"PROTESTANTS AREN'T PROPER CHRISTIANS," SAYS POPE BENEDICT XVI
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 4:29PM NOTRadio This article was written by Simon Caldwell
DailyMail, UK
July 11, 2007.
Pope Benedict XVI declared yesterday that Christian denominations other than his own were not true churches and their holy orders have no value.
Protestant leaders immediately responded by saying the claims were offensive and would hurt efforts to promote ecumenism.
Roman Catholic-Anglican relations are already strained over the Church of England's plans to ordain homosexuals and women as bishops. The claims came in a document, from a Vatican watchdog which was approved by the Pope.
It said the branches of Christianity formed after the split with Rome at the Reformation could not be called churches "in the proper sense" because they broke with a succession of popes who dated back to St Peter.
As a result, it went on, Protestant churches have "no sacramental priesthood", effectively reaffirming the controversial Catholic position that Anglican holy orders are worthless.
The document claimed the Catholic church was the "one true church of Christ".
Pope Benedict's commitment to the hardline teaching comes days after he reinstated the Mass in Latin, which was sidelined in the 1960s in an attempt to modernise.
The timing of the announcement fuelled speculation that the pontiff - regarded as an arch-conservative before his election in 2005 - is finally beginning to impose his views on the Catholic Church.
The Vatican said it was restating the position set out by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2000 in a document called Domine Jesus because theologians continued to misunderstand it.
At that time, Anglican leaders from around the world made their anger felt by snubbing an invitation to join Pope John Paul II as he proclaimed St Thomas More the patron saint of politicians.
Bishop Wolfgang Huber, head of the Evangelical Church in Germany, said the Vatican document effectively downgraded Protestant churches and would make ecumenical relations more difficult.
He said the pronouncement repeated the "offensive statements" of the 2000 document and was a "missed opportunity" to patch up relations with Protestants.
Article source here.
Reader Comments (156)
Darlene,
Thanks for bringing up the trinity. You DO believe in the trinity, correct?
You state: "So, again I ask..."
Again, show me a verse(s) in scripture that point to sola scriotura and I will be happy to. Answer my questions and I will reciprocate. Unfortunately, all you have done is obfuscate with strawmen and verses that do not support sola scriptura in any way, shape, or form.
TarlsQtr said, "You base your arguments on a false premise. Why should we debate based on that?"
So, let's don't talk about MY "arguments". I want to hear support for YOURS! You can do that! Right? :)
Why are you so afraid to answer my question about sanctifying pagan things? If you believe something, you must know WHY you believe it. Right?
And I still haven't seen a question you asked me before the one I asked you...and am still asking. I've done my best, in good faith, to answer for myself and my beliefs. Will you point me to the post where you asked questions of me before I asked one of you....please?
Darlene stated: "Why are you so afraid to answer my question about sanctifying pagan things? If you believe something, you must know WHY you believe it. Right?"
Of course! However, in the interest of fairness, I refuse to answer questions when I have asked questions previously that are unaswered. If I do not employ this rule that is universally accepted as part of fair debate, I end up doing ALL the answering and others refuse to.
And to turn it around on you, YOU must know WHY sola scriptura is correct, right? Then why not just give the straight answer from scripture that your theology requires?
Darlene stated: "I've done my best, in good faith, to answer for myself and my beliefs. Will you point me to the post where you asked questions of me before I asked one of you....please?"
It is not really about first or second, it is about false premises. You asked me a question that is based on a premise (all knowledge of God's word must come from scripture). It is up to you to prove the premise true BEFORE I give an answer based on the premise. And, no, I do not believe that you answered in "good faith." No sane nonpartisan observer could read the verses you cite and come to the conclusion that they state all of God's Word is in scripture." I believe that you know you cannot validate your premise but do not have the courage to admit it.
Well, I can see how this is going to end....and my question will, not surprisingly, go unanswered.
Unfortunately, I have to admit that some things I've been told in the past about Catholics are true...but I found it immensely hard to believe. I've heard, among other things, that the vast majority of Catholics do not really know why they believe what they believe. I'm sorry to say I now see for myself that is indeed true. How very sad.
I've also always been told that Catholics hold their beliefs out of fear and insecurity. Also very sad. Which proves what an incredible miracle it is when a Catholic (like Chris was) comes to salvation! As someone who's been raised in a Christian environment and known very few Catholics, I've taken so much for granted and didn't realize what a huge mission field we have in our very own country!
God bless you, Chris, for the work you're doing! I think I need to pray more often for you! :)
And TarlsQtr and Gerald....you will also be in my prayers. I hope you continue to listen to Chris and I pray that the Lord will soften your hearts so you can see the light of His Truth for yourself.
". I'm sorry to say I now see for myself that is indeed true. "
Darlene,
So you are referring to TalisQtr and I. We don't know why we believe what we believe? Really? It is arrogant of you to say this. I know quite well from scripture why I believe what I believe and history. Your "defense" of sola scriptura was rather feeble and no one has responded to my question of why no one in the NT bothered to put the word alone after the word faith and support this doctrine on which luther said the reformation stands or falls. That is no one except James but he won't be of much help to you. It also is to be noted that every protestant bible has taken luther's corruption of adding the word alone behind the word faith in Romans 3. You would think Bible loving protestants would have condemned him for this corruption. But instead they just silently removed it.
darlene stated: "Unfortunately, I have to admit that some things I've been told in the past about Catholics are true...but I found it immensely hard to believe. I've heard, among other things, that the vast majority of Catholics do not really know why they believe what they believe. I'm sorry to say I now see for myself that is indeed true. How very sad."
Really? The entire foundation of your theology is built on sola scriptura, yet you cannot provide one biblical verse in support of it. Now THAT is sad.
You stated: "Also very sad. Which proves what an incredible miracle it is when a Catholic (like Chris was) comes to salvation! "
Chris was a Catholic? Now that is indeed sad because he must have been poorly catechized, as he does not have even the slightest knowledge of Catholic teachings.
And one final point, you do not have to respond if you do not want to. Do you or other people in your congregation wear a wedding ring? Do you ever kneel when praying? Do you read scripture?
All of these things were done by pagans. Is a wedding ring pagan worship or a holy symbol of your bond with spouse and God? Is kneeling in prayer pagan or an act of reverence and awe of our God? Is scripture pagan or something we do to know and love God more?
Now, I am feeling incredibly charitable. I will give a biblical reference. A simple one. God told the Jews to circumcise (and they were doing this before the first five books of the OT were written). Some Egyptian cults were ALREADY circumcising. It is safe to say that a formerly pagan act became sanctified...
Now, if only you could come up with such a straightforward, untwisted verse to justify sola scriptura...
Nah, that will not happen, as you eyes have the scales over them.
gerald,
Not to mention Luther wanted to REMOVE James and Revelation ENTIRELY from scripture.
But hey, it is the Catholics (who wrote and preserved the book for 1500 years before protestants came around) that do not love the Bible! What nerve!
God Bless you Darlene. The Spirit of Christ shines thru your posts. You maintained your Christian love and that is the fruit of the Spirit. Sadly seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear. (BB from TOL)
Well, HOWDY Bob! :) Good to "see" you! *LOL* And thank you for the very kind words.
Not that it matters to the point, but I do find the comment about circumcision interesting, TalsQtr. I'm not extremely well versed in pagan practices, but....it occurs to me that God called Abram out of a pagan background. So, if you're correct about that being a pagan practice, I would expect Abram would have already been circumcised...instead of having it done at the age of 99. If by chance he was not, he would have definitely been familiar with the practice and God would not have needed to explain it to him.
Just a thought. :)
Thanks Darlene, but your post misses the point.
It is not relevant if Abram was circumcised (he was not as Genesis says he was told to circumcise himself)or was familiar with circumcision. Gen 17:11 "You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you." With all due respect, I thought Catholics were the ones that supposedly did not know the Bible?
The fact still remains that some Egyptian cults circumcised and God ordered Abram to do this "pagan" practice.
It is a clear cut case of God's people taking a once pagan practice or symbol and it being made Holy. Now, if Abram were to circumcise to appease an Egyptian God, then there is a problem. Just like Abram, today's Christians do not wear wedding rings to please a pagan god. It has been sanctified, as a symbol of an agreement with our spouse and God. Another example is the one "Good Idol Worshipper" unwittingly provided, the verse where we are told to kneel and pray. Pagans also knelt at prayer.
You stated: "I'm not extremely well versed in pagan practices, but....it occurs to me..."
Interesting, you criticized Catholics in your previous post by saying, "I've heard, among other things, that the vast majority of Catholics do not really know why they believe what they believe. I'm sorry to say I now see for myself that is indeed true. How very sad." Yet here, in what I cited above, you make an amazing revelation that you obviously do not know why you believe what you believe regarding supposed pagan practices. Someone who takes such a strong stance against any former pagan symbols MUST be "versed in pagan practices" to know "why they believe what they believe."
I hope you understand that you will be judged in the manner that you judge Catholics.
On the doctrine of sola scriptura: the Bible says of itself: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Notice that Paul is here telling us that, as believers, our "thorough furnishing" comes from the scriptures. In other words, we do not need extra-Biblical revelation for "instruction in righteousness." In Isaiah, God gives us the guideline for testing true vs. false spirits. He says: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20) In other words, if a spirit (whether of a man, or an angel) does not speak according to the testimony of the scriptures, it is because they are in error and do not have the light of truth.
Furthermore, where the commandments of God are concerned, the scripture says: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deut. 4:2) This is why Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders when He told them, "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:9) Man made commandments do not bring glory to God.
The Catholic belief is that faith should be based on the Bible + the traditions of Rome. That is the central difference between Biblical Christianity, and Roman Catholicism. As Christians, we believe that a tradition does not have to be found in the Bible, per say. Yet any tradition that a person or church group might develop cannot be in CONTRADICTION to the openly stated commandments of God. For example, birthday parties are not commanded in the Bible, but they are not necessarily forbidden either. In contrast, many of the traditions and teachings of Rome contradict what God has commanded -- that is the problem with them. When Paul makes mention of the "traditions" that he taught (2 Thess. 2:15), whatever they were, they would not have been contrary to the Gospel. Yet the doctrines of Rome where salvation is concerned are in direct contradiction to the Biblical Gospel, and are condemned by Galatians 1:9.
You left out the "Get thee behind me, Satan:" Now I was hardly calling you Satan Tarls.
I never mentioned collective salvation. How did you come up with that one? I simply said that in my view all members of the Catholic Church that don't see it in their hearts to leave because of the massive cover up of Child raping by its priests are guilty by association.
I've already given it to you that the wedding ring is a pagan symbol but I do disagree that the ring itself is worshiped in the Church. I don't practice that pagan tradition, but you took your opportunity to attack me and linked my non separation over the wedding ring issue to your non separation over Child raping and massive cover up by your Bishops. The stupidity of your argument didn't deserve a response but you are the one refusing to drop the subject. The two subjects are so fare apart on moral grounds that I shouldn't have to explain this too you. The ring is not an ordinance of the Church I've never read it on any statement of faith it is carried over from the world but yet it is between the man and his wife and I have no right to tell other couples what to do. If I was a Pastor I would preach against it but would still not make it a separation issue. On the other hand Child Rape and it's ensuing massive cover ups are part of Roman Cannon Law because all agent of Roman must protect the Cult from anything that might tarnish its image.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_to_Inquire_into_Child_Abuse
At the very least Tarls you should feel some sense of guilt for the way the victims of rape have been treated by your cult. I have already mentioned that I live in Ireland so I have watched for the last 10+ years case after case cover up after cover up until finally I could not stand to be classed as a member of the Catholic Church. I formally defected and had my baptismal certificate annulled, it was another two years before my Lord Jesus Christ who is come in the flesh made me a new creature and quickened me with the Holy Spirit. I am born again in Christ Jesus my Lord for only the last seven months or so and it was not by man but by the Word of God the Holy Authorized Bible that I was saved. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and that very Word is what you attack when you attack the holy scriptures. The Bible is the Word of God because it has the power to bring a man to repentance toward the Lord God Almighty and repentance toward God is a gift of the Holy Spirit. The very gift you are in dire need of is not penance but repentance.
Your very refusal to confirm or deny your Oath is an admission of guilt. I am not your enemy Tarls and nether is Darlene we are, in our own way trying to help you and Gerald. But only the Lord can free you from the bondage you are in.
May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you and draw you near to him and away from the Roman Cult.
Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Amen
For the Record,
From my very first post on page 2 I asked Gerald if he is was assigned to agitate Chris and he has never confirmed or denied the charge.
from page two "Are you a Jesuit assigned to agitate Chris? Or are you genuinely concerned for Chris's salvation?"
I ask it again to Gerald and Tarls?
Have you ever taken this Oath?
I_______________ , now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the saints, sacred host of Heaven, and to you, my Ghostly Father, the superior general of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyola, in the pontification of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the Virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear that His Holiness, the Pope, is Christ's Vice-Regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given to His Holiness by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical Kings, Princes, States, Commonwealths, and Governments, and they may be safely destroyed. Therefore to the utmost of my power I will defend this doctrine and His Holiness's right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the now pretended authority and Churches of England and Scotland, and the branches of same now established in Ireland and on the continent of America and elsewhere and all adherents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or State, named Protestant or Liberal, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers. I do further declare the doctrine of the Churches of England and Scotland of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of Protestants or Masons to be damnable, and they themselves to be damned who will not forsake the same. I do further declare that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of His Holiness's agents, in any place where I should be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Ireland or America, or in any other kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise. I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding, I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the Mother Church's interest; to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time, as they entrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstances whatever; but to execute all that should be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me by you, my Ghostly Father, or any of this sacred order. I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my own or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ. That I will go to any part of the world whithersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions north, jungles of India, to the centres of civilisation of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things, whatsoever is communicated to me. I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex nor condition, and that will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants' heads against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honour, rank, dignity or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus. In confirmation of which I hereby dedicate my life, soul, and all corporal powers, and with the dagger which I now receive I will subscribe my name written in my blood in testimony thereof; and should I prove false, or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the militia of the Pope cut off my hands and feet and my throat from ear to ear, my belly be opened and sulphur burned therein with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth, and my soul shall be tortured by demons in eternal hell forever. That I will in voting always vote for a Knight of Columbus in preference to a Protestant, especially a Mason, and that I will leave my party so to do; that if two Catholics are on the ticket I will satisfy myself which is the better supporter of Mother Church and vote accordingly. That I will not deal with or employ a Protestant if in my power to deal with or employ a Catholic. That I will place Catholic girls in Protestant families that a weekly report may be made of the inner movements of the heretics. That I will provide myself with arms and ammunition that I may be in readiness when the word is passed, or I am commanded to defend the Church either as an individual or with the militia of the Pope. All of which I,_______________, do swear by the blessed Trinity and blessed sacrament which I am now to receive to perform and on part to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most holy and blessed sacrament of the Eucharist and witness the same further with my name written with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and seal in the face of this holy sacrament.
I think you're onto something, Good Soldier. It has crossed my mind.
Chris stated: "On the doctrine of sola scriptura: the Bible says of itself: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)"
Amen! And as a Catholic, I believe these verses and ALL verses of the Bible. Of course Paul is talking about the OT, not the NT, but I would obviously concede that the NT falls in the same category. The problem is that it never says that ONLY scripture is... You have added words to scripture (if not in the text, then in the meaning) and have created a manmade tradition.
You stated: "Notice that Paul is here telling us that, as believers, our "thorough furnishing" comes from the scriptures. In other words, we do not need extra-Biblical revelation for "instruction in righteousness."
The problem is that "In other words" does not match what Paul actually said. There is no dismissal of Holy Tradition, in fact, he EXPLICITLY endorses it in other letters.
You stated: "In Isaiah, God gives us the guideline for testing true vs. false spirits. He says: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20) In other words, if a spirit (whether of a man, or an angel) does not speak according to the testimony of the scriptures, it is because they are in error and do not have the light of truth."
Now, let's compare that to the NT: 1 John 4:6 "We are of God.He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."
Who is "us," Chris? Heh? It is the bishops of the Only Church started by Christ himself, Their successors are only in one place, and that is not on "Noise of Thunder Radio." To use your means of argument (except when I say it, it will actually summarize the scripture rather than bastardize it), IN OTHER WORDS we know truth from error by whether we are in communion with the bishops.
Yes, you have a habit of saying "in other words" and then changing the meaning to fit your theology. It is a junior high debate technique used to walk people to your position.
And what is the pillar and foundation of truth, Chris? Do you know?
Yep, it is the Church 1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
Was the church you attended around 2000 years ago, Chris?
Chris stated: "Furthermore, where the commandments of God are concerned, the scripture says: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deut. 4:2) This is why Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders when He told them, "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:9) Man made commandments do not bring glory to God."
Correct. This is why Jesus reprimanded the Pharisees. They were overruling God's commandments and telling them to give them money instead of taking care of their parents. The Catholic Church does no such thing. As a side note, Jesus STILL tells the Jews to obey those in the Seat of Moses. The Seat of Moses? Why that is not in the OT scripture, is it? Could Jesus have been talking about a Holy Tradition?????
Chris stated: "The Catholic belief is that faith should be based on the Bible + the traditions of Rome. "
No, it is not and I suspect you know better. Holy Tradition was passed down from the apostles. Meanwhile, you follow the traditions of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc who came around 1500 years later.
Chris stated: "That is the central difference between Biblical Christianity, and Roman Catholicism. "
Considering that Roman Catholicism wrote, canonized, and preserved the Bible, what a humorous concept to separate them. Do you have writers? I just weep at the arrogance of people who believe that they know more than someone who was taught by John, like Ignatius of Antioch and the other ECFs.
Chris stated: "As Christians, we believe that a tradition does not have to be found in the Bible, per say. Yet any tradition that a person or church group might develop cannot be in CONTRADICTION to the openly stated commandments of God. "
Great! We agree! Luckily the RC does no such thing!
You stated: "For example, birthday parties are not commanded in the Bible, but they are not necessarily forbidden either. In contrast, many of the traditions and teachings of Rome contradict what God has commanded -- that is the problem with them."
Sure, "many" do. Funny how you did not name any. Of course, I would like to see a verse in support of sola scriptura first, as that is the proper topic.
You stated: "When Paul makes mention of the "traditions" that he taught (2 Thess. 2:15), whatever they were, they would not have been contrary to the Gospel. Yet the doctrines of Rome where salvation is concerned are in direct contradiction to the Biblical Gospel, and are condemned by Galatians 1:9."
Sorry, they are not but please try again. Once again, Christianity was perfomed one way for 1500 years, yet Luther and you know better? If it was not so absurd, I would laugh.
Now, one more point regarding sola scriptura. Staying consistent to your sola scriptura theology please tell me:
1) How do you know the correct books are in the bible, none erroneously added and none erroneously left out?
2) Who wrote the Gospel of Mark? How do you know?
LOL GoodIdolWorshipper,
No, I have never taken such an oath...
GoodIdolWorshipper stated: "I never mentioned collective salvation. How did you come up with that one? I simply said that in my view all members of the Catholic Church that don't see it in their hearts to leave because of the massive cover up of Child raping by its priests are guilty by association."
Yes you did. Here is the exact quote: ""KJV Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Your guilty by association." (regarding the pedophilia scandal.)
So, you quote Jesus regarding a millstone being hung from the neck and drowned in the sea AND say we are condemned of pedophilia by association. You condemn us by ASSOCIATION with the necessary corollary being that we can be saved in the same manner. That IS collective salvation whether you like it or not. We are not condemned NOR saved by our associations. We are condemned or saved by our OWN merits. It is an evil theoloy you profess.
You stated: "I don't practice that pagan tradition, but you took your opportunity to attack me and linked my non separation over the wedding ring issue to your non separation over Child raping and massive cover up by your Bishops. The stupidity of your argument didn't deserve a response but you are the one refusing to drop the subject. The two subjects are so fare apart on moral grounds that I shouldn't have to explain this too you. The ring is not an ordinance of the Church I've never read it on any statement of faith it is carried over from the world but yet it is between the man and his wife and I have no right to tell other couples what to do. If I was a Pastor I would preach against it but would still not make it a separation issue."
Seriously? The same can be said of ANY NUMBER of things you have brought up, even the hats of bishops, yet suddenly, it is no big deal? What a backpedal!!! LOL
You stated: "On the other hand Child Rape and it's ensuing massive cover ups are part of Roman Cannon Law because all agent of Roman must protect the Cult from anything that might tarnish its image."
Great. Please CITE THE CANON LAW EXACTLY. If you do not cite or retract, you are an obvious liar.
Once again, care to tell me what lily white church you belong to with no pastors that similarly sin?
Idolworshipper stated: "At the very least Tarls you should feel some sense of guilt for the way the victims of rape have been treated by your cult."
I grieve for them but have no guilt. I have never supported any priest that has committed such crimes. That said, I point to the John Jay Law School study which showed that Protestant denominations have as high or a HIGHER rate of sexual misconduct than the RCC and many STILL do not have the strict reporting standards the RCC now employs. Hey, but your myth is better than fact, right?
Hmm! Guess what I was about to post is nothing to do with what ever is going on at this time in this posting!
Nonetheless it is relevant to a comment Gerald seems to have made on more than one board which I have not seen any reply to.
So if I can get this in -in it is going!
Gerald, would you please give the specific Biblical reference to 'faith', to which, you claim Luther added the word, 'alone'?
Quote:-“It also is to be noted that every protestant bible has taken luther's corruption of adding the word alone behind the word faith in Romans 3.” Romans 3: ??? ?
Here are the all the references to ‘faith’ in Romans 3 in my English Bible which one are you talking about, Gerald?
Romans 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:
Romans 3:25 Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in HIS blood, to declare HIS righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision (Jews) by faith, and uncircumcision (Gentiles) through faith.
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Possibly the reason this repeated comment of yours was not replied to (as far as I can gather, forgive me if someone has answered this) sooner is because no believer in Christ is relying on Luther’s word for their salvation, or for their righteousness, or for eternal life, we rely or put our faith in the Name and Person of the Living Messiah Jesus ALONE ( He of Whom all the Scriptures speak-even as He said in John 5:39, Luke 24:27 & 44) .
Trust, faith & belief are words whose true significance hangs eternally on the WHO or the WHAT they are in. Our WHO is our Living LORD JESUS CHRIST and all the ‘WHATs’ are HIS & HIS FATHER’s and HIS HOLY SPIRIT’s - ‘every written word that comes to us from HIM–His words alone are pure and true and in Him there is no lie.
When confronting the enemy of our soul’s He chose as -the last ADAM-Man, to repeat His Father’s written words ( Deut 8:3) - saying, ‘It is written, ‘Man (Hebrew- Deut 8:3 =Adam) shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’ “ (Mat. 4:4 also Luke 4:4 , 24:44-45) We feed on His living words. They are the Bread of His LIFE for us- He is ‘the WORD’ –He is GOD- Whom GOD His Father sent, and Who sent God-the Holy Spirit to feed our minds and hearts with HIS living words-the seed (Luke 8:11, 1Pe 1:23) which bears the good fruit to His FATHER GOD’s, glory .
You will remember of course Gerald, the last recorded word’s of Mary, His mother -‘Whatever HE tells you, do.’
He tells us to abide in Him and to continue in His words through His own indwelling Spirit revelation of -Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:20.
Who is "us," Chris? Heh? It is the bishops of the Only Church started by Christ himself, Their successors are only in one place, and that is not on "Noise of Thunder Radio." To use your means of argument (except when I say it, it will actually summarize the scripture rather than bastardize it), IN OTHER WORDS we know truth from error by whether we are in communion with the bishops.
What a twisting of the Word of God. Clearly when John uses "us" he is referring to the Apostles. The words of the Apostles are found in their writings....the NT! All elders, bishops, priests and pastors are subject to the words of the Apostles who are in the foundation with the prophets, Christ being the Chief Cornerstone.
Yes, you have a habit of saying "in other words" and then changing the meaning to fit your theology. It is a junior high debate technique used to walk people to your position.
What pride. What hubris. What an attitude. Chris is clear and correct. Thank you Chris for your godly post.
And what is the pillar and foundation of truth, Chris? Do you know?
Yep, it is the Church 1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
Again you twist the Word of God to support Catholic heresy. What is the church's foundation? It is built upon the foundation of the Apostles, Prophets and Christ the Cornerstone. Any 'church' not built on that foundation is a false church.
Chris stated: "The Catholic belief is that faith should be based on the Bible + the traditions of Rome. "
No, it is not and I suspect you know better. Holy Tradition was passed down from the apostles. Chris stated: "That is the central difference between Biblical Christianity, and Roman Catholicism. "
Yes, the 'tradition' was passed down by the Apostles and then corrupted by the Popes and Catholic church. Do we need to list all the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church not found in the writings of the Apostles?
This is actually pretty pathetic for both sides of this debate; I feel like I'm reading the debates between a bunch of children. You have the anachronistic eisegetes of the Roman Catholic Church guilty of hagiography in the purest sense engaging in a "debate" with people who don't really understand Roman Catholicism at all.
I don't know who I should have pity on more. What kind of person would engage in a debate with someone who has no idea what they're talking about? Who would debate a topic they don't understand? The former is no different than an average person challenging an obese one to a race, and the latter is no different than radio punditry; they both give someone with any sense a migraine.
I, personally, am not surprised at all by this. The Catholic individuals don't even understand the Reformed tradition nor even care to and are more than willing to attack the caricature of what they "think" the Reformed tradition is instead of actually trying to understand it (sound familiar?). If you want an actual defender of the Reformed tradition, then look to James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries who more than ably takes Roman Catholics to task on a majority of the nonsense occurring in this "discussion".
If I've noticed anything at all on this message board, it's that the pool of actual depth in understanding is exceedingly shallow. I'm not trying to be mean. I just find this exchange to be more nonsensical than not; you have the uneducated lemmings of Protestantism becoming "educated" lemmings of the RCC. I laugh only because the irony is so palpable.
What I think you all need to do is study ACTUAL history and not YOUR history. Example: all the self-proclaimed Catholic history "buffs" looking at uses of the word "tradition" in writings of the Church Fathers and saying, "Look! See! They understood tradition in the exact same way that we do today!" *eyes roll*; or, "Look! Paul says 'tradition'! He obviously meant it to include the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and the the Bodily Assumption of Mary- two doctrines that have NO BASIS IN HISTORY PRIOR TO THE LATTER QUARTER OF THE SECOND MILLENNIUM A.D.!!!" *actual historians with integrity groan in disbelief*.
Now that I've given my opinion on this board for the sake of adding some intelligence and dignity, don't bother me with asking any questions or "responding". I'm out.
God Bless
PS- the logical fallacies on both sides is astonishing.
Catholic Heresy and Date
OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ. 310
Wax Candles introduced in church. about 320
Veneration of angels and dead saints. 375
The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted. 394
The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God" 431
Priests began to dress differently from the laity 500
Extreme Unction 526
The doctrine of Purgatory first established by Gregory the Great 593
The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ. The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1st Corinthians 14:9). 600
Prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church 600
The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas. This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface III, first assumed title "pope." The kissing of the Pope's feet. It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). 709
The Temporal power of the Popes. When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by Pope Stephen II, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. 750
Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized. This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople. 788
Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized 850
The veneration of St. Joseph began 890
The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV 965
Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV. 995
Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. (Bull, or permit to eat meat), some authorities say, began in the year. 998
The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.
The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII. Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read 1st Timothy 3:2,5, and 12; Matthew 8:14-15). 1079
The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans. The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ. (Matthew 6:5-13). 1090
The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion 1184
The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin. Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. 1190
The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III. By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. 1215
Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council. The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psalm 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1st John 1:8-9). 1215
The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius. So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24). 1220
The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia. Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (John 5:39; 1st Timothy 3:15-17). 1229
The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, and English monk. It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. This is fetishism. 1287
The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance. The Bible commands us to celebrate the Lord's Supper with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. (Read Matthew 26:27; 1st Corinthians 11:26-29). 1414
The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read 1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1). 1439
The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed. The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Read Matthew 28:19-20; 26:26-28). 1439
The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible. By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Colossians 2:8; Revelation 22:18). 1545
The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent. These books were not recognized as canonical by the Jewish Church. (See Revelation 22:8-9). 1546
The Creed of Pope Pius IV was imposed as the official creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostles. True Christians retain the Holy Scriptures as their creed. Hence their creed is 1500 years older than the creed of Roman Catholics. 1560
The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX. The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Romans 3:23; 5:12; Psalm 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47). 1834
In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility. This is a blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and of the antichrist predicted by St. Paul. (Read 2nd Thessalonians 2:2-12; Revelation 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18).
Many Bible students see the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18), 666 in the Roman letters of the Pope's title: "VICARIVS FILII DEI." -- V-5, I-1; C-100, I-1; V-S, I-1; L-50, I-1; I-1; D-500, I-l — Total, 666. 1870
In the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1950
CONCLUSION
What will be the next invention? The Roman Church says it never changes; yet, it has done nothing else but invent new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible, and has practiced rites and ceremonies taken bodily from paganism. Some scholar has found that 75% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church are of pagan origin.
HERESIES are those doctrines and practices which are contrary to the Bible. They are also called "human traditions" or "doctrines of men". Both Peter and Paul predicted and warned that in the later times "false teachers" would rise within the Church and bring in "damnable heresies" and "doctrines of devils". (Read 2nd Peter 2:1-3, and 1st Timothy 3:2-5). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, for they transgressed the commandments of God by keeping their traditions. “in vain,” He said, "they worship me by keeping for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:3,9).
The real heretics therefore, are the Roman Catholics.
BRETHREN! All true Christians will remain faithful to the religion of Christ as taught in the Bible, and heed the warning of the Apostle Paul, who said: "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." (Galatians 1:8). "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4).
(HERESY CONT'D)
The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.
The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII. Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read 1st Timothy 3:2,5, and 12; Matthew 8:14-15). 1079
The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans. The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ. (Matthew 6:5-13). 1090
The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion 1184
The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin. Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. 1190
The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III. By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. 1215
Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council. The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psalm 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1st John 1:8-9). 1215
The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius. So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24). 1220
The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia. Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (John 5:39; 1st Timothy 3:15-17). 1229
The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, and English monk. It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. This is fetishism. 1287
The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance. The Bible commands us to celebrate the Lord's Supper with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. (Read Matthew 26:27; 1st Corinthians 11:26-29). 1414
The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read 1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1). 1439
The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed. The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Read Matthew 28:19-20; 26:26-28). 1439
The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible. By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Colossians 2:8; Revelation 22:18). 1545
The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent. These books were not recognized as canonical by the Jewish Church. (See Revelation 22:8-9). 1546
The Creed of Pope Pius IV was imposed as the official creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostles. True Christians retain the Holy Scriptures as their creed. Hence their creed is 1500 years older than the creed of Roman Catholics. 1560
The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX. The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Romans 3:23; 5:12; Psalm 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47). 1834
In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility. This is a blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and of the antichrist predicted by St. Paul. (Read 2nd Thessalonians 2:2-12; Revelation 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18).
Many Bible students see the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18), 666 in the Latin Kingdom.
In the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1950
CONCLUSION
What will be the next invention? The Roman Church says it never changes; yet, it has done nothing else but invent new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible, and has practiced rites and ceremonies taken bodily from paganism. Some scholar has found that 75% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church are of pagan origin.
HERESIES are those doctrines and practices which are contrary to the Bible. They are also called "human traditions" or "doctrines of men". Both Peter and Paul predicted and warned that in the later times "false teachers" would rise within the Church and bring in "damnable heresies" and "doctrines of devils". (Read 2nd Peter 2:1-3, and 1st Timothy 3:2-5).
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, for they transgressed the commandments of God by keeping their traditions. “in vain,” He said, "they worship me by keeping for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:3,9). The real heretics therefore, are the Roman Catholics.
BRETHREN! All true Christians will remain faithful to the religion of Christ as taught in the Bible, and heed the warning of the Apostle Paul, who said: "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." (Galatians 1:8). "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4).
Gee Bob,
The last we heard from you was a screed against the Catholic practice of calling a priest father. After I showed the countless biblical examples of exactly that, you decided to run saying it was your "last post." Now granted, you arriving with nothing but some copy/pasted material from an anti-Catholic website is not exactly an auspicious return. Nevertheless, welcome back.
Care to address those quotes I provided? Were Paul and Stephen heretics like us Catholics?
I planned it to be my last post because I sense you are hardened in heresy. It's really a waste of time to debate with you. There is a difference from 'running' and obeying the Lord's counsel not to cast pearls before swine. I actually reposted because of your condescending attitude toward Chris Pinto. And you fail to acknowledge that post which is your way. And then I list all the heresies of the RCC that are not only in the Word of GOD but are clearly the commandments and traditions of men and what do you do? You decide to come back with the weakest of rebuttals concerning calling someone else "Father". Christ is very clear: "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." Please tell us how you understand Christ's command. i know how I interpret it, but I want to hear your take.
I love it. The Christian religion is practiced in one manner from the apostles to the 1500's and Johnny Come Lately Protestants have the nerve to call the ones who wrote, canonized, preserved, and obeyed the Bible heretics.
Bob stated: "I actually reposted because of your condescending attitude toward Chris Pinto."
Really? My "condescending attitude?" Too funny. Let's make a deal. You count up and provide quotes of all the times I have been "condescending" on this thread and I will count up all of the times it has happened to me ("cult", condemned to hell, etc.) The one with the shorter list leaves and never returns to these boards. Deal? I did not think so...
The truth is that I have NEVER seen a less Christian attitude anywhere than on this board and it starts from the top. Just look at Chris's articles and "radio" stories. Compare how many are primarily about Christ to how many are about trashing the RCC. 3 against the RCC for every 1 about Christ? 5:1? 10:1? Do you get the picture? His work is not about Christ at all. To him, Christ is just a tool to bash fellow Christians who disagree with him. He is his own pope (like you and many other posters here), who claims to have the "truth" (implying infallibility), and condemns to hell those who disagree. He loves the Bible, right? Well, except that he adds words to the Bible all the time, at least in interpretation. Did you see his response to me? Sure, scripture IS "God-breathed", except HE adds the word ONLY in his interpretation, bastardizing the same scripture he claims to love and adhere to in order to bash fellow Christians. I am sure he says that he loves his fellow man, yet repeatedly bears fale witness, deliberately twisting Church teaching (He claims to be an ex-Catholic for no other reason than to gain credibility, so he loses the right to claim misunderstanding) and using falsified or out of context quotes, etc.
So, Bob, where is Chris's (or yours for that matter) love for Catholics, as wayward as he may think we are? Gerald and I have been both called satan, and I have been accused of desiring to "send demons" to Good Soldier's Church. We are guilty of pedophilia "by association." We are the "antichrist." We are undercover Jesuits wanting to burn Protestants at the stake. Yet, my demeanor comes under scrutiny? Read this thread again while trying to use Christ's eyes and tell me the same. If you are honest with yourself, you will apologize. Unfortunately, I doubt the scales on your eyes will fall.
You stated: "And then I list all the heresies of the RCC that are not only in the Word of GOD but are clearly the commandments and traditions of men and what do you do? "
Clearly? To whom? You did not even supply a reference for the information, as it was likely copied and pasted from a website that thinks just like you. What makes you think such tripe is worthy of a response? If my freshman college students tried to pull such a stunt with a paper, they would get an "F." Why should you be different?
You stated: "You decide to come back with the weakest of rebuttals concerning calling someone else "Father"."
No, what happened is that you brought this topic up DAYS AGO. I rebutted your assertion and you, quite frankly, decided to go AWOL for a couple of days and then return hoping that I would forget that the ball is in your court. I supplied SEVERAL verses FROM SCRIPTURE where Paul and St. Stephen refer to men as "father." Why should I keep replying to posts of yours while you take the liberty to just disappear and then come back days later and move on to your next baseless accusation?
You stated: "Christ is very clear: "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." Please tell us how you understand Christ's command. i know how I interpret it, but I want to hear your take."
You heard my take, days ago. So, Bob, did Stephen and Paul not get your memo? Are you asserting that scripture contradicts scripture?
You say that Christ is clear. OK, have you EVER referred to your male biological parent as "father?" Hmmmm? George Washington as a founding "father?" Again, Jesus is clear, correct?