History of the Roman Catholic Church

[luckyfredsdad]

What is your point? That the office of the Papacy is invalid because some goofy pope or popes may or may not have abused their office and / or otherwise engaged in some very naughty things? I’m the first to admit that, sadly, there have indeed been instances of such mischief.

**My point is simple. The "Office of the Papacy is invalid not because some goofy pope’s abused that office, though many did. But because there is no proof in either scripture or Holy Tradition for the Office of the Papacy, or the Magisterium of the Pope and neither his Jurisdiction or Infallibility is soundly based. The Authority of the Church is based on Revelation,Scripture,Tradition and the Consensus of the Fathers. For reference see S. Vincent of Lerins. Any authority the pope might have comes to him from the Church or the Emperor’s gift. **

 

[savedsinner]

That is a sad quote.
The Lord Jesus Christ often pointed to that “nothing more than” the written Word of God, when He explained or defended God’s Truth. Jesus distinguished God’s Written Word from tradition. He condemned the idea of tradition over God’s Word.

Tradition is NOT Scripture.
Tradition often goes against Scripture. Tradition has no business being called equal to (or even superior to) Scripture.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God.
The Bible is the written Word of God.
Tradition is man’s words and ideas and has no business ever being called Scripture.

I am confused, St. Paul many times tells his readers and Timothy to hold to the traditions he handed on.
Is the tradition that contradicts scripture, actually contradicting scripture, or is it contradicting your personal understanding of scripture?

What about the Tradition that the books in your New Testament were indeed inspired by God, and not the others like the gnostic gospels.

Jesus also said when confronted by someone quoting scripture, “But I say”
There is no Catholic Tradition that contradicts scripture. If you feel that there is, then it is your interpretation of scripture that is incorrect. Just because you believe something to be true, doesn’t make it so.

 

[guanophore]

**My point is simple. The "Office of the Papacy is invalid not because some goofy pope’s abused that office, though many did. But because there is no proof in either scripture or Holy Tradition for the Office of the Papacy, **

Lucky, there is all kinds of evidence in Scripture and Tradition. If you do not see it, it is because you are reading with your anti-Catholic lenses on your face.
luckyfredsdad;5002505:

or the Magisterium of the Pope

The Magesterium is not “of the Pope”, it is of Christ. Jesus is the one who appointed and maintains the Teaching Authority in the Church.

The Magesterium remains valid and intact even without the presence of a Pope.

and neither his Jurisdiction or Infallibility is soundly based.

And what would you consider “soundly based”? What do you think it meant when Jesus commissioned Peter to feed and care for the flock?

The Authority of the Church is based on Revelation,Scripture,Tradition and the Consensus of the Fathers.

No, lucky, this is not accruate. While all these things do reflect the Authority given to the Church, they are not the Source of that Authority. Jesus is theSource. All authority was given to Him, and He gave it to their apostles, and they to their successors.

For reference see S. Vincent of Lerins. Any  authority the pope might have comes to him from the Church or the Emperor's gift.

No, lucky. All authority comes from God.

Rom 13:1
For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

While it is true that the Church and the Emperor have (or did have, in the Emperor’s case) authority, the Source is in God.

Methinks you are suffering an authority problem.

 

[guanophore]

Then why is it called the Catholic and apostolic Roman Church?

During the Reformation, the detractors and enemies of the Church preferred to insult Cathlics by calling them “Romish” or “Papist”. Most Anglicans are not even aware of the 22 non-Roman Rites of Catholics, since they were only rebelling against the Latins.

For Catholics,
"We believe that the Holy Scriptures are completed, explained and interpreted by Holy Tradition and that this is found in the seven Ecumenical Councils and the Consensus of the Greek Fathers. of the early centuries.

There is no competition between the Scriptures and Holy Tradition
they compliment each other!

Anglican Catholic.

A Catholic is one who is in unity with the successor of Peter. Who determines “consensus og the Gk. fathers”?

Why exclude the Early Church fathers that were not Greek?

How do you account for the fact that the early Ecumenical councils affirmed the primacy of the Roman See?

**“the Papal Church”? Not very ecumenical of you. We prefer to be called “the Catholic Church”, “the Roman Catholic Church”, or “the Roman Catholic Communion”.
**
**Consider: we Catholics call the Church of England “the Church of England”
**
Not the Papal Church?

The Roman Catholic Church ,I was taught, was created at the Council of Trent! It is in fact a sect, probably the biggest Christian Sect.

Well, it is good to know that you were wrongly informed, and that this misinformation is the basis of some of the wrong things you say about Catholicism.

The Roman Rite emerged in the Catholic Church in the 6th Century, when the Empire in the West collapsed, and the Emperor moved the capital to Constantinople. There was no structure in place to support the populace, so temporal power was given to the Bishop of Rome, and he took the secular title “Pontificus Maximus”. This melding between the spiritual duties of the Bishop and secular was the beginning of the events that eventually resulted in the Reformation. Power corrupts, and absolute Power corrupts absolutely.

At Trent, the church took on the calumny and insults of the Reformers, mislabelling the Church as Roman, which it is not, and never was.

Is that so? Well you are probably right! Perhaps I should have run it by you previously! I shall know better next time.

But till then, maybe you could explain what Diarmid McCulloch the Historian meant in his book on the European Reformation when he said tha, ,“there were no Roman Catholics in Europe in 1500, with the sole exception of the Kingdom of Bohemia where there were churches loyal to the pope operating under an establishment which traces its origins to the Hussite Movement. The Roman Church recast itself at the long running Council of Trent.”

How can anhy of us explain what is “meant” when a person with an imaginitive mind decides to invent fiction? I suppose he “meant” to mislead people such as yourself!

Article from the Faith & Worship, No 58 ed, of the Prayer Book Society.Written by Bishop Chartres of London.
Also you could elucidate on TP Baultrees ideas when he said, “Such writers as Field and others in our Church have always written of the Council of Trent as the great agent in severing the papal communion formerly and specifically from that which was Catholic and stamping it Papal and Roman.” In the notes to my edition it tells me that,"The term Roman in the Articles refers specific teachings of the Council of Trent.

Now there are many more Anglican Catholic and Protestant voices to be quoted in the same cause if you are interested! If so, just say!
LFD

No, thanks, I have sufficient amounts of drivel just reading the thread. No more is necessary! Of course Anglicans and Protestants must lift their voices in order to try to justify disobedience to the authority appointed by Christ.

 

[GKC]

During the Reformation, the detractors and enemies of the Church preferred to insult Cathlics by calling them “Romish” or “Papist”. Most Anglicans are not even aware of the 22 non-Roman Rites of Catholics, since they were only rebelling against the Latins.

A Catholic is one who is in unity with the successor of Peter. Who determines “consensus og the Gk. fathers”?

Why exclude the Early Church fathers that were not Greek?

How do you account for the fact that the early Ecumenical councils affirmed the primacy of the Roman See?

Well, it is good to know that you were wrongly informed, and that this misinformation is the basis of some of the wrong things you say about Catholicism.

The Roman Rite emerged in the Catholic Church in the 6th Century, when the Empire in the West collapsed, and the Emperor moved the capital to Constantinople. There was no structure in place to support the populace, so temporal power was given to the Bishop of Rome, and he took the secular title “Pontificus Maximus”. This melding between the spiritual duties of the Bishop and secular was the beginning of the events that eventually resulted in the Reformation. Power corrupts, and absolute Power corrupts absolutely.

At Trent, the church took on the calumny and insults of the Reformers, mislabelling the Church as Roman, which it is not, and never was.

How can anhy of us explain what is “meant” when a person with an imaginitive mind decides to invent fiction? I suppose he “meant” to mislead people such as yourself!

No, thanks, I have sufficient amounts of drivel just reading the thread. No more is necessary! Of course Anglicans and Protestants must lift their voices in order to try to justify disobedience to the authority appointed by Christ.

Not to worry. As I have pointed out many times, Mr. MacCulloch said no such thing, anywhere. Indeed, he said precisely the opposite.

And no need to worry about the other references, either. I’ve dealt with them. Read around where you found these, in the thread. LFD was talking to me, in the ancient post you quote here.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[brkn1]

I am confused, St. Paul many times tells his readers and Timothy to hold to the traditions he handed on.
Is the tradition that contradicts scripture, actually contradicting scripture, or is it contradicting your personal understanding of scripture?

What about the Tradition that the books in your New Testament were indeed inspired by God, and not the others like the gnostic gospels.

Jesus also said when confronted by someone quoting scripture, “But I say”
There is no Catholic Tradition that contradicts scripture. If you feel that there is, then it is your interpretation of scripture that is incorrect. Just because you believe something to be true, doesn’t make it so.

A tradition that is truly inspired by God and does not contradict Scripture is fine by me.
We are supposed to search the Scripture to make sure our traditions do not conflict with God’s Word. To blindly accept tradition that conflicts with God’s Word puts us in the same position as Adam and Eve, when Satan presented the first oral tradition.

Jesus is God’s Living Word and what He said became part of Scripture after He said “But I say”. He was expanding on and not contradicting the Scripture being quoted.
Jesus said many things against oral and written traditions, so there is a precedent to question what others claim as tradition being equal to God’s Word.
Jesus said that Scripture cannot be broken, which is a way of saying that Scripture does not contradict itself. You are correct that our understanding might be the problem, but that is why God sent the Holy Spirit to help all those born of God.
Your statement, “Just because you believe something to be true, doesn’t make it so.” could also be applied to you and your church.
God’s Word is the rule that I hold to as the final say in such matters. There are contradictions between God’s Word and Catholic Tradition, but you say otherwise. The argument that your Catholic Tradition as the rule maintains unity also allows for the possibility of a unity of errors. I trust God’s Word as the final say, regardless of man’s traditions and arguments.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

My point is simple. The "Office of the Papacy is invalid not because some goofy pope’s abused that office, though many did. But because there is no proof in either scripture or Holy Tradition for the Office of the Papacy,
“I will entrust to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth, will be bound in Heaven; what ever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Mt. 16:19. That was to Peter and his successors. I know you don’t believe that, but it’s only your interpretation that causes you to disagree. You can’t say it isn’t there.
luckyfredsdad;5002505:

…or the Magisterium of the Pope

There is no ‘magesterium of the pope.’ There is the Pope and there is the Magesterium, which is comprised of the bishops of the Church.

[and neither his Jurisdiction or Infallibility is soundly based.

Well. it’s in Scripture and it’s what all of Christianity believed until the 16th Century. In that, is far more reliable than the denial of the heretics who left the Catholic Church to form their own sects and their misguided progeny.

[The Authority of the Church is based on Revelation,Scripture,Tradition and the Consensus of the Fathers.

Yes. Exactly right. And that goes for the authority of the Bishop of Rome as well.

[/quote]

[/quote]

 

[luckyfredsdad]

You are reading with your anti-catholic lenses on your face!
**
You are wrong friend, the teachings of the Catholic Church go back two thousand years and Catholics are taught the Faith grounded on the teachings Revealed by Christ, recorded in the Scriptures and interpreted by the Fathers of the Seven Councils.
**
**What you teach, with all due respect, is medievalism!
**
In regard to the Papal Magisterium,
You are in all respects correct, the “Magisterium”, or Authority,of the Church, the Body of Christ, is of Christ and it is exercised through the Bishops via the Seven Ecumenical Councils and Fathers!

Now if you can show me where the Popes Authority is dealt with through the Seven Councils , I will gladly listen! He called none of the Councils that I can remember, neither did he have a place of authority in any of them.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

**My point is simple. The "Office of the Papacy is invalid not because some goofy pope’s abused that office, though many did. But because there is no proof in either scripture or Holy Tradition for the Office of the Papacy, or the Magisterium of the Pope and neither his Jurisdiction or Infallibility is soundly based. The Authority of the Church is based on Revelation,Scripture,Tradition and the Consensus of the Fathers. For reference see S. Vincent of Lerins. Any authority the pope might have comes to him from the Church or the Emperor’s gift. **

Well this first of all sort of begs the question viz, just exactly what, in your opinion, would constitute “proof”?

But before we can really even begin to make a case for the papacy, we must first make the case for the special role which the *Roman Church * would play in the divine plan of salvation. So let’s begin there.

Certainly you would agree that, at a very minimum,the Roman Church, of all the New Testament churches, enjoys a certain prominence, yes? Recall these inspired words of the apostle:

“First, I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is *heralded *throughout the world.” Romans 1:8

Now the inspired word used here for *heralded * is Kataggello.

Different versions translate the word Kataggello variously:

“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.” King James.

“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being** reported** all over the world” NIV

“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.” NAS

bible.cc/romans/1-8.htm

Now what is this Roman faith that is being proclaimed “throughout the whole world?” Why, it is none other than the gospel itself, *in all its fullness, in all its purity! *

Think of it. The gospel and the Roman faith are linked together, right here in Sacred Scripture!

Even Protestant theologians are beginning to recognize this* crucial f*act.

Calvinist theologian John Murray for example, in his commentary on Romans 1:8, clearly see this:

“And this passage shows that with the diffusion of the gospel went also the report of the faith of the believers at Rome…”

*The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes *, John Murray, Eerdmans Publishing Company (1997) ISBN-10: 0802843417 ISBN-13: 978-0802843418, pp. 19-20
books.google.com/books?id=cptcfwu-7nIC&pg=PA19&dq=%22this+passage+shows+that+with+the+diffusion+of+the+gospel%22&lr=&client=firefox#PPA19,M1

And John Wesley, commenting on this same passage, says:

And the goodness and wisdom of God established faith in the chief cities; in Jerusalem and Rome particularly; that from thence it might be diffused to all nations.

classicbst.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/WesleysExplanatoryNotes/wes.cgi?book=ro&chapter=1#Ro1_8

Now another very significant passage in which the word Kataggello appears is 1 Corinthians:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you ***proclaim ***the death of the Lord until he comes.

1 cor. 11:26
usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians11.htm

Now to to proclaim the Lord’s death is none other than to proclaim the gospel!

On this there exist virtually universal agreement.

So here we have the inspired word Kataggello being used in both 1 Cor.11:26 and Romans 1:8, and both these passages are *intimately connected *with the proclamation of the gospel!

Clearly then, I think you would agree, there exists an undeniable Scriptural connection here between the *Roman faith *and the proclamation of the gospel.

The two go hand in hand. They are inseparable.

And “what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” Mark 10:9

 

[guanophore]

A tradition that is truly inspired by God and does not contradict Scripture is fine by me.
We are supposed to search the Scripture to make sure our traditions do not conflict with God’s Word. To blindly accept tradition that conflicts with God’s Word puts us in the same position as Adam and Eve, when Satan presented the first oral tradition.

There are no Sacred Traditions that contradict Scripture. The both come from the same Source, so they cannot.

Who said you are to search the Scripture to make sure your traditions do not conflict with God’s word? And don’t bother trying to cite the reference in Acts to the Bereans. The reason they were more noble is because they received the Apostolic Teaching with eagerness.

No one is purporting that our “own” traditions are equal with the Scripture. We are saying that the Apostolic Teaching, whether it is found in the Church, or in the Scripture, are of equal value.

Jesus is God’s Living Word and what He said became part of Scripture after He said “But I say”. He was expanding on and not contradicting the Scripture being quoted.
Jesus said many things against oral and written traditions, so there is a precedent to question what others claim as tradition being equal to God’s Word.
Jesus said that Scripture cannot be broken, which is a way of saying that Scripture does not contradict itself. You are correct that our understanding might be the problem, but that is why God sent the Holy Spirit to help all those born of God.

But the promise that He would lead into all Truth was given only to the Church - those He authorized to preach and teach. This what we call the Magesterium.

Your statement, “Just because you believe something to be true, doesn’t make it so.” could also be applied to you and your church.

Of me, yes, but not the Church. The deposit of faith that Jesus left with the Church is true whether I espouse it, or not. God has never allowed Truth to be subjective.

God’s Word is the rule that I hold to as the final say in such matters.

This is the main grievious error that has caused the multitude of divisions in the Church today. Scripture was never intended to be used this way, and Scripture itself testifies to that fact. Don’t you think, if God intended such a thing, He would have included that in the Word, along with the table of contents of what books belonged in there?

There are contradictions between God’s Word and Catholic Tradition, but you say otherwise.

Because we know that God cannot contradict Himself.

Either you have an insufficient understanding of Scripture, or Tradition, or both. The last is the most likely.

The argument that your Catholic Tradition as the rule maintains unity also allows for the possibility of a unity of errors. I trust God’s Word as the final say, regardless of man’s traditions and arguments.

What is a “unity of errors”? There is no unity in the Church besides what God creates. That is why the error of Sola Scriptura has produced so much disunity. It is not of God.

You are right, though, to trust God’s Wrod regardless of man’s traditions and arguements. It seems you don’t recognize that God’s Word is not confined to your scripture. If it was, you wouldn’t have a Bible, because what books belonged in it would never have been discerned by the Church!

 

[guanophore]

Now what is this Roman faith that is being proclaimed “throughout the whole world?” Why, it is none other than the gospel itself, *in all its fullness, in all its purity! *

The faith referenced here is not 'Roman" faith. It is the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is not “Roman”.

Think of it. The gospel and the Roman faith are linked together, right here in Sacred Scripture!

No, what is linked is the Catholicity of the gospel. The Christians in Rome were Catholic.

So here we have the inspired word Kataggello being used in both 1 Cor.11:26 and Romans 1:8, and both these passages are *intimately connected *with the proclamation of the gospel!

Clearly then, I think you would agree, there exists an undeniable Scriptural connection here between the *Roman faith *and the proclamation of the gospel.

Yes, there is a clear connection, but it is because the Gospel is Catholic,and the Roman Church was Catholic. The Latinness of it is not what distinguishes it.

The two go hand in hand. They are inseparable.

Yet we know that the Catholic faith can, and is, separated from Latin language, culture, and practices in the other 22 Catholic Rites, and yet, retains the Catholicity of the faith that those in Rome espoused.

And “what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” Mark 10:9

God did not limit the Catholic faith to the Latin Rite. I am not trying to separate the Catholic faith from Rome, either. But it is not confined there.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

We are supposed to search the Scripture to make sure our traditions do not conflict with God’s Word.

…Jesus said many things against oral and written traditions, so there is a precedent to question what others claim as tradition being equal to ***God’s Word.

---

…There are contradictions between God’s Word and Catholic Tradition…

I trust ***God’s Word ***as the final say, regardless of man’s traditions and arguments.

Ah yes, never forget to use at least one of the famous Five Words: “Evangel, God’s word, faith, Christ, and spirit”

I know nothing of your church; at the very least it contains people who will, I fear, overturn the whole system and drive the princes into using force to restrain good men and bad alike. The gospel, the word of God, faith, Christ, and Holy Spirit - these words are always on their lips; look at their lives and they speak quite another language.

Erasmus to Philip Melanchthon, September 6, 1524, Works, vol. 10, p. 380.books.google.com/books?id=bYVEgXbiunkC&pg=RA2-PT239&dq=%22gospel,+the+word+of+God,+faith,+Christ,+and+Holy+Spirit%22&lr=&as_brr=0&sig=ACfU3U24Ga1ZIZvX0MBDOn1zuq1VF7ZoVA

Support for Luther spreads wider every day. Some Frenchmen I could name are madder already than any Germans. They all have on their lips five words: gospel, God’s word, faith, Christ, and spirit- and yet I see many among them of a sort that leaves me in no doubt they are moved by the spirit of Satan.

Erasmus to Theodoricus Hezius, Basel, September 2, 1524. (This letter was first published in the Opus Epistolarum.)
The Correspondence of Erasmus: Letters 1356 to 1534 (1523-1524) (Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 10), ISBN-10: 0802059767 ISBN-13: 978-0802059765, p. 360.books.google.com/books?hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&q=%22all%20have%20on%20their%20lips%20five%20words%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

LOL!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Not only was Rome not the only power back then, but there were Christians living in places where Roman influence was non-existent. Those Christians were not part of what became Catholic Christianity.

The history of 景教 demonstrates the falseness of that claim.

jonathon

At least two bishops present at Nicea I in 325 were from the Armenian Church; it was subject to Caesarea at the time, which was a Catholic see. As for the Church in Persia, those martyred in the persecution of 341-2 are among those whom the CC honours as its Saints. It is not the case that the Catholic Church was confined to the Roman Empire. Babylonia was not within the Roman Empire - it was Parthian territory until 226 AD, then the Sassanids took over until they were displaced by the Arabs after 651. There were Catholic bishops there by the third century - Seleucia-Ctesiphon was a Catholic see from 294, & it still is; it had & has the rank of a Patriarchate in all but name. Apart from China, which was evangelised by the Nestorian Church in 635 & later, most of the significant centres of Christian life were for some time in union with Rome, directly or indirectly. St Gregory “the Illuminator” is the Apostle of Armenia, & he is honoured as a Saint by Catholics as well as by the majority Church of Armenia. St. Maruta of Martyropolis is honoured by Catholics as well as by the Persian & Coptic Churches. St. Nino is the Apostle of Georgia, & she is honoured as such by Catholics. IMHO, those Saints deserve to be far better known than they seem to be.​

There are plenty of complications; but many sees outside the Roman Empire were as much a part of the Catholic Church or the Great Church (or whatever one wants to call it) as Rome was.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Start with the fact that 天主教徒 is not 景教. Then read the history of the latter, and not confine yourself to the history of the former.

jonathon

Is your text meant to appear in a Chinese fount ? I can’t read the Chinese bits ​

 

[GKC]

Is your text meant to appear in a Chinese fount ? I can’t read the Chinese bits ​

No more can I. But I’ll take a wild guess, and not be too surprised if I’m wrong, and say that we might be looking at “Catholic” and “Nestorian”.

How far off, jblake?

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Actually you can go back further still. During the reign of Constantine, when he legalized Christianity, in a effort to lure pagans into the Church it was decided to absorb the pagan “icons” into the ceremonies of the Church. Also the pagan temples were converted into Christian worship houses. One group (name removed by moderator)articular took exception to this, it is from this group we get the word “VANDALISM”. Yes my friends, the Vandals were professed Christians and they obhoared pagan idolatry.

To be exact, they were, like the Goths, Arian Christians. The Byzantines - Melchites, if you prefer - had no more liking for Arianism than Rome did. And Arians did not much care - on occasion - for Catholics; that is why St. Hermenegild (put to death in 585) is honoured as a Catholic martyr.​

Catholics did not care for pagan idolatry either - but the veneration of icons & the holy images is neither pagan nor idolatrous; it is good and pious. It can be corrupted into idolatry, but so can veneration of the Bible, & just about anything else on earth.

As for temples - why was the Serapeum sacked in 391, & why was a church to St, John the Baptist built over the temple of Hadad in Damascus ? It would much more sensible to complain of the vandalism of Catholics, & of their intolerance in destroying pagan places of worship, such as Mithraea.

As to the integration of Pagan iconology into the Church we learn how God feels about such things when he told the Nation of Isreal that they were to destroy everything of a religious nature that belonged to their enemies down to the gold and silver the was used in their idols and upon their pagan alters.

It needs to be shown that that is a duty binding on Christians. Daniel 7 uses “pagan iconology” when it describes the Ancient of Days: & part of Isaiah 7.14 is an exact copy of a “pagan” text. When the Bible itself incorporates paganism, why may the Church not do so ? There are many examples of this in the Bible.​

 

[brkn1]

Ah yes, never forget to use at least one of the famous Five Words: “Evangel, God’s word, faith, Christ, and spirit”

Erasmus to Philip Melanchthon, September 6, 1524, Works, vol. 10, p. 380.books.google.com/books?id=bYVEgXbiunkC&pg=RA2-PT239&dq=%22gospel,+the+word+of+God,+faith,+Christ,+and+Holy+Spirit%22&lr=&as_brr=0&sig=ACfU3U24Ga1ZIZvX0MBDOn1zuq1VF7ZoVA

Erasmus to Theodoricus Hezius, Basel, September 2, 1524. (This letter was first published in the Opus Epistolarum.)
The Correspondence of Erasmus: Letters 1356 to 1534 (1523-1524) (Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 10), ISBN-10: 0802059767 ISBN-13: 978-0802059765, p. 360.books.google.com/books?hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&q=%22all%20have%20on%20their%20lips%20five%20words%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

LOL!

You seem to take pleasure in implying that anyone using those words must be moved by the spirit of Satan.

I wonder if you and Erasmus might secretly feel the same way towards Paul, when he says the following in (2 Corinthians 4:2-5,13)?
2 “But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the WORD OF GOD deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe ( have FAITH) not, lest the light of the glorious GOSPEL of CHRIST, Who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach (EVANGEL) not ourselves, but CHRIST JESUS the LORD; and ourselves your servants for JESUS’ sake.”

13"We having the same SPIRIT of FAITH, according as it is WRITTEN, I BELIEVED, and therefore have I spoken; we also BELIEVE, and therefore speak".

You seem proud to have Erasmus as proof of your “correctness”. I plan to stick with God’s Word and leave the secular history and traditions for those that find God’s Word to be inadequate.
Erasmus forgot to include “born again” in his list, but I can understand why that might be the case.
It really says something about your “FAITH” that the use of those five words are signs of Satan’s spirit.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

You seem to take pleasure in implying that anyone using those words must be moved by the spirit of Satan.

No, not anyone - just those who are, well, “moved by the spirit of Satan!” LOL!

But my point, basically, is this:

That anyone, no matter how ignorant or immoral, can quote Scripture, can grunt the words, “Evangel, God’s word, faith, Christ, and spirit” etc, and / or claim to be enlightened and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Simple as that!

Now Erasmus understood this and was merely sharing his impression of those individuals whom he had encountered in his day and who were obviously corrupt, but who, nevertheless, always had the words of Scripture ever on their lips.

I wonder if you and Erasmus might secretly feel the same way towards Paul, when he says the following in (2 Corinthians 4:2-5,13)?
2 “But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the WORD OF GOD deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe ( have FAITH) not, lest the light of the glorious GOSPEL of CHRIST, Who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach (EVANGEL) not ourselves, but CHRIST JESUS the LORD; and ourselves your servants for JESUS’ sake.”

13"We having the same SPIRIT of FAITH, according as it is WRITTEN, I BELIEVED, and therefore have I spoken; we also BELIEVE, and therefore speak".

Now who would dare to compare those swinish followers of Luther and Calvin with the holy and celibate apostle??!!

Dear blessed God, what an untrue and unjust accusations you make!

I see ever more clearly why Erasmus was compelled to say of those committed to “evangelical” principles:

But as it is, Luther writes against himself, seeing things go the way he had not expected, and a tribe arising of men who are not evangelicals but diabolicals, which means the death of liberal studies.

– To Conradus Goclenius, Basel, April 2, 1524.

Collected Works or Erasmus, vol. 10, The Correspondence of Erasmus, Letters 1356 to 1524, (A.D 1523 to 1524), tr. R.A.B. Mynores and Alexander Dalzell, University of Toronto Press, ISBN 0802059767 p. 225.

You seem proud to have Erasmus as proof of your “correctness”. I plan to stick with God’s Word and leave the secular history and traditions for those that find God’s Word to be inadequate.
Erasmus forgot to include “born again” in his list, but I can understand why that might be the case.
It really says something about your “FAITH” that the use of those five words are signs of Satan’s spirit.

Well, there’s another untrue and unjust accusation! But I forgive.

But now, tell me my friend, what are you insisting on? What really is your theological difficulty?

Is it just that your interpretation only of Scripture must be permitted to gain the day? But *that *is precisely what the dictator Calvin (and he was) and the violent Luther (and he was) wanted! You see, they too wanted to be Lord of the Scripture, and heaven help any who dared put a different interpretation on their cherished passages!

Now just for the record, just because I’m critical, doesn’t mean I’m angry. I’m not! Matter of fact, I’m very much enjoying our conversation. But I do wish you would get to the point. I do wish you would just come out and say exactly what it is that you are trying to get across here. I mean, you complain about tradition and just keep saying Word of God this and Word of God that, and Word of God something else, but never say why you believe your interpretation should be preferred to that of anyone else.

If you could just clarify this one thing, it would help immensely.

Anyway, for now, I’ll just leave you to ponder these words of Erasmus from his Hyperaspistes (or Warrior shielding). His words are directed toward Luther:

You stipulate that we should not ask for or accept anything but Holy Scripture, but you do it in such a way as to require that we permit you to be its sole interpreter, renouncing all others. Thus the victory will be yours if we allow you to be not the steward but the*** lord of Holy Scripture***.

Collected Works of Erasmus, (1999), Vol. 76: Controversies: De Libero Arbitrio / Hyperaspistes, Charles Trinkaus (Editor) University of Toronto Press; Volume 76 edition, pp. 204-205.
ISBN-10: 0802043178 ISBN-13: 978-0802043177

God bless!

 

[Protestant101]

Lucky, there is all kinds of evidence in Scripture and Tradition. If you do not see it, it is because you are reading with your anti-Catholic lenses on your face.
Methinks you are suffering an authority problem.

There you go with that “anti-Catholic lense” trick again. It would be nice to just get a sensible answer with some references instead of denigrating those who disagree like this…

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

There you go with that “anti-Catholic lense” trick again. It would be nice to just get a sensible answer with some references instead of denigrating those who disagree like this…

What you call that trick is the result of what you say and your overall attitude. No trick to it. You are an anti-Catholic bigot. Why not just accept that and quit complaining when people speak the truth about you.

As to the ‘sensible answers with…references’ can you give us a reason, any reason at all, why we should jump through your hoops?