Protestantism just makes no sense to me.

[tqualey]

Hi, ApologiaSophia,

You may have to identify which specific Anglican factions you claim are ‘preaching heresy’. For example:

Is it the group that appointed activite homosexual Gene Robinson as bishop that is in heresy or the group(s) that opposed this action? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_realignment

Is it the group that wants female ordination and female bishops or the group(s) that oppose this action? articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-07-01/uk/27905319_1_anglican-communion-gene-robinson-bishops.

Is it the group that wants to reject the biblical definition of marriage being between one man and one woman and endorse ‘gay marriage’ or the group(s) that want to keep the biblical focus on what marriage has always been? nytimes.com/2009/07/29/world/europe/29church.html

Contrasting these current actions with that of the Judiazers does not appear to be an accurate analogy. Yes, the Judiazers were a faction within the early Catholic Church (Acts 11) But the disharmony in the Anglican community, at least as I see it, comes directly from decisions made by the leadership and not from a splinter group of rebels.

And, yes, Catholic Church history has numerous examples of bishops/priests/religious who have not only preached heresy but have lead others away from the Church founded by Christ on Peter. The Judiazers appear to have been first - but were followed by:

Unknown (Apostolic Times) Christ did not have a body, what was seen was an illusion [Docetism]
Marcion (110?-156?) taught there were two gods - a demi-god shown in the OT and the god of the NT
Arius (256–336) taught that Christ was not God
Nestorius (c.386 – c. 451) taught that Christ was not God and Mary was not the Mother of God.
The list goes on - and we really can not leave out Luther and Calvin.

But note, these individuals splintered from authentic teaching. None of these heresies were taught by the Catholic Church as opposed to what appears to be going on with the Anglicans. I would appreciate you providing some documentation on whatever your position is on this matter.

Candidly, Joe370 did not grant you the premise you apparently wanted. I thought I understood your statement and Joe did not go along with it, and neither did I.

Conducting such an experiment, as you have designed, would prove to be a genuine waste of time in my opinion. For example, asking the next 100 people you meet if they could give an brief summary of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity may be a similar study design but, the results would be meaningless. If you want to actually know about something, then people’s opinions are not the source of this information. Does this mean that most people are poorly informed on what is involved in the veneration of the BVM - probably. This also means that most people are also ignorant of Relativity. In both cases, education is the answer - not enshrining ignorance. Here is a link that may help identify what is involved in the veneration of Mary and the saints: americancatholic.org/features/customs/rosary/mary_worship.asp

You claiming to believe that Christ founded the Catholic Church but you disagree with how it has changed from 33AD is a curious statement. Again, the issue is what was/is being taught, not that the Pope uses a jet to get from place to place instead of a horse, or that the internet is used by the Pope instead of a quill and scroll. For example - from the time of the Last Supper (33AD) until the present, the Catholic Church has always taught that the once the common bread and wine have been consecrated, it no longer is what it appears to be - but, rather the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The revolt of the 16th Century established competing groups that repudiated that belief in different ways. [For a while the Church of England had valid orders although in schism because of the heretical actions of Henry VIII. In 1896 after much research and study, Pope Leo XIII wrote “Apostolicae Curae” where it was determined that Anglican ordinations are null and absolutely void. Here is a link: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L13APCUR.HTM]

Finally, if you mean that no Catholic will get to heaven simply by claiming that Peter was the First Pope - and doing nothing else, you’re right! If, however, your statement equating the statement of John the Baptist to the Pharisees (Matt 3:9) with Catholics claiming to have the Church founded by Christ on Peter as the First Pope, then I think you are using this quote out of context.

Within the context of Matthew 3 (veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_3) We have the challenge made to John by the Jewish leaders claiming to be righteous, yet breaking God’s Laws, and we have John’s rebuke to their hyprocracy. The Pharisees denied Christ was the Messiah and totally rejected God’s offere of salvation. Protestants deny Christ founded His Church on Peter and/or that the Holy Spirit has continued to guide the Church from teaching error since that First Pentecost. No such God-given authority to found a church or the promise of error free teaching was made to any of those in the 16th Century revolt. They did this on their own. And the obvious multiplication of errors and contradictory teachings - within the same denominations - should be convincing evidence that doctrinal chaos is supreme in Protestantism. This, however, does not mean that individual members of splinter denominations are not sincere in their efforts to follow Christ.

Everyone will be judged by how they freely chose to respond to the Grace of God.

God bless

 

[joe370]

ApologiaSophia

I think you have misunderstood what it means to grant someone a premise. I wasn’t asking you to lie, I was asking you to look at an argument from a particular perspective so you could put yourself in the shoes of those who sincerely believe such things.

Well, you said: Grant me that veneration, as Practiced by the RCC, is borderline idolatry.

Give me a reason to and I will. Remember, I am talking about the practice as authoritatively spelled out by the CC.

Also, I would be curious to do an experiment. I would love to interview people of other denominations and other religions to see what they think of the RC practice of veneration.

Just do a google search and you will have your answer: idolatry. Heck, my own sister thinks that I worship our blessed mother Mary. Such silliness.

I mean I suppose I already know what the Protestant/Muslim/JEW would say, but I’m actually curious as to what other religions think. I wonder if Pagan polytheists would view the practice as worship. This does not say anything about the practice being inherently wrong, but I think if pagans look at veneration and conceive of it as worship… well that has to say SOMETHING, whatever that may be.

It doesn’t say anything to me. :shrug:Of course they are entitled to their opinion no matter how distorted or just plain wrong it is.

I actually have little to no opinion on Fatima. I’m glad it as worked so well for the kingdom.

The fact that 70000 people at the Cova da Iria in Fatima witnessed something truly miraculous doesn’t interest you in the slightest?

**

I still don’t think we should use that as means to construct a theology.

I totally agree. That is not what Fatima is about.

Pentecostalism is full of visions and experiences like that…

I would be interested in reading about those visions just for the heck of it. Could you share some with me. Credible sources of course?

Yes, yes, the Holy See of Peter. Many Protestants do reject that, but that is besides the point. I as a Protestant fully accept that. My problem is not what Christ established but how it has changed through history to become what it is now. I would love to be in fellowship with the see of Peter, but unless things drastically change, either in me or in the RCC, I cannot go against my convictions.

I understand completely.

I would say youre missing my point… but I don’t think you are. I understand you believe you can have both and that you do have both. I don’t. Because I don’t, I believe I must choose one or the other. I think I’ve chosen correctly.

OK.

Your church is the church of Pentecost in lineage alone. Or did Peter always live in a palace wearing crowns, sitting on thrones, speaking Latin, praying to Mary?

LOL…The CC, for me anyway, is the historical church founded by Jesus, in the first century, on Pentecost, and its unity and doctrinal integrity (abuses and corruptions notwithstanding because they were all fortold by our savior) have been, and will continue to be preserved via the Rock on which Jesus’ church is built, starting with Simon, renamed Rock and continuing through time with his successors, and it will remain intact until Jesus returns. God gets all the credit!!! I trust that the almighty God can achieve this task in spite of sinful fallible people at the helm.

The Reformers did not leave a healthy church. It left the RCC at a time when there was corruption galore. Crusades, Inquisitions, “witch” burnings, indulgences, etc. I would have left to.

I would not have left. To go where? Think about it…To start another church in the name of Christ? Why? By whose authority would I be working? Not God’s. I would know better than that. Why not just trust that God is in control and understand that scandals, as per our savior, are unavoidable. They existed in the 2nd century, within the CC and they will exist, sadly, in the future. For me it is important to stay well anchored in Jesus’ church, in spite of the evil ones attack, both in good times as well as bad times. I will never give up on Jesus’ church even in the face of corruption. I can only imagine what Jesus would say to me if I abandoned His Fathers House in pursuit of something else.

Are the atrocities committed by King Henry VIII enough to leave the AC? You know me by now and I am not being sardonic. Just asking a sincere question.

So when Luther, a Catholic monk, priest, and scholar left the RCC and “popped up” a church… that isn’t different? Don’t say the Church he popped up was “Protestant” because that would make it an issue of semantics and fail to address my point.

Martin Luther, in my humble opinion, would have been better off to do as Francis of Assisi did: ride out the storm. He would have witnessed the indulgence abuses become a thing of the past (actually he did) and potentially prevented the terrible fracture we now see within Christendom.

It was absolutely the Catholic Church. I think you misunderstand the Protestant view of the Catholic Church.

I am a former protestant.

We agree you are historical in the sense of claiming direct lineage. However, wee do not believe the RCC of today has changed considerably in its theology and practice.

If you are correct, and Jesus failed to guide His church into all truth, then where would you suggest I go? Clearly I wouldn’t want to belong to Jesus’ church if in fact its theolgy has been hijacked in some way, giving way to heretical substitutes.

The first several Popes were nothing like the modern papacy. This is not just a Protestant belief EO agree. Examine EO doctrine against RC doctrine where they disagree. I think, with adequate Research, it will be enough to show that not everything the RCC has always coincided with the original church. (Abraham’s Bosom for example).

I have studied all of them. It’s true certain doctrines have developed over time e.g. the Trinity, Immaculate Conception etc but these thing were not newly formed teachings, as is the case with the practice of sola scriptura; they were always believed, long before they were eventually defined. Heck, just look how long it took the bible to be codified.

I think the RCC has preserved the original church. I also believe it has corrupted it to a certain degree within various areas.

You do admit the CC is the church Jesus was speaking about in the following passage:

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock** I will build my church**, and the gates of Hadeswill not overcome it.

 

[acarlson]

Martin Luther did not set out split the Church. He did not leave Catholicism, but was excommunicated. Although I do not agree with all of Luther’s philosophy, I believe his excommunication was one of the biggest mistakes that the Catholic Church has ever made. Luther made some great points on corruption. If the Church would have worked with him the split most likely would have never occurred. I would rather see Lutherans and Catholics together, but I don’t see any good blaming Luther or any other Lutherans for the division.

Well, once Luther started referring to the Pope as the Antichrist, he was kind of asking for it . .

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Ok, I may be procrastinating a little bit, but bear with me guys x_X; Out of all the threads I participate in this one has the most going on right now and there is a lot to respond to and a lot to go into every response.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

1. The CHURCH is the interpreter of Scripture. Augustine was a wonderful interpreter of Scripture. He was Bishop, but not the bishop of Rome. He did not interpret Scripture by saying "Well this is what the Pope has interpreted Scripture to say). Augustine is a Doctor of the Faith. Read his writing “On Christian Doctrine.”

There he explains how one is to interpret Scripture. Never does he say “Ask the Pope.” What he teaches is exegesis. The word Church/Ecclesia means group, or congregation. What the Church says about Scripture is what the congregation says about Scripture. We should not privately interpret but exegete Scripture and actively engage other exegetes, modern and ancient. Look to your Jewish roots from which the Church of Christ comes. They have no pope.

Pope means “papa”; Abraham would be a pope, by the actual meaning of the word.

weakly stated:
John 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

And far more strongly stated:
Matth 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Matth 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
Matth 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

And also, in a lesser way, St. Paul himself:
1Cori 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

And again:
1Timo 5:1 Rebuke not an elder (AKA Presbyter, priest), but entreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

Although most popes have been holy, there certainly have been some that fall into category of Mt. 23:3. None the less – there has, always been a head of the congregation – at all times. From Adam, through Seth, through Abraham, Moses, and Peter.

They don’t even have bishops. They have rabbi’s. Rabbi’s actively engage in personal study, collective study, Talmudic study (tradition) and debate other rabbi’s.

The temple and the kingship were destroyed in 70A.D. Today’s Jews are different from the times which went before. The synagog itself is a much later development following on the exile and diaspora; the religion was becoming de-centralized – but it did have a head up and until the entire priesthood of Aaron’s line was executed.

Jewish “laity” are advise to seek wisdom and counsel from the trained Rabbi’s, but no Rabbi demands their blind obedience or submission to their rabbinic teaching. Yet, despite all the debate and freedom of thought, the core of their Jewish belief and the essence of their Jewishness is retained. That is how an ASSEMBLY (Church) studies and interprets Scripture, in close community,

Oh! Ouch!
Obedience, with-in the Catholic usage is typically the third definition given in a dictionary. It comes from ob-audura “from - listening”. You, yourself, have to add the adjective “blind” – for the word itself does not mean blind. The Catholic church does not demand that everyone “obey” without question; it does demand they dissent without disobedience; and that they remain within Dogma (as narrowly defined). This is scriptural as well; St. Paul talks about order within the churches and prophecy.

But, one caution – St. Paul was a hypocrite. Pharisees generally are…
No matter how great, if one thinks they stand – be careful lest they fall.

St. Peter was doing far less a wrong than St. Paul in eating separately with the Jews and the Gentiles. (I can explain in detail if it interests you); but more to the point – it isn’t doctrine that is involved in St. Peter’s action; it’s showing of favor and tact. Disciplinary measures not doctrinal ones.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Wow, so there’s a lot of posts piling up which I have every intention of addressing, but I need to go to sleep. Just don’t want anyone to think I’m ignoring them.

Ok, I may be procrastinating a little bit, but bear with me guys x_X; Out of all the threads I participate in this one has the most going on right now and there is a lot to respond to and a lot to go into every response.

My apologies for dumping more fuel on the fire without reading the whole thread first!
I lost more than a few nights sleep when I was first on CAF…
So, don’t feel obligated to answer me.

And from the posts you are getting in reply, though, don’t be discouraged. People don’t tend to have that level of respectful conversation with someone unless they think the other person is pretty smart.

Do get some sleep, I can see the time you replied to some of my other posts… :console:

 

[maber43]

Today, I was watching Jimmy Swaggart’s program, Francis & Friends. They had two ex-catholics on there, one of them saying catholics is not saved and that the Catholic Church is an anti-christ church. Catholic Church a cult. My wife and I were upset of what he said.
Don’t these people were read the writings of early church fathers? They thinks they have the truth.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Maber43,

A Jimmy Swaggart program? Would this be a from an old tape or something?

God bless

Today, I was watching Jimmy Swaggart’s program, Francis & Friends. They had two ex-catholics on there, one of them saying catholics is not saved and that the Catholic Church is an anti-christ church. Catholic Church a cult. My wife and I were upset of what he said.
Don’t these people were read the writings of early church fathers? They thinks they have the truth.

 

[JonNC]

Today, I was watching Jimmy Swaggart’s program, Francis & Friends. They had two ex-catholics on there, one of them saying catholics is not saved and that the Catholic Church is an anti-christ church. Catholic Church a cult. My wife and I were upset of what he said.
Don’t these people were read the writings of early church fathers? They thinks they have the truth.

Why would you do this to yourself. I wouldn’t do that to myself, and I’m not Catholic.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Today, I was watching Jimmy Swaggart’s program, Francis & Friends. … My wife and I were upset of what he said.

I humbly suggest that you stop watching. It’s not helping your faith to hear such incorrect things.

 

[joe370]

Ok, I may be procrastinating a little bit, but bear with me guys x_X; Out of all the threads I participate in this one has the most going on right now and there is a lot to respond to and a lot to go into every response.

 

[maber43]

Hi, Maber43,

A Jimmy Swaggart program? Would this be a from an old tape or something?

God bless

Yes, it was a live program and I am no longer watching these lies about the catholics and our beloved church.

 

[kbwall]

I remember numerous times attending a Protestant church with a friend, and the pastor continuously spoke of how the early church was and how they should return to it. I just couldn’t stop thinking that the early church didn’t go anywhere and that is the Catholic church. If one wants to be like the early church, one should return to Catholicism.

 

[maber43]

I remember numerous times attending a Protestant church with a friend, and the pastor continuously spoke of how the early church was and how they should return to it. I just couldn’t stop thinking that the early church didn’t go anywhere and that is the Catholic church. If one wants to be like the early church, one should return to Catholicism.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Maber43,

From time to time, I used to watch that character - just to see how he delivered his lies to an apparently brain dead audience. Ah, and then he jumped off the cliff with infidelity and what appears to be an addiction to ponography. The guy is an on-going train wreck… but, that probably is uncharitable to trains…

Now, watching him (or any other $el-evangeli$t) with the idea of picking apart their arguments is probably not a really good way to do things. Having the excellent dialogues on CAF is a far better way - and there are always great links that show up on the posts.

God bless

Yes, it was a live program and I am no longer watching these lies about the catholics and our beloved church.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

KB Wall wrote: I mean, most protestants go by Sola Scriptura. This means they trust the Bible, but they act as though the Bible just appeared out of thin air. It wasn’t, it was written and assembled by the early Church.​

Actually, this is a misrepresentation of how Protestants consider the Holy Scriptures. To them God gave Holy Writ to men whom He inspired to write it down infallibly. Then the intrinsic worth of the Scripture impressed itself upon the minds of those who read it (that`s how “free willers” would put it, thus the sectaries) or God the Holy Spirit confirmed it in their hearts, minds, and souls (which is more like what those who believe in the Doctrines of Grace and the primacy of the Divine Will would say, thus genuine Protestants) and it became canonised from the presence of such a positive consensis among Christians. That, more or less, is how, according to Protestants and the sectaries, any particular part of Holy Scripture really is, truly, Biblical.

There are a lot of problems with this kind of view and any Catholic or Easern Orthodox Christian easily can discern of what nature they are! Still, the “fell out of Heaven” boom! Here it is, folks! kind or rationale is not really what even the most foolish (well, maybe them!) of Protestants and sectaries believe.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

I was wondering why I havent been getting any updates via e-mail. I thought the thread was just being silent. Come to find out there have been a number of posts since I last checked and a post I thought I had posted several weeks ago apparently never sent. :- / This, of course, is most frustrating.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ApologiaSophia,

From time to time I have had a similar experience.

Was there a post you wanted to comment on?

God bless

I was wondering why I havent been getting any updates via e-mail. I thought the thread was just being silent. Come to find out there have been a number of posts since I last checked and a post I thought I had posted several weeks ago apparently never sent. :- / This, of course, is most frustrating.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Apologia wrote: I was wondering why I haven`t been getting any updates via e-mail. I thought the thread was just being silent. Come to find out there have been a number of posts since I last checked and a post I thought I had posted several weeks ago apparently never sent. :- / This, of course, is most frustrating.​

Well, it has happened to me, too, on a number of different fora, even to being dropped till I dropped back in unprodded. Sometimes it is good to bookmark a forum and, when one has not seen anything for two or three days, to access it on the bookmark and go to recent screen page(s). This is good way for me, maybe for you also, since I purge my email messages rather relentlessly and thus cannot go back to an older one from the forum to click on it to get back in. I doubt that this problem arises due to any sneeky sectary trying to undermine this C.A. forum!

 

[acacia12]

This has happened to me too. Not for days on end though. I will get an email through and when I click it, I see that there are more than one post to read