I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[dennisknapp]

xrc:

Please don’t try to rewrite history!

In Christ Alone,
Mike

I will give you a challenge that I gave on another thread.

Originally Posted by dennisknapp
*There have been some very intense debates going on in this forum and they have been very interesting. But one issue that I have seen repeatively over looked is history.

The arguements with which all Protestants rely on DID NOT exists in the early Church. Protestant Christianity and especially Evangelical Protestantism was an innovation of the 16th century in everything except that which is held in common with both branches of the historical Church–Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Michael P, stated,
“That is the good thing about not being Catholic. I don’t have to start with assumptions and read back into history and Scripture. I don’t have to identify with any traditions. I just identify with the invisible body of Christ and the local chuch. Therefore, I can approach this much more unbiasedly than others.”

Not with standing that this is a huge claim, where is the evidence for such a claim? I would say that because I am a Catholic, and have access to history, and belong to the tradition that wrote it, I can approach the topic with a greater understanding and insight because I do not read into it my modern biases and theological innovations. I have the testemony of all those who have come before me–Church Fathers, Creeds, Councils and the Magistarium. The whole cloud of witnesses attest to the validity and authenticity of the Catholic Church.

So, I am asking all those who are not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox to post historical evidence for your beliefs. Show us way we should buy into your system?

 

[dennisknapp]

Please provide evidence for:

Communion is only symbolic; not salvific.

That baptism is only symbolic; not salvific.

Marian doctrine is a late innovation of the Roman Catholic Church.

That Apostolic Succession was not taught in the early Church.

 

[GKC]

This one comes up a lot amongst some folk who talk about Trent.

What XRC is quoting, inaccurately, is not the actual Council of Trent itself, but the report of a commission set up, IAW Session XXV of the Council, to determine how to deal with the concept of “prohibited books” (what became the so-called “Index”. It was this Commission that wrote what XRC quoted. However, there is always context.

The Commission considered both secular books, and translations of sacred Scripture. With respect to the latter, the concern was to keep unapproved translations, especially including those in the vernacular, from being used. Accordingly:

(begin quote)

Translations of the books of the Old Testament may in the judgement of the bishop be permited to learned and pious men only, provided such translations are used only as elucidations of the Vulgate Edition for the understanding of the Holy Scriptures and not as the sound text. Translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this list {a listing of banned writers} shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal. But if with such translations as are permitted or with the Vulgate Edition some annotations are circulated, these may also, after the suspect passeges have been expunged by the theological faculty of some Catholic university or by the general inquisition, be permitted to those to whom the translations are permitted. Under these circumstances the entire volume of the Sacred Books, which is commonly called the biblia Vatabili, or parts of it, may be permited to pious and learned men. From the Bibles of Isidore Clarius of Brescia, however, the preface and introdiction are to be removed , and no one shall regard its text as the text of the Vulgate edition.

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will, by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgement of the bishop or inquisitor, who may, with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase in faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins until they have handed them over to the ordinary.

(end of quote)

The Commission went on at length about other categories of books. But the point is that the prohibition was not on the owning or reading of the Bible per se, and was not a declaration of Trent itself. It was a prohibition on Scripture in the vernacular (for the most past) and a limitation on certain translations other than the approved Vulgate, even in Latin.

I have often heard folks say that Trent forbade the owning or reading of Bibles. Nope. Vulgates were fine. Even other translations, per this Commission’s findings (approved by Pius V) might be used with limitations. Unapproved vernacular was the problem.

History is interesting.

GKC

Traditional Anglican

 

[Vincent]

Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

Speaking about rewriting history, Pope Leo XII died on February 10, 1829.

Of course, you didn’t rewrite history, but many of these websites did. I wonder what the source of the alleged quote actually is.

 

[Vincent]

Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

I think I found the source of that quote:

“But a more authoritative confirmation still of all that we have advanced against Popery on this head has lately appeared. It is the Encyclical Letter of Pius IX. (issued in January 1850). The document is such a compound of despotism and bigotry as Leo XII. might have conceived, and Gregory XVI. signed. It is in itself such an exposure, that we add not a word of comment. After condemning the ‘new art of printing,’ the Pope goes on to say,–‘Nay, more; with the assistance of the Biblical Societies, which have long been condemned by the holy chair, they do not blush to distribute holy Bibles, translated into the vulgar tongue, without being conformed to the rules of the Church.’”

—J.A. Wylie’s The Papacy​

Apparently, somebody used “The Papacy” as a secondary source and badly paraphrased what Wylie was trying to say. The alleged “January 1850” encyclical letter seems to be missing.

 

[StSteverino]

---

---

---

**With all due respect, **

---

Not much respect in a post like this that I can see. This is a requrgitation of silly ahistorical out of context anti-catholic pseudo history lifted from the long discredited works of the late Lorraine Boettner.

---

***No respectable Protestant Apologist, even feircely antagonistic to the Catholic Chuch like Jame White, R C Sproul or Ankerberg would accept this list of charges as presented. ***

---

In fact, if you go to Alpha and Omega Ministeries homepage, where James White is preparing a new generation of critics to assault the walls of our supposedly false gospel, he expressly rebukes this kind of sloppiness.

---

I won’t bother to offer a rebuttle to particulars because this list has so many tempting errors I can’t decide where to start. Others will do that for me.

---

What this list does show is that you, Mike, are not respectful, not well informed, seemingly uncharitable and really not well qualified to make the Protestant Case. There are other protestants on this thread who seem to know what they are doing. You might learn from them.

And you might learn from us. Real Christians find ways to grow in love and wisdom even when in the company of foes.
Perhaps you should read the biography of St Francis of Assisi.

By the way, speaking of the Sermons of Jesus, have you heard of the Sermon on the Mount? How many hospitals and orphanages are named for St Francis and how many for Spurgeon, Rutherfordton, Finney, Calvin, Zwingli? Check it on the web.

Then tell me who is living for Christ.

Try 1 Cor 13 and spend a year or two dwelling on it. Your anger and hate make you look quite silly.

---

---

your Roman Catholic Church has added many unbiblical teachings over the centuries. These were not handed down by the apostles! They are the product of many centuries of gradual departure from the true faith of the Church found in the Word of God. For instance:

• **Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310 **
• **The lighting of candles in 320 **
• **The worship of saints about 375 **
• **The mass was adopted in 394 **
• **The worship of Mary began to develop about 432 **
• **Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500 **
• **The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593 **
• **Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600 **
• **Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606 **
• **Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650 **
• **The custom of kissing the Pope’s foot was introduced in 709 **
• **The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788 **
• **The invention of holy water was about 850 **
• **The canonization of saints was formalized in 993 **
• **Feasts for the dead were introduced 1003 **
• **'The celibacy of the priesthood was declared 1074 **
• **The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced 1076 **
• **Prayer beads were introduced in 1090 **
• **The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140 **
• **The sale of indulgences began 1190 **
• **The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200 **
• **The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted 1215 **
• **Confession was instituted 1215 **
• **The adoration of the Wafer began 1220 **
• **'The Ave Maria was introduced 1316 **
• **The cup was taken from the laity in 1415 **
• **Purgatory was officially decreed In 1439 **
• **Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture 1546 **
• **The Apocrypha was received into the Canon 1546 **
• **The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced 1854 **
• **'The doctrine of the temporal power of the Pope proclaimed 1864 **
• The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven 1950

 

[GKC]

Vincent:

Speaking about rewriting history, Pope Leo XII died on February 10, 1829.

Of course, you didn’t rewrite history, but many of these websites did. I wonder what the source of the alleged quote actually is.

That was his Encyclical, Ubi Primum, issued on his assumption of the Pontificate, 5 May, 1824.

“17. You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world. Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,(16) it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or rather mistranslated, into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by a distorted interpretation of Christ’s gospel) they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil!”

Note it was the translations again, not the Bible itself.

History - fascinating.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Vincent]

Thanks, GKC!

 

[GKC]

Vincent:

Thanks, GKC!

You are very welcome, my friend. Glad to be of help.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[michaelp]

GKC:

That was his Encyclical, Ubi Primum, issued on his assumption of the Pontificate, 5 May, 1824.

“17. You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world. Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,(16) it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or rather mistranslated, into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by a distorted interpretation of Christ’s gospel) they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil!”

Note it was the translations again, not the Bible itself.

History - fascinating.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Is this fallible? Or does this just express the opinion of the Pope?

 

[GKC]

michaelp:

Is this fallible? Or does this just express the opinion of the Pope?

AFAIK, it does not meet any of the requirements for an
*ex cathedra * pronouncement. So, no, it’s not infallible, in itself.

GKC

traditional Anglican

 

[michaelp]

GKC:

AFAIK, it does not meet any of the requirements for an
*ex cathedra *pronouncement. So, no, it’s not infallible, in itself.

GKC

traditional Anglican

So why bother with it if it is just the opinion of the Pope? It would only be a big deal if it was infallible, right?

 

[GKC]

michaelp:

So why bother with it if it is just the opinion of the Pope? It would only be a big deal if it was infallible, right?

Beats me. Ask the guy who cut and pasted the stuff.

Me, I’m a history buff.

GKC

traditional Anglican

 

[xrc]

kerbear:

Mike,

So much for the “defending the Faith with gentleness and respect” mode, eh?

You have received a number of answers to your question, even though it poses a hypothetical situation which is found nowhere in Scripture. You refuse to respond to questions from others, offers of assistance in learning the true teachings of the Catholic Church, and you continue to rant against things that no knowledgeable Catholic believes, and that the Catholic Church does not in fact teach.

You refuse to take the time to learn the truth.

What would your answer to your question be?

---

Ok, how about this question: What is necessary to get to heaven?

---

In Christ Alone,
Mike

 

[xrc]

RBushlow:

Mike, I thought you knew all about the Catholic Faith. If that were the case, then you would know the answer to these questions. BTW, you say in Chris alone does that mean that you do not believe in the Holy Trinity?

Let us go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

.

I do know about the Catholic faith, thats why I am no longer Catholic!!!

---

Regarding the questions, I wanted your definition of grace!

---

When I say “In Christ Alone” I am excluding Mary, the saints, the RCC etc.

---

Yes I believe in the Trinity!!!

---

In Christ Alone,
Mike

 

[Ozzie]

ncgolf:

No! The NT writers do not speak of the Trinity, the perpetual virginity of Mary or Mary born without original sin either. I guess those are false teachings??

The N.T. writers do most definitely speak of the Trinity, albeit implicitly, but most definitely! The doctrine of the Trinity is truly a Biblical revelation. A doctrine that was always there in Scripture but forced to the foreground and adopted as an article of faith because of the Arian controversy that swept the Eastern and Western churches, even after the Council of Nicaea.

You’re right that the perpetual Virginity of Mary, her so-called “Immaculate Conception” and bodily “Assumption” into Heaven are not to be found in Scripture. These doctrines were introduced into the Church by men much later but having absolutely no Apostolic support; and unlike Christ’s ascension back into Heaven, Mary’s alleged “Assumption” had absolutely no eyewitnesses. The fact that no one knows her grave site is actually testimony of her insignificance during the Apostolic age. This too is borne out by Scripture. After the birth of Jesus she’s rarely mentioned in the Gospel accounts, and fades completely out of sight after Acts chapter one where she is merely mentioned in passing as one of the 120 (1:14). The focus then shifts fully onto the Holy Spirit working through the witness of the Apostles, of which Mary had no part.

Note: And no, the “woman” in Rev. 12 is not a vision of the exalted Mary in Heaven as Queen. First of all it is not the “woman” who is caught up to God and to His throne but the Son to whom the “woman” gave birth. The “woman” actually remains on earth and is persecuted by the dragon, flees into the wilderness where she is nourished for three and a half years (vss. 13-14). NEVER is this “woman” bodily assumed into Heaven. Sorry, but that’s the Scriptural truth!

 

[xrc]

dennisknapp:

No, it is you my friend who are mistaken. Like I stated to Ozzie, it is you who are peddling “traditions of men.”

We are simply following what has been handed down from the beginning.

Have you even read the Catechism? Your statements regarding what Catholics believe is laughable at best, and sad at worst.

Why should we believe your innovations? Your form of Christianity didn’t even exist until fairly resently. If you would take the time to look into the history of the Church you would see this.

If we are supposed to believe you, then why should we not believe the Mormons or JW’s? Why not believe them?

You are on an island and we reside in the New Jerusalem.

---

**Please tell me, where in the New Testament do you find baptismal regeneration, seven sacraments, sanctifying grace, transubstantiation, a continuing sacrifice, confession to a priest, temporal punishment, indulgences, purgatory, merited eternal reward, the papacy, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Assumption into heaven, co-redemptive work, mediation of all grace etc. **

None of these are taught in Scripture, in fact they contradict Scripture!

---

I reside in my Father’s house, you reside in Rome!

---

In Christ Alone,
Mike

 

[Ozzie]

ncgolf:

Jesus gave Peter the keys … also the power to bind and loose. Jesus gave Peter the same authority on Earth as Christ wielded. That is powerful stuff. He did not give it to everyone. You mistakenly believe the Catholic church gives the Pope special powers … no … Christ gave that power to Peter … and it was passed on. Part of that power is the ability to forgive sins … just as Christ did on earth and to lead His people in their earthly journey. Peter became Christs vicar on earth (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit). He did not leave a manual with instructions on what He wanted after His ascension. What Jesus did leave was Peter at the head and the apostles … both filled with the Holy Spirit. That is the beginning of the Apostolic succession.

No, Apostolic succession is actually a post-Apostolic idea. A doctrine nowhere taught in Scripture and which has absolutely no Apostolic support. Hence, a tradition of men introduced into the Church after the Apostolic age. Neither Peter, Paul, John, or any of the N.T. writers ever hinted to such a thing. In fact, Paul taught to the contrary when he states that the Church is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and N.T. prophets (Eph. 2:20-21). A “foundation” is laid once and then built upon - it is not continually being built.

Peter never refers to himself as “vicar of Christ,” and none of the Apostles in the N.T. ever forgive an individual’s sins. They proclaim the forgiveness of sins based on the substitutionary, proptiatory sin-sacrifice of Christ, but they never claim to have such power themselves as to forgive sins as Jesus did. That’s an erroneous teaching! Jesus said He would give Peter the keys to the kingdom, but that did not make him “head of the Apostles.” There is no such teaching in the N.T., nor is there ANY indication that any of the other Apostles consider him in that roll. Paul actually teaches to the contrary (Gal. 2:6). This is ALL post-Apostolic tradition, i.e., “traditions of men,” traslated: No Divine support.

Ignatius of Antioch spoke of authority of monarchial Bishops (plural) in Asia Minor in his letters, not the Bishop of Rome. But the idea of Apostolic succession in the Church developed out of the Church’s struggle with Gnostics who claimed apostolic support for their heretical views. The Gnostics appealed to secret teachings of Jesus and the apostles which, they said, they’d received. It was in response to this claim that Iranaeus wrote: “For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries…they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men…” (Against Heresies, III. 3:1). He went on to urge conformity to the Church at Rome where he said Apostolic tradition (teaching) had been faithfully preserved. But he could only speak for his day and certainly not for the centuries to follow. If you take his statement as binding on the Church then you’ve elevated his writings to the level of Scripture and that, my friend, is heretical

The idea of the Bishop of Rome as “vicar of Christ” developed much later and was not actually claimed by a Pope until Innocent III (1198-1216), claiming himself to be also “vicar of God,” “Supreme Sovereign of the Church and the world,” and “all things on earth and in heaven and in hell are subject to the vicar of Christ.”

This is ALL man-made tradition, my friend, devoid of ANY Scriptural or true Apostolic support.

 

[Ozzie]

ncgolf:

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You say you believe all of God’s written word yet both you and xrc deny the literal words of John 6. The word symbolic never shows up …

Symbolism is determined by the context. Do you take Him literally when He says, “I am the door” in Jn. 10:9. Do you think He is a door in your church building? Do you believe you’re saved by walking through it? When He said “I am the light of the world” in Jn. 8:12 do you take Him literally? Do you think He’s literally a cosmic flashlight that walks in front of you to light your way? Jesus begins his discourse in Jn. 6 by saying, “I am the bread of life.” That should give you your first clue.

 

[Vincent]

Ozzie:

Symbolism is determined by the context. Do you take Him literally when He says, “I am the door” in Jn. 10:9. Do you think He is a door in your church building? Do you believe you’re saved by walking through it? When He said “I am the light of the world” in Jn. 8:12 do you take Him literally? Do you think He’s literally a cosmic flashlight that walks in front of you to light your way? Jesus begins his discourse in Jn. 6 by saying, “I am the bread of life.” That should give you your first clue.

If only Jesus picked up a door and said, “This is my body…”