Calvinist calls himself Catholic?

[paul_c]

The fact that Constantine was responsible for the paganisation of the Church does not mean that he is not to be commended for the Nicaean Council of 325. In the same way the faithful compilation and preservation of MSS by the Eastern Church is laudable.

What paganisation of the Church?

 

[William_Pitts]

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. St. Irenaeus, *Against Heresies *1,10,2, C.AD 190

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smryrnaeans 8:1-2 AD 107

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smryrnaeans 7:1 AD 107

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. St Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 44:1-2 C. AD 80

All of this sounds Pretty Catholic to me. But not very Calvinistic.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Calvin was training to be a Catholic priest.
At the age of 14 he had an argument with his bishop - and walked out (and walked out of the Catholic Church?)
One of the basic tenets of Calvinistic theology appears to be denial of an individual’s free will.
God becomes a dictator, man becomes a robot.
Under such man’s relationship with God appears illegitimate.
Catholic theology teaches predestination, but it is in no denial about free will.

 

[graceandglory]

Give him this quote from a Bishop of the Catholic Church that I am sure he admires.
Augustine:
"In the Catholic Church… a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that… they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing… There are many other things that most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his Resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep up to the present episcopate, keeps me here.** And last, the very name Catholic,** which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called “Catholic,” when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

If a stranger came up to him and inquired where is the closet Catholic Church would he take them to his church? Don’t think so.

I am curious to know what he would say to this, as Calvinists love Augustine and consider him one of their own.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

In another Catholic Answers Forum I came across info. that both Luther & Calvin believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
(I’m probably going off at a tangent, but thought it interesting)

 

[ESMDHokie77]

In another Catholic Answers Forum I came across info. that both Luther & Calvin believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
(I’m probably going off at a tangent, but thought it interesting)

Well, yeah it’s tangential but it serves the point that modern day protestants have drifted far from what the protestant fathers believed. They don’t have the rock of the papacy to keep them grounded.

 

[jmtosh]

The “Catholic Church” is in a worse moral condition today than it was 500 years ago! It is an institution that has added erroneous doctrine to erroneous doctrine, yet claims orthodoxy. Through its Popes and oral tradition, it has introduced a multitude of strange doctrines yet calls purists like Luther and Calvin heretic.

The interpretation of Matthew 16 that the Papacy teaches today was not held, if at all by the majority of the early Fathers. Most teach that the** Rock was Christ or the faith that Peter professed in Christ. See Deuteronomy 32:3-4,15,29 -31 Because I will publish the name of the LORD : ascribe ye greatness to our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He. But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked…then he forsook God who made him and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. Oh that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end. How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their **Rock had sold them, and the LORD **had shut them up? For their rock is not as our Rock… 1 SAMUEL 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside Thee, **NEITHER IS THERE ANY ROCK LIKE OUR GOD. ** 2 Samuel 22:2 The LORD is my Rock and my fortress.

Psalm 18:2, 31 The **LORD is my Rock **and my fortress. Or who is a Rock save our God?Psalm 28:1 Unto Thee will I cry O LORD my Rock. Psalm 31:3 Thou art my Rock and my fortress. Psalm 42:9 I will say unto God my Rock. Psalm 61:2 Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I. Psalm 62:2, 6 He only is my Rock and salvation. Psalm 92:15 He only is my Rock and there is no other.

Question: If the Scriptures teach that the LORD is the only Rock and there is none other how come Rome teaches that Peter and his successors were? They are WRONG! The greatest theologian that lived, **the Apostle Paul taught “that Rock was Christ!” **1 COR 10:4
Peter had the keys of authority to unlock the gospel message to the gentiles that they should be loosed from their sins as in Acts 10. Peter was only one of the three Apostles that were pillars in the early Church and is named after James - Galatians 2:9.

You may say that my knowledge of history is poor but I say your knowledge of scripture has suffered in proportion to your drinking the draught of tradition. put your faith in Jesus Christ and His Word not in the false Christ.

Beware of the leaven (doctrine) of the Pharisees. You have such faith in the “Church” you would happily serve the devil if she told you to rather than trust, love and and obey the Holy Scripture which is the Word of or God that abides forever.

Today the “Catholic Church” has a Pope that doesn’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, a man who covered up sexual abuse of children and has the audacity to ascribe to himself or accept from others the name “Holy Father”. A name most reverently only given to God the Father by Christ in John 17. That is blasphemy.

The Vatican’s own exorcist publicly declared that the devil was at work in the Vatican. I didn’t say that- a Priest did!!!

What are people to believe with a modern track record like that? Not to mention history teaches a tyranical, farce of a Church. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO COVER UP DESPITE ABUNDANT TESTIMONY TO THE CONTRARY!

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Today the “Catholic Church” has a Pope that doesn’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, a man who covered up sexual abuse of children (…)

These are audacious claims without proof, source, or validity.

 

[NewsTheMan]

jmtosh’s anti-Catholic rhetoric has now gone fully anti-Catholic nonsense.

I was enjoying my thread but now

 

[elvisman]

I resent your cheap insults. Why don’t you apply your epithets to yourself? Since when has discussing the use of imagery in worship in the Biblical text been equated with Historical Research. You are merely picking up on the venom of your coleaugues whom I shall address hereunder.

Firstly, whose research is SHODDIER - yours or mine. You refer to the brazen serpent. Good and well, Moses was to use this on that one instance as a type of Christ (read John 3). The children of Israel were so fallen that they began worshipping it.

If you had only read 2 KINGS 18:4 “He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: FOR UNTO THOSE DAYS THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID BURN INCENSE UNTO IT; and he called it Nehushtan (vain or worthless).”

That demolishes your argument. You are WRONG in saying this is an example of images used for worship. Also, the Cherubium would have been in the holy of holies where only the High priest entered. They would not be gazed upon and adored by the faithful! It is tremendously important to consider context when you read the Bible. Idolatry and even images of God are forbidden by the Commandments of Yahweh!!! Period.
What** are you talking about? I never said that images were to be used for ****worship ****in the OT. YOU have a real problem discerning images from idols – they are ****NOT **the same thing. I was pointing out the fact that images WERE used in the OT despite the fact that that God commanded that they NOT be used – as IDOLS. The use of images was not banned by Go – otherwise, He would have been a hypocrite. The WORSHIP of images was banned as idolatry.
Get your facts straight.

Obviously there were Old Testament priests mentioned in the bible before the 5th and 6th centuries. I am patently (in context) referring to the New Testament CHURCH, or did you forget that?

As for the brother who, with the zeal of a rabid dog, accused me of quoting Boettner. I said I had not. He refused to believed me. I told you I was quoting from Peter Lasko. I did use a description from the Two Babylons to answer the question posed to me. I was then accused of poor research. Suffice to say that my response (which he said was Boettner - as I said I didn’t know Boettner wrote of that subject) actually countered his historical quip and I cited a source for this which is a lot more than he did. He’s Boettner mad, completely indoctrinated!.

For his benefit and others I have taken the liberty of scanning the relevant parts. In addition, I would like to point out that it is common knowledge to anybody who has read anything about the so called Christianisation of Europe that pagan places of worship and images were consecrated and used in the “Church”. I have therefore scanned in an allusion to this by Peter Blair in his work on the Ango- Saxons. Of note is his reference to the goddess Eostre or Easter.
**I accused you of shoddy research BECAUSE you used references from Hislop’s, *“The Two Babylons”. *The entire book was based on shoddy research and has been heavily debunked – so for you to use it as a reference to “prove” your points is laughable, at best. *Most *Evengelical scholars won’**t even refer to this garbage anymore when speaking about the Church because is is embarassingly ignorant.

 

[elvisman]

Well, I tried to upload the files and I was told to contact the System Administrator of this site. Suffice to say that in respect of Pepin and Rome I quoted Peter Lasko’s work THE KINGDOM OF THE FRANKS Northwest Europe before Charlemagne [1971] Thames & Hudson, London p.128.

Peter Hunter Blair in his monumental work AN INTRODUCTION TO ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND [1962] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge on pp 120 - 123 demonstrates how the Roman missionaries (as opposed to Celtic independent missionaries) were instructed by Pope Gregory I to not destroy heathen temples only the idols. The buildings were to be purified and made into churches. Sacrifices of animals were allowed for Christian feasts. Later he changed his mind and ordered the destruction of temples.

Another excellent book is the Odham’s Country Lovers Companion which tells of all the pagan practises throughout England that were retained and practised by the “Church”, to cite all of them would be impossible as they are so numerous. Wassailing, or tree worship on Twelth night, the Lupercalia and St. Valentine’s day, Dressing of the wells by clergy at Tissingham, All Hallows Eve or Halo we’en the Celtic Samhain, etc.

In the light of this Hislop’s Two Babylons does not appear too wide of the mark!

It seems that what you don’t like are factual citations that differ with your ingrained perception of Holy Mother Church.

To the brother that called me a liar I say “Let God be true and every man a liar!”
Odham’s Country Lovers Companion??** You get your history from a coffee table picture book??**
Your “research”*** IS***** laughable because you glean your information from anti-Catholic sources. Most current Evangelical Scholars don’t even use references to ancient Babylonian and Mesopotamian pagan practices when referring to Catholic beliefs any more. Why? Because they’ve all been debunked.

Do yourself a favor and read Ralph Woodrow’s, *“The Babylon Connection?”. *It debunks every single anti-Catholic slur you have mentioned and more – and it was written by an Evangelical. Something tells me that you won’t read it because you’d rather believe the preposterous lies than the truth.

As I stated before – you’re NOT a very good anti-Catholic. If you’re going to attack the Church - at least use FACTS instead of fabrications . . .**

 

[elvisman]

The interpretation of Matthew 16 that the Papacy teaches today was not held, if at all by the majority of the early Fathers. Most teach that the** *Rock was Christ ***

or the faith that Peter professed in Christ.

Question: If the Scriptures teach that the LORD is the only Rock and there is none other how come Rome teaches that Peter and his successors were? They are WRONG! The greatest theologian that lived, the Apostle Paul taught “that Rock was Christ!” 1 COR 10:4
You may say that my knowledge of history is poor but I say your knowledge of scripture has suffered in proportion to your drinking the draught of tradition. put your faith in Jesus Christ and His Word not in the false Christ.
The Scriptures teach that the Lord is the only Rock? MY Bible shows that Abraham was also called the Rock of the Old Covenant (Isa. 51:1-2) - just as Peter is the Rock of the New Covenant.
Who is ignorant of the Scriptures now?

Today the “Catholic Church” has a Pope that doesn’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, a man who covered up sexual abuse of children and has the audacity to ascribe to himself or accept from others the name “Holy Father”. A name most reverently only given to God the Father by Christ in John 17. That is blasphemy.

Benedict VI doesn’t believe in Jesus’ bodily reseurrection? PROVE it.
Show me a** statement**** from him that he denies the Bodily Resurrection of Christ - otherwise - STOP spreading this filth and admit that you made it up.**

---

As I said before, though - you prefer the lie to the truth (John 3:19).

 

[elvisman]

I have therefore scanned in an allusion to this by Peter Blair in his work on the Ango- Saxons. Of note is his reference to the goddess Eostre or Easter.

It was actually the Protestant Reformer,** William Tyndale**** who first used the word***** “Easter”***** in his English translation of the Bible in the 16th century. In fact,** his English translation is the first to use both** Easter**** and Passover*.***
This was not a Catholic adoption of pagan practices.

---

Before embarassing yourself any further, you really need to read “Why We Should Not Passover Easter” by Nick Sayers – a Protestant. He employs not only historical evidence but linguistic proof as well to trace the etymology of the word Easter. He proves that it is NOT of pagan origin.

 

[DebChris]

This thread seems to have strayed a long way from the OP, and the question of who may and who may not call themselves Catholic.

My dear jmtosh, it is my hope that you came to these forums in order to learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches rather than to reiterate half truths that you may have read or heard throughout your lifetime. I recommend the Catholic Answer Bible which answers many of the preconceptions that you have expressed throughout this thread.
Our liturgical celebration of the Mass means that in a given year we hear and celebrate the life of Christ from anticipation (Advent) through His death and Resurrection (Easter). The Easter season ends at Pentecost in which we commemorate the receipt of the Holy Spirit by the Apostles, and subsequently the followers of Christ.
As Catholics, we do not see God coming to us wrapped in a book. Rather He came incarnate to live among us. We do not rely solely on personal interpretation of scripture which may be flawed. Rather we accept the three pronged relationship between Tradition (the teaching of Christ as passed through the generations directly from His Apostles) protected by the Holy Spirit, the Word of God as written in Scripture (the Bible), and the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church. If you read the Book of Acts, you will find that the earliest converts submitted to the teachings of the Apostles (what we today call the magisterium).
In any given Mass, you will hear readings from the OT, a psalm, and the Gospels. On Sundays, you will also hear a reading from one of the Epistles. You are welcome to come as an observer to any Mass and see for yourself.

 

[Augustus24]

On another forum I asked a Calvinist not to call me a “Roman Catholic” because it’s strictly incorrect - I am a Roman Rite Catholic. A Catholic.

He refused, telling me I don’t have the monopoly on the word Catholic - that he uses the word to distinguish me and people like me who submit to Papal authority - and that he is a Catholic too.

My mind has been blown. I almost don’t even know what to say? How can a Calvinist call himself Catholic too? And refuse to admit that I am a Catholic and he is a Calvinist?

Calvinists cannot be “catholic” as Calvinism is heresy. I always laugh when Calvinists call themselves “Reformed Catholics”.

The protestant reformers tried to take their churches back to the roots of Christianity, to ancient Christianity, they failed miserably.

 

[jmtosh]

Thank you Deb for the kind words .

Elvis, may I make the following observations:

1. 
   The use of graven images is forbidden by the 2nd commandment.
   
   You can not just dispense with all of Hislop’s material contained in the Two Babylons. Admittedly, the Nimrod / Semiramis theory is a little bizarre but he has established some interesting parallels. Ralph Woodrow can not be used to discredit Hislop’s material. Hislop wrote in the latter half of the 19th century. Woodrow wrote Babylon Mystery Religion which goes into the lunatic fringe. His admissions have no bearing on Hislop.
   
   As for the Country Lover’s Companion, it may not be a scholarly treatise but it does contain reliable information on English customs, folklore and Church practices. There is no motive to contain unreliable or false information. It can be equated to the Fodor’s travel guides for instance. It remains an interesting compendium of British folklore and customs.
   
   You still have not acknowledged my accurate quotation from Lasko re Pepin and the Papacy. You accused me of quoting Boettner line by line. There exists an abundance of historical information that depicts the Papacy in a seriously flawed light. It is worthy of serious consideration.
   
   What I take umbrage to is your impulsive judgment of my motives. You say I am a liar. Well, it is not I that am denying all that has been in the media about the erstwhile Cardinal Ratzinger and the strong evidence adduced for his covering up of child sexual abuse when he was in charge of the Holy Office.
   
   google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thisislondon.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do&ei=zI-jTeKLA4rNhAeIvfySBQ&usg=AFQjCNHkfJzI7EsHG8bzLl7M5GnghWUddw
   
   Here’s one link (of many) that discuss this issue. Everyone in the world who can read a newspaper, listen to a radio or watch a T.V. knows about this matter. To ask me to prove it is ridiculous. It is undeniable that a huge problem of such abuse exists in the RCC and that evidence has come to light that it was covered up at the highest level. It has even been discussed on this site and obviously affects many Catholic people. To deny this and charge me with concocting a story is preposterous. You know it is true!
   
   (Edited to remove link to blog which is not a reliable news source.)
   
   I did not maliciously invent the assertion that the Pope expressed that he did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Here is what a priest fro NZ has said, commenting on the Pope’s book:
   
   *"He agrees that the resurrection of Christ **is not the same kind of historical event as the birth of Christ or his crucifixion **butis “a new type of event”.However it is an event that “has its origin in history,” but goes beyond where history can take us.“Jesus’ resurrection points beyond history but has left a footprint in history.” *

 

[paul_c]

Thank you Deb for the kind words .

Elvis, may I make the following observations:

1. 
   The use of graven images is forbidden by the 2nd commandment.

1. 
   This is what Exodus 20 says:
   3 You shall not have other gods besides me.
   4 You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
   5 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation;
   6 but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.
   Nothing the Catholic Church does violates this. Sure we have stained glass and statues of the Jesus, Mary and the saints to teach and remind us of their actions, but we do not worship them.
   

   You can not just dispense with all of Hislop’s material contained in the Two Babylons. Admittedly, the Nimrod / Semiramis theory is a little bizarre but he has established some interesting parallels. Ralph Woodrow can not be used to discredit Hislop’s material. Hislop wrote in the latter half of the 19th century. Woodrow wrote Babylon Mystery Religion which goes into the lunatic fringe. His admissions have no bearing on Hislop.

   Of course we can dismiss it out of hand. Can you demonstrate in any way that it is real and not just anti-Catholic fiction?
   

   As for the Country Lover’s Companion, it may not be a scholarly treatise but it does contain reliable information on English customs, folklore and Church practices. There is no motive to contain unreliable or false information. It can be equated to the Fodor’s travel guides for instance. It remains an interesting compendium of British folklore and customs.

   I must have missed why this is relavent/
   

   You still have not acknowledged my accurate quotation from Lasko re Pepin and the Papacy. You accused me of quoting Boettner line by line. There exists an abundance of historical information that depicts the Papacy in a seriously flawed light. It is worthy of serious consideration.

   The Church has a number of natural enemies, Satan chief among them, that have a vested interest in creating history. The question at hand is have any Popes taught doctrine that is opposed to prior church doctrine. I don’t think you can demonstrate a single case of this.
   

   What I take umbrage to is your impulsive judgment of my motives. You say I am a liar. Well, it is not I that am denying all that has been in the media about the erstwhile Cardinal Ratzinger and the strong evidence adduced for his covering up of child sexual abuse when he was in charge of the Holy Office.
   
   google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thisislondon.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do&ei=zI-jTeKLA4rNhAeIvfySBQ&usg=AFQjCNHkfJzI7EsHG8bzLl7M5GnghWUddw
   
   Here’s one link (of many) that discuss this issue. Everyone in the world who can read a newspaper, listen to a radio or watch a T.V. knows about this matter. To ask me to prove it is ridiculous. It is undeniable that a huge problem of such abuse exists in the RCC and that evidence has come to light that it was covered up at the highest level. It has even been discussed on this site and obviously affects many Catholic people. To deny this and charge me with concocting a story is preposterous. You know it is true!
   
   (Edited to remove link to blog which is not a reliable news source.)

   yes, there was abuse by priest and it was covered up by some bishops much to the shame of the Church, but these issues have been addressed vigorously by the Church and now the Church is by far the safest environment to be in. And no, you can’t link any of it directly to the pope, because he was on the forefront of bringing it out into the open.
   

   I did not maliciously invent the assertion that the Pope expressed that he did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Here is what a priest fro NZ has said, commenting on the Pope’s book:
   
   *"He agrees that the resurrection of Christ **is not the same kind of historical event as the birth of Christ or his crucifixion ***butis “a new type of event”.However it is an event that “has its origin in history,” but goes beyond where history can take us.“Jesus’ resurrection points beyond history but has left a footprint in history.”

   Have you read the Pope’s book. Its tremendous and he most certainly believes in the bodily resurrection of Christ.
   
   Reading this post, I would tell you that you have brought out all the anti-Catholic rhetoric. Are you aware of how anti-Catholic you are?

 

[elvisman]

Elvis, may I make the following observations:

The use of graven images is forbidden by the 2nd commandment.

WRONG**.**
You have a skewed understanding of the 2nd Commandment. The commandment was the prohibition of creating graven images for the purpose of WORSHIPPING them.

As we have already covered:
1. God commanded Moses to make 2 golden cherubim atop the Ark.
2. He commanded Moses to create a bronze serpent to cure the people.
All of this was AFTER he gave Moses the Commandments.

You can not just dispense with all of Hislop’s material contained in the Two Babylons. Admittedly, the Nimrod / Semiramis theory is a little bizarre but he has established some interesting parallels. Ralph Woodrow can not be used to discredit Hislop’s material. Hislop wrote in the latter half of the 19th century. Woodrow wrote Babylon Mystery Religion which goes into the lunatic fringe. His admissions have no bearing on Hislop.

WRONG**.**
His writings have MUCH bearing on Hislop’s work.

**Ralph Woodrow was an ardent student of Hislop’s work. That is why he wrote "Babylon Mystery Religion". After doing extensive research of his own - he was bewildered by Hislop’s shoddy research and blatant anti-Catholicism. This is why he wound up writing **"The Babylon Connection?"

**You cannot connect ****ANY **of Hislop’s ridiculous claims to reality. If you think you can - I challenge you to do so.

As for the Country Lover’s Companion, it may not be a scholarly treatise but it does contain reliable information on English customs, folklore and Church practices. There is no motive to contain unreliable or false information. It can be equated to the Fodor’s travel guides for instance. It remains an interesting compendium of British folklore and customs.

It’s a coffee-table book and not meant to be a historically accurate scholarly work. You may as well include the Automobile Club of America’s travel guide . . .
And it is apparenly full of** anti****-Catholic slurs. This is not uncommon among Protestant authors with an axe to grind.**

You still have not acknowledged my accurate quotation from Lasko re Pepin and the Papacy. You accused me of quoting Boettner line by line. There exists an abundance of historical information that depicts the Papacy in a seriously flawed light. It is worthy of serious consideration.

It’s only worth consideration if it’s true and if it can be supported by the scholarship of history. There WERE some bad guys that occupied the Papal office – but it is supported by history and is not somebody’s opinion.

Again – one book about the evils of the Catholic Church doesn’t make it true. I can provide dozens of books and articles slamming the Catholic Church that have no basis in reality. I don’t know what kind of issues Peter Lasko had against the Church but if it’s not supported by historical scholarship it must be considered opinion.

 

[elvisman]

What I take umbrage to is your impulsive judgment of my motives. You say I am a liar. Well, it is not I that am denying all that has been in the media about the erstwhile Cardinal Ratzinger and the strong evidence adduced for his covering up of child sexual abuse when he was in charge of the Holy Office

Here’s one link (of many) that discuss this issue. Everyone in the world who can read a newspaper, listen to a radio or watch a T.V. knows about this matter. To ask me to prove it is ridiculous. It is undeniable that a huge problem of such abuse exists in the RCC and that evidence has come to light that it was covered up at the highest level. It has even been discussed on this site and obviously affects many Catholic people. To deny this and charge me with concocting a story is preposterous. You know it is true!

Here’s a link to another page on the issue.

I went to your links and found that ALL of the information was either spurious or untrue.
First of all – it refers to the Pope as the former “Thomas Ratzinger”. His given name is Joseph Aloisious Ratzinger.

It claims that according to a BBC expose – he ‘led cover-up of child abuse by priests’. NONE of this is true and is a matter of public record.

I did not maliciously invent the assertion that the Pope expressed that he did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Here is what a priest fro NZ has said, commenting on the Pope’s book:
*"He agrees that the resurrection of Christ **is not the same kind of historical event as the birth of Christ or his crucifixion ***butis “a new type of event”.However it is an event that “has its origin in history,” but goes beyond where history can take us.“Jesus’ resurrection points beyond history but has left a footprint in history.”

You call this evidence? Some guy’s incorrect assertions about the Pope’s book? Give me a QUOTE from the Pope about how he himself denies the bodily resurrection of Christ. I can show you quote from people who claim that Abraham Lincoln was gay – but it doesn’t make it true. Your inane charge IS malicious.

Here’s a bit of advice – if you’re going to try to slam the Church – get your facts straight. This is the 2nd time I’ve had to tell you this. It’s getting rather embarrassing to read your preposterous and unfounded claims.

 

[elvisman]

This is what Exodus 20 says:
3 You shall not have other gods besides me.
4 You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
5 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation;
6 but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Nothing the Catholic Church does violates this. Sure we have stained glass and statues of the Jesus, Mary and the saints to teach and remind us of their actions, but we do not worship them.

Of course we can dismiss it out of hand. Can you demonstrate in any way that it is real and not just anti-Catholic fiction?

I must have missed why this is relavent/
The Church has a number of natural enemies, Satan chief among them, that have a vested interest in creating history. The question at hand is have any Popes taught doctrine that is opposed to prior church doctrine. I don’t think you can demonstrate a single case of this.

yes, there was abuse by priest and it was covered up by some bishops much to the shame of the Church, but these issues have been addressed vigorously by the Church and now the Church is by far the safest environment to be in. And no, you can’t link any of it directly to the pope, because he was on the forefront of bringing it out into the open.

Have you read the Pope’s book. Its tremendous and he most certainly believes in the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Reading this post, I would tell you that you have brought out all the anti-Catholic rhetoric. Are you aware of how anti-Catholic you are?

*It’s astonishing how people like jmtosh STILL buy into this anti-Catholic bunkam when it has been debunked over and over and over again.

Most mainstream Protestant Theologians discarded this “stuff” years ago because it was so easily debunked.*