Dealing with anticatholic comments

[chosunhoon]

I was wondering if someone could respond to this as well…

When one discusses the sordid history of the Catholic Church- the abuses, the abductions, the “holy wars”, the pregnant nuns and the fornicating priests, the ridiculous doctrines and the Jesuit oaths to slaughter Protestants, one frequently gets the response from weak-kneed evangelicals that “the Vatican changed all that”. Well, the “Blessed” Pope John XXIII, who was responsible for the Vatican II council, declared, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.” The Council of Trent, for those of you who don’t know, was an ecumenical council, a product of the Counter-Reformation held solely to combat the rising avaliability of the Bible. You can read the entire text here, but here are some highlights:

“CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone; let him be anathema.
CANON X.-If any one saith, that all Christians have power to administer the word, and all the sacraments; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.”

Now, what exactly is anathema? Well, consider this phrase, used elsewhere in the Council, and read it very carefully:
“The sword of excommunication is not to be rashly used: when an execution can be made on property or person, censures are to be abstained from: the civil magistrates shall not interfere herein.”
And the “good Pope” adhered to this, and agreed with it. Vatican II did not change the nature of the Roman Catholic Church, my friends.

I’m a bit shaky with history, but does anyone have any thoughts on this?

-Jason

 

[jimmy]

When one discusses the sordid history of the Catholic Church- the abuses, the abductions, the “holy wars”, the pregnant nuns and the fornicating priests, the ridiculous doctrines and the Jesuit oaths to slaughter Protestants, one frequently gets the response from weak-kneed evangelicals that “the Vatican changed all that”. Well, the “Blessed” Pope John XXIII, who was responsible for the Vatican II council, declared, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.” The Council of Trent, for those of you who don’t know, was an ecumenical council, a product of the Counter-Reformation held solely to combat the rising avaliability of the Bible. You can read the entire text here, but here are some highlights:

Let me guess, by the way this sounds it sounds like the Jesus is Lord site. Am I correct?

The above is just made up ideas. The idea of a vow to slaughter protestants is the result of antiCatholic authors. There are threads about it on this forum. If you do a search you could find them. It is simply libel.

“CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone; let him be anathema.
CANON X.-If any one saith, that all Christians have power to administer the word, and all the sacraments; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.”

I haven’t looked these up in the council but there is nothing wrong with them doctrinally. They are all true statements. The Catholic Church will never change its teaching.

Now, what exactly is anathema? Well, consider this phrase, used elsewhere in the Council, and read it very carefully:
“The sword of excommunication is not to be rashly used: when an execution can be made on property or person, censures are to be abstained from: the civil magistrates shall not interfere herein.”
And the “good Pope” adhered to this, and agreed with it. Vatican II did not change the nature of the Roman Catholic Church, my friends.

Anathema is an excommunication basically. It is to shun the doctrine. Anathemas are mentioned by Christ and by Paul as well. Paul says "22 If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.[1Cor.16]

The funny thing is they are trying to make it sound like sword refers to a physical sword. The sword is excommunication, it not an actual physical sword. It is a spiritual sword.

 

[tjmiller]

As a Catholic history buff , I would love to give an answer - but what exactly is the question?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for the parts discussing sinfulness in the Church, it is true that the Church consists of wheat and chaff. It was that way in the 1st century and throughout history. It is still that way now. Yet, there has been much rubbish fabricated by Protestants that has been thrust out as if it were true history. For example, according to a recent BBC (non-Catholic source) documentary of the Inquisition, the BBC exposed many such false anti-Catholic claims about the Catholic Church during this part of history. [cf. June 9th, 1995, the BBC documentary, *The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition was aired on “Ancient Mysteries”).

The BBC documenatary, for example, stated: "Myth can only be destroyed by fact, and the fact is, that only between 3,000 to 5,000 people were killed in the 350 years of the Inquisition. During that same period 150,000 witches alone were burnt for heresy in the rest of Europe."

According to Protestant historian Raphael Holisend, Henry VIII executed 72,000 Catholics. His daughter, Elizabeth I, in very few years, also in the name of a “reformed” Christianity caused more victims than the Spanish and Roman Inquisitions together in three centuries.

Yes, there has been sinfulness in the history of Catholicism but this is equally true, and as highlighted by even Protestant historians, even worse in the much shorter history of Protestant Europe.

As for the canons of Trent, they remain in force. Vatican II taught in accord with the Catholic teachings that came before it.

 

[chosunhoon]

Thank you all for responding. I really appreciate it!

God bless!

-Jason

 

[RyanL]

It would have been nice if he gave references, but these are all correct:
Seventh Session, On the Sacraments in General

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone; let him be anathema.
CANON X.-If any one saith, that all Christians have power to administer the word, and all the sacraments; let him be anathema.

Seventh Session, On Baptism

CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Thirteenth Session, On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

Any apologist worth his salt could find a multitude of scriptures to back these up. If you’re having difficulty, however, I recommend www.scripturecatholic.com for assistance.

I’m not sure why people would attack the Church for reaffirming the truths expounded directly and explicitly in Scripture, but they do nonetheless. Silliness, if you ask me. “The Catholic Church can’t be right…after all, it’s…Catholic!”

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Jason, the nonsense you are looking at comes from Jack Chick comic books, the pregrant nuns for example was one of his fantasies that involved secret caves that lead from the monastry to the nuns house, etc., Jack Chick and his fantasy ex-priests make claims like that which are nonsense. Simply, make the person you are talking to prove their claims from verifiable sources. The sources people like Jack Chick and Jesus is lord site use the stories told by so-called ex-priests. If you think about it, if a priest and nun wanted to get together, why go though all the trouble of digging caves like on hogan’s herioes?

The key is demand verifiable historical sources, they don’t have any.

 

[1ke]

chosunhoon:

I’m a bit shaky with history, but does anyone have any thoughts on this?
-Jason

Yes, I have thoughts: The type of person who writes such idiotic things is not one who can be reasoned with. Shake the dust off your sandals.

The first paragraph is full of falsehoods. However, even if all the supposed abuses are true-- so what? The Church is composed of sinners, no big surprise there. So are Protestant churchs-- or need we dredge up the very public scandals of many televangelists, preachers who have been caught molesting, stealing money from the congregation, etc.? My own Episcopal priest (pre conversion) was sent to rehab by the diocese several times before he was “retired”.

Regarding the Council of Trent, John XXIII-- what’s his point? The Council of Trent restated Catholic teaching and of course all Catholics recognize the Council as authoritative. As far as excommunication-- Catholics who deny the teachings of the Church excommunicate themselves. They are no longer Catholics.

This person has no point other than bigotry.

 

[IanS]

My brother once got a pet chick for Easter when he was in college. I noticed it would run around his dorm room and do a lot of chirping and defecating. You know what the difference was between that bird and Jack T. Chick? Unlike Mr. Chick, the bird knew how to chirp out of one orifice and defecate out of the other.

 

[Sub-Zero]

I was actually reading the taped conversations that had Richard Nixon talking about things during his presidency, the guy was literally a jerk. If I can remember correctly, he said the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. He said the popes were having sex with nuns and became homosexual. Quite mean if you ask me.