It is a wonder to me that those who are critical of the Roman Catholic Church go to such extremes of irrationality, illogic and hysterical conspiracy theories in their criticisms. The dregs of the internet have been scraped deeply to uncover stuff that would be worthy of an X-files movie.
Such irrational and hysterical moves are sheer desperation on the part of the critics.
But why are they so desperate? If most of the critics of the Roman Catholic Church on these boards are advocates of sola scriptura, why do they go to such extreme lengths to go outside of Scripture to attempt to tar and feather Roman Catholicism with such banal tripe? Doesn't it stand to reason that if the Roman Catholic Church is, in fact, as thoroughly anti-Christian as these critics claim, that there would be no need to posit such questionable conspiracy theories or tenuous pagan connections, but all that need simply be done is to read and cite official Roman Catholic teaching (from the Catechism and other Catholic official documents) and make the comparisons to Scripture?
Why, it's so simple. So, why are the critics so desparate?
I think there are two main reasons:
1) Critics of the Roman Catholic Church are, themselves, ignorant both of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches as well as ignorant of the fullness of the Scriptures.
Most critics of the Roman Catholic Church don't even know what Rome actually teaches but rely on popular and populist bigoted propaganda. They do not read the official Catholic documents--or, if they read them, they do not read them in full and in context, but only read the selective citations found in anti-Roman screeds--and so they really do not know that Rome doesn't actually teach many of the things they claim it does: for example, that we are to pray to Mary and the saints like we pray to God and instead of praying to God; that we cannot get to God except through Mary; that we must worship and pray to statues; and so on.
Also, most critics of the Roman Catholic Church are also ignorant of the fullness of the Scriptures. They have focused on Romans to the exclusion of the rest of the Epistles, and so not only misread Romans, but misread the rest of the New Testament. Therefore they explain away Jesus' command to be perfect as our father in heaven is perfect, St. Paul's admonition to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and the effective removal of the epistle of James from the New Testament canon. We Eastern Orthodox have a humorous quip we often pull out in doctrinal disputes: "We believe the parts of the Bible you didn't underline." So, when we point out that we are to become partakers of the divine nature (a la 2 Peter 1:3-4), most critics are stumped. They don't even know what that means. They don't know what to do with 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, since they are so used to explaining away chapter 11. And so it goes.
2. The other reason that critics of the Roman Catholic Church are so desperate is that their twofold ignorance--of Catholic doctrine and of Scripture--causes their quick if never-acknowledged defeat in arguments over doctrinal matters. At best, such critics can hold their own but cannot win the case--the arguments appear to end in a draw. But at their worst, since they cannot win the hard work of argumentative proof, they settle for conspiracy theories, hallucinogenic connections to the Illuminati, paganism and the Masons, and other wacky stuff.
I've got my own criticisms of Rome on other matters--I'm Eastern Orthodox after all--but I deeply sympathize with my co-religionists because it is utterly frustrating to combat the irrational.
I'm just glad few of these desperate critics have any idea what the Orthodox Church even is.
"...it is utterly frustrating to combat the irrational."
CD,
May I quote you on that?
V
: Volkmar Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 15:05:38
"...it is utterly frustrating to combat the irrational."
CD,
May I quote you on that?
V
Only on the condition that you don't use it against me!
Such is the lot of human history, people often condemn that which they don't understand and refrain from looking into historical sources which might shed light on the issues.
However, this doesn't mean we should condemn, but rather I think it becomes more clear that we ought to reach out to them and love them anyway. Christ calls us to love our enemies and neighbors after all.
It seems like the majority of those who are against Catholicism here only wish to scream at one another because Philosophical and Theological arument have digressed to "who can scream the loudest" rather than listening to others and talking things through. Everyone has an opinion that they feel is right and the refusal to admit we might be wrong only keeps us screaming at each other rather than taking a step back, suggesting this might not be worth it, and instead doing something productive like sharing the love of God throughout creation.
Good observations, however. Don't lose hope! A little love can go a long way.
I appreciate your insight very much. I have stated on many occasions that I do not feel compelled to "come home" based on what I have learned from the roman catholic media and from church members. I don't think it is because I don't like to be told what to do or believe (I don't! But that has never stopped me from growing despite the barriers). I simply can not sign on the dotted line, promising to uphold and teach the same. Nor would I use terms like "Antichrist" or "Beast" and so forth! I understand tradition and I understand how changing tradition can be difficult enough without being chained to inerrancy.
: CDHealy Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 15:08:45
: Volkmar Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 15:05:38
"...it is utterly frustrating to combat the irrational."
CD,
May I quote you on that?
V
Only on the condition that you don't use it against me!
You got it. No need to spike that canon. ;o)
V
But why are they so desperate?
Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Some of them are desperate, because they do not wish to see so many perish because they have been deceived by Babylon the great. They are following the lead of the angel in the above prophetic verses. Time is short, most of the nations and religions of the earth have already been intoxicated with the wine of Babylon. Including yourself, obviously.
Naw, amo, that ain't it.
Thanks for playing.
Naw, amo, that ain't it.
Thanks for playing.
I am not playing sir. I never play with the word of God. I firmly believe the Church of Rome to be "BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."
I truly believe that those who will not separate themselves from her abominable teachings and doctrines will be subject to the plagues which God will pour out upon those who worship the image of the beast. Her power and influence upon the world has been ever expanding for the last two hundred years, and will climax by her manipulating the kings of the earth to set up the abomination of desolation in the place of the holy, by law. This will bring swift judgment from God upon the earth. Upon her, and all those who supported, and did not resist the intoxicating influence of her wine.
Who else would set up the abomination of desolation, besides the one who has the golden cup filled with the abominations of the earth. No offence intended, just the cry to "COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE, for why will ye receive of her plagues."
: Amo Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 15:55:46I am not playing sir. I never play with the word of God. I firmly believe the Church of Rome to be "BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."
I truly believe that those who will not separate themselves from her abominable teachings and doctrines will be subject to the plagues which God will pour out upon those who worship the image of the beast. Her power and influence upon the world has been ever expanding for the last two hundred years, and will climax by her manipulating the kings of the earth to set up the abomination of desolation in the place of the holy, by law. This will bring swift judgment from God upon the earth. Upon her, and all those who supported, and did not resist the intoxicating influence of her wine.
Who else would set up the abomination of desolation, besides the one who has the golden cup filled with the abominations of the earth. No offence intended, just the cry to "COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE, for why will ye receive of her plagues."
How could it offend, when you're interpretation is so ridiculous? After all, Tim LaHaye doesn't think Babylon is Rome.
I happen to think Babylon is Wal-Mart.
"I happen to think Babylon is Wal-Mart."
I concur, though being a religious cur.
V
: CDHealy Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 16:15:12
: Amo Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 15:55:46I am not playing sir. I never play with the word of God. I firmly believe the Church of Rome to be "BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."
I truly believe that those who will not separate themselves from her abominable teachings and doctrines will be subject to the plagues which God will pour out upon those who worship the image of the beast. Her power and influence upon the world has been ever expanding for the last two hundred years, and will climax by her manipulating the kings of the earth to set up the abomination of desolation in the place of the holy, by law. This will bring swift judgment from God upon the earth. Upon her, and all those who supported, and did not resist the intoxicating influence of her wine.
Who else would set up the abomination of desolation, besides the one who has the golden cup filled with the abominations of the earth. No offence intended, just the cry to "COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE, for why will ye receive of her plagues."
How could it offend, when you're interpretation is so ridiculous? After all, Tim LaHaye doesn't think Babylon is Rome.
I happen to think Babylon is Wal-Mart.
What's Wal-Mart's stand on instrumental music?
They sell Guitar Hero for the Wii. What's that tell you?
Exactly! That's what I'm sayin'!
There are some good people, in the RCC.
And, God wants them to come out of there whereby HE might teach them HIS ways of Salvation.
Should a christian shop at Wal-Mart? Can a christian shop at Wal-Mart? Can I fellowship with an errant brother (or sister) who does? who does not? What if I don't buy anything, just go in to witness? What if I only buy christian stuff? Is benadryl christian? Can a christian take benadryl? Does that mean he doesn't trust God? Can a christian buy dog food there? Should christians own dogs, especially since scripture does not particularly shed dogs in a good light? Can christians own anything? Can a buy a bible at Wal-Mart? What about KMart?................... .............
"I happen to think Babylon is Wal-Mart."
You are wrong. Wal-Mart is not Babylon the great, it's just a beast. Seriously though, you should not trifle with the word of God. If I am silly, then I have good company, namely, just about every Protestant reformer that ever lived. That the Church of Rome is Antichrist through it's teachings, and verily Babylon the great through the revelation of it's histroy, is a fact attested to by a great number of people. However, all people have a right to laugh even all the way to the lake of fire, if they wish.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
I see. So, you're willing to stake your faith on a brand new (comparatively) interpretation held by a distinct minority of Christians.
Sure. I see your logic. Go for it.
Me, I'd rather go with wisdom not hysteria.
What if I happen to think that the Babylon is the Protestant Reformation? I don't. But my opinion on nonbiblical, unprovable conclusions is as good as anybody elses!
Clifton,
Have you read much of Thomas Merton? If so, what do you like or dislike about his writing?
V
Hello, Amo
: Amo Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 17:12:27
"I happen to think Babylon is Wal-Mart."
You are wrong. Wal-Mart is not Babylon the great, it's just a beast. Seriously though, you should not trifle with the word of God.
I don't see the Bible says the RCC is the beast. Most scholars and even Protestant fathers agree with me.
If I am silly, then I have good company, namely, just about every Protestant reformer that ever lived.
Really? I have never read this from Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther.
That the Church of Rome is Antichrist through it's teachings, and verily Babylon the great through the revelation of it's histroy, is a fact attested to by a great number of people. However, all people have a right to laugh even all the way to the lake of fire, if they wish.
I am not in fully agreement with RCC teachings. I do object, for example, to indulgences. However, calling it the Antichrist is rather extreme. Now, if the RCC supported the idea of murder, persecution, and human sacrifice, you might have something.
: Volkmar Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 17:17:32
Clifton,
Have you read much of Thomas Merton? If so, what do you like or dislike about his writing?
V
Yes.
I like his earlier stuff more than his later stuff. My priest was a novice in Gethsemani monastery when Merton was novice master. He has since become Orthodox and has some extremely interesting things to say about Merton.
I like Waters of Siloe and another one on silence whose title escapes me.
: 3AM Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 17:08:24
There are some good people, in the RCC.
And, God wants them to come out of there whereby HE might teach them HIS ways of Salvation.
Maybe there are some good people in the SDA Church whom God wants to come out of
her?
Just a thought.
Pax.
Maybe there are some good people in the SDA Church whom God wants to come out of her?
Just a thought.
Pax.
The body of Christ consists of those of all denominations whose heart is right with God. Those who have a daily and personal relationship with God the Father through His Son Jesus Christ, and are seeking to understand and live up to the truth at all cost. The final touches of the gospel message to the world will transend denominationalism. Babylon the great strives to break down all barriers between herself and all other religions through compromise of the truth, that she may lead all in rebellion against God's authority. At the same time, all who love and seek the truth will come out of Babylon. Thus the entire world will be divided into the two crops which will be harvested at the end of the age by Christ and His angels. There will only be to crops when the Lord returns. Those who are united with Babylon in worshipping the image of the first beast, and those who are true to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through their obedience to His Word, for He is THE WORD OF GOD, MADE FLESH.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
I don't see the Bible says the RCC is the beast. Most scholars and even Protestant fathers agree with me.
Sorry trifecta, but I feel I must point out your ignorance concerning this matter. Not by way of condemnation, or feelings of superiority, but only to educate concerning the truth which has been buried by those who do not want ot here it, or admit it exists. Observe the following-
CHAP. 13 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS
Unless otherwise specified, all of the following quotes are taken from the four volume series THE PROPHETIC FAITH OF OUR FATHERS by Le Roy Edwin Froom.
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.
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,
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.
PHILIPP MELANCHTHON (1497-1560) " 18. Since it is certain that the pontiffs and the monks have forbidden marriage, it is most manifest, and true without any doubt, that the Roman Pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is very Antichrist.
WILLIAM TYNDALE (1484-1536) And [they] have set up that great idol, the whore of Babylon, antichrist of Rome, whom they call pope; and have conspired against all commonwealths, and have made them a several kingdom, wherein it is lawful, unpunished, to work all abomination. (Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man, in Works, vol. 1, p. 191.)
The apostles were clear-eyed, and espied antichrist at once, and put him to flight, and weeded out his doctrine quickly. But when charity waxed cold, and the preachers began to seek themselves, and to admit glory and honour of riches, then antichrist disguised himself after the fashion of a true apostle, and preached Christ wilily, bringing in now this tradition, and now that, to darken the doctrine of Christ; and set up innumerable ceremonies, and sacraments, and imagery, giving them significations at the first; but at the last, the significations laid apart, preached the work as an holy deed, to justify and put away sin, and to save the soul, that men should put their trust in works, and in whatsoever was unto his glory and profit; and under the name of Christ ministered Christ out of all together, and became head of the congregation himself.
The bishop of Rome made a law of his own, to rule his church by, and put Christ's out of the way. All the bishops swear unto the bishop of Rome, and all curates unto the bishops; but all forswear Christ and his doctrine.
But seeing John took a sign of the last day, that he saw antichrist begin, how nigh ought we to think that it is, which, after eight hundred years reigning in prosperity, see it decay again, and his falsehood to be disclosed, and him to be slain with the spirit of the mouth of Christ. (Tyndale, The Exposition of the First Epistle of St. John, in Works, vol. 2, pp. 179, 180.)
Now though the bishops of Rome and his sects give Christ these names, yet in that they rob him of the effect, and take the significations of his names unto themselves, and make of him but an hypocrite, as they themselves be, they be the right antichrists, and deny both the Father and Son. (Ibid., p. 183.)
NICHOLAS RIDLEY (1500-1555) Yea, what fellowship hath Christ with Antichrist? Therefore is it not lawful to bear the yoke with papists. ' Come forth from among them, and separate yourselves from them, saith the Lord'.
("Conferences...Between Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer,
THOMAS CRANMER (1489-1556) And as for the pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrines. (Cranmer, Works, vol.2, appendix, p. 566.)
I know in what office God hath placed me, and to what purpose; that is to say, to set forth his word truly unto his people, to the uttermost of my power, without respect of person, or regard of thing in the world, but of him alone. I know what account I shall make to him hereof at the last day, when every man shall answer for his vocation, and receive for the same good or ill, according as he hath done. I know how antichrist hath obscured the glory of God, and the true knowledge of his word, overcastting the same with mists and clouds of error and ignorance through false glosses and interpretations. It pitieth me to see the simple and hungry flock of Christ led into corrupt pastures, to be carried blindfold they know not wither, and to be fed with poison in the stead of wholesome meats. And moved by the duty, office, and place, whereunto it hath pleased God to call me, I give warning in his name unto all that profess Christ, that they flee far from Babylon, if they will save their souls, and to beware of that great harlot, that is to say, the pestiferous see of Rome, that she make you not drunk with her pleasant wine. (Cranmer, Works, vol. 1, pp. 6,7.)
After all these sprung up the pope, that tripled crown monster, and great antichrist, which took upon him authority, not only over the clergy, but also climbed above kings and emperors, deposing them at his pleasure, and settled himself in the temple of God, that is, in the consciences of men, extolling himself above God, dispensing with good laws, and giving men leave to break them, and to regard more his decrees than the everlasting commandments of God. (Ibid., vol. 2, p. 15.)
And in the seventeenth chapter he lively setteth forth the pope in his own colours, under the person of the whore of Babylon being drunken with the blood of saints; pointing, as it were with his finger, who this whore of Babylon is, and the place where she shall reign, saying: 'The woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.' Now what other city reigned at that time, or at any time since, over the christian kings of the earth, but only Rome? Whereof it followed Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons. (Ibid., pp. 62, 63.)
Not content herewithal, more insolent than Lucifer, [the Pope] hath occupied not only the highest place in this world above kings and princes, but hath further presumed to sit in the seat of Almighty God. Which only he reserved to himself, which is the conscience of man; and to keep the possession thereof, he hath promised forgiveness of sins totiens quotiens.
"He hath brought in gods of his own framing, and invented a new religion, full of gain and lucre, quite contrary to the doctrine of the holy scripture, only for the maintaining of his kingdom, displacing Christ from his glory, and holding his people in a miserable servitude of blindness, to the loss of a great number of souls, which God at the latter day shall exact at his hand: boasting many times in his canons and decrees, that he can dispense contra Petrum, contra Paulum, contra vetus et novum Testamentum; and that he, plenitudine potestatis, tantum potest quantum Deus; that is, 'Against Paul, against the old and new Testament; and of the fulness of power may do as much as God.' O Lord, who ever heard such blasphemy? If there be any man that can advance himself above him, let him be judged antichrist.
This enemy of God and of our redemption is so evidently painted out in the scriptures, by such manifest signs and tokens, which all so clearly appear in him, that, except a man will shut up his eyes and heart against the light, he cannot but know him: and therefore, for my part, I will never give my consent to the receiving of him into this church of England, and you, my lord, and the rest that sit here in commission, consider well and examine your own consciences: you have sworn against him: you are learned, and can judge of the truth. I pray God you be not willfully blind. As for me, I have herein discharged mine own conscience toward the world, and I will write also my mind to her grace (Queen Nary), touching this matter.
Edwin Sandys (1519-1588) He that sitteth in the temple of God, and termeth himself Christ's vicar, doth in like sort offer unto the people bread, water, wine, milk, pardon of sins, grace, mercy, and eternal life; but not freely: he is a merchant, he giveth nothing, and that is nothing which he selleth. For although he make large promises to the buyer, he selleth that which he hath not to deliver. 'Eternal life is the gift of God.' The pope therefore selleth but wind and smoke for fire, shadows for truths: he deceiveth the buyers with false slights, false measures, false weights. Beware of this merchant, lose not your labour, cast not away your money: it is not meat but poison which he offereth you. His physic cannot heal your diseases; his holy water cannot wash away the spots of a sullied and defiled soul, as he untruly would bear you in hand; his blasphemous masses do not appease, but provoke God's wrath; they cannot benefit the quick, much less the dead, which either need no help, or are past all help; his rotten relics cannot comfort you; his blind, dumb, and worm-eaten idols can do you no good. It is cast away which is spent upon his shameless pardons; they will not prevail-God will not admit them: by his Latin service ye cannot be edified, or made wiser. Yet this trumpery they sell for money, and upon this trash they cause silly men to waste their substance, and to these to commit their souls. Thus you see a manifest difference between Christ and antichrist. (Edwin Sandys, The Sermons of Edwin Sandys, pp. 11,12.)
Christ is obscured by that great enemy antichrist, 'the man of sin,' who hath set himself in Christ's peculiar place, and will be 'exalted above all that is called God.' To make any other mediator between God and man, saving only Christ Jesus which is not only man, but also God; to seek elsewhere remission of sins, justification, redemption, sanctification, or salvation, that only in this Jesus, and in him crucified, doth darken and make dim both him and his merits. And of the treason the Romish antichristian church, which they term catholic, is found guilty. For the children of this harlot labour by all means to obscure the Son of God, to rob him of the glory of his deserts in our salvation. (Ibid., pp. 358,359.)
We do utterly abandon this usurped and proud authority: we have happily forsaken that synagogue of Satan.
This is our apostasy. We have forsaken him that hath forsaken God, and whom God hath forsaken: we have left that man of sin, that rose-colored harlot with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, that triple-crowned beast, that double-sworded tyrant, that thief and murderer, who hath robbed so many souls of salvation, and sucked so much innocent blood of christian martyrs, that adversary unto Christ, that pretensed vicar, who hath displaced the person, not only taking upon him Christ's room and office, but also boasting himself as if he were a god, and being content of his parasites so to be called. This wicked man of sin is at length revealed by the sincere preaching of the gospel. Daniel in his prophecies, Paul in his epistles, and John in his revelations, have most lively described and pointed hin forth even as it were with the finger. Yea, through his pride and ambition, his usurping authority and worldly rule, his tyrrany and persecuting of Christ in his members, he hath sufficiently revealed and detected himself, if none had done it for him. (Ibid., p. 389.)
William Fulke (1538-1589) The see being found, it is easy to find the person by S. Paul's description; and this note especially, that excludeth the heathen tryants, 'He shall sit in the temple of God:' which when we see to be fulfilled in the Pope, although none of the eldest fathers could see it, because it was performed after their death, we nothing doubt to say and affirm still, that the Pope is that 'Man of sin,' and 'Son of perdition,' the adversary that lifteth up himself 'above all that is called God;' and shall be destroyed 'by the spirit of the Lord's mouth, and by the glory of His coming. (William Fulke, A Discovery of the Dangerous Rock of the Popish Church, in Works, vol.2 p. 373.)
And concerning the usurped power of the bishop of Rome, which he most wrongfully challengeth, as the successor of Christ and Peter, we may easily perceive how false, feigned, and forged it is, not only in that it hath no sufficient ground in holy Scripture, but also by the fruits and doctrine thereof. For our Saviour Christ and St. Peter teach, most earnestly and agreeably, obedience to kings, as to the chief and supreme rulers in this world next under God; but the bishop of Rome teaches, that they that are under him are free from all burdens and charges of the commonwealth and obedience towards their prince, most clearly against Christ's doctrine and St. Peter's. He ought therefore rather to be called Antichrist and the successor of the Scribes abd Pharisees, than Christ's vicar or St. Peter's successor. ("An Exhortation Concerning Good Order and Obedience To Rulers and Magistrates
JOHN KNOX (1505-1572) First, then, not only are all the impious traditions and ceremonies of the papists taken away, but also that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church, is altogether abolished; and it is provided that all persons shall in the future acknowledge him to be the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.
The mass is abolished, as being an accursed abomination and a diabolical profanation of the Lord's supper; and it is forbidden to all persons in the whole kingdom of Scotland either to celebrate or hear it. (The Zurich Letters [1st series], 1558-1579, p. 199.)
As for your Romane Church, as it is now corrupted, and the Authority thereof, wherein stands the hope of your Victory, I no more doubt but that it is the Synagogue of Sathan; and the head thereof, called the Pope, to be that man of Sin of whom the Apostle speaketh, then that I doubt that Jesus Christ suffered by the procurement of the visible Church of Jerusalem. Yea, I offer myself by word or writing, to prove the Romane Church this day farther to degenerate from the purity which was in the dayes of the Apostles, then was the Church of the Jewes from the ordinance given by Moses, when they consented to the innocent death of Jesus Christ. These words were spoken in the open audience of the Parish Church of Saint Andrews, after the said Dean John had spoken what it pleased him, and had refused to dispute. (Knox, The Historie of the Reformatioun of Religioun Within the Realm of Scotland, book 1, pp. 75, 76.)
As far as I am concerned I am absolutely convinced, that whatever is done in the Roman church is contradictory to Christ's blessed rule, and is nothng else than a lethal poison; and whosoever drinks of it drinks death and damnation to himself.......
The malice of your bishops is only to evident, their impure lives contaminate the very air; the innocent blood they shed cries to God for vengeance; the idolatry and abominations they with impunity commit perverts and defiles the whole country. And none amongst you has the courage to do away with these villainies. Will not God consider you guilty? Do not decieve yourselves, dear bretheren. Do not sleep in your sins, for vengeance is near to all the disobedient. Flee from Babel, if you do not want to partake in her destruction. (Translated from Brandes, op. cit., p. 494.)
JOHN NAPIER (NEPER) (1550-1617) In the former proposition was described the holie Spouse of Christ, here is to bee described the filthie whoore of Sathan, there that Ladie, who is adorned with the Sunne, Starres, and heavenlie virtues: here that Adultresse, who glories in golde, silver, precious stones, and worllie pleasures: there shee, who is persecuted by the Dragon, here she unto whome the Dragon doeth give authoritie: There she, who is chaced into the wilderness, and hath no lodge to hide her in; here she who impireth above all people, and is the Metropolitane citie of the world. And finallie, seeing in al things this Whoore, or whoorish Babylon, is contrarious to Christes holie Spouse, lette us, and all Christians trie her out, as our detestable and deadlie enemie, and see what Babylon she is. We say then, that this Babylon, is not that reall Babylon of Chaldee, but Rome, for these reasons. First, for that this Babylon is called mysterium Babylon, that is to say, mysticall or figurative Babylon: Therefore, it is not Babylon it self in Chaldee. (John Napier, A Plaine Discovery of the Whole Revelation of Saint Iohn., p. 34. This first reason was supported by a series of supplemental arguments.)
For firste (saieth the text) the Woman that sate upon this Beast, is the great Citie, that sitteth over the Kings of the earth: So the chiefe seate and citie of the Latine or Romane Empire, is that great citie Rome, that had Empire overe all the kingdomes of the earth. Secondly, saith Daniel, there shal foure chief kingdomes arise upon the earth, under the figure of foure beastes: Whereof (by plaine interpretation hee saith) the fourth beast that had these ten horns, is the fourth kingdome of the earth: And so it is, that the firste greate kingdome or Monarchie being the Babylonians: The seconde, of the Medes and Persians: The thirde, of the Graecians. The fourth and laste, is certainlie the Monarchie of the Latines or Romanes:and therefore, that fourth beaste which both there in Daniel, & here in Iohns Revelation, hath ten horns, must necessarily be the Romane or Latine Empire. (Ibid., pp. 36,37; and introductory table.)
Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian)
"The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them."
Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom's book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.
John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist)
Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone."
Taken from Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms by John Wesley, pg. 110.
Continued in next post-
SECOND SCOTCH CONFESSION OF FAITH In special, we detest and refuse the usurped authoritie of that Romane Antichrist upon the scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civill Magistrate, and consciences of men. (Philip Schaff, Creeds, vol. 3, p. 481.)
The statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Church of England, which was later used by the Presbyterians, is significant:
There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God. (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Section 6, chapter 25)
Irish Articles of Faith (adopted in 1615): "The Bishop of Rome...be that 'man of sin', foretold in the holy Scriptures."
Westminster Confession of Faith: "The Pope of Rome...is that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ."
Savoy Declaration: "The Pope of Rome...is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition."
Baptist Confession 1688: "The Pope of Rome...is no other than Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition."
The Waldensian treatise titled the Noble Lesson, dated 1100 A.D., stated: "Antichrist, the predicted murderer of the Saints, hath already appeared in his true character, seated monarchally in the seven-hilled city." In 1120 or 1160 A.D., A Treatise Concerning Antichrist identified the Pope of Rome as the Antichrist. George Faber identifies this as a production of Peter the Valdo (Faber, pp. 379-384).
In 1206, the Albigenses made the following confession: "That the Church of Rome was not the spouse of Christ, but the Church of confusion, drunk with the blood of the martyrs. That the polity of the Church of Rome was neither good nor holy, nor established by Jesus Christ" (Peter Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, 1821 edition, first published in 1692, p. 178).
Please forgive this major overkill of information. I am just so very sure that so very few today truly know or understand at all what the vast majority of Protestant reformers believed regarding the church of Rome. It is a history that has been, and is being trashed. When we forget the lessons of the past, we repeat the mistakes of the same. The negative history of the Church of Rome is being systematically removed from public view so that all the world will once again receive the leadership of the Papacy with open arms.
Amo, I could post just as many quotes by probably just as many Roman Catholics who taught that Protestantism was/is the Beast of Babylon from Revelation. So who's right?
Such un-Christian name-calling does nothing to further the cause of Christ.
No denomination on earth has any right to judge another's servant (cf Rom. 14, esp. vs. 4). Before I start slamming another demonination and basically equating them with Satan I'd wanna be really sure my own denomination was spotless first. But mine isn't. I'd not like to stand before God and have to explain how, rather than get my own house in order, I wasted time knocking somebody else's. I don't have that luxury.
The Catholic Church of 1517 isn't the same Catholic Church of 2008. There have been many reforms enacted since then. I mean they've had, what, the Council of Trent and two Vatican Councils since then. Plus, Roman Catholics and Protestants have been engaging in ecumenical dialogue for thirty or forty years.
John was not referring to the Roman Catholic Church when he wrote about the Great Beast. If I wanted to, I could prove from Revelation that John was referring to McDonalds, Hasbro Toys, or the Center for Public Broadcasting as the Beast of Babylon when he wrote Revelation. That would make about as much sense as saying he meant the Roman Catholic Church or America. We've got to stop twisting scripture to prove our pre-conceived ideas. We need to let scripture speak to us instead of the other way 'round.
Pax.
I would just like to point out that the term "anti-Christ" means against Christ and considering the Roman Church is not against Christ, in fact they hold Christ's sacrifice on the cross as the greatest gift God could give mankind and central to all their worship, calling the Roman Church the beast is, once again, a rediculous claim. Taking texts from various Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes, using them out of context, and also relying on a vague interpretation of Revelations that has never been accepted in Church history up until the last hundred years or so is not only irresponsible, it's also hateful and contradictory to the love Christ commanded us to share with one another.
The Roman Church does not always agree with the various Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes of the past. That is why they go back and fix problematic dogmas and doctrines of the Church periodically. They recognize themselves as an institution founded in Scripture and Tradition coming from Jesus and his followers, but also as an organization that is run by mankind and thus doomed to the very same failings of all humanity. What's more, it seems like various individuals feel that simply quoting scripture and texts without any research into their context, history, or perhaps even examining the entire document they came from is responsible research into church history and whatever interpretation they deem fitting is 'the only' interpretation available. Again, this is irresponsible behavior ironically born from Derrida's presuposition that truth is prone to multiple interpretations but can still be truth. There is such a thing as interpreting well, which again, requires proper context and historical understanding to be taken into account. Various doctrines have come from necessity during particular times of history and when put in their right context, can later be applied to modern culture to see if they are still noteworthy, beneficial, or scripturally sound. When taken out of context, they can be twisted or manipulated to say anything an individual pleases and is often contrary to what the author originally intended.
Finally, interpretaions of Revelation are varied and no one really can know for certain what is meant to come. What is certain is that using Revelation against the church body of Christ is not only irresponsible, it is unfortunate and hateful. As pointed out by a multitude of others the exact same chapter could be used to interpret a plethora of other institutions as "the beast" and a multitude of others as "the anti-Christ". Once again, this entire thread is an example of the mindset that "whoever screams the loudest wins an argument" rather than actual productive dialogue in sharing ideas. How about instead of simply continuing to misquote various texts and documents, we consider the possibility of humility and the fact that we can be wrong?
Instead of getting indignant and taking things personally , why don't we open our hearts to our brothers and sisters who are insisting again and again that they do in fact believe in Christ, that their Church is in fact a Christian institution but also a man-run institution and prone to being wrong, and that rather than telling people what they "really" feel or believe we can seek community in our differences and similarities and perhaps work towards a better goal, like sharing the message of Christ with others or even simply loving one another?
Thank you cosmoangel. As Bro. Bob Hendren would say, we all need to approach such things doxologically rather than dogmatically.
For some reason the SDA Church has way more of a problem with the RCC than most Protestants. Every SDA I've ever met has been vehemently opposed to the RCC. I'm not sure where all this hostility comes from.
Pax.
Interesting stuff, gentlemen. ::pondering::
Amo, I've got to give you credit; that stuff you posted was pretty vitroilic, which makes me understand better where you are coming from. (Maybe though, you can delete some blanks from your last post).
Cosmo and Lee make some good points, but it doesn't change the words on those reformers. I do think that writing in the old days was more direct than today.
Indeed, antichrist was not used in the same way as it is used today. Most did not say directly that Rome was Babylon, but, Amo's right, some did.
: Lee Freeman Sun Dec 14, 2008 - 15:39:10
Every SDA I've ever met has been vehemently opposed to the RCC. I'm not sure where all this hostility comes from.
I agree with you, Lee, but Amo has a point: maybe it is such writings that led to this hostility.
By the way, one of the most anti-Catholic people I have ever met was in the Restoration Movement. I actually had quite a lot of respect for this man, as he knew Scripture quite well. He believed in that Rome was the harlot and all. Is this a mainstream position of the RM?
: trifecta Sun Dec 14, 2008 - 18:15:19
Interesting stuff, gentlemen. ::pondering::
Amo, I've got to give you credit; that stuff you posted was pretty vitroilic, which makes me understand better where you are coming from. (Maybe though, you can delete some blanks from your last post).
Cosmo and Lee make some good points, but it doesn't change the words on those reformers. I do think that writing in the old days was more direct than today.
Indeed, antichrist was not used in the same way as it is used today. Most did not say directly that Rome was Babylon, but, Amo's right, some did.
: Lee Freeman Sun Dec 14, 2008 - 15:39:10
Every SDA I've ever met has been vehemently opposed to the RCC. I'm not sure where all this hostility comes from.
I agree with you, Lee, but Amo has a point: maybe it is such writings that led to this hostility.
By the way, one of the most anti-Catholic people I have ever met was in the Restoration Movement. I actually had quite a lot of respect for this man, as he knew Scripture quite well. He believed in that Rome was the harlot and all. Is this a mainstream position of the RM?
I think it's a necessary part of their eschatological position.
: Lee Freeman Sun Dec 14, 2008 - 15:39:10
Thank you cosmoangel. As Bro. Bob Hendren would say, we all need to approach such things doxologically rather than dogmatically.
For some reason the SDA Church has way more of a problem with the RCC than most Protestants. Every SDA I've ever met has been vehemently opposed to the RCC. I'm not sure where all this hostility comes from.
Pax.
Especially Jesuits.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sun Dec 14, 2008 - 19:07:22
: trifecta
By the way, one of the most anti-Catholic people I have ever met was in the Restoration Movement. I actually had quite a lot of respect for this man, as he knew Scripture quite well. He believed in that Rome was the harlot and all. Is this a mainstream position of the RM?
I think it's a necessary part of their eschatological position.
Now that makes sense. But how come Lee doesn't believe it and he's RM?
: trifecta Sun Dec 14, 2008 - 19:32:27
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sun Dec 14, 2008 - 19:07:22
: trifecta
By the way, one of the most anti-Catholic people I have ever met was in the Restoration Movement. I actually had quite a lot of respect for this man, as he knew Scripture quite well. He believed in that Rome was the harlot and all. Is this a mainstream position of the RM?
I think it's a necessary part of their eschatological position.
Now that makes sense. But how come Lee doesn't believe it and he's RM?
Might be referring to SDA eschatological position.
Most of the RM folks I've know (and that's quite a few, to say the least) believe Rome is the seven-hilled city of Revelation, but it's Rome the the Empire, not Rome the church, and the false religion in Rev is referring to the false religion of the Caesars, as it goes. At one time the latter was a common belief, even printed by Standard Publishing at the turn of the last century. That's mostly gone the way of the buggy whip.
That's just been my experience, others' mileage may (and most likely will) vary.
-------
On another note, I know of a break-off group from the DoC called "Church of Christ" that is instrumental (sometimes called "the Ottumwa Brethren" because they were rooted in the Ottumwa ministry school) who do mostly hold the old "the pope is the man of lawlessness, the RCC is the beast" view.
This guy is of their fellowship. http://insight2bp.homestead.com/Subject.html
: CDHealy Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 18:11:46
: Volkmar Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 17:17:32
Clifton,
Have you read much of Thomas Merton? If so, what do you like or dislike about his writing?
V
Yes.
I like his earlier stuff more than his later stuff. My priest was a novice in Gethsemani monastery when Merton was novice master. He has since become Orthodox and has some extremely interesting things to say about Merton.
I like Waters of Siloe and another one on silence whose title escapes me.
I would love to hear those "interesting things"...Merton appears to have had some significant challenges in his 40's.
Presently reading
No Man Is An Island. Has some good sections.
Blessings,
V
Amo, I could post just as many quotes by probably just as many Roman Catholics who taught that Protestantism was/is the Beast of Babylon from Revelation. So who's right?
I guess, as usual, we will just have to take your word that you could produce as many Roman Catholic quotes. The Protestant reformers which I have quoted, spoke the truth at the peril of their lives. The Church which you are defending would have gladly burned every one of them at the stake if they could have. Just as she murdered countless millions of others who dared to speak the same, or refused to bow down to her authority. Which by the way, is one of the historical facts that points to the Church of Rome as"BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
(Maybe though, you can delete some blanks from your last post).
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Does it have something to do with the large space left at the end of the post? It's past midnight, I'm tired, I'll try to figure it out later. Maybe you could give me a clue. Good night.
: Amo Sun Dec 14, 2008 - 23:01:19The Church which you are defending would have gladly burned every one of them at the stake if they could have. Just as she murdered countless millions of others who dared to speak the same, or refused to bow down to her authority.
Which the Protestants of Calvin's Geneva did as well. And then there was Luther's massacre (or rather his friend, the king). And all the Anabaptist goings on.
Yep, the Protestant Reformation and "radical" Reformation was a paragon of purity of action.
: zoonance Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 17:08:46
Should a christian shop at Wal-Mart? Can a christian shop at Wal-Mart? Can I fellowship with an errant brother (or sister) who does? who does not? What if I don't buy anything, just go in to witness? What if I only buy christian stuff? Is benadryl christian? Can a christian take benadryl? Does that mean he doesn't trust God? Can a christian buy dog food there? Should christians own dogs, especially since scripture does not particularly shed dogs in a good light? Can christians own anything? Can a buy a bible at Wal-Mart? What about KMart?................... .............
They do sell those plastic abominations of Baal, otherwise known as Christmas trees. A pox on them!
love,
Sopranette
I have never heard my Pastor say one thing about the RCC. Not one. In fact, I see more similarities than differences. We still do the Lord's Supper, except it's once every quarter, not every Sunday. We still sing the same songs (actually, for the much older hymns, I'm one of the very few who still remember them, which saddens me). Yes, there is a collection plate for tithes. And it's the same bible no matter what part we're reading. Labeling a certain group of people as evil is the very antithesis of the Great Commission. Thinking any one Christian church has the cornerstone on the Truth is absurd.
love,
Sopranette
Which the Protestants of Calvin's Geneva did as well. And then there was Luther's massacre (or rather his friend, the king). And all the Anabaptist goings on.
Yep, the Protestant Reformation and "radical" Reformation was a paragon of purity of action.
You are right. Although, Luther's massacre was for far different reasons than those massacres brought about by the Church of Rome. Luther's massacre was more about bringing law and order back to a nation that was swiftly moving towards total chaos. Some mistook throwing off the Roman yoke, for throwing off all restraints. They became violent and abusive, and law and order had to be reestablished.
Other Protestants, almost all of which came out of the Church of Rome themselves, were not completely free from her errors. It took centuries of Reformation before those who would call themselves Protestant, would establish a government free from the hopeless entanglement of church and state brought about by the Church of Rome, "BABYLON THE GREAT".
The United States is,or was the country that established this form of government, and was blessed by God for doing so. Now though, her government, and politicians are becoming hopelessly entangled once again with the political goals and ambitions of the Church of Rome, "BABYLON THE GREAT". She will and is being a leader in the reestablishment of "BABYLON THE GREAT", and her power to controle and manipulate the kings of the earth.
Modern day Babylon is not the Catholic church, since the RCC didn't have any political power until the 300's AD, long after the Revelation was written. Babylon refers to the state of modern man, who are living without Christ, who are enjoying great wealth and luxury, and are using religion as a political power over people in general, a form of control, similar to biblical times Babylon. This could be any religion. And Jerusalem is the city built on seven hills. I just posted on that, what, yesterday, I think?
love
,Sopranette
CD, nice OP. Greatly appreciated. As a recent convert to the RC faith, I have been on both sides of the fence. I grew up in the south, where I continue to reside. Not exactly friendly territory when it comes to the Catholic faith. I live near Bob Jones University, if this is any indication.
Anti-Catholicism fascinates me. I grew up hearing many of the old myths and propaganda that I have read here on this forum. The conversion process was slow for me as a result. Ironically, being a history major led me on the path and it took ten years before I joined the Church. I just didn't jump into the Chruch overnight, and I studied every teaching and doctrine before making that leap.
I do not expect everyone to agree with the RCC. I do expect there to be some civility and respect in discussing our disagreements, which has been lacking on this forum for quite some time. Unfortunately, I may be the only Catholic member left as a result.
Broach, I appreciate hearing RCC and OC perspectives. While I don't always agree with these communions doctrinally I do greatly respect them and the undeniably vital contributions they have made to global Christianity. People are often afraid of what they don't understand and its just easier for people to pigeonhole and stereotype rather than do some honest investigation of their own.
Pax.
: broach972 Mon Dec 15, 2008 - 07:31:45
Anti-Catholicism fascinates me. I grew up hearing many of the old myths and propaganda that I have read here on this forum. The conversion process was slow for me as a result. Ironically, being a history major led me on the path and it took ten years before I joined the Church. I just didn't jump into the Chruch overnight, and I studied every teaching and doctrine before making that leap.
I do not expect everyone to agree with the RCC. I do expect there to be some civility and respect in discussing our disagreements, which has been lacking on this forum for quite some time. Unfortunately, I may be the only Catholic member left as a result.
I didn't hear much of the anti-Catholic stuff until I began converting really. My dislike for the Roman Church when I was younger stemmed from my own misunderstandings of the faith. It wasn't until my nondenominational church found out I was asking questions and did an entire month of preaching against the Roman Church that I really started hearing the rediculous stuff people cooked up about it without real research. I remain thankful to this day I had a couple friends in the process of converting at the time to openly and respectfully discuss it with. Even when our minister attempted to force us to get them to come talk with him to 'sort them out,' they still responded towards him with love and respect, if not apprehension about what he was teaching.
I agree, though. There's nothing wrong with dialogue between denominations so long as people remain civil and respectful towards one another. How else do the misunderstandings get cleared up or is the love of Christ shared throughout the church catholic if we close ourselves off to one another after all?
Have you ever read this about the RCC? http://www.watch.pair.com/mystery-babylon.html
Silliness squared.
: kingdom-heir Mon Dec 15, 2008 - 22:54:29
Have you ever read this about the RCC? http://www.watch.pair.com/mystery-babylon.html
Perfect example of what I was talking about.
: Amo Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 15:25:58
But why are they so desperate?
Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Some of them are desperate, because they do not wish to see so many perish because they have been deceived by Babylon the great. They are following the lead of the angel in the above prophetic verses. Time is short, most of the nations and religions of the earth have already been intoxicated with the wine of Babylon. Including yourself, obviously.
AMEN....Desperate, to help Catholics see the light......
STOP HAILING MARY.... She is not a deity..
The Pope is NOT the Holy Father and by assuminig the name of "Holy Father" he is a blasphemer
Get rid of the Idols and "Golden Calves" throughout the Catholic Church and worship God ALONE
The pope is not the Substitute for Christ as he assumes his name VICOR OF CHRIST
Those of us who are trying to warn the Catholics of their Idol worship and blaspheming are not going outside of scripture...We are trying to show Catholics, how the Mega Church is teaching you to sin against God...And using him name to teach you.
: Corbley Wed Dec 17, 2008 - 11:44:26
AMEN....Desperate, to help Catholics see the light......
STOP HAILING MARY.... She is not a deity..
The Pope is NOT the Holy Father and by assuminig the name of "Holy Father" he is a blasphemer
Get rid of the Idols and "Golden Calves" throughout the Catholic Church and worship God ALONE
The pope is not the Substitute for Christ as he assumes his name VICOR OF CHRIST
1. I have seen the light; hence the reason why I am a Catholic.
2. I agree that Mary is not a deity. No arguments there.
3. He is not the "Holy Father" in the sense that you understand it. The Pope is not God or a deity of any kind. There is nothing wrong with referring to him by the title. You might want to research this a little more.
4. What idols are you referring to? I have never seen any Golden Calves in church. We do worship God alone.
5. The Pope is not a substitute for Christ...no one can be. The Pope is merely a man. However, the Pope is a representative of Christ with authority, as Christ intended. The title "Vicar of Christ" is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. You might want to research this term a little more as well.
Bottomline: You have no idea of what you are talking about in any of these matters. Please do some research before you comment on such things. If I had a nickel for everytime I have stated this, I could retire by now.
: broach972 Wed Dec 17, 2008 - 12:26:46
4. What idols are you referring to? I have never seen any Golden Calves in church. We do worship God alone.
I believe it's the statues of the saints and the pictures that most churches are decorated with that people are refering to here. Because, you know, obviously you can't have any image ever that you aren't worshipping. Or perhaps specifically Catholics can't have any images ever because obviously it means they're worshipping them. There is absolutely no reason to believe they might just be there to a) glorify God as a reminder of the good things He does for humanity by using human beings or b) as a focus for prayer to conenctrate upon and recall the good things God does for humanity. No, they
must be idols. ::frustrated::
Weren't the statues, colorful vestments, incense, stained glass, carved church facades and tympanums, etc. used in a very practical sense as visual/sensory aides to aid people in worship? A largely illiterate early and medieval European poulation (even many priests) could see the statues, stained glass, colorful vestments, etc., they could smell the incense and hear the chant. Ritual in and of itself is not a bad thing.
No educated Catholic I've ever met believes they're supposed to "worship" a statue. As BBroach has said, they make a very real distinction betwen worship, which is reserved for God alone, and the veneration, or special honor, afforded Mary and the saints. In the middle ages, on a popular devotional level the line might have become blurred sometimes, however, today's Catholic Church isn't the medieval Catholic Church, and the Magisterium (the teaching arm of the church) has never taught that images should be worshiped.
As Broach said, you guys might want to study a bit more before you make such accusations. After that, you still might disagre with the RCC teaching on these subjects, (as I do) but at least you'll do so from an informed standpoint.
If Protestants and Catholics cannot stop misrepresenting each others' beliefs, true ecumenism and understanding is doomed.
Pax.
: Lee Freeman Mon Dec 22, 2008 - 16:26:43
If Protestants and Catholics cannot stop misrepresenting each others' beliefs, true ecumenism and understanding is doomed.
Amen to THAT brother. Its hard to get a good conversation going on the things we actually do disagree on, because we are always chasing strawman arguments based on nonsense.
II Th 2:1-4 1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Before the Lord returns, the man of sin will be revealed. This man of sin sits himself in the temple of God, claiming the power, and authority of God. Where is this temple of God, that the man of sin sits in? The sanctuary, or temple of the new covenant is found in one of two places. There is the sanctuary, or temple in heaven where Christ now intercedes for us before His Father. There is also the new covenant sanctuary, or temple that is established in Christ's followers. The Church, or body of Christ, both in it's individual members, and as a corporate body, is considered the temple of God. So, the man of sin must try to set himself up in at least one, if not both of these places. It is by doing this, that he reveals himself for what he is. Notice the following.
Heb 8:1-2 1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
1 Cor 6:19 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
Eph 2:19-22 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
It is the Church of Rome that makes the false claim, that one man has been chosen as the head of all Christendom. That is, the head of the temple of God here on earth. As such, the Pope sets himself up in the temple of God on earth, as God, showing himself that he is God on earth. Christ alone is the head of His Church, of the individual Christian, and the body of Christ. He has not appointed this task to any single man. It is only the man of sin that claims this prerogative, which belongs only to God, through His Son Jesus Christ. Thus the Church of Rome puts a mere man between Humanity and God, a thing of the old covenant dispensation, which the Lord Jesus Christ came to abolish. Thus she separates humanity from Christ through her false doctrine.
The Church of Rome also claims the power to change bread and wine into the literal blood and body of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and that it is necessary for one top partake of the same. Thus she again places herself between Christ and humanity in that they must come to her in order to partake of the literal flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, which only her priests have the power to perform. Again setting herself up in the temple of God, as God.
Even if the celebration of the Lord's supper did really include changing bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ, which it doesn't, how says the Church of Rome that only her priests can do so. Again this makes her necessary to salvation. I wonder if all the priests that were guilty of child molestation, were at the same time they practiced such abomination, changing bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus. Utter stinking nonsense. I do not bring up the above by way of condemnation, for we are all sinners before God, but by way of revealing the sheer absurdity of giving such power to mere sinners. God has not given any human this power, nor has He given any mere sinner kingly authority over His Church. He is quite capable through the power of His Holy Spirit to perfectly run every aspect of His Church in this world.
The Church of Rome claims that her adherents must confess their sins to a priest. Again placing themselves between humanity and God, and reestablishing that of the old covenant which was abolished by Christ. We may all have access directly to the throne of God through Christ, who ever liveth to make intercession for us. Thus the Church of Rome places herself directly between humanity and Christ, and His very ministry for us in the temple of God in heaven. This power to forgive sins is of course granted to the priest through the head of all their priests, the Pope of Rome, the man of sin who places himself in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
The Church of Rome teaches her adherents to pray to God through an assortment of dead saints, Mary in particular, once again separating humanity from God through the practice of this abomination. Christ died so that our prayers could proceed directly to the throne of God through His very ministry in the sanctuary of heaven for us. It is an abomination to place anyone, or anything between Christ and His own, and the intimacy He desires to share with His own by their confession directly to Him of their sins. Also to share their personal cares and needs and wants directly to their God who loves them so, that He sacrificed His won life, through the life of His Son for them. This is an abominable sin, to separate God's own from the intimacy He intend s to have with them.
The Church of Rome separates humanity from Christ by polluting the gospel message through her false and abominable teachings, and hopelessly entangling the giving of the gospel with the kings, politics, and political powers of this world. Severely impeding the progress of the same by doing so. The Holy Spirit of God being a wholly sufficient power for the spreading of the gospel in all the world, it is an abomination to God to seek the alliances, and powers of the governments of this world in order to accomplish the same.
The Church of Rome separates humanity from God by claiming the authority to change the law of God, and in so doing, teaching humanity to break the law of God. Thus separating humanity from God through disobedience to God, coupled with an unwillingness to confess their sins to God, being unwilling to acknowledge their sins as such. Accepting the Church of Rome's definition of sin, or the breaking of the commandments, over God's definition of the same through His word. What is the claiming of authority to change God's law, but the setting up of ones self in the temple of God, showing thyself to be God.
There is no sense to go on, though there is much more, but to say that the teachings of the Church of Rome serve the purpose of separating humanity from Christ, while all the time claiming to do just the opposite. Her abominable teachings and doctrines contradict and claim to supersede the authority of God's word, and therefore of God Himself. The man who claims to be her leader, and promulgates her false and abominable doctrines, is indeed the man of sin himself. The word of God is filled with prophecies addressing the same. Please heed the following prophecy concerning the same.
Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. 6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. 7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. 8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her. 9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
I see no nonsense about that.
.
I feel sorry for you Amo. You just cut and paste a bunch of stuff that is misleading and/or untrue. Its pure anti-Catholic propoganda, and not even good propoganda at that.
I feel sorry for you Amo. You just cut and paste a bunch of stuff that is misleading and/or untrue. Its pure anti-Catholic propoganda, and not even good propoganda at that.
If I cut and paste anything, I always give the source from which it came. I am the author of the last post, apart from the scriptural references obviously. In the previous posts, all quotes have their reference.
This is a discussion board you know. You could actually back up your last accusation against me with some sort of proof, or argument. I am not anticatholic, I am trying to warn Catholics of the danger they are in. If I hated Catholics, then I would be glad that they are deceived, and leave them to perish without warning. The opposite is true, therefore I am warning as many as possible of the danger they are in by forsaking the word of God in favor of that of a man. In danger of making the commandments of God of none effect, by the commandments and traditions of men.
Matt 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would
pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you,
let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received,
let him be accursed.
: Amo Tue Dec 23, 2008 - 17:37:51
I feel sorry for you Amo. You just cut and paste a bunch of stuff that is misleading and/or untrue. Its pure anti-Catholic propoganda, and not even good propoganda at that.
If I cut and paste anything, I always give the source from which it came. I am the author of the last post....
Very well. I shall re-phrase:
I feel sorry for you Amo. You just authored a bunch stuff that is misleading and/or untrue. Its pure anti-Catholic propoganda, and not even good propoganda at that.
Very well. I shall re-phrase:
I feel sorry for you Amo. You just authored a bunch stuff that is misleading and/or untrue. Its pure anti-Catholic propoganda, and not even good propoganda at that.
Do Catholic priests transform the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus?
Does anyone else outside of the Catholic Church have the authority, and are they capable of doing the same?
Do Catholics pray to God through the saints?
Do they bow down to images of the same?
Are they told to confess their sins to their priests?
Do the priests have the authority to grant God's forgiveness to those who confess to them?
Does the Catholic Church believe that Peter was the first Pope, chosen by God to be the visible head of Christ's Church on earth, and all Popes after have succeeded him?
Has the Catholic Church changed the sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week, by the power invested in them by God?
Does the Vatican entertain ambassadors from over 170 nations of this earth?
Answering the above questions might help your argument.
: Amo Tue Dec 23, 2008 - 17:37:51
I am not anticatholic, I am trying to warn Catholics of the danger they are in. If I hated Catholics, then I would be glad that they are deceived, and leave them to perish without warning. The opposite is true, therefore I am warning as many as possible of the danger they are in by forsaking the word of God in favor of that of a man. In danger of making the commandments of God of none effect, by the commandments and traditions of men.
You don't have to hate Catholics to be anti-Catholic. Anti means opposed to. You're against Catholicism, therefore you are anti-Catholic. Further, your last insinuation that Catholics are "in danger of making the commandments of God of none effect" is rediculous and an issue already countered by the church catholic when the Donatists suggested such things back in the early 200's C.E. No man can invalidate the commandments of God. The sacraments given to an individual whether by a 'worthy' or 'unworthy' representative of Christ does not nulify the salvivic affects of said sacraments. Further God's commandments are set by Him, mankind cannot nullify the work of God. Sin can distort the purity of the intent here on earth, but nothing a man can do can nulify the commands of God.
Further, until Martin Luther in the 1500's transubstantiation was an accepted view of the sacrament of communion. While it was under debate in the early church, the Bishops all agreed that the original language meant a literal translation. The reason why only priests of the Catholic Church were allowed to give the sacraments were due to the belief of apostolic descent: i. e. Jesus gave such authority to his apostles, who passed it down to their followers, who passed it down to their followers, etc.
As discussed regarding praying to the saints and the use of images: praying to the saints for their prayers to God is tantamount to asking a living friend to pray for you. Considering we believe in a bodily resurrection and also believe that there are certain individuals already in heaven and able to offer prayers to God on our behalf, praying to a saint for prayers to God is simply the same as having another friend pray for you. Catholics do not worship saints. They are kneeling in prayer to God and using imagery as a focus to keep their minds off of the distractions of daily life.
I would keep going with this, but quite frankly I lack the energy of continuing to offer a defense of myself and my beliefs when such have been offered time and again and are never enough for you.
I do think you're being highly insulting by insinuating that the Catholic Church not only does not worship Christ as king among men, but also is offering false teachings. Have you ever been to Mass? Have you ever heard
scripture being read? Have you ever heard the prayers to God? The saying of the Lord's prayer at each service, the reading of the gospels and psalms? The teaching of Old and New Testament passages? The reciting of the Nicene Creed? If this isn't enough for you, this is a Christian chat site which restricts users to Christians only. Gee, I see a section devoted to Catholicism here. Seems quite likely that Catholics are Christians.
First of all, each of these topics deserves its own thread, if there isn't one already. I am not going to drag out this mudslinging style of posting, throwing a whole ton of stuff into the air as if the sheer volume of it proves some sort of point. Such posts are the bane of the mediocre. But briefly:
: Amo Tue Dec 23, 2008 - 19:26:49
Do Catholic priests transform the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus?
No, God transforms the bread and wine, not the priest. Jesus did that at the last supper when he said "This is my Body." I won't quibble over what the meaning of the word "is" is. I suggest you read this: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
: Amo Tue Dec 23, 2008 - 19:26:49
Does anyone else outside of the Catholic Church have the authority, and are they capable of doing the same?
Eastern Orthodox bishops and priests are also empowered to act "in persona Christi" at their Mass. Why? Because their bishops also have authentic apostolic succession.
: Amo Tue Dec 23, 2008 - 19:26:49
Do Catholics pray to God through the saints?
No. We pray to God through Jesus. But, we do ask other Christians to pray for us, just like you protestants do. But unlike you, we do not have a narrow view of the Body of Christ. We believe that ALL Christians, whether on earth or in heaven, are members of the Body of Christ, and we feel comfortable asking ANY of them to pray for us. Read this for further explanation: http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp
: Amo Tue Dec 23, 2008 - 19:26:49
Do they bow down to images of the same?
No. We kneel in prayer, just like you do. However, we do use imagery to help us focus, the same way you may look at a picture of a loved one when you are thinking about them. There may be an image close to us when we kneel in prayer, but we do not "bow down to" them. Again, here is further suggested reading: http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp
: Amo Tue Dec 23, 2008 - 19:26:49
Are they told to confess their sins to their priests?
Yes.
: Amo Tue Dec 23, 2008 - 19:26:49
Do the priests have the authority to grant God's forgiveness to those who confess to them?
Yes they do. Christ gave them that authority, or rather I should say, Christ established that "Sacrament". This sacrament is rooted in the mission God gave to Christ in his capacity as the Son of man on earth to go and forgive sins (cf. Matt. 9:6). Thus, the crowds who witnessed this new power "glorified God, who had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8; note the plural "men"). After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21–23).
: Amo Tue Dec 23, 2008 - 19:26:49
Does the Catholic Church believe that Peter was the first Pope, chosen by God to be the visible head of Christ's Church on earth, and all Popes after have succeeded him?
Yes, because he is.
: Amo Tue Dec 23, 2008 - 19:26:49
Has the Catholic Church changed the sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week, by the power invested in them by God?
No. Saturday is the Sabbath, and Sunday is the Lord's Day. This teaching is specifically laid out in the official Catechism, right here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm#II
Quote Section 2175: "
Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week..."
: Amo Tue Dec 23, 2008 - 19:26:49
Does the Vatican entertain ambassadors from over 170 nations of this earth?
Yes. The Vatican is a sovereign nation. All nations respect each others' ambassadors. Your question is both odd and pointless.
Answering the above questions might help your argument.
LOL. I believe you are the one whom needs a little help. But I am always glad to educate a brother. It is considered a Corporal Work of Mercy to "educate the ignorant."
Tu Es Petrus,
Even as a Lutheran, I'm with you on your points - except for this one....
Quote from: Amo on Yesterday at 07:26:49 PM
Does the Catholic Church believe that Peter was the first Pope, chosen by God to be the visible head of Christ's Church on earth, and all Popes after have succeeded him?
Yes, because he is.
From what I have read, the Bishop of Rome was considered a "first among equals", but not THE head of the Church on earth by the Bishops in Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem. I would say that this is the one point you offered up where Christians of goodwill still have a serious difference of opinion with Rome. It is a historical fact that there were times where more than one Pope existed at once (I think there were 4 at once, but I'm going from memory).
I'm also highly troubled by the "Mary as co-Redeemer" talk that I hear these days coming from Rome. Feel free to enlighten me on why that is a good idea to pursue.
I also think that the RCC has made a big mistake by continuing to insist that priests remain unmarried, because that is not a teaching that the RCC has always held. It seems to simply be "policy".
On the plus side, the RCC has done a great job of spreading Christianity throughout the Western Hemisphere, while the EO has done a terrible job of spreading Christianity throughout the Middle East and into Asia. The RCC has faithfully preserved the doctrines of the Real Presence, infant baptism and the saving work of Christ on the Cross.
I agree wholeheartedly with those who say that the RCC of today is nothing at all like the RCC of Luther's era. The RCC in the 1500s was, I believe, demonstrably corrupt. There are still a few things today that bother me about the RCC, but I don't see any behavior today that comes close to what Luther had to fight against. Nothing would please me more than to see the Lutherans, the RCC and the EO come back together as the one historic, evangelical, orthodox Christian Church militant. Now THAT would be a thing of beauty!
: extranos Wed Dec 24, 2008 - 22:18:29From what I have read, the Bishop of Rome was considered a "first among equals", but not THE head of the Church on earth by the Bishops in Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem. I would say that this is the one point you offered up where Christians of goodwill still have a serious difference of opinion with Rome.
For sure there are differences. But I believe the papacy is firmly rooted in Scripture. If I may make an analogy: First and second century Christians had a fuzzy understanding on the nature of Christ, and little if any understanding of the Trinity. It wasn't until the fourth century that the doctrines on the nature of Christ and the Trinity were really hammered out and well defined. Does that mean the Church "invented
If the Evangelical believes the Bible and wants to live the Christian life, he will not only admit that he needs to cooperate with God for his own salvation, but also that this cooperation is part of a larger identification with Christ, and that this identification with Christ is for the salvation of the world. He will also admit that in some mysterious way, the sufferings we endure are part of the way God works to redeem the world.....
: extranos Thu Dec 25, 2008 - 10:42:00
.....I don't believe that we cooperate with God for our salvation....
Let me put this forth to you: If I meet a non-believer and talk to him about Jesus, and if as a result of my talk he decides to come to Christ, would in not be fair to say that I played a part (perhaps a small part, but still a part) in his salvation?
Let me put this forth to you: If I meet a non-believer and talk to him about Jesus, and if as a result of my talk he decides to come to Christ, would in not be fair to say that I played a part (perhaps a small part, but still a part) in his salvation?
This requires a somewhat nuanced answer.....did you play a part in this man's salvation? In a way, yes - but only because you are a believer and, thus, are a regenerated man. Your work, through the Spirit, was to spread the good news of Jesus. However, did you play a part in this man's conversion? No, that is only the work of the Spirit.
The most common example that I see with regards to being converted into a Christian is the one where a person is sitting at the table and is served a meal. That person has to make a choice as to whether he will eat the meal or not. The meal represents faith and the serving of the meal represents our free gift of faith.
This analogy falls apart when Ephesians 2 is taken into account. We are dead in our sins, not just wounded. Therefore, I say that the correct analogy is that I am a dead man slumped over in my chair at the table. Even if a meal has been set before me, I have no ability to eat it until I have been made alive. In my example, being made alive represents being given faith. A dead man can do nothing to gain the ability to live, just as a person who is dead spiritually can do nothing to gain faith.
However, with Christ, all is possible, and He can bring the dead to life. Thus, once we are alive in Christ, we are able to cooperate with the Spirit and He can work through us.
: extranos Thu Dec 25, 2008 - 11:40:59
Let me put this forth to you: If I meet a non-believer and talk to him about Jesus, and if as a result of my talk he decides to come to Christ, would in not be fair to say that I played a part (perhaps a small part, but still a part) in his salvation?
This requires a somewhat nuanced answer.....did you play a part in this man's salvation? In a way, yes - but only because you are a believer and, thus, are a regenerated man. Your work, through the Spirit, was to spread the good news of Jesus. However, did you play a part in this man's conversion? No, that is only the work of the Spirit....
Fair enough. And let me add that, even though I played a part in this person's salvation
in a way, I am by no means the Savior. Jesus is the Savior.
So, is not also fair to say that since the Blessed Virgin brought Christ into the world by giving birth to him, that she played a part -
in a way - in our redemption? And as Paul calls himself a "co-worker" in Christ, Mary can be called a "co-redemptrix"?
And remember: This title does not make her a "redeemer", just as I am not a savior even though I played a part in our hypothetical person's salvation. "Co-" here means "a cooperator in-" our redemption. Mary's perfect cooperation with God brought our redeemer into the world
: extranos Thu Dec 25, 2008 - 11:40:59
The most common example that I see with regards to being converted into a Christian is the one where a person is sitting at the table and is served a meal. That person has to make a choice as to whether he will eat the meal or not. The meal represents faith and the serving of the meal represents our free gift of faith.
This analogy falls apart when Ephesians 2 is taken into account. We are dead in our sins, not just wounded. Therefore, I say that the correct analogy is that I am a dead man slumped over in my chair at the table. Even if a meal has been set before me, I have no ability to eat it until I have been made alive. In my example, being made alive represents being given faith. A dead man can do nothing to gain the ability to live, just as a person who is dead spiritually can do nothing to gain faith.
However, with Christ, all is possible, and He can bring the dead to life. Thus, once we are alive in Christ, we are able to cooperate with the Spirit and He can work through us.
Bingo.
Cosmo-
You don't have to hate Catholics to be anti-Catholic. Anti means opposed to. You're against Catholicism, therefore you are anti-Catholic. Further, your last insinuation that Catholics are "in danger of making the commandments of God of none effect" is rediculous and an issue already countered by the church catholic when the Donatists suggested such things back in the early 200's C.E. No man can invalidate the commandments of God. The sacraments given to an individual whether by a 'worthy' or 'unworthy' representative of Christ does not nulify the salvivic affects of said sacraments. Further God's commandments are set by Him, mankind cannot nullify the work of God. Sin can distort the purity of the intent here on earth, but nothing a man can do can nulify the commands of God.
Tu Es Petrus-
Has the Catholic Church changed the sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week, by the power invested in them by God?No. Saturday is the Sabbath, and Sunday is the Lord's Day. This teaching is specifically laid out in the official Catechism, right here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm#II
Quote Section 2175: "Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week..."
If being against many of the teachings of the Church of Rome is anti-Catholic, then yes, I am decidedly anti-Catholic. You are right, no one can change the commandments of God. However, many can and do, teach the world to ignore some of them. This is what the Church of Rome does concerning the second and fourth commandment. She claims to have altered or changed the same. She allows her adherents to bow or kneel down before images, which is strictly forbidden by the second commandment. Her teachings also lead most of her adherents, indeed almost all of Christianity to ignore the fourth commandment of God in relation to the seventh day, in favor of her own commands regarding the first day. Observe the following-
Pope Gregory I (AD 590-604) said :
"Gregory, bishop by the grace of God to his well-beloved sons, the Roman citizens: It has come to me that certain men of perverse spirit have disseminated among you things depraved and opposed to the holy faith, so that they forbid anything to be done on the day of the Sabbath. What shall I call them except preachers of anti-Christ?." Epistles of Gregory I, b.13, epist.1, found in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.
Obviously the above Pope condemned those who would keep the fourth commandment.
The Synod of Laodicea - 343-381 A.D. - furnishes a decree which is quoted by many:
"Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [Sabbatum is always used for the Sabbath and is translated Saturday in the English edition of Hefele], but shall work on that day; but the Lord's-day they shall especially honor, and as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing they shall be shut out from Christ. (Canon 29, Hefele, Vol. 2, p. 316.)
The above is a direct command to not only ignore the fourth commandment, but violate it.
The following quotes are from the APOSTOLIC LETTER DIES DOMINI by John Paul II
Chap. 1
8.............The People of God are called to enter into this same rest by persevering in Christ's example of filial obedience (cf. Heb 4:3-16). In order to grasp fully the meaning of Sunday, therefore, we must re-read the great story of creation and deepen our understanding of the theology of the "Sabbath".
According to Pope John Paul, the theology which once applied to the seventh day Sabbath of the fourth commandment, now applies to first day of the week. This is wholly extra biblical. It proceeds from the Church of Rome, not scripture.
13. The Sabbath precept, which in the first Covenant prepares for the Sunday of the new and eternal Covenant, is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why, unlike many other precepts, it is set not within the context of strictly cultic stipulations but within the Decalogue, the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of the moral life inscribed on the human heart.
Again, wholly extra biblical. It is not God's plan, but the plan of the Church of Rome.
14. In the first place, therefore, Sunday is the day of rest because it is the day "blessed" by God and "made holy" by him, set apart from the other days to be, among all of them, "the Lord's Day".
Wholly extra biblical and directly contradicts the word of God. Not just the scriptures, but the literal word of God. The ten commandments, including the fourth, were spoken to Israel by the mouth of God Himself, and written by His very own finger in stone. No one but God Himself can change any of the ten commandments, or institute new ones. It is most certainly blasphemous to claim the authority to do so.
18..............In the light of this mystery, the meaning of the Old Testament precept concerning the Lord's Day is recovered, perfected and fully revealed in the glory which shines on the face of the Risen Christ (cf. 2 Cor 4:6). We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath", from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi!
More of the same.
Chap.2
23. It was this newness which the catechesis of the first centuries stressed as it sought to
show the prominence of Sunday relative to the Jewish Sabbath. It was on the Sabbath that the Jewish people had to gather in the synagogue and to rest in the way prescribed by the Law. The Apostles, and in particular Saint Paul, continued initially to attend the synagogue so that there they might proclaim Jesus Christ, commenting upon "the words of the prophets which are read every Sabbath" (Acts 13:27). Some communities observed the Sabbath while also celebrating Sunday. Soon, however, the two days began to be distinguished ever more clearly, in reaction chiefly to the insistence of those Christians whose origins in Judaism made them inclined to maintain the obligation of the old Law.
The prominence which was applied to the first day, over the seventh day, was the beginning of apostasy, not true Christian tradition. It was in no small part brought about by the heavy influence of pagan sun worship within the Roman empire, rather than sound Christian doctrine. It is certainly not sound Christian principle to abandon the commandments of God because of someone else's misconceptions, and misguided zeal for the same.
Chap.4
59....................
More than a "replacement" for the Sabbath, therefore, Sunday is its fulfilment, and in a certain sense its extension and full expression in the ordered unfolding of the history of salvation, which reaches its culmination in Christ.
According to the Church of Rome Sunday sacredness is even more than a replacement for the Sabbath. That is, it replaces the seventh day Sabbath. If this is not an attempt to nullify the fourth commandment, what is? The effect of the same, has been that most "Christians
Cosmo-
Further, until Martin Luther in the 1500's transubstantiation was an accepted view of the sacrament of communion. While it was under debate in the early church, the Bishops all agreed that the original language meant a literal translation. The reason why only priests of the Catholic Church were allowed to give the sacraments were due to the belief of apostolic descent: i. e. Jesus gave such authority to his apostles, who passed it down to their followers, who passed it down to their followers, etc.
You forgot, or apparently don't know about Berengar of Tours, born 999, died 1088, who denied transubstantiation. How about John Wycliffe of the 1300s who vehemently denied transubstantiation. Nor do all the writings of the supposed Church Fathers support transubstantiation. Not that I put their writings at all on a par with the scriptures, or even consider Church Fathers, but moreover, and for the most part, the Fathers of the Church of Rome.
"Some church fathers believed in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist; others considered the elements as signs of the body and blood of Christ, and that His presence is spiritual. Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi). This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215. Eventually Radbertus was canonized while Ratranmus' work was placed on the index of forbidden books. The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century.
It is misleading to speak about "real presence
Cosmo-
As discussed regarding praying to the saints and the use of images: praying to the saints for their prayers to God is tantamount to asking a living friend to pray for you. Considering we believe in a bodily resurrection and also believe that there are certain individuals already in heaven and able to offer prayers to God on our behalf, praying to a saint for prayers to God is simply the same as having another friend pray for you. Catholics do not worship saints. They are kneeling in prayer to God and using imagery as a focus to keep their minds off of the distractions of daily life.
Tu Es Petrus-
Do Catholics pray to God through the saints?No. We pray to God through Jesus. But, we do ask other Christians to pray for us, just like you protestants do. But unlike you, we do not have a narrow view of the Body of Christ. We believe that ALL Christians, whether on earth or in heaven, are members of the Body of Christ, and we feel comfortable asking ANY of them to pray for us. Read this for further explanation:
Do they bow down to images of the same?No. We kneel in prayer, just like you do. However, we do use imagery to help us focus, the same way you may look at a picture of a loved one when you are thinking about them. There may be an image close to us when we kneel in prayer, but we do not "bow down to" them. Again, here is further suggested reading: http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp
"Hail Holy Queen
Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our light, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy towards us and after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary. V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God. R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Memorare
Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession was left unaided. Inspired with this confidence, we turn to thee, O Virgin of virgins, our Mother. To thee we come, before thee we stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, do not despise our petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer us. Amen.
A PRAYER TO OUR LADY
OF GUADALUPE
Our Lady of Guadalupe, mystical rose, make intercession for the Holy Church, protect the Sovereign Pontiff, help all those who invoke thee in their necessities, and since thou art the ever Virgin Mary and Mother of God, obtain for us from thy most holy Son the grace of keeping our faith, sweet hope in the midst of the bitterness of life, burning charity and the precious gift of final perseverance. Amen.
A PRAYER TO
OUR LADY OF LOURDES
O ever immaculate Virgin, Mother of mercy, health of the sick, refuge of sinners, comfort of the afflicted, you know my wants, my troubles, my sufferings; deign to cast upon me a look of mercy. By appearing in the Grotto of Lourdes, you were pleased to make it a privileged sanctuary, whence you dispense your favors, and already many sufferers have obtained the cure of their infirmities, both spiritual and corporal. I come, therefore, with the most unbounded confidence, to implore your maternal intercession. Obtain, O loving Mother, the grant of my requests. I will endeavor to imitate your virtues, that I may one day share your glory, and bless you in eternity. Amen.
Prayer to St. Joseph
Oh, St. Joseph, whose protection is so great, so strong, so prompt before the throne of God, I place in you all my interest and desires. Oh, St. Joseph, do assist me by your powerful intercession, and obtain for me from your divine Son all spiritual blessings, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. So that, having engaged here below your heavenly power, I may offer my thanksgiving and homage to the most Loving of Fathers. Oh, St. Joseph, I never weary contemplating you, and Jesus asleep in your arms; I dare not approach while He reposes near your heart. Press Him in my name and kiss His fine head for me and ask Him to return the kiss when I draw my dying breath. St. Joseph, Patron of departed souls, pray for me. "
When was the last time either of you knelt down before one of your friends and uttered words like those above. Get a grip. You are not giving a prayer request to a friend. I am not an imbecile, stop trying to tell me you are giving a prayer request to a friend. Some of the above prayers make no mention of God at all, let alone asking the one prayed to, to relate the prayer to God.
Exod 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Tu Es Petrus-
Does the Vatican entertain ambassadors from over 170 nations of this earth?Yes. The Vatican is a sovereign nation. All nations respect each others' ambassadors. Your question is both odd and pointless.
To the contrary, it makes my point exactly. The Church of Rome is the Church of this world. Her kingdom is of this world. She derives her power from the kings of this world. Thus She continually commits fornication with the powers that be of this world, through adulteress relationships with the same. All this that she might control and manipulate the same. She is verily BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2
With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3
For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.John 18:36 Jesus answered,
My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
The Church of Rome is the rightful leader of this world in rebellion against God. I accept her for what she is, the greatest apostate religio-political power this world ever has, or ever will see. She is prophetically destined to rule the world. Not for long though.
No time to address more now, got to go. Merry Christmas to all, and a happy new year!
Whatever dude. There is so much wrong, and so much that is misunderstood in your post, that I have neither the energy nor the desire to type a lengthy tome to refute it. And if I did, it would fall on deaf ears anyway. So go ahead and misrepresent us if that makes you feel good.
Merry Christmas
Nobody likes nor is comfortable with having there core beliefs questioned. Thus, it is not a surprise that there will be an emotional response of some kind to the critics. Nor is it a surprise that those who believe what they believe won't be too keen on nonbiased contemplation that they may not be right. Anybody can accurately recite a common belief, especially if it is in print to be memorized. Proving that a particular belief is THE verbatim plea of God Himself is more challenging. I really doubt that there can be a unifying aspect to starkly opposing views and especially when key doctrines come from very different points of reference on which a belief is formulated and accepted as His Truth.
: zoonance Thu Dec 25, 2008 - 15:14:54
Nobody likes nor is comfortable with having there core beliefs questioned....
Oh, I have no problem with having my beliefs questioned. And I have many protestant friends who disagree with me and whom I respect.
But this person Amo is not questioning my beliefs. He is creating false caricatures of Catholicism and then arguing against them. He is not arguing against what we believe, he is arguing against what he wrongly perceives as our beliefs.
And THAT kind of ridiculous posting DOES bring out an emotional response in me. It is difficult enough to overcome are actual disagreements, so it does not help at all when people throw out bogus charges.
True. It is amazing how those on the outside (of any group) claim to be a superior source of accuracy on the insiders positions than those on the inside. That being said, most doctrinal issues do not stand on their own volition, devoid of human reasoning at some point. They were developed from reasoning and thus subject to scrutiny.
So, is not also fair to say that since the Blessed Virgin brought Christ into the world by giving birth to him, that she played a part - in a way - in our redemption? And as Paul calls himself a "co-worker" in Christ, Mary can be called a "co-redemptrix"?
And remember: This title does not make her a "redeemer", just as I am not a savior even though I played a part in our hypothetical person's salvation. "Co-" here means "a cooperator in-" our redemption. Mary's perfect cooperation with God brought our redeemer into the world.
Mary is called "blessed" and "full of grace" and is the human in which the Savior is carried. Those are tremendously generous words used by the Holy Spirit to talk about her and they cannot be taken lightly. Mary is totally cool. I don't think we can sit in our comfortable armchairs and really understand the fear and wonder that she must have felt. Mary was a devout believer, and I mean devout! How many of us could even contemplate answering an ANGEL in such a faithful manner:
"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said."So I don't want my answer to seem to denigrate this wonderful woman in any way, but I just see no purpose in elevating her to such a high position with the use of the title "Co-Redemptrix", nor am I so sure she would want this. It seems to me that Mary, with her wonderful faith and humility, would be happy to be called a "co-worker" like Paul.
I have a comment on the transubstantiation topic, too.......we in the Lutheran faith don't really have a name for this "process" by which the bread and wine become Body and Blood and I think the RCC has tried to define it in a too-detailed manner. Some people use the phrase "consubstantiation", but that is not an official term ever used by us. We simply say that it IS the Body and Blood because Christ says it is and we leave it at that. The wine and bread always stay wine and bread, but at the Words of Institution, they are also mysteriously His Body and Blood. I don't agree with the position of the RCC on the "how", but I absolutely agree with them on the "what" of the Eucharist.
And finally.....I think all serious Lutherans would love to be able to overcome the differences with the RCC and fold the two Churches back into one, but there are still too many differences of opinion to make this happen. Tu Es Petrus, what do you think it would honestly take to bring the Lutherans home, and would you be willing to see it happen? I think that there would be a side benefit to bringing home the Lutherans and that would be that the EO would once again "unsplit". From conversations with CD Healy, it seems to me that the Lutherans and the Orthodox have many similar doctrines and that the differences could be bridged under one Christian Church. I would like to see the RCC do her part to overcome the differences, but I honestly feel that this won't happen in my lifetime because of the fundamental, structural problems it might cause the RCC. I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts.
: extranos Fri Dec 26, 2008 - 06:58:38
Mary is called "blessed" and "full of grace" and is the human in which the Savior is carried. Those are tremendously generous words used by the Holy Spirit to talk about her and they cannot be taken lightly. Mary is totally cool. I don't think we can sit in our comfortable armchairs and really understand the fear and wonder that she must have felt. Mary was a devout believer, and I mean devout! How many of us could even contemplate answering an ANGEL in such a faithful manner: "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said."
So I don't want my answer to seem to denigrate this wonderful woman in any way, but I just see no purpose in elevating her to such a high position with the use of the title "Co-Redemptrix", nor am I so sure she would want this. It seems to me that Mary, with her wonderful faith and humility, would be happy to be called a "co-worker" like Paul...
I appreciate the tone of your post, and I understand where you are coming from. I think I'll just post a quote from the Second Vatican Council document
Lumen Gentium:
"Embracing God's salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."
And I will add: Co-redemptrix boils down to Mary's role in Salvation History and her "yes." God the Father could have chose any woman in the world from any time period, yet he chose Mary to be the means by which His divine Son would be born and come into the world. The Angel Gabriel was asked to deliver this news, and Mary consented wholeheartedly. Just keep in mind that "co-" does not mean "equal to," but rather comes from the Latin word "c um" which means "with." Mary is not "equal to the Redeemer" but she is "with the Redeemer."
All Christians are called to say yes to God and be "with the Redeemer" one way or another. But as the first Christian and as the mother of Christ, Catholics believe that she did that the best. It is as simple as that. As early as Irenaeus, we can see that the early Christians believed the same (as evidenced by the quote above).
: extranos Fri Dec 26, 2008 - 06:58:38I have a comment on the transubstantiation topic, too.......we in the Lutheran faith don't really have a name for this "process" by which the bread and wine become Body and Blood and I think the RCC has tried to define it in a too-detailed manner. Some people use the phrase "consubstantiation", but that is not an official term ever used by us. We simply say that it IS the Body and Blood because Christ says it is and we leave it at that. The wine and bread always stay wine and bread, but at the Words of Institution, they are also mysteriously His Body and Blood. I don't agree with the position of the RCC on the "how", but I absolutely agree with them on the "what" of the Eucharist.
Well, with the exception of the Eastern Orthodox, the Lutherans are definitely closer to us on this matter than anyone else. It makes for a good foundation for discussion.
: extranos Fri Dec 26, 2008 - 06:58:38....And finally.....I think all serious Lutherans would love to be able to overcome the differences with the RCC and fold the two Churches back into one, but there are still too many differences of opinion to make this happen. Tu Es Petrus, what do you think it would honestly take to bring the Lutherans home, and would you be willing to see it happen?....
Of course I'd like to see it happen. But what would it take? Wow. To be brutally honest, it would take an act of God and a conversion of hearts.
Just keep in mind that "co-" does not mean "equal to," but rather comes from the Latin word "cum" which means "with." Mary is not "equal to the Redeemer" but she is "with the Redeemer."
Then this is not as frightening, and so I would recommend to the RCC that they do more to clear this up, because in English, "co-" means "equal to" in most instances.
Quote from: extranos on Today at 06:58:38 AM
....And finally.....I think all serious Lutherans would love to be able to overcome the differences with the RCC and fold the two Churches back into one, but there are still too many differences of opinion to make this happen. Tu Es Petrus, what do you think it would honestly take to bring the Lutherans home, and would you be willing to see it happen?....
Of course I'd like to see it happen. But what would it take? Wow. To be brutally honest, it would take an act of God and a conversion of hearts.
Then I'll continue to pray that you will one day see it my way, which is of course the right way.
::crackup::
: extranos Fri Dec 26, 2008 - 06:58:38
So, is not also fair to say that since the Blessed Virgin brought Christ into the world by giving birth to him, that she played a part - in a way - in our redemption? And as Paul calls himself a "co-worker" in Christ, Mary can be called a "co-redemptrix"?
And remember: This title does not make her a "redeemer", just as I am not a savior even though I played a part in our hypothetical person's salvation. "Co-" here means "a cooperator in-" our redemption. Mary's perfect cooperation with God brought our redeemer into the world.
Mary is called "blessed" and "full of grace" and is the human in which the Savior is carried. Those are tremendously generous words used by the Holy Spirit to talk about her and they cannot be taken lightly. Mary is totally cool. I don't think we can sit in our comfortable armchairs and really understand the fear and wonder that she must have felt. Mary was a devout believer, and I mean devout! How many of us could even contemplate answering an ANGEL in such a faithful manner: "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said."
So I don't want my answer to seem to denigrate this wonderful woman in any way, but I just see no purpose in elevating her to such a high position with the use of the title "Co-Redemptrix", nor am I so sure she would want this. It seems to me that Mary, with her wonderful faith and humility, would be happy to be called a "co-worker" like Paul.
I have a comment on the transubstantiation topic, too.......we in the Lutheran faith don't really have a name for this "process" by which the bread and wine become Body and Blood and I think the RCC has tried to define it in a too-detailed manner. Some people use the phrase "consubstantiation", but that is not an official term ever used by us. We simply say that it IS the Body and Blood because Christ says it is and we leave it at that. The wine and bread always stay wine and bread, but at the Words of Institution, they are also mysteriously His Body and Blood. I don't agree with the position of the RCC on the "how", but I absolutely agree with them on the "what" of the Eucharist.
And finally.....I think all serious Lutherans would love to be able to overcome the differences with the RCC and fold the two Churches back into one, but there are still too many differences of opinion to make this happen. Tu Es Petrus, what do you think it would honestly take to bring the Lutherans home, and would you be willing to see it happen? I think that there would be a side benefit to bringing home the Lutherans and that would be that the EO would once again "unsplit". From conversations with CD Healy, it seems to me that the Lutherans and the Orthodox have many similar doctrines and that the differences could be bridged under one Christian Church. I would like to see the RCC do her part to overcome the differences, but I honestly feel that this won't happen in my lifetime because of the fundamental, structural problems it might cause the RCC. I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts.
John the baptizer is also called most blessed among men
: extranos Fri Dec 26, 2008 - 07:52:38
Then I'll continue to pray that you will one day see it my way, which is of course the right way.
::crackup::
LOL. Touche'
By the way, have you ever read the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" signed by the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation? Here is a link:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
: zoonance Fri Dec 26, 2008 - 07:56:15
John the baptizer is also called most blessed among men
Yes. But being "blessed among women" is not the only scripture regarding Mary that Catholic doctrine is based on
A book I as a Protestant found very useful was Dr. Scott Hahn's Hail Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God. I can't say I found all of his arguments totally persuasive however the book did serve to clarify many points for me. Hahn himself converted to Catholicism from Protestantism back in the 1980s, hence is sympathetic to Protestant objections to Catholic teaching about Mary.
Pax.
: Lee Freeman Mon Dec 29, 2008 - 14:47:41
A book I as a Protestant found very useful was Dr. Scott Hahn's Hail Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God. I can't say I found all of his arguments totally persuasive however the book did serve to clarify many points for me. Hahn himself converted to Catholicism from Protestantism back in the 1980s, hence is sympathetic to Protestant objections to Catholic teaching about Mary.
Pax.
Ahhh, bless you. Hahn is my favorite author.
If we could vote for popes, I'd vote for him. LOL
: extranos Wed Dec 24, 2008 - 22:18:29On the plus side, the RCC has done a great job of spreading Christianity throughout the Western Hemisphere, while the EO has done a terrible job of spreading Christianity throughout the Middle East and into Asia.
Ah, Dan, Dan, Dan, my fellows Steelers man (only two more wins to the Super Bowl!!!)--I must sadly shake my head at this comment.
You may remember that Orthodoxy is the faith of the Russian peoples and central Europe, that there are Chinese Orthodox saints, and that many Orthodox died at the hand of the Ottoman Turks. In other words, Islam was a major impediment to an organized spread of Christianity--something the Roman Church did not have to face quite so squarely as from the ninth century on she had the allegiance of many of the Western European rulers.
That said, in more recent times, Orthodoxy--with a diaspora mentality--has failed to be more aggressive in its evangelism, at times appearing to seek ethnic survival over mission. Thankfully, the Russian Orthodox evangelized Alaska and began a good work in the U.S. that the Bolshevik regicide and takeover interrupted--the seeds of which I think are soon to begin to sprout. The two most aggressively evangelistic Orthodox groups in the U.S.--Antioch and O.C.A--are, I think, finally coming to terms with how to do Orthodox evangelism in America and I think you'll see important shifts in the near future.
: extranos Fri Dec 26, 2008 - 06:58:38
So, is not also fair to say that since the Blessed Virgin brought Christ into the world by giving birth to him, that she played a part - in a way - in our redemption? And as Paul calls himself a "co-worker" in Christ, Mary can be called a "co-redemptrix"?
And remember: This title does not make her a "redeemer", just as I am not a savior even though I played a part in our hypothetical person's salvation. "Co-" here means "a cooperator in-" our redemption. Mary's perfect cooperation with God brought our redeemer into the world.
Mary is called "blessed" and "full of grace" and is the human in which the Savior is carried. Those are tremendously generous words used by the Holy Spirit to talk about her and they cannot be taken lightly. Mary is totally cool. I don't think we can sit in our comfortable armchairs and really understand the fear and wonder that she must have felt. Mary was a devout believer, and I mean devout! How many of us could even contemplate answering an ANGEL in such a faithful manner: "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said."
So I don't want my answer to seem to denigrate this wonderful woman in any way, but I just see no purpose in elevating her to such a high position with the use of the title "Co-Redemptrix", nor am I so sure she would want this. It seems to me that Mary, with her wonderful faith and humility, would be happy to be called a "co-worker" like Paul.
I think this is well said, extranos, and I think most here, if stepping back and breathing a second, would agree this far. Sometimes I think in the disagreements over Mariology people swing back too far on the ever-wild pendulum and forget that she is indeed worthy of much respect for her faith and courage.
: CDHealy Sat Dec 13, 2008 - 14:42:26
It is a wonder to me that those who are critical of the Roman Catholic Church go to such extremes of irrationality, illogic and hysterical conspiracy theories in their criticisms. The dregs of the internet have been scraped deeply to uncover stuff that would be worthy of an X-files movie.
Such irrational and hysterical moves are sheer desperation on the part of the critics.
But why are they so desperate? If most of the critics of the Roman Catholic Church on these boards are advocates of sola scriptura, why do they go to such extreme lengths to go outside of Scripture to attempt to tar and feather Roman Catholicism with such banal tripe? Doesn't it stand to reason that if the Roman Catholic Church is, in fact, as thoroughly anti-Christian as these critics claim, that there would be no need to posit such questionable conspiracy theories or tenuous pagan connections, but all that need simply be done is to read and cite official Roman Catholic teaching (from the Catechism and other Catholic official documents) and make the comparisons to Scripture?
Why, it's so simple. So, why are the critics so desparate?
I think there are two main reasons:
1) Critics of the Roman Catholic Church are, themselves, ignorant both of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches as well as ignorant of the fullness of the Scriptures.
Most critics of the Roman Catholic Church don't even know what Rome actually teaches but rely on popular and populist bigoted propaganda. They do not read the official Catholic documents--or, if they read them, they do not read them in full and in context, but only read the selective citations found in anti-Roman screeds--and so they really do not know that Rome doesn't actually teach many of the things they claim it does: for example, that we are to pray to Mary and the saints like we pray to God and instead of praying to God; that we cannot get to God except through Mary; that we must worship and pray to statues; and so on.
Also, most critics of the Roman Catholic Church are also ignorant of the fullness of the Scriptures. They have focused on Romans to the exclusion of the rest of the Epistles, and so not only misread Romans, but misread the rest of the New Testament. Therefore they explain away Jesus' command to be perfect as our father in heaven is perfect, St. Paul's admonition to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and the effective removal of the epistle of James from the New Testament canon. We Eastern Orthodox have a humorous quip we often pull out in doctrinal disputes: "We believe the parts of the Bible you didn't underline." So, when we point out that we are to become partakers of the divine nature (a la 2 Peter 1:3-4), most critics are stumped. They don't even know what that means. They don't know what to do with 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, since they are so used to explaining away chapter 11. And so it goes.
2. The other reason that critics of the Roman Catholic Church are so desperate is that their twofold ignorance--of Catholic doctrine and of Scripture--causes their quick if never-acknowledged defeat in arguments over doctrinal matters. At best, such critics can hold their own but cannot win the case--the arguments appear to end in a draw. But at their worst, since they cannot win the hard work of argumentative proof, they settle for conspiracy theories, hallucinogenic connections to the Illuminati, paganism and the Masons, and other wacky stuff.
I've got my own criticisms of Rome on other matters--I'm Eastern Orthodox after all--but I deeply sympathize with my co-religionists because it is utterly frustrating to combat the irrational.
I'm just glad few of these desperate critics have any idea what the Orthodox Church even is.
It is not desperation as you suppose. Real Christians, the ones that are saved, born again, and they know it, who use the bible, the inspired scriptures or Word of God, know that it is a warfare of God's truth versus Satan's deceptions. If people don't really get saved then they will burn in hell forever. [There is no purgatory; catholicism invented that to make money and aid in people obeying them.] Hell is eternal. So is heaven.
They are trying to pull as many people out of Satan's lies and deceptions, and get them saved as they possibly can. It is out of caring for what is going to happen to them if they don't really get saved that they go to lengths to pull people out of their errors.
[Note: According to the council of Trent, still in effect, a person is not allowed to believe he is saved; Catholicism thinks it is heresy if a person even believes he has assurance of salvation. See the anathemas in the council of Trent. Catholicism won't even allow a strict catholic to believe he is right with God.]
The apostle John would be called a heretic by the council of Trent.
John wrote this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
John the apostle had assurance of salvation and wrote to other Christians that they could have it.
I am using that as an example of how wrong and incorrect catholic doctrine can be.