Catholic history is disturbing

[benedictus2]

**Well Ben, you would agree wrongly, my friend! They are by being Protestants! **

I look at it this way. The reformers were certainly heretics and it was on account of their pride that the dismembering of the Body of Christ happened.

Were I born into such a denomination, I would probably not know any better. I am very passionate about my faith so I am thinking that I would probably be a very passionate protestant had things been different. I would hope that being so born, I would have enough openess of heart and humility to recognize truth when I see it as all the other converts have done. But I don’t really know if it would be so. Maybe I would be like the stubborn ones in this forum who refuse to see the light.

That these people are in a heretical belief is not their fault. They have been fed a lot of lies and they have believed it. Why wouldn’t they, they were born into this millieu.

Stephen Ray’s wife after attending her first Mass cried. And she said she was really angry at having been lied to all these years. And not just by the Protestants. But also by the Catholics who could not defend their faith.

I am really very happy that there are protestants and agnostics and atheists in this forum. Even the stubborn and adversarial ones. For some, this is probably the only real contact with our faith that they will have.

The reformers I think have done an evil deed. But in the same way that God did not leave Adam and Eve to the consequences of their sin, so too with the Protestants. God is truly present in their midst IN SPITE OF the separation, BUT NOT BECAUSE OF IT.

To my thinking, were God to abandon them because of the sins of the reformers, then He would not be the God of Love we find in the Bible.

They are not minor!

Here I agree with you. I don’t think it is minor either but that is my opinion only although I think I can argue that point reasonably well if pressed.

False teachings that go against the catholic church are heresies. People who follow them are heretics. But they prefer “separated brethren” and Vatican II calls them that so when I say “separated brethren” you can bet I mean Heretics! guanophore says: “They could still be in invincible ignorance” I rather say that IMO they are in the hands of Satan. As faithfilled catholics, it is our responsibility to pray for them and their souls. I added the conversion of all protestants into my daily rosary, I recommend all Catholics that pray the rosary do the same (Note to "separated Brethren: Catholics are not required to have a “devotion” to Mary, it is a personal “choice”) Our Blessed Mother can do wonders if we only ask her!!

I think the change in thinking of Vatican II may be called “not visiting the sins of the father on their sons.”

I have read so many conversion stories and these men and women truly loved the Lord even when they were still Protestants. And yes, technically by espousing heretical belief they can be called heretics from our vantage point, but they really were passionate about our Lord.

As I have mentioned many times over, these people found the truth when they started reading. If after knowing the truth, they still remained protestant, then that would have only been because of pride and that would have been a sin and they can then be rightly called heretics. Heresy by definition is a departure from established belief. Prior to their apprehension of Catholic Truth, their established belief was SS and SF so I can’t really call them heretics.

Having said all that however, I do agree with you that the devil had a lot of say in the reformation. It is easier to sway people with a half truth than with a total lie. And heresy is a half truth that has been made to look like the whole truth.

I also agree that we should do our utmost to show them the light. That is all that is asked of us. Everything else is up to God.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

I look at it this way. The reformers were certainly heretics and it was on account of their pride that the dismembering of the Body of Christ happened.

Were I born into such a denomination, I would probably not know any better. I am very passionate about my faith so I am thinking that I would probably be a very passionate protestant had things been different. I would hope that being so born, I would have enough openess of heart and humility to recognize truth when I see it as all the other converts have done. But I don’t really know if it would be so. Maybe I would be like the stubborn ones in this forum who refuse to see the light.

That these people are in a heretical belief is not their fault. They have been fed a lot of lies and they have believed it. Why wouldn’t they, they were born into this millieu.

Stephen Ray’s wife after attending her first Mass cried. And she said she was really angry at having been lied to all these years. And not just by the Protestants. But also by the Catholics who could not defend their faith.

I am really very happy that there are protestants and agnostics and atheists in this forum. Even the stubborn and adversarial ones. For some, this is probably the only real contact with our faith that they will have.

The reformers I think have done an evil deed. But in the same way that God did not leave Adam and Eve to the consequences of their sin, so too with the Protestants. God is truly present in their midst IN SPITE OF the separation, BUT NOT BECAUSE OF IT.

To my thinking, were God to abandon them because of the sins of the reformers, then He would not be the God of Love we find in the Bible.

Here I agree with you. I don’t think it is minor either but that is my opinion only although I think I can argue that point reasonably well if pressed.

I think the change in thinking of Vatican II may be called “not visiting the sins of the father on their sons.”

I have read so many conversion stories and these men and women truly loved the Lord even when they were still Protestants. And yes, technically by espousing heretical belief they can be called heretics from our vantage point, but they really were passionate about our Lord.

As I have mentioned many times over, these people found the truth when they started reading. If after knowing the truth, they still remained protestant, then that would have only been because of pride and that would have been a sin and they can then be rightly called heretics. Heresy by definition is a departure from established belief. Prior to their apprehension of Catholic Truth, their established belief was SS and SF so I can’t really call them heretics.

Having said all that however, I do agree with you that the devil had a lot of say in the reformation. It is easier to sway people with a half truth than with a total lie. And heresy is a half truth that has been made to look like the whole truth.

I also agree that we should do our utmost to show them the light. That is all that is asked of us. Everything else is up to God.

**
Ben, Very well stated! We think a lot alike on all matters. I do not like Catholics that don’t know our faith and are unable to defend it any more then I do Protestants that think they do! The worse ones are the fallen away Catholics! The best catholics seem to be the converted Catholics. And people say God doesn’t have a sense of Humor!
All we can do is pray for the Protestants. I do so daily! By the way do you realize that to Protestants, we are the heretics? I am proud to disagree with their teachings, if they could ever decide what they believed, I would probably disagree with that also!

God Bless!**

 

[Realcatholicgk]

It is acceptable to receive the Teaching of the Church on this point, and the Catechism is clear that God uses these communities to draw people to HImself. God desires unity, and He only founded one Church, but He still works through these incomplete expressions for HIs glory. Failure to accept this is a denial of the Church teaching. Protestants are like Apollos,and our approach to them should be that of Prisca and Aquila, rather than alienation.

**That is the Catechism teaching but it doesn’t say I am wrong! I accept them as being Catholics by baptism! **

God can save whoever He wants, however He desires. (CCC) 819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

**Amen!! **

No, they are not. When you put forward this notion, you are speaking contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. Embracing heretical doctrine does not, by default, make one a heretic.

** They beleive heretic teachings but that doesn’t make them heretics. Hmmm I knew you were much smarter than me! Does that make them Apostles? **

818 "**However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation **those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
**
The good reason is debatable! **

I agree, but approaching them with such an adversarial attitude is counter productive. The vast majority of them are ignorant of the true doctrines.

Yea, lets try logic, that should work! :banghead: :banghead:

As you can see from the quotes I have provided, this statement of yours is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Only those who once embraced the true teachings and willfully rejected them can be rightfully charged with the sin of heresy.

I didn’t charge them with a sin! Don’t judge me so quickly. I made a personal observation! I never “damn” anyone either. Both are "above my paygrade!"

I understand that your personal opinion on this matter is divergent from the Teaching of the Church as represented in the catechism. I also think that your adversarial attitude and insistence on using this term does not serve the unification of the Body.

**Sorry I was attempting to defend my Faith, my Church and the Truth! I will patch up the wounded feeling and unify them later! **

Yes, it is clear that your opinion is contrary to the Teaching of the Church.

I am glad we are in agreement on this point.

God knows the desires of their heart.

Realcatholicgk:

** All 61,000 will admit that the "others’ are wrong along with the catholic church! And The question must be asked who was here first? Who did Jesus build his church on? Who holds the keys to heaven? **

There is not doubt that Jesus only founded one Church, and that there is One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord. However, to deny that faithful (though often ignorant or misled) Protestants are not members of that one body does not glorify God. Paul and Priscilla did not spurn the faith of Apollos, though he was uneducated.

I don’t deny they are members of the real church. They deny, they are members. They refuse to follow our church’s laws and comandments as Jesus commanded, just like some other members who say they are catholic. There is a difference from the way I look at it!

Knowing this, it seems odd that you judge them yourself.

**hey, be fair! Look at Matthew 6, and 13-15 to see that Christ actually instructs to make judgments! We are just not to make a hypocritical judgment. I hope I never judge anyone for something of which I am also guilty, like judging someone? If I did, I would confess it and repent! **

I don’t think your attitude in this matter encourages our separated brethren to join you in prayer.

**All I can do is explain and try! I do believe in the power of prayer. I pray on the prolife line with Protestants and sometimes our prayers are answered! Catholics do have it easier, we have the rosary and Divine mercy chaplet!

God does listen to prayers!

God Bless

**

 

[benedictus2]

All we can do is pray for the Protestants. I do so daily! By the way do you realize that to Protestants, we are the heretics? I am proud to disagree with their teachings, if they could ever decide what they believed, I would probably disagree with that also!

God Bless!

While I do pray for the conversion of Protestants. I pray more for those who truly do not know Christ at all. The urgency of this was brought home to me on another thread.

I think there is nothing sadder than to be loved so very much and unconditionally by our God and not know it. To not realize that all our longing can only be quenched by Him who loves us so is quite tragic. This is something we should all pray for.

 

[ron77nyc]

The key here is the infallibility issue. Were they speaking infallibly when they made these statements?

Pope Boniface declared it infallibly:“Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

John Paul II cannot make a contrary infallible statement so he didn’t but he said non-Catholics were not totally excluded from salvation. One pope teaches that the other was wrong but it’s OK because Vatican II didn’t declare anything infallible. Is this the logic being used here?

 

[Peter_J]

Pope Boniface declared it infallibly:“Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

John Paul II cannot make a contrary infallible statement so he didn’t but he said non-Catholics were not totally excluded from salvation. One pope teaches that the other was wrong but it’s OK because Vatican II didn’t declare anything infallible. Is this the logic being used here?

I don’t think so. If Pope John Paul II made a statement contradicting Unam Sanctum, then that statement would necessary entail (at least implicitly) the statement that Unam Sanctum was not infallible (sorry for the double negative).

In other words, JPII could not believe that Unam Sactum was infallible, and simultaneously believe that it was incorrect.

P.S. On the other hand, it is logically possible to believe that Unam Sanctum was correct, but not infallible.

 

[ron77nyc]

I don’t think so. If Pope John Paul II made a statement contradicting Unam Sanctum, then that statement would necessary entail (at least implicitly) the statement that Unam Sanctum was not infallible (sorry for the double negative).

In other words, JPII could not believe that Unam Sactum was infallible, and simultaneously believe that it was incorrect.

P.S. On the other hand, it is logically possible to believe that Unam Sanctum was correct, but not infallible.

The Church does not clearly define what is infallible and what is not. The lines are purposely blurred as to accomodate the user when necessary. Under those conditions I or anyone else can be infallible.

 

[ron77nyc]

While I do pray for the conversion of Protestants. I pray more for those who truly do not know Christ at all. The urgency of this was brought home to me on another thread.

I think there is nothing sadder than to be loved so very much and unconditionally by our God and not know it. To not realize that all our longing can only be quenched by Him who loves us so is quite tragic. This is something we should all pray for.

I think we should pray for Catholics and the Catholic hierarchy to have more humility. This attitude that says we are right about everything and everyone else is wrong does not promote unity and I don’t think Jesus would approve of it either. If anyone had a right to be that way it was Jesus but he wasn’t that way at all.

 

[Peter_J]

I think the issue we’ve been tiptoeing around here is: Are Catholics required to believe that e.g. Ineffabilis Deus (1854) was an ex cathedra statement?

The answer to that is no. Catholics are required to agree with Ineffabilis Deus (i.e. believe that Mary was immaculately conceived) but are not required to regard it as an ex cathedra statement.

(For that matter, most Catholics believe that there have been 21 ecumenical councils, not just 7, but that isn’t a mandatory believe either.)

 

[Cinette]

While I do pray for the conversion of Protestants. I pray more for those who truly do not know Christ at all. The urgency of this was brought home to me on another thread.

I think there is nothing sadder than to be loved so very much and unconditionally by our God and not know it. To not realize that all our longing can only be quenched by Him who loves us so is quite tragic. This is something we should all pray for.

I saw a book at the Paulines Book Shop yesterday, “God loves us so much and there is nothing we can do about it”. I couldn’t linger so I can’t tell you much but the title stuck in my mind…

 

[Methodi]

Methodi - hey are you reading any good books lately? You really need to catch up on the teachings of the Church

The Lord is Merciful, Jesus paid for the sins of all mankind

 

[chris_molter]

The Lord is Merciful, Jesus paid for the sins of all mankind

The end result of this line of thinking is that it ultimately doesn’t matter what we do on earth since we’re all going to heaven.

 

[Symux]

This thread is no longer even remotely on topic.

The Pharisees were the men of God, and those with all the answers. This was written, and well documented by Moses. They had proof that everything they said and did was in line with God’s wishes, and yet Jesus found fault with them.

The Roman Catholic Leadership in the church fails to have that history, and shows the lack of godliness during the fall of Rome through to the 1500’,s. The Counter reformation changed this, and brought about the Holy church we know today. 1000 years of Corruption! This from power hungry monsters who /abused/ the church that Christ had, and stole it from the believers. The church today is much better, and has a focus on Christ rather than world domination.

Now you ask why non-Catholics refuse to believe the church is infallible. We just look at your history, and know that the word of God was inspired by the Holy Spirit and is the only word we need to follow and obey. Anything put out by man is not worthy of the same equal respect as is God’s word.

Now the hatred and animosity I sense by a few Roman ruled Catholic posters is uncalled for. Protestants are Christians who seek Christ. RCs seek Christ as well, and we should be assisting one another in this journey rather than arguing over who is right.

If you really want to convert people, then be a friend to them. If you are good to them, and they feel better for being around you, then they will want to be more like you. Insults win nobody.

 

[Peter_J]

Now the hatred and animosity I sense by a few Roman ruled Catholic posters is uncalled for.

True.

 

[Peter_J]

Now you ask why non-Catholics refuse to believe the church is infallible.

I think it mainly has to do with different understanding of the word “church”.

Consider what the Protestant (well actually Anglican) writer C.S. Lewis said about the word “Christian”:

Far deeper objections may be felt-and have been expressed- against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: “Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?” or “May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?” Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said-so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully-“Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?”

They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A “nice” meal only means a meal the speaker likes.)

A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say “deepening,” the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge.

It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to “the disciples,” to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were “far closer to the spirit of Christ” than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

In the same way, I think we could say that Catholics use a meaning of “Church” that is deeper (to use Lewis’ word) than the meaning that “Church” has for Protestants.

 

[benedictus2]

I think we should pray for Catholics and the Catholic hierarchy to have more humility. This attitude that says we are right about everything and everyone else is wrong does not promote unity and I don’t think Jesus would approve of it either. If anyone had a right to be that way it was Jesus but he wasn’t that way at all.

Never be tempted to sacrifice truth for a false sense of humility.

A drop-dead gogeous, incrediblly beautiful woman who says she is as beautiful physically as a rather homely looking lady is not being humble.

What she should do is acknowledge that God has created her so for a reason and they she most always remember that it is God’s gift is the humble thing to do.
Humility derives from the word humus - of the earth. Humilty is acknowledging our creaturedness and giviing due honor to God.

Christ gave a solemn promise to guide the Church into all truth. That is all there is to it. That she must seek out the lost is her responsibility but it is not for her to compromise her Truth.

 

[benedictus2]

The Lord is Merciful, Jesus paid for the sins of all mankind

I think everyone here is in agreement with that.

But like rain, if you persist in remaining indoors, you will not get wet.

Then again, God could miraculous send out a gale to blow off the roof just to make sure you will get the necessary drenching.

 

[Ignatius]

Has anyone else delved into Catholic history and found the utter corruption and moral depravity shocking? I find it hard to really be proud of my Catholic roots when there is sooooooo much corruption in it. I wish it was one or two isolated incidences but corruption and lust for power seem to pervade every second of the Church’s history. And it continues to this day.

Why do you swallow all of the false anti-Catholic propaganda?

 

[Symux]

Humility derives from the word humus - of the earth. Humilty is acknowledging our creaturedness and giviing due honor to God.

I am moved by this statement, and now have a much deeper understanding. I can’t say it is life changing, but it has now changed my perspective on matters in life.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

While I do pray for the conversion of Protestants. I pray more for those who truly do not know Christ at all. The urgency of this was brought home to me on another thread.**
Hi Ben,

I do understand your point, but to me they are one and the same! I mentioned that I have many Buddist relatives, Like protestants they know of Jesus, they just don’t know him the way that they should person to person, God to creation! **

I think there is nothing sadder than to be loved so very much and unconditionally by our God and not know it. To not realize that all our longing can only be quenched by Him who loves us so is quite tragic. This is something we should all pray for.
**To not accept His invitation to Eat His body and Drink His blood and obtain eternal salvation. To not understand that Jesus death was for them and if they wish to be with Him, they have to comply with His commandments! Yea, it is quite Tragic. Oh Blessed Mother of Our devine Lord. Please ask your son, to open the eyes of all the non-believers and provide for them eternal salvation. We ask this through your Son, Jesus who lives and reins with the Father and the Holy Spirit forever and ever Amen! **