Catholic history is disturbing

  • Thread starter Thread starter suupah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rad said:
Dear Cinette and Dave,

It has just been pointed out that Pope Pius IX did condemn freedom of religion and quite specifically in his “Syllabus of Errors”. This was then incorporated into Vatican I.

So while it remains a puzzle why the traditional Catholics gave false refernces in Densinger’s book, they were right overall - Pius IX was against freedom of religion…

I have found these sections from the Syllabus of Errors

Condemned No 15 - “a man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (No. 15)

Condemned No 78 - “it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.”
Click to expand...
Thank you for pointing that out. I am going to do some research and come back to you.

I think it is also important to remember the story of the wheat and the tares. Peter denied Jesus, look at Judas, the apostles slept in the garden and John was the only one at the foot of the cross. Look at Catholics today - we have the cafeteria Catholics who want to do it “their way”. We are full of sinners.

However, I want to check this out for myself and will share my findings with you.

Cinette:)
 
Church_Militant said:
DARN! No one told me! I’m still at it.👍

I don’t find our history disturbing at all. I find it hopeful.

I’ve read the Bible and the Church is not worse than the folks in there, so I see great hope in them and pursue Our Lord to the best of my ability while praying for the rest of His imperfect people as they too follow Him. Someone wisely told me once, (my dear pastor I think), “the church is a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints.”

After all, what did St. Peter say to Jesus?

Luke 5 :8 Which when Simon Peter saw, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying: Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.
Click to expand...
Very well put! :clapping:

That is the sad thing about the “reformers”. They forgot it is Christ’s Church and He will not abandon it.

A Carmelite priests told me once that He is not worried at all about the state of the Church because SHE IS CHRIST’S CHURCH AND HE KNOWS WHAT HE’S ON ABOUT.

The only thing asked of us to be obedient to her and play our role the best we can as her members.
 
CWBetts said:
The counter-reformation did not end until Vatican II. The reformation continues as we speak, with new church communites splintering off of others on a regualr basis.
Click to expand...
And the counter reformation countinues to this day. The Christ continues to fight heresies and doctrinal errors.
 
Cinette said:
Thank you for pointing that out. I am going to do some research and come back to you.

I think it is also important to remember the story of the wheat and the tares. Peter denied Jesus, look at Judas, the apostles slept in the garden and John was the only one at the foot of the cross. Look at Catholics today - we have the cafeteria Catholics who want to do it “their way”. We are full of sinners.

However, I want to check this out for myself and will share my findings with you.

Cinette:)
Click to expand...
Cinette, I think rad was trying to know the works of the Traditional Catholics which is a different group of Catholics that advocate Sedevacantism, a theory that opposes some Popes not supposed to be in line to succeed because they are not the true heir to the seat of Rome. I am not sure about this but you can look into:catholicintl.com/
 
When I said the counter-reformation was over, I meant in an offical capacity. Protestants are no longer heretics, but seperated bretheren. The methods shifted from vinegar to honey so to speak.
 
CWBetts said:
When I said the counter-reformation was over, I meant in an offical capacity. Protestants are no longer heretics, but seperated bretheren. The methods shifted from vinegar to honey so to speak.
Click to expand...
I agree that Protestants in themselves are not heretics, but isn’t the doctrine of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura still considered a heresy albeit a minor one? If not, how does the Church see these doctrine now?

If these are still considered erroneous doctrines, would that not classify them as heresy? Or is there a different term they use these days?
 
benedictus2 said:
I agree that Protestants in themselves are not heretics, but isn’t the doctrine of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura still considered a heresy albeit a minor one? If not, how does the Church see these doctrine now?

If these are still considered erroneous doctrines, would that not classify them as heresy? Or is there a different term they use these days?
Click to expand...
From a Catholic standpoint, yes they are still heretical. However, those who hold them can only be guilty of heresy if they know the correct teaching and refuse to follow it dispite being told to do so.
 
ralphinal said:
From a Catholic standpoint, yes they are still heretical. However, those who hold them can only be guilty of heresy if they know the correct teaching and refuse to follow it dispite being told to do so.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. That answers my question very well.
 
benedictus2 said:
I agree that Protestants in themselves are not heretics, but isn’t the doctrine of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura still considered a heresy albeit a minor one? If not, how does the Church see these doctrine now?

If these are still considered erroneous doctrines, would that not classify them as heresy? Or is there a different term they use these days?
Click to expand...
Of course the doctrines are heresy, but (for the sake of argument) you were born Baptist, and fully embraced Sala Scriptura. If you died never have been a Catholic you could not be a hr\eretic because you did not know th truth. Vatican II accepted that Protestants have a part of the truth, but not the full truth.
 
CWBetts said:
Of course the doctrines are heresy, but (for the sake of argument) you were born Baptist, and fully embraced Sala Scriptura. If you died never have been a Catholic you could not be a hr\eretic because you did not know th truth. Vatican II accepted that Protestants have a part of the truth, but not the full truth.
Click to expand...
I do know that Vatican II accept that Protestants have have a part of the truth, just not the fullnes of Truth.

What I wanted to get cleared in my head is that the doctrine IS a heresy and the reformers would be heretics but not necessarily the followers who did not know any better.

Then the question arises: What about those, who in spite of having been shown the error of this doctrine and inspite of not having any satisfactory counter argument to the position still believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura just because?

There are some who keep going back to the same argument for SS and SF inspite of these having been refuted.

Would they still not be considered heretics?

I read somewhere (but can’ remember where) that heresy means half-truth.
 
benedictus2 said:
I do know that Vatican II accept that Protestants have have a part of the truth, just not the fullnes of Truth.

What I wanted to get cleared in my head is that the doctrine IS a heresy and the reformers would be heretics but not necessarily the followers who did not know any better.

Then the question arises: What about those, who in spite of having been shown the error of this doctrine and inspite of not having any satisfactory counter argument to the position still believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura just because?

There are some who keep going back to the same argument for SS and SF inspite of these having been refuted.

Would they still not be considered heretics?

I read somewhere (but can’ remember where) that heresy means half-truth.
Click to expand...
The Chatechism sys that Heresy is “obstinate post-baptimal denial of truth”
Schism is refusal to submit to the Pope
Apostasy is total rejection of the CHristian faith
Incredulity is the neglect of or refusal to asset to revealed truth

Where do Protestants fit?

I think we can rule out Apostasy right away.

I think either Incredulity or Schism is the best fit, but I’m not 100% sure.:confused:
 
CWBetts said:
The Chatechism sys that Heresy is “obstinate post-baptimal denial of truth”
Schism is refusal to submit to the Pope
Apostasy is total rejection of the CHristian faith
Incredulity is the neglect of or refusal to asset to revealed truth

Where do Protestants fit?

I think we can rule out Apostasy right away.

I think either Incredulity or Schism is the best fit, but I’m not 100% sure.:confused:
Click to expand...
That’s very good. I think you are quite right with regards the protestant position.

The definition of heresy though makes things even more interesting as that makes fallen away Catholics, even more of a heretic than unbaptized protestants.
 
benedictus2 said:
That’s very good. I think you are quite right with regards the protestant position.

The definition of heresy though makes things even more interesting as that makes fallen away Catholics, even more of a heretic than unbaptized protestants.
Click to expand...
It would seem to be so. But I also believe that says that CAtholics have a bigger responsibility becaus we have the full revealed truth, wheras Protestants do not.
 
CWBetts said:
It would seem to be so. But I also believe that says that CAtholics have a bigger responsibility becaus we have the full revealed truth, wheras Protestants do not.
Click to expand...
True, true. The parable of the talents.

Those who have been given much, much will be expected.
 
LDNCatholic said:
I asked for a source.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read the thread to an end…but if no-one else gave you a source…here’s one: historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=hnm

All you have to do is “google” or use any search engine and these words Tetzel Indulgences and you can read to your “hearts content”… and yes as a matter of fact…it was one of the issues that Luther raised with the Church… Its factual and undeniable history.
 
Hisalone said:
So you agree with the selling of positions to the highest bidder?
Click to expand...
You have a glaring misunderstanding of historical realities.
So is demanding taxes be paid by civil governments of God or of Satan?
Click to expand...
Ever read the Bible?
So is the teaching of a different gospel of God or of Satan?
Click to expand...
I know you are sorely confused there…
Is the debauchery at all levels for centuries by priests, bishops cardinals and popes of God or of Satan?
Click to expand...
And perhaps you would like to entertain us with some actual proof of these allegations…But please use “reputable sources”…not some anti-Catholic “pseudo Xtian” website".

Perhaps you as well need to be spending some time reading on this site to see if you know any of the listed people:

WWW.REFORM.COM
 
CWBetts said:
It would seem to be so. But I also believe that says that CAtholics have a bigger responsibility becaus we have the full revealed truth, wheras Protestants do not.
Click to expand...
Would that not depend if the Catholic were sufficiently well catechised?
 
Quote:
Is the debauchery at all levels for centuries by priests, bishops cardinals and popes of God or of Satan?

Hisalone has learnt a new word “debauchery” (correctly spelt mind you) but he is not sure how to construct a sentence with it!!! He is not sure of the meaning of the word!

🤷
 
I am waiting to show us the one sin that he accuses the Catholic CHurch of that no Protestant has ever committed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top