is this true?

[AAC08]

I wanted to make a further comment on the graphic that AAC08 provided. I found a reference to the original graphic and followed some discussions on it.

The graphic that AAC0* presented depicting a branching tree of Christianity (and colored and shaded to give an illusion of a burning bush of God) but with no central main trunk represents a a gnostic’s view of an invisible Church and has no basis in historical fact and tries to reinvent history. As everyone knows gnosticism, the “doctrine of salvation by knowledge” was rejected as a heresy by the Catholic Church centuries ago. The first anti-Gnostic writer was St. Justin Martyr in 165 AD and even St. Paul originally warned about them (Titus 3:9; 1 Timothy 4:3; 1 John 4:1-3). Gnosticism is ancient and has always tried to parasitically attach itself to the emergent social systems and philosophies of societies and nations. So we see its fingerprint here again in this graphic as that very same old ancient parasitic gnostic worm that is once again trying to squirm itself back into mainstram society by attempting to parasitically attaching itself to Christianity through the error of Protestantism.

Do not deviate from my question. How can you even bring Gnosticism into this picture? Where do you even read that Gnostics have an “invisible church” view? On the other hand, the Protestant movement serves to purge the Church of the errors of Roman Catholicism, not incorporate more errors.

In addition to the false depiction that it shows Christianity in a state of flowering unity (with the protestants branches of course closest to the top and growing straight up toward the light - yawn) there are two other huge things wrong with this tree of Christianity graphic.

From the this site’s analysis ( Principium Unitatis) I want to reference some of their insights:

So - the graphic is bogus. There is no such church as "Roman Catholic - there has always been just a “Catholic” church. Protestants invented the term "Roman Catholic but there is no such branch of The Catholic Church except in the polemic minds adn vocabularies of Protestants. All there is is a central trunk called “Catholic” and from it are fallen away branches some of which are valid apostolic succession churches we hope to re-graft back in (e.g. Orthodoxy).

James

Oh so NOW you even deny the name of the denomination which your church goes by. You effectively allowed yourself to be defeated. Sure there has always been a Catholic church, but the Roman Catholic church is not it. We call it Roman Catholic (even your own people call it Roman Catholic instead of simply “Catholic” to signify that it is under the rule of the Pope, who in older times were the bishops of Rome), and just because it has the name “Catholic” doesn’t mean it is Catholic at all. You try coming up with a valid answer for once.

 

[Thing]

angelic.org/originalsite/whydenominationsexist.html

The First Century Church was walking in a tremendous dimension of God’s truth and power. However, this was lost to us, almost completely, by the time the Dark Ages were upon us. Thus, in Acts 3:20-21 we see that it is God’s heart to restore it all to His Church. Thus, over the last several centuries, God had begun a restoration of revelation of His Truth. What we know today, and our intimate relationship with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and how we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us born-again believers are things that the prophets of old had so longed for. We are very privileged!

Understand that restoration often takes place across a long period of time. How much God can restore and reveal to us depends on the degree of our receptivity.

I asked here on this board a while ago if Christ established One Church or many churches.
Everyone who responded said that He established One Church.
That One Church, according to His Own promise, will last until the end of time.

The Catholic Church, which is the One Church, and from which all other christian groups are derived, is constantly reforming itself. Great orders like the Franciscans have done a lot of good for the One Church.

But, what was different about the protestant reformation was that unlike the Franciscans and others, the protestant reformers set themselves in opposition to the One Church, and because they opposed it, they likewise declaired they no longer wished to be part of The One Church Christ founded.

What is different about the Franciscans is that they acted out of love of the One Church that Christ founded and saught permission for their movement and were readily granted it - and great things have happened because of their spirit of love, humility and obedience.

The fruits of the protestant reformation however, even in Luthers time, were confusion and disorder.
Luther says:
“Formerly under the Pope, when we were forced and urged to receive the Sacrament, we went in crowds . . . now . . . our behavior towards it is as disgusting and shameless, that it is as if we were not human beings (still less Christians), but only sticks and stones, that stand in no need of it.”

“People have now so little esteem for the Holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord . . . it is as if there was nothing on earth that they were less in want of.”

“Peasants and nobles know the Gospel better than St. Paul or D. M. Luther; they are wise and they think themselves better than all their clergy.”

The preachers of the new Gospel are so thoroughly despised. He says: “They lead such a bad life . . . that they do more harm than good.”

 

[fellowChristian]

AAC08– Questions

Do you even know what the Protestant Reformation was about?

Do you even know what a “Protestant” is?

It’s not a religion.

It’s a movement,like a revolt.

It took me two long years of reading everything,that wasn’t Catholic, to finally realize that the Church that Jesus gave us is still here and is the Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church as you like to call it. I really enjoyed everything I learned and appreciate it more because I worked for it. But pray about it first then ask the Holy Spirit to guide you, and take notes.

Since you used Wikipedia I assume you read it…

The Roman Catholic Church,or Catholic Church
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_church

Latin Rite
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Rite

FYI—The Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. It’s the same thing! Only after the Protestant Reformation, Protestants started to call the “Catholic Church” the “Roman Catholic Church”. But it’s the same Church!

From the time of Christ (33 a.d.) to The Protestant Reformation (1517 a.d.) there was only the Catholic Church. After 1517 was when certain Catholics, who did not agree with the Catholic Church, started protesting. Hence the name “Protestant”

Before 1517 a.d. if you were Christian you were Catholic!

Protestants were Catholics before they turned on the Church!

Constantine I issued (with his co-emperor Licinius) the Edict of Milan in 313, which proclaimed **religious toleration **throughout the empire.

Scholars debate whether Constantine adopted his mother St. Helena’s Christianity in his youth, or whether he **adopted it **gradually over the course of his life.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I

Protestant Reformation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_reformation

Martin Luther 1517
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Henry VIII of England 1534
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Henry_VIII_of_England

List of Popes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

May the Holy Spirit guide you on your journey

 

[Thing]

Acts 3:21 Whom heaven indeed must receive, until the times of the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets, from the beginning of the world.

The verse you cited, AAC08, sounds to me like something other than the protestant reformation.

 

[fellowChristian]

One last thing–

• Adventists
• Anabaptist
• Baptist
• Calvinist
• Charismatic
• Congregational
• Diocese of Sydney
• Lutheran
• Methodist / Wesleyan
• Pentecostal
• Philippine Independent Church
• Plymouth Brethren
• Presbyterian
• Quakerism
• Reformed
• Restoration movement
• Waldensians

Are Protestants.

Protestantism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant

 

[MarcoPolo]

Don’t avoid the question. You are the one accusing me of being historically incorrect, you prove your claim against me.

We’re still waiting for you to admit the chart is demonstrably false.

 

[clmowry]

We’re still waiting for you to admit the chart is demonstrably false.

Well don’t hold your breath. You might pass out and bump your head.

Chuck

 

[CentralFLJames]

Oh so NOW you even deny the name of the denomination which your church goes by. You effectively allowed yourself to be defeated. Sure there has always been a Catholic church, but the Roman Catholic church is not it. We call it Roman Catholic (even your own people call it Roman Catholic instead of simply “Catholic” to signify that it is under the rule of the Pope, who in older times were the bishops of Rome), and just because it has the name “Catholic” doesn’t mean it is Catholic at all. You try coming up with a valid answer for once.

AAC08 don’t be absurd. If I call you “Bert” and your name is “Fred” then are you going to respond to those who call a name you are not? Are you going to permit others to define your name?

We Catholics DO NOT call ourselves Roman Catholic. And I dare you to show us in our Dogma and Catechism where we call ourselves “Roman Catholic”. This denomination does not exist.

What you and other ignorant people call “Roman Catholic” is an invention of Protestantism. “We” are simply “Catholic” and always have been. It is the Protestant reformers and their followers who attempted to declare by fiat that there was a new branch called “Roman Catholic” that came into existence either AFTER them (as your silly graphic depicts) or after the east-west schism.

The Protestant rebels and heretics you are following as your savior and your secular popes are the ones who invented the name “Roman Catholic” to try to disparage us as “Romanist” since we are loyal to the Chair of Peter - Christ’s only authorized Vicar. Go back and read up on history since you seem to be rather ignorant of it. Further dialog is useless until you can respect how we see ourselves and call us by the name we go by.

No Catholic who is loyal to Christs Vicar seated in Rome and who knows the original revisionist history will call himself Roman Catholic. What we have is a cultural revisionism where society invents survey forms and censuses etc. that have the term “Roman Catholic” on them (based on their own revisionist biases of history) but lack another category called “Catholic”. Catholics simply pick the closest term to accommodate their ignorance since we know who we are and they are clueless.

So be careful or I am going to petition the government to strike the word “Protestant” from all its census forms and replace it with the term “American Secular Protestant anti-Catholics”". What does that mean to you and are you going to let other’s define you?

James

 

[Gamera]

…
We Catholics DO NOT call ourselves Roman Catholic. And I dare you to show us in our Dogma and Catechism where we call ourselves “Roman Catholic”. This denomination does not exist.

What you and other ignorant people call “Roman Catholic” is an invention of Protestantism. “We” are simply “Catholic” and always have been. It is the Protestant reformers and their followers who attempted to declare by fiat that there was a new branch called “Roman Catholic” that came into existence either AFTER them (as your silly graphic depicts) or after the east-west schism.

“Roman Catholic” is a slang term of anti-Catholic origin. As the anti-Catholic meaning got forgotten, it became more accepted into English parlance even by Catholics over time, but it still refers only to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, the largest of 31 rites existing within the Catholic Church under the current Pope. The rites are as follows: Latin (“Roman”) ordinary form (using the 2002 missal), Latin (“Roman”) extraordinary form (using the 1962 missal), Anglican Use (not to be confused with Anglicanism), Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan, Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian, Maronite, Syriac, Malankarese, Chaldean, Syro-Malabarese, Armenian, Albanian, Belarussian/Byelorussian, Bulgarian, Czech, Krizevei, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukranian, Coptic, and Ethiopean/Abyssinian.

None of these but the Latin rites are “Roman Catholic,” yet each is part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Mozarabic Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Ambrosian Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Bragan Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Dominican Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Carmelite Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Carthusian Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Maronite Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Syriac Catholics are not “Roman Catholic”yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Malankarese Catholics are not “Roman Catholic”yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Chaldean Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Syro-Malabarese Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Armenian Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Albanian Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Belarussian/Byelorussian Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Bulgarian Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Czech Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Krizevei Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Greek Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Hungarian Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Italo-Albanian Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Melkite Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Romanian Catholics are not “Roman Catholic”yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Russian Catholics are not “Roman Catholic”yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Ruthenian Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Slovak Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Ukranian Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Coptic Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Ethiopean/Abyssinian Catholics are not “Roman Catholic” yet they are part of the Catholic Church in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

By permitting the sacraments Christ instituted to be celebrated in different ways in different cultures, the Catholic Church becomes all things to all men that some might be saved, 1 Cor. 9:22.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Once again, there are no “32,000 or so Protestant sects”. Furthermore, all Protestant denominations are right.

So you assert without evidence or pedigree. But men with greater pedigree than you can demonstrate have through intelligent discourse substantially differed with you (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant - there are certainly many thousands). For me, I will not split hairs over 1000’s or even 10’s of thousands - all that is relevant to me is that Protestants “are legion” and clearly not of one mind and one belief. There is no biblical concept of an invisible church - except for the Communion of Saints who are in heaven and which mostly only Catholics belief in (a few old school orthodox Protestants can’t seem to shake their catholic origins here).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant

Shouldn’t it be obvious to you by now that I am of the Christian faith? Jewish history and Jewish thought are two different things.

I didn’t intend to make the case you were Jewish nor for that matter do I even believe you are in close proximity to “Christian” from your absurd statements here. I was just observing similarity in judgement systems between you and the Jews.

The house of God in Jerusalem was once destroyed before Joshua and Zerubbabel set to work to rebuild it; was that a divine sign that the Jews were no longer in a custodial role of God’s word? Obvious answer: NO.

Of course that was before the fulfillment of the OT when Jesus started a New Testament. The books were closed at that event. There are hundreds of quotes from the Septuagint in the NT that many protestants would ignore simply because the Jews (who lacked any authority to do so) elected to redefine a cannon that was pragmatically closed by Jesus

Was Luther trying to overthrow the church? No. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic church is HARDLY the Church that was founded on Peter through Christ. Nowhere in the Bible do you even see the mention of a Pope or anyone bearing that title or such a position either.

Now you want to hold to a theory of unintended consequences? Luther was a simple rebel full of himself and his own academic insight. He often mocked the popes and bishops and spoke down to them since he was “Dr. Martin Luther” and had a sheepskin. You might want to gooogle a few of this vulgar man’s more colorful quotes to get an insight into the sort of man he was.

Again you use the RC word. This means nothing to Catholics. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS been Catholic and we profess the exact same faith that the early church did. Do you have a creed that you profess and do you subscribe to the same liturgies? Do you believe in real presence/ Probably not - since you are not Catholic and are into a new secular religion that never was seen before Luther’s time.

No where in the bible do you see the word “bible” nor “protestant”. Yet you hold a bible in your hand and can’t explain how you got it since God did not command the apostles to write it - The Catholic Church elected to write the bible. While you contemplate that ask yourself why you go to church services on Sunday and not the Sabbath as your bible tells you to? The reason is because we Catholics have told you to.

1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked…

Doesn’t this strike you as similar to how you Roman Catholics nullify the Second Commandment for the sake of your “tradition” of bowing to statues?

Ask Roman Catholics this question if you can find any. We Catholics will say no and then counter and ask you why Jesus conformed to the traditions of the dedication in the temple and circumcision and the pascal feast when none of this is commanded in the NT?

Can you give any Scriptural reference for any of your claims?

Sure - I can give you dozens of scriptures. See here:
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

But can you show us in scripture where it says scripture is the complete word of God? I don’t think so since we know that scripture tells us there is a lot more that Jesus said:

John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

[continued]
James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from above]

“Apostolic authority”, yeah, right. Tell that to the head of God’s Church, that is Christ.

Indeed, Christ is the Head of The Catholic Church - the Body Of Christ. But Christ also appointed a Vicar on earth:
“Thou are Peter and on this Rock I build by Church”

Christ did not say ‘on this rock I build my invisible churches’. It’s singular not plural - and certainly not the legion of pluralism we see in the rabble of Protestantism.

True revelation and enlightenment happened when Christ came; the Roman Catholic church has no revelation or enlightenment.

pssst, you need to go to a Roman Catholic forum to slander Roman Catholics. We are all Catholic here.

We have the true and complete revelation of God in the Divine Deposit of Faith. If you want to learn the truth start asking questions rather than tossing out assertions.

The Roman Catholic church does not have any “corrective teaching”. Did God purify the Roman Catholic church through two Vatican councils? Those who would not accept correction remained as Roman Catholics.

The councils were used to elaborate the teachings held in the Deposit of Faith. Purification is automatic in The Catholic Church. Anyone who commits mortal sin - separates himself from communion with us until he repents and comes back.

Again - we don’t know who you are talking about by the term “Roman Catholic”. We here are all simply “Catholic”.

It can be said that Jesus was the Martin Luther of his time, reminding the Jews of the essential meaning of Judaism while firmly rejecting the traditions of the elders which were used to nullify the Word of God. Were the Pharisees and teachers of the law chased out of camp or stoned to death? No. This is why to this day Judaism remains. I am claiming that while being banished outside of the Roman Catholic church I am a true Christian and it is the Roman Catholic church that is heretical.

Hoboy - equating Jesus with a mentally disturbed rebel is just amazing to me. Anything can be said - but what matters is what is truth.

You are not a complete Christian while you remain outside of the Catholic Church and defiantly reject Catholic Teaching. Anything that is not of Catholic Teaching is a gravely deficient faith or in complete opposition to Christ.

“Those that reject you reject ME and He who sent Me”. (John 12:48)

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Do not deviate from my question. How can you even bring Gnosticism into this picture? Where do you even read that Gnostics have an “invisible church” view? On the other hand, the Protestant movement serves to purge the Church of the errors of Roman Catholicism, not incorporate more errors.

Who deviated? I refuted your question “Is this true?” and gave the reasons why is it utterly false.

I bring gnosticism into the dialog because that graphic reflects a gnostic influence and philosophy. I gave you adequate rationale to prove it in the accompanying text. I can’t help it if its over your head. Other’s have the same opinion that the notion of an an invisible church is also tied to gnostics concepts as well as free masonry. more here: hermetic.com/sabazius/history_egc.htm

If the Protestant movement serves to purify “the church” of the errors or Roman Catholicism (Whatever that denomination is) who does it serve? That person (princes of Germany or King of England?) should demand their money back since the movement proves itself to be incompetent. It fails miserably and ends up becoming the wrecking ball that breaks away a legion of protestant divisions that still are cutting apart old protestant churches (e.g. look at how Lutherans, and Baptists, and Anglicans and others keep snowballing down the slipper slopes). This is a clear sign that Protestantism is at best man-man but by severity of the aftermath of bloodshed and chaos I’d say its demonic.

James

 

[Randy_Carson]

Once again, there are no “32,000 or so Protestant sects”. Furthermore, all Protestant denominations are right.

Actually, there are…and this has been well-documented in several publications.

However, I’m particularly intrigued by the statement that “all Protestant denominations are right.”

Gee, how can this be since they teach conflicting and contradictory doctrines.

For example, one Protestant denomination teaches that baptism of infants is appropriate while another denies this. One teaches that women cannot have leadership positions in the church while another ordains female pastors, priests and bishops.

How can they both be rightly dividing the word of God?

Was Luther trying to overthrow the church? No. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic church is HARDLY the Church that was founded on Peter through Christ. Nowhere in the Bible do you even see the mention of a Pope or anyone bearing that title or such a position either.

That’s an interesting assertion. Please PROVE that the organization which began with Peter and the other Apostles who were succeeded by later bishops is not one and the same with the Catholic Church today.

“Apostolic authority”, yeah, right. Tell that to the head of God’s Church, that is Christ.

Jesus is the head of the Church which exists both in heaven and on earth. But the head of the Church here on earth (this means ALL Christians - yourself included) is the successor of Peter, the Pope.

Jesus established both the authority of the Church and the Apostles as well as the head of the Church in Mt 16:18 and John 21:15-18.

Remember, one who acts on behalf of another is be definition a “vicar”. In this context, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

Since we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd, how can Peter be a shepherd of the one flock, also? Simple. Jesus told Peter to feed and care for HIS flock after His ascension. Peter’s successors have continued to do this for 2,000 years.

 

[wisdomseeker]

well what you guys think of this video?

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rIZxOasGcD0&feature=related

:bowdown: :byzsoc:

 

[Tomster]

“Furthermore, all Protestant denominations are right.” - AAC08

Oh really?

If we should define Protestantism by a short formula, we might call it subjective Christianity, whose positive contents are derived from Catholicism and whose radical error is a denial that faith belongs essentially to the intellect.

All that we know of Protestant culture points to its heavy emphasis on the subjective side of the Christian religion. Different churches had different orientations, but the general trend was the same. The “out-going” Catholic ritual centered in the Mass and directed to God was replaced by the “in-taking” sermon for the people; external forms of worship were removed in favor of internal meditation; interest in promoting the apostolate became an exclusive concern for one own’s destiny; doing good for others under the counsels turned into preoccupation with sin and the assurance that a believer was one of the saved. Where Catholicism made obedience to ecclesiastical authority one of the marks of a Christian, the Reformers assured their disciples that no society, however ancient and professedly divine, has a right to stand between the soul and her Creator. Where Catholic theology insisted on good works, and the practice of virtue and mortification, Protestants were told to rely on faith; and where the Church required the sacraments as a condition for grace, the Reformers dispensed with these ordinanaces, even with Baptism, as a means of salvation.

But if Protestantism were sustained by subjectivism or negative elements only, it would have passed out of history long ago. It has positive and objective features, too, which are not properly its own but borrowed or derived from the Catholic religion. Mysteries of faith like the Incarnation and the Redemption, principles of Christian morality and methods of church government, ritual customs, forms of worship and even a Catholic vocabulary have entered the stream of Protestantism to give whatever vitality the inheritors of the Reformation still possess after over centuries of separation from their common source.

The dependence on the Catholic Church is too widespread and universal to be fully analyzed here. It is more than historical, and envelopes the sectarian bodies like an atmosphere. When someone described Protestantism as “a kind of parasite living upon the Church, one that would die should the Church die, one also that draws all its nutriment from the Church,” he was crude. But the principle he expressed is true.

 

[Tomster]

AACO8,

First in the order of influence was the origin of the Reformation. Its leaders had been practicing Catholics: Luther, Zwingli, and Knox were priests; Cranmer a bishop; Calvin a student for the ministry. After breaking with Rome they kept so much of their former religion that the two major schisms in Protestant history, the Anabaptists on the continent and the Non-Conformists in England, were reaction movements to excessive Romanism. To this day the confessions of faith of all the major denominations are Catholic derivatives. Cranmer’s “Homilies” and Calvin’s “Institutes” are filled with Reformation fancies, but not to the exclusion of such thoroughly Catholic doctrines as the Trinity, the necessity of grace and the eternity of hell. It may seem incongruous that the same manual should tell seminarians that “the marks of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope,” and expatiate on the two natures in Christ, the Virgin Birth and the resurrection of the body in the very words of the general councils summoned by the popes. But it shows how deeply imbedded Catholic doctrine can remain in a Protestant body alongside the most violent anti-catholicism.

AACO8,

Protestantism as a religious system is torn between accepting Christian tradition in the spirit of the Catholic faith and rejecting this tradition as a tyranny of the mind. The easiest way of settling the conflict is by appeal to divine authority, outside the Church and beyond the Scriptures, directly communicating with the human soul. Luther and Calvin made this appeal when they excluded certain books from the Bible, discarded the Mass and the sacraments, and disclaimed obedience to the Roman Pontiff. In a celebrated debate between Luther and Cochlaeus, the latter asked him point blank by what right he opposed the decrees of the ancient Councils. “Have you,” he asked Luther, “received a revelation?” Luther hesitated a moment and then said, “Yes, it has been revealed to me.” When Cochlaeus reminded him that before he had protested against such a claim, Luther replied. “I did not deny it.” His opponent rejoined. “But who will believe you had a revelation? What miracles have you worked to prove it? By what sign will you confirm it? Would it not be possible for anyone to defend his errors in this way?” We have no record of Luther’s answer, except than whenever hard-pressed to prove his denial of some point of Catholic dogma, he said, simply, it was commanded him from above.

This aspect of Protestant inwardness is of cardinal importance. It first explains the incredible self-reliance in the founder of the Reformation which Harnack said “fills us with anxiety”; absolute assurance that withstood all opposition, based on the conviction of having received a heavenly mandate.

In the four plus centuries since the Reformation, Catholics have often reflected on the mystery of God’s providence in allowing so many persons to be separated, first from Roman unity, and finally (for many of them) even from the Christian faith. If nothing happens by chance with God, there must have been reasons to correspond in gravity with the event and explain, as far as we humanly can, why the tragedy was permitted to occur.

One reason was anticipated long before, by St. Augustine, when he observed that the Catholic Church has been vindicated by heresy, and those who think RIGHTLY have been proved by those who think WRONGLY. "Many things lay hid in the Scriptures, until the heretics had been cut off and began to trouble the Church of God with questions; those things were then opened up which lay hid and the will of God understood. Was the Trinity fully treated before the Arians opposed it?

continued

Was penance properly described before the Novatians raised their attack? So too baptism was not perfectly explained before the re-baptizers, who were cast out of the fold, contradicted the teaching." Even a passing acquaintance with the Council of Trent shows that no heretical movement in the Catholic Church’s history prompted more study of the deposit of faith and more clarification of Christian doctrine than the Protestant Reformation. For twenty years, from 1545 to 1565, the combined intelligence of Catholicism concentrated its efforts on so defining the nature of grace and justification, the sacrifice of the Mass and the priesthood, the sacramental system and ecclesiastical authority, that insights were gained into these mysteries which the faithful had not seen since the beginning of Christianity.

This remains true to the present day. In our contact with Protestants, we Catholics are forced to re-examine our position, prove our faith against the indifference or criticism we meet and, with divine assistance acquire a sharpness and penetration for which there is no counterpart.

continued

Our best reason why the Reformation and its consequences were permitted by God: to give those who posses the true faith an ocean of opportunities for practicing the highest charity. Conscious of the blessings they enjoy in the fullness of revelation and grateful for the claims they have on God’s mercy, Catholics are inspired to share these blessings with those who are lost (or had lost for them) that which is better than riches and more precious even than life. It is a platitude of history that much of the zeal of the past four hundred years has been heightened by the fact that evangeliztion now includes not only the pagans and those who have never received the Gospel but millions of others who call themselves Christians but do not belong to the Mystical Body of Christ.

All that we know by faith and reason tells us that God permits evil only because He forsees the good that results by His permissive will. If love of neighbor is a divine command and the greatest love is to share one’s greatest possession, then for Catholics to meet the spiritual needs of the Protestant world is indeed most pleasing to God.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Tomster:

Protestantism as a religious system is torn between accepting Christian tradition in the spirit of the Catholic faith and rejecting this tradition as a tyranny of the mind.

Tomster - this was brilliant; a well spoken assessment of the Protestant tension and conflict with itself as it wrestles to retain possession of the small Christian truth it still possesses.

Luke 8:18
“So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him.”

Tomster:

In a celebrated debate between Luther and Cochlaeus, the latter asked him point blank by what right he opposed the decrees of the ancient Councils. “Have you,” he asked Luther, “received a revelation?” Luther hesitated a moment and then said, “Yes, it has been revealed to me.” When Cochlaeus reminded him that before he had protested against such a claim, Luther replied. “I did not deny it.” His opponent rejoined. “But who will believe you had a revelation? What miracles have you worked to prove it? By what sign will you confirm it? Would it not be possible for anyone to defend his errors in this way?” We have no record of Luther’s answer, except than whenever hard-pressed to prove his denial of some point of Catholic dogma, he said, simply, it was commanded him from above.
…

The closing bit about “it was commanded him from above” is most probably dead on accurate - but in a sardonically-ambiguous Lutherian view of the world where Him becomes him. I can just envision Luther boasting through smirkish lips -“it was in-deed commanded from above” while introspectively marshalling his wits from the lofty-heights of his scrupulous and cloudy reason to deliver a new inner epiphany about a novel new salvation never before discovered or discerned by the apostles.

After-all. this man, if he followed his own advise given to his reformer friends would command from top-to-bottom his nether-members to loose their restraints and give-in to their lower proclivities; to ‘sin boldly as a demonstration of faith in God’s grace’ (and pleasurably kill two birds with one lightning stroke of inspiration to test one’s wood as well).

Tomster:

If love of neighbor is a divine command and the greatest love is to share one’s greatest possession, then for Catholics to meet the spiritual needs of the Protestant world is indeed most pleasing to God.

Indeed, Jesus told us to love our neighbor as our self as well as to love one’s enemies. I think I have just glommed onto the very scriptural principal and formula that insures that a greater good MUST come out of a sinful humankind that is permitted to know both good and evil. Obeying God’s preceding commandments Catholics get a double-dose of merit (200% gain) in suffering to love Protestants as both neighbor and enemy. With respect to Divine Providence getting “two goods” for “one bad” is a winning strategy with superior leverage. But if we Catholics have to die to get Protestants to convert then the advantage/leverage increases to a 3-for-one (300%) for adding on the bit about "no greater love has one than laying down of our lives for an friend ". Afterall, an enemy is more than happy to become our friend in exchange for us being so charitable to simply drop dead for their comfort and salvation.

James

 

[AAC08]

So you assert without evidence or pedigree. But men with greater pedigree than you can demonstrate have through intelligent discourse substantially differed with you (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant - there are certainly many thousands). For me, …- all that is relevant to me is that Protestants “are legion” and clearly not of one mind and one belief. … (a few old school orthodox Protestants can’t seem to shake their catholic origins here).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant

There is certainly nothing in it that even supports your idea of “many thousands” of Protestant denominations. Can you even give me a single point where Protestants are not of one mind and one belief?

I didn’t intend to make the case you were Jewish nor for that matter do I even believe you are in close proximity to “Christian” from your absurd statements here. I was just observing similarity in judgement systems between you and the Jews.

Your observation is flawed based on one key point: you yourself lack any fundamental knowledge of Jewish judgment systems and historical Jewish thought for that matter.
Of course, if you put Christ in the modern day church the people would tell him off for being “un-Christian” and all the while telling him to be “more like Jesus”. See the broken picture here?

Of course that was before the fulfillment of the OT when Jesus started a New Testament. The books were closed at that event. …

There was never a canon issue among the Jews concerning the Old Testament. So can you tell me again when exactly did the Jews “elected to redefine a canon that was pragmatically closed by Jesus”?

Now you want to hold to a theory of unintended consequences? Luther was a simple rebel full of himself and his own academic insight. ,You might want to gooogle a few of this vulgar man’s more colorful quotes to get an insight into the sort of man he was.

You might want to see the more “colorful” side of our Lord as well, who just couldn’t stop calling men like you “hypocrites”, “fools”, “blind guides”, and the like. So now, apart from Martin Luther being vulgar is there anything wrong in his protest against the corruption of the church?

Again you use the RC word. This means nothing to Catholics. … Do you have a creed that you profess and do you subscribe to the same liturgies? Do you believe in real presence/ Probably not -…

No, the Early Church NEVER believed in Mary’s “perpetual virginity”, nor did the Early Church practice any of the Roman Catholic practices you people claim to be “apostolic traditions”.
There’s the Athanasian Creed, and there’s no single liturgy that we are bound to. First you say that Luther did not create a new religion, and that Protestantism is not a new religion, and now you say it is. Are you having bipolar disorder?

No where in the bible do you see the word “bible” nor “protestant”. Yet you hold a bible in your hand and can’t explain how you got it since God did not command the apostles to write it - The Catholic Church elected to write the bible. While you contemplate that ask yourself why you go to church services on Sunday and not the Sabbath as your bible tells you to? The reason is because we Catholics have told you to.

The reason why the word “Bible” is not in the Bible is because it is the English name given to the Bible. The reason why you don’t find the word “Protestant” in the Bible is because that was a Roman Catholic insult against those who opposed the Roman Catholic church, just as the early believers were first called “Christians” as a derogatory term. Get the picture here? Now how do you suppose you would know that God did not command the Apostles to write the Bible? But the fact remains that the Apostles did write the Bible anyway, NOT the Catholic Church. As much as the Old Testament books were penned by their respective authors, so were the New Testament books all penned by their respective acknowledged authors; to say that the Apostles did not write the Bible has some extent of truth, because only the New Testament was written by the Apostles, and not all Apostles actually wrote anything down. So in the end, the Catholic Church cannot get any credit for the writing of the Bible. Why we go to church services on Sunday and not on Saturday was because we as Christians can choose to have the Sabbath on the first day of the week since we have already entered into God’s rest.

Ask Roman Catholics this question if you can find any. We Catholics will say no and then counter and ask you why Jesus conformed to the traditions of the dedication in the temple and circumcision and the pascal feast when none of this is commanded in the NT?

Of course you Roman Catholics will deny it. The simple reason why Jesus underwent the dedication in the temple and circumcision and the pascal feast was because all of them were commanded by God to the Israelites.

Sure - I can give you dozens of scriptures. See here:
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

Ah yes, I see many “buts” littering the site and it consists mostly argument from silence.

But can you show us in scripture where it says scripture is the complete word of God?,

John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

[continued]
James

And I suppose these many other things which Jesus did has something to do with the doctrine of the Church?

 

[AAC08]

[continued from above]

Indeed, Christ is the Head of The Catholic Church - the Body Of Christ. But Christ also appointed a Vicar on earth:
“Thou are Peter and on this Rock I build by Church”

There’s a big difference between a rock and a ruler.

Christ did not say ‘on this rock I build my invisible churches’. It’s singular not plural - and certainly not the legion of pluralism we see in the rabble of Protestantism.

Neither did Christ say “you will be my Vicar” nor did he say “you will represent me as head of the church” or any such statement. Furthermore, Peter himself was subject to Paul’s rebuke, so how indeed can you claim that Peter is the Vicar of Christ, let alone a Pope? Far be it from you to make sinful mortal men Vicars of Chris

We have the true and complete revelation of God in the Divine Deposit of Faith. If you want to learn the truth start asking questions rather than tossing out assertions.

I already finished asking the questions, and I’m tossing out assertions alright; I’m tossing your baseless assertions right into the gutter.

The councils were used to elaborate the teachings held in the Deposit of Faith. Purification is automatic in The Catholic Church. Anyone who commits mortal sin - separates himself from communion with us until he repents and comes back.

Again, with the “Deposit of Faith” (Edited). The Councils did more than simply elaborate on the teachings; the Second Council further split the Roman Catholic, creating one more division calling itself “Traditionalist Catholic”.

Again - we don’t know who you are talking about by the term “Roman Catholic”. We here are all simply “Catholic”.

Or so you might think.

Hoboy - equating Jesus with a mentally disturbed rebel is just amazing to me. Anything can be said - but what matters is what is truth.

(Edited) Martin Luther was far from mentally disturbed. Of course, even at one point Jesus’ own family members said he was “out of his mind”, and the Pharisees called him a madman. It seems to me that history always has a knack of repeating itself.

You are not a complete Christian while you remain outside of the Catholic Church and defiantly reject Catholic Teaching. Anything that is not of Catholic Teaching is a gravely deficient faith or in complete opposition to Christ.

True, but the heresies that I reject are the Roman Catholic heresies which are not practiced by any of the Early Christians.

“Those that reject you reject ME and He who sent Me”. (John 12:48)

James

That’s not John 12:48. This is:

48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

 

[AAC08]

Who deviated? I refuted your question “Is this true?” and gave the reasons why is it utterly false.

I bring gnosticism into the dialog because that graphic reflects a gnostic influence and philosophy. I gave you adequate rationale to prove it in the accompanying text. I can’t help it if its over your head. Other’s have the same opinion that the notion of an an invisible church is also tied to gnostics concepts as well as free masonry. more here: hermetic.com/sabazius/history_egc.htm

However, to simply dismiss the graph as reflecting “gnostic influence and philosophy” is unscholarly. That’s simply based on your own interpretation of the graph, but now that you mention it, I don’t fully agree with the graph either: what’s the Roman Catholic church doing there still being labeled as “Christian”?

If the Protestant movement serves to purify “the church” of the errors or Roman Catholicism (Whatever that denomination is) who does it serve? That person (princes of Germany or King of England?) should demand their money back since the movement proves itself to be incompetent. It fails miserably and ends up becoming the wrecking ball that breaks away a legion of protestant divisions that still are cutting apart old protestant churches (e.g. look at how Lutherans, and Baptists, and Anglicans and others keep snowballing down the slipper slopes). This is a clear sign that Protestantism is at best man-man but by severity of the aftermath of bloodshed and chaos I’d say its demonic.

James

The princes of Germany and the King of England merely took advantage of the political situation and turned it in their favor; however, this is not what Protestants are doing. If you’re taking the trouble of pointing out the split among Protestant churches due to homosexual issues, it would be rude of me not to point out the plank in your own eye. Don’t you find it intriguing to read about so many Roman Catholic bishops supporting gay clergy? What? You mean aran did NOT inform you about this? Or the fact that more than 30% of Roman Catholic priests are gay? Did he not tell you this too?