recognition of the fact, stated by St. John, that there are many Antichrists. For these men assume the cloak of piety, and pretend to preach the Gospel, with the one object of inducing others to deny Christ. It was the misery and folly of the day that men endeavoured  to promote the cause of God by human means and the favor of the world. Hilary asks bishops, who believe in their office, wether the Apostles had secular support when by their preaching they converted the greater part of mankind……
     “ The church seeks for secular support, and in so doing insults Christ by the implication that His support is insufficient. She in her turn holds out the threat of exile and prison. It was her endurance of these that drew men to her; now she imposes her faith by violence. She craves for favors at the hand of her communicants; once it was her consecration that she braved the threatening of persecutors. Bishops in exile spread the faith; now it is she that exiles bishops. She boasts that the world loves her; the worlds hatred was the evidence that she was Christ’s……. The time of Antichrist, disguised as an angel of light, has come. The true Christ is hidden from almost every mind and heart. Antichrist is now obscuring the truth that he may assert falsehood hereafter.” (E. W. Watson, Introduction to Hilary of Poitiers, in NPNF, 2d series, vol. 9, pp. lii, liii.) Vol. 1, p. 409.

ARNULF bishop of Orleans during the pontificate of John XV (985-996)

     “What shall we say, revered fathers? To what blemish shall we attribute the fact that the first of the churches of God, once so lifted up and crowned with glory and honour, should be brought down so low and tarnished with shame and infamy? If we severely expect gravity of manners, purity of life, joined to sacred and profane learning, in every man who is ordained to the Episcopate; what ought not to be exacted in the case of him who aspires to be the teacher of all bishops. How, then, is it that those have been put in possession of that most high See, who were not worthy to fill any place whatsoever in the priesthood? What, in your eyes, reverend fathers, is that Pontiff, seated on a throne, and clad in purple and gold? If he hath not charity, and be puffed up with his learning only, he is Antichrist sitting in the temple of God, and demeaning himself as a god; he is like unto a statue in that temple, like a dumb idol, and to ask of him a reply, is to appeal to a figure of stone.” ( This English translation is from Villemain, op. cit., vol. 1 pp.175,176.) Vol. 1 chap. 22 p. 541&542

     “ Let us imitate the great church of Africa, which, in reply to the pretensions of the Roman Pontiff, deemed it inconceivable that the Lord should have invested any one person with his own plenary prerogative of judicature, and yet have denied it to the great congregations of his priests assembled in council in different parts of the world.” ( Quoted in Schaff, History, vol. 4, p. 291.) Vol. 1 chap. 22 p. 542

EBERHARD II, archbishop of Salzburg (1200-1246)

     “ Under the title of Pontifex Maximus, we discern, unless we are blind, a most savage wolf, with the garment of a shepherd; the Roman priests [flamines] have arms against all Christians; made great by daring, by deceiving, by bringing wars after wars, they slaughter the sheep, they cut them off, they drive away peace and harmony from the earth, they stir up internal wars, domestic insurrections fro below, day by day they weaken more and more the energies of all, so that they revile the heads of all, they devour all, they reduce all to slaveery.”  (Translated from Ioannes Aventinus, Annales Boiorum Libri Septem, p. 683.) Vol. 1 chap. 32 p. 799


   “ Both true and false concepts of the continuance of Rome powerfully influenced not only churchmen but statesmen, but the position taken by Eberhard in 1240-that the breakup of Rome gave rise to a group of smaller kingdoms, among whom afterward came up the relgio- political power of the historical Papacy as thye Little Horn-became the standard interpretation of fourteenth-century Wyclif in Britain, then of sixteenth-century Luther and most of his associates, and next of Cranmer, Knox, and the bulk of British Reformers.  Practically all the post-Reformation writers on the Continent and in Britain and America declared the same.  Even the Jewish expositer Don Isaac Abravanel of Spain, in 1496, made a like explanation.
   This reformation view was the sort of belief which helped to nerve men to withstand the powerful forces under the command of the Papacy, and to go to the stake rather than yield to her spiritual despotism; for Protestant martyrs dared not obey her injunctions or follow her apostasies, and thus incur the displeasure of Heaven.  Therefore they no longer feared her anathemas.” (THE PROPHETIC FAITH OF OUR FATHERS, by Froom, vol. 1, chap. 32, p. 806)


FRANCESCO PETRARCH, Poet (1304-1374) Concerning the church of Rome.

     “ Vengeaunce must fall on thee, thow filthie wh*re
Of Babilon, thow breaker of Christ’s fold,
That from acorns, and from the water colde,
Art riche become with making many poore.
Thow treason’s neste that in thie harte dost holde
Of cankard malice, and of mischief more
Than pen can wryte, or may with tongue be tolde,
Slave to delights that chastity hath solde;
For wyne and ease which settith all thie store
Uppon whoredome and none other lore,
In thye pallais of strompetts yonge and olde
Theare walks Plentie, and Belzebub thye Lorde;
Guydes thee and them, and doth thye raigne uphold:
It is but late, as writing will recorde,
That poore thow weart without lande or goolde;
Yet how hathe golde and pryde, by one accorde,
In wickedness so spreadd thie lyf abrode,
That it dothe stinke before the face of God.”
( Francesco Petrarch, Sonnet CV, translated by Wyatt  (?), in The Sonnets, Triumphs, and Other Poems of Petrarch, pp. 135, 136.)


     “ Thou Babylon, seated on the wild banks of the Rhone, shall I call thee famous or infamous, O harlot, who hast committed harlotry with the kings of the earth? Truly thou art the same that the holy Evangelist saw in spirit, the same, I say, and not another, sitting upon many waters. Either literally, being surrounded by three rivers, or, in the profusion of this world’s goods, among which thou sittest wanton and secure, unmindful of eternal riches; or, in the sense laid down by him that beheld thee, that the waters on which you the harlot sit are peoples and nations and languages. Recognize thine own features. A women clothed in purple and scarlet, decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of abomination in the impurity of her fornication-Dost thou not know thyself, O Babylon? Unless perhaps what is written upon her forehead is wrong, Babylon the great, you indeed are Babylon the little.” ( Translated from Petrarch, Epistolarum Sine Titulo, Liber, letter headed Babylonem Gallicam Describit, in Opera, vol. 2, p. 807. )


WALTER BRUTE  fourteenth-century British or Welsh layman and Lollard scholar.

     “ Item, The said Walter hath oftentimes said, and commonly avouched, that the Pope is Antichrist, and a seducer of the people, and utterly against the Law and life of Christ,” (“Proceedings in the trial of Walter Brut for Heresy, Etc.,” original Latin in Registrum Johannis Trefnant, Episcopi Herefordensis, p. 279; translated in Foxe, Acts, vol. 1, p. 543.)

     “ If the high Bishop of Rome calling himself the Servant of the Servants of God, and the Chief Vicar of Christ in this World, do make and maintain many laws contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; then is he of those that have come in Christ’s name, saying, I am Christ, and have seduced many a one, by the Testimony of our Savior in Math. Chap. 24. And the Idol of desolation sitting in the Temple of God and taking away from him the continual sacrifice for a time, times, and half a time, which Idol must be revealed to the Christian people by the testimony of Daniel. Whereof Christ speaketh in the Gospel; When ye shall see the abomination of desolation that was told of by Daniel the Prophet, standing in the holy place; let him that readeth understand.” (Registrum, p.287; Foxe, Acts, vol. 1, p. 545.)

     “ And sitting in the Temple of God, doth advance himself above all things that is called God, or whatsoever is worshipped, by the testimony of Paul to the Thess. 2 Epistle, Chap. 2. And in the defection or falling away shall the man of sin be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth….He is also besides, The Beast ascending up out of the earth, having two horns like unto a Lamb, but he speaketh like a Dragon, and as the cruel Beast ascending up out of the Sea, whose Power shall continue 42 months. He worketh the things that he hath given to the Image of the Beast. And he compelled Small and Great, Rich and Poor, Free-men and Bond-slaves, to worship the beast, and to take his mark in their Forehead or their Hands, Apoc. Chap. 13. And thus by the testimony of all these places is the chief Antichrist upon the Earth, and must be slain with the sword of God’s Word, and cast with the Dragon, the cruel Beast and the false prophet that hath seduced the Earth, into the lake of fire and brimstone to be tormented world without end.” (Registrum, p. 288; Foxe, Acts, vol. 1, pp. 545, 546.)

     “ If the city of Rome do allow his Traditions, and do disallow Christ’s holy Commandments, and Christ’s Doctrine, that it may confirm his Traditions; then is she Babylon the Great, or the Daughter of Babylon, and the Great wh*re sitting upon many waters, with whom the Kings of the Earth have committed Fornication, and the Inhabitants of the earth are become drunken with the Wine of her Harlotry lying open to Bawdry. With whose spiritual Whoredom, Enchantments, Witchcrafts, and Simon Magus Merchandises, the whole round world is infected and seduced; saying in her heart, I sit as a Queen, and Widow I am not, neither shall I see Sorrow and mourning. Yet is she ignorant that within a little while shall come the day of her destruction and ruine by the Testimony of the Apoc. Chap. 17. Because that from the time of the continual Sacrifice was taken away, and that abomination of Desolation placed, there be passed 1290 days, by the Testimony of Daniel [chap. Xii.], and the Chronicles added to agree to the same. And the holy City also hath been trodden under foot of the Heathen, for forty two months, and the Woman was nourished up in the Wilderness (unto which she fled for fear of the face of the Serpent) during 1260 days, or else for a time, times, and half a time, which is all one. All these things be manifest by the Testimony of the Apocalyps, and the Chronicles thereto agreeing.” (Registrum, p. 288; Foxe, Acts, vol. 1, p. 546.)


POPES ARE ANTICHRIST BECAUSE THEY ARE PRIEST-KINGS.-
     “ Seeing then that the Bishops of Rome do say that they are the High Priests; they say also therein that they are Kings, because they say that they have the Scriptural Sword pertaining to their Priesthood, and the corporal Sword which agreeth for a Kings State. So is it plain, that really and in very deed, they say, That they are Christs, albeit that expressly they be not called Christs. Now that they come in the name of Christ it is manifest, because they say that they are his principal Vicars in this World, ordained of Christ specially for the Government of the Christian Church. Therefore, seeing they say, that really and in very deed they are Christs, and the chief friends of Christ: If they make and justifie many Laws contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then it is plain that they themselves in earth are the principal Antichrists, because there is no worse plague and pestilence, than a familiar enemy. And if in secret they be against Christ, and yet in open appearance they say that they are his friends, they are so much more the meet to seduce and deceive the Christian people.” (Registrum, pp. 300, 301; Foxe, Acts, vol. 1, p. 550.)


SIR JOHN OLDCASTLE  1360-1417

     “But as touching the Pope and his spirituality, I owe them neither suit nor service, forsomuch as I know him by the scriptures to be the great Antichrist, the Son of Perdition, the open Adversary of God, and the Abomination standing in the holy place.” (Foxe, Acts, vol. 1, p. 636.)

     “ My belief is (as I said afore) that all the scriptures of the sacred Bible are true. All this is grounded upon them I believe throughly. For I know it is God’s pleasure that I should do so. But in your lordly Laws and idle determinations have I no belief. For ye be no part of Christ’s holy Church, as your open deeds do shew: But ye are very Antichrists, obstinately set against His holy Law and Will….
     “ And let all men consider well this, That Christ was meek, and merciful; the Pope is proud, and a tyrant; Christ was poor and forgave, the Pope is rich and a malitious Man-slayer, as his daily acts do prove him. Rome is the very nest of Antichrist, and out of that nest come all of the Disciples of him. Of whom, Prelates, Priests, and Monks, are the body, these pil’d Friers are the tail, which covereth his most filthy part.” (Foxe, Acts, vol. 1, pp.640, 641.)


JOHN HUSS, OR HUS ( 1369-1415)  “I beseech you in Christ Jesus, with all your fellow members of the University, to be prepared for a battle; for the reconnoiters of Antichrist have already begun, and the fight will soon follow. The Goose also must needs flap his wings against the wings of Behemoth, and against his tail, which always conceals the abomination of the beast Antichrist……. The Lord shall destroy the head and the tail- that is, the Pope and his prophets, masters, doctors, priests, who under the false pretext of sanctity conceal the abomination of the beast. Pray, what greater abomination can their be than a harlot who should parade herself and offer herself publicly? Yes, there is still greater abomination of the beast sitting in a place of honour and offering himself for worship to all comers, as though he were God: ready to sell whatever a man may wish to buy in matters spiritual. Yea, he sells what he does not possess. Woe be to me, then, if I shall not preach, weep, and write against such an abomination!” (The Letters of John Hus, edited by Herbert B. Workman and R. Martin Pope, Letter XXVI, pp. 118, 119.)

     “ Surely now the wickedness, iniquity, and baseness of Antichrist has been revealed in the Poope and his associates in the Council: now the faithful servants of God can understand the meaning of the Saviour’s words, When ye shall see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet,….he that readeth, let him understand. Verily ‘a great abomination’ is pride, avarice, and simony: ‘in a place apart’- that is,dignity which lacks modesty, love, and other virtues; and this is whatwe clearly mark in those who win office and dignity. Would that I were allowed to point out their wickedness, in order that the faithful servants od God might beware of them! Gladly would I do so; but I am trusting that God will raise up others after me, braver men than there are to-day, who shall better reveal the wickedness of Antichrist and lay down their lives for the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ, who will grant eternal joy both to you and to me. Amen. I write this letter in prison, on the day of St. John Baptist, as I lie bound in chains, remembering that St. John also was beheaded in prison for the sake of God’s truth.” (Ibid., p. 258.)

GIROLAMO SAVONAROLA (1452-1498)  “The Roman church is full of simony and vileness…. I visualized a black cross over Babylon-Rome with the inscription: Wrath of the Lord. And it rained upon her swords and knives, lances and weapons of all kinds, as well as hailstones and brimstones in a terrible thunderstorm in deepest gloom. And I saw another cross of gold which reached from the sky over Jerusalem to the earth with the inscription: Mercy of God. And here was full sunshine. And on the strength of vision I declare again, that the Church must reform herself, and that very soon because God is angry.” (Savonarola, Auswahl, pp. 120, 121.)

     “ Fly from Rome, for Babylon signifies confusion, and Rome hath confused all the Scriptures, confused all vices together, confused everything. Fly, then, from Rome, and come to repentance.” (Villari, op. cit., p.413, citing Lenten Sermon (1496), for Wednesday after fifth Sunday.)

    
     “ ‘Come here thou ribald Church. The Lord saith: I gave thee beautiful vestments, but thou hast made idols of them. Thou hast dedicated the sacred vessels to vainglory, the sacraments to simony; thou hast become a shameless harlot in thy lusts; thou art lower than a beast, thou art a monster of Solomon, and soliciteth the world; he that hath gold is made welcome and may do as he will….. O prostitute Church…… thou hast multiplied thy fornications in Italy, in France, in Spain, and all other parts. Behold, I will put forth My hand, saith the Lord. I will smite thee, thou infamous wretch.” (Villari, op. cit., pp. 517, 518, citing Lenten Sermon XXII (1497), afterward suppressed by the Congregation of the Index.)
Logged
Tantor
Guest
« Reply #119 on: October 30, 2009, 03:11:31 PM »


Paul tells us who are the faithful people who are to be entrusted with this teaching:
Bishops – 1 Tim 3:1-7
Presbyters & Bishops – Ti 1:5-9
Deacons – 1 Tim 3:8-13

But why are there no more such guardians of the Truth in the RCC, since all these passages describe married men?

Paul wasn't married. But what is your point anyway? Celibacy is a practice of Latin Rite Catholics. many Eastern Rite Catholics have married priests (but not Bishops). It is not a doctrinal issue.

It actually is.. because elders are to be married.


Where do you get that from?

overseer = elder or bishop.. depends on which translation you use.

Quote
1 Timothy 3

Qualifications for Overseers

 1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Pretty clear to me..

And like I said before.. Catholic Priests fall in line more with temple priests for Artimis then they do for elders/deacon or apostles.

It's hard to examine the way a celibate priest manages his family and children to determine their qualifications for elder if they have none..




Logged
Bible alone? - Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Grace-Centered Christian Forums
Bible concordance | abortion ticker | is God real? | galaga | play tetris | copter game | mini golf games | arcade | donkey kong | Christian marriage help | articles | privacy
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC