Protestants: please stop using the label "Bible-believing"

[luckyfredsdad]

In keeping with the title of the thread, allow me to correct you with scripture
NT]1, Henry VIII couldn’t get permission from the pope to divorce his wife, so he broke from the Church of Rome. (as you can see it is condemned by Paul) Does Henry not think Paul’s warning doesn’t apply to him? BTW, Paul tells us what the consequences of division are for the one who divides and won’t return to unity.* [Gal 5:]

**Just when did Henry, or the Church in England break from the Roman Church?
Neither he nor the Church did! What happened was that the Synod passed a canon that foreign bishops have no jurisdiction in this country! [rough trans.] In doing this they simply followed the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. It is these latter, that have and hold the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

---

**At no time did the Anglican Church breakaway or separate themselves from the Church on the Continent!

You bring out the business of the Headship of the Church!!

Henry in claiming this was doing no more than the Roman Emperors had done. After all they had called Ecumenical Councils, had appointed the chair at these councils and had
in some cases chosen time and place. They had even ratified the results of the Councils. Which is a ll the Bishop of Rome has done! Further to this, the Bishop of Rome was the ruler of vast lands in Northern Italy, Civil Ruler, mark you and he claimed headship of the Church. What was the difference? There was a difference, tradition was on the side of the various monarchs, the pope’s entry into feudalism was of comparitively recent provenance. More even than this . In claiming headship, Henry was holding to Catholic belief at that time, Cardinal Pole, his cousin, writing of Princes said,’ They too are the Vicars of Christ’. He goes on, ’ He, the monarch,] is the Regal Head of the Church, as the pontiff is the Sacerdotal Head. Both are Vicars of Christ, who is both Priest and King. The Emperor is indeed like Christ, who is King of Kings. ’ And in a General Council he has those parts exactly which Christ as their Lord , Master and King discharged towards His Apostles…as Christ contolled the contentions of his Aposstles
…this he must do without despising.’

There’s a lot more and all from a Cardinal who very nearly reached the position of pope himself.** The trouble is that most Romanists believe only that which suits there particular fad of the moment, their preconceived notions.

 

[greggy53]

Just when did Henry, or the Church in England break from the Roman Church?
Neither he nor the Church did! What happened was that the Synod passed a canon that foreign bishops have no jurisdiction in this country! [rough trans.] In doing this they simply followed the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. It is these latter, that have and hold the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
At no time did the Anglican Church breakaway or separate themselves from the Church on the Continent!.

If the Anglicans did not break away from the Church on “the continent”…Then how come they don’t recognize the authority of the Pope??
Truth be told Henry usurped the authority of the Pope taking that authority for himself. He created a new Church, the Church of England. He then went about chopping the heads off of anyone who would not recognize this. Catholicism was outlawed in the British Isles, and remained illegal until about 50 years ago!
My great grandfather could not own land or participate in government in his own country because he was Catholic. The Anglicans did their best to starve the Irish, and drive them from their own country because they were Catholic…You can call yourself Catholic if you wish, but you could just as easily call yourself a cheese burger, and it would make more sense.

 

[Zundrah]

Not on my own, but I belong to the Church that does have that authority.

Actually one doesn’t need to know who he is to sound a bit like him.

No, the recipient just couldn’t understand the answers. I hope someday you will be able to do so.

I know that I am stil confused, I can certainly not deny that.

Here’s one more:

“At the moment of conception, man is already destined to eternity in God” John Paul II

One more of what?
I like what he’s saying though!

What’s the hard teaching of Jesus that offended them so much? Be specific?

Is Jesus with this statement contradicting what He has been saying to them? Is He now saying, forget what I just told you, because eating MY flesh counts for nothing?

So why did they leave Him?

They thought that he was talking about cannabalism, but he wasn’t. That’s why he said, “No one can come to me unles the Father has sent them to me.”
No one except those who were destined could understand him. Hense he was left with only his chosen twelve.

Yes, Protestant heresy

We could play this game until kingdom come…

guanophore;5742149]I have been out for a few weeks, so I am not sure what kind of changes you have been going through. At one point, you stated you were enrolled in RCIA, and now you seem to have returned to your Protestant faith. In the course of this shift, you seem to have developed a hostility toward the Catholic Church.

Hostility!? Probably… down to frustration!

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, Zundrah, and I think you know that from your time here on the forum. I know you have not had much time to study the Eastern Rites, but to make false assertions as you have done here is not appropriate.

I don’t know the difference between them Guanophore!!

Of course there have always been heretics. We can see this evidence already in the NT, and it the writings of the Early Fathers, it is clear that there were many heresies rampant today. The Catholic faith, however, is immutable (unchanging) since it is guarded by God. Those who depart from it are no longer Catholic.

All churches are guided by God… hense there are conversion of sinner to Christ…

Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to depart from the church founded by Christ because other people make bad choices (practice sin, or promote heresy). To say that new “sects” had to be formed because men erred is like saying that, since Judas betrayed Christ, all the Apostles should abandon what Jesus committed to them, and start over with what they thought might work better. Such a problem solving approach is preposterous.

The Eucharist has no grounds.

I urge you to reflect on the reasons you came to CAF. If you wish to remain here, you will have to work on your charity, and avoid violating the forum rules. You are required to respect the Catholic faith here. If you wish to refer to “Catholic heresy” as a justification for fragmenting the body of Christ, or to blame “RCC heretics” for the divisions caused by the Reformation, you will need to find some other venue. They were RC, and they did become heretics, but such language does not contribute to fruitful discussion. It certainly does not appear to be related to the topic.

I came to CAF to learn about catholicism, I have refered to the catechism too, there are just no explanations of the Eucharist after the four gosples good enough to prove that communion was being given at that time.

guanophore;5742217]Catholics interpret the Scriptures in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught. They taught that Jesus meant His literal Body and Blood. How do we know this? Because we can read the evidence in the early fathers, the direct and immediate disciples of the Apostles. This is the Truth that has been preserved by the HS in the Church since the day of the Last Supper.

The modern Methodist interpretation comes from a tradition of men about 500 years old. It is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

There are too many methodist denominations Guanophore and you know, don’t you, that they all teach different doctrine!?

Definitely, you are not an average anything!

Hmm, kind of half catholic and then… half methodist = not average!

I am sure that Catholicism does seem inconsistent to you. There are many things that you do not understand.

True.

When you came to CAF, you had your “mind made up” also. So, now that it is “made up” again in the opposite direction, I am sure that the HS will continue to guide you into all Truth. I believe that you really do sincerely want to do the will of God. You will remain in my prayers

.

I will keep my mind open to what is right, I will never say, “That’s it I’m sticking with this!”

You may wish to transfer your forum activites to CARM, though.

I will try!

I will always listen to what you have to say Guanophore. I know you mean well, and you are trying to help.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

If the Anglicans did not break away from the Church on “the continent”…Then how come they don’t recognize the authority of the Pope??
Truth be told Henry usurped the authority of the Pope taking that authority for himself. He created a new Church, the Church of England. He then went about chopping the heads off of anyone who would not recognize this. Catholicism was outlawed in the British Isles, and remained illegal until about 50 years ago!
My great grandfather could not own land or participate in government in his own country because he was Catholic. The Anglicans did their best to starve the Irish, and drive them from their own country because they were Catholic…You can call yourself Catholic if you wish, but you could just as easily call yourself a cheese burger, and it would make more sense.[/QUOT

**Catholicism was never outlawed in England as far as I can tell, how could it be when the Church professed it? Our Three Creeds , the Nicene, The Apostles and the Athanasian all payed service to it. It was Roman Catholicism that was outlawed, the Doctrine of Trent!
The new doctrine that sought to restore the medieval innovations practised by Rome at the expense of the ancient church. Read," Bishop Hickes, His answer!" 1705. Obtainable on the Internet] . Indeed in 1641 the Anglican,‘Catholic,’ Church fought a war to protect the Catholic faith and Order against Calvinist politicians. Romanism was disliked for the reason I have given previously, the interference of the Papacy repeatedly in English politics.
The authority of the pope came chiefly, as I have repeatedly written, from the State, or the Roman Emperors, quite a lot from the Councils, [his Patriarchy] and very little or none from scripture.This is why the English Catholics rejected him, or them! This might not worry your good self, but to many,Anglicans, Orthodox and Old Catholics it is a matter of some concern that his authority is assumed and not organic as it were!
No matter how much you rant and stamp, unfortunately for you all these things are contained in the history books for those who want to take time and trouble to read them.

 

[KathleenGee]

And I agree with the forum moderator…we can disagree, I have read comments from atheists as such on Catholic Answers, but seeing the type of remarks, it is better to go to another…

 

[greggy53]

greggy53;5746107:

If the Anglicans did not break away from the Church on “the continent”…Then how come they don’t recognize the authority of the Pope??
Truth be told Henry usurped the authority of the Pope taking that authority for himself. He created a new Church, the Church of England. He then went about chopping the heads off of anyone who would not recognize this. Catholicism was outlawed in the British Isles, and remained illegal until about 50 years ago!
My great grandfather could not own land or participate in government in his own country because he was Catholic. The Anglicans did their best to starve the Irish, and drive them from their own country because they were Catholic…You can call yourself Catholic if you wish, but you could just as easily call yourself a cheese burger, and it would make more sense.[/QUOT

**Catholicism was never outlawed in England as far as I can tell, how could it be when the Church professed it? Our Three Creeds , the Nicene, The Apostles and the Athanasian all payed service to it. It was Roman Catholicism that was outlawed, the Doctrine of Trent!
The new doctrine that sought to restore the medieval innovations practised by Rome at the expense of the ancient church. Read," Bishop Hickes, His answer!" 1705. Obtainable on the Internet] . Indeed in 1641 the Anglican,‘Catholic,’ Church fought a war to protect the Catholic faith and Order against Calvinist politicians. Romanism was disliked for the reason I have given previously, the interference of the Papacy repeatedly in English politics.
The authority of the pope came chiefly, as I have repeatedly written, from the State, or the Roman Emperors, quite a lot from the Councils, [his Patriarchy] and very little or none from scripture.This is why the English Catholics rejected him, or them! This might not worry your good self, but to many,Anglicans, Orthodox and Old Catholics it is a matter of some concern that his authority is assumed and not organic as it were!
No matter how much you rant and stamp, unfortunately for you all these things are contained in the history books for those who want to take time and trouble to read them.

Well I don’t know what kind of history you’ve been reading, but everything I said in my prior post is true and verifiable.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

luckyfredsdad;5746190:

Well I don’t know what kind of history you’ve been reading, but everything I said in my prior post is true and verifiable.

Quick answer to that is verify it then, if you do there can be no problems!!!

 

[greggy53]

greggy53;5746514:

Quick answer to that is verify it then, if you do there can be no problems!!!

Google Catholicism in England

 

[paperwight]

. Catholicism was outlawed in the British Isles, and remained illegal until about 50 years ago!
My great grandfather could not own land or participate in government in his own country because he was Catholic.

You need to clarify. I’m sure you are not meaning to say that it was illegal in the whole of the British Isles until 50 years ago, because that would be ridiculous.

Good grief, for a start, the Hierarchy was restored as far back as 1850.
In my own family, we can trace Catholic family members back to the times of the English Martyrs in the 16th century.

I think what you are trying to say is that Catholics were illegal in the island of Ireland. I don’t know anything about that.

I was merely anxious not to leave any one with the impression that Catholicism was illegal in England, Scotland or Wales ‘up to 50 years ago’. Not all appreciate the nuances between the terms ‘British Isles’ i.e. geography, and ‘United Kingdom’ i.e. political entity.

 

[greggy53]

You need to clarify. I’m sure you are not meaning to say that it was illegal in the whole of the British Isles until 50 years ago, because that would be ridiculous.

Good grief, for a start, the Hierarchy was restored as far back as 1850.
In my own family, we can trace Catholic family members back to the times of the English Martyrs in the 16th century.

I think what you are trying to say is that Catholics were illegal in the island of Ireland. I don’t know anything about that.

I was merely anxious not to leave any one with the impression that Catholicism was illegal in England, Scotland or Wales ‘up to 50 years ago’. Not all appreciate the nuances between the terms ‘British Isles’ i.e. geography, and ‘United Kingdom’ i.e. political entity.

I didn’t say there were no Catholics in England. The Church went under ground for a awhile. I have an uncle whos family had to leave Sctoland becuse of Anglican persecution.

 

[paperwight]

I didn’t say there were no Catholics in England. The Church went under ground for a awhile. I have an uncle whos family had to leave Sctoland becuse of Anglican persecution.

Well, what you said was that ‘it was illegal in the British Isles up to 50 years ago’. Are you talking, now, about Scotland - or Ireland aka Eire?

I was giving you a let-out by pointing out the difference between the geographical term ‘British Isles’ and the political term ‘United Kingdom’ which doesn’t include all the British Isles. - it’s a union of Engand, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland aka Ulster.

It wasn’t illegal in Scotland as is shown by the fact that there is at least one Scottish island that is exclusively Catholic.

Catholicism certainly wasn’t mainstream for a long time, and had to go underground up until the 17th century at the latest. The significance of the Restoration of the Catholic Hierarchy in 1850 was that there were so many Catholics that it wasn’t sensible just to import non-English bishops when needed. The Catholic population in some cities was vastly increased by Irish emigrants fleeing the Potato Famine in the 1840’s of course. Would they have come if to practise their religion was illegal?

This ‘illegal up to 50 years ago’ is ludicrous. Please explain.

 

[greggy53]

Well, what you said was that ‘it was illegal in the British Isles up to 50 years ago’. Are you talking, now, about Scotland - or Ireland aka Eire?

I was giving you a let-out by pointing out the difference between the geographical term ‘British Isles’ and the political term ‘United Kingdom’ which doesn’t include all the British Isles. - it’s a union of Engand, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland aka Ulster.

It wasn’t illegal in Scotland as is shown by the fact that there is at least one Scottish island that is exclusively Catholic.

Catholicism certainly wasn’t mainstream for a long time, and had to go underground up until the 17th century at the latest. The significance of the Restoration of the Catholic Hierarchy in 1850 was that there were so many Catholics that it wasn’t sensible just to import non-English bishops when needed. The Catholic population in some cities was vastly increased by Irish emigrants fleeing the Potato Famine in the 1840’s of course. Would they have come if to practise their religion was illegal?

This ‘illegal up to 50 years ago’ is ludicrous. Please explain.

Wasn’t mainstream??? wasn’t tolerated you mean. I can’t believe some Anglicans can have the gaul to call themselves Catholic. The Irish were forced to go work in England because they were starving to death on thier Island. Others like my great grandfather sold his lease on his two acres of land and came to America on one of the coffin ships. I say lease because it was illegal for him to own land in his own country because of his Catholic faith.You sugar coat the religious persecution in the British Isles as much as you want, but this American knows what really went on.

 

[paperwight]

You still haven’t explained about the 50 years thing (or alternatively, admitted you were wrong) My own parish church has the date 1858 on the wall, by the way.

I gather you are referencing the position in the South of Ireland, now called the Republic of Ireland since the 1920’s. I think you’ll find that even when it was under British rule, being a Catholic wasn’t illegal, as proved by the Irish Catholics who came over to England due to the Potato Famine, as I said. Owning property might have been - I don’t know. But there again, it would have not been the case 50 years ago, as it had been an independent country for over 30 years by then. So your history is confused.

I was just trying to clarify that ‘the British Isles’ does not equate to ‘Britain’. Does ‘North America’ equate to the USA? No, because in both cases, one term is geography, one is political…

 

[greggy53]

You still haven’t explained about the 50 years thing (or alternatively, admitted you were wrong) My own parish church has the date 1858 on the wall, by the way.

I gather you are referencing the position in the South of Ireland, now called the Republic of Ireland since the 1920’s. I think you’ll find that even when it was under British rule, being a Catholic wasn’t illegal, as proved by the Irish Catholics who came over to England due to the Potato Famine, as I said. Owning property might have been - I don’t know. But there again, it would have not been the case 50 years ago, as it had been an independent country for over 30 years by then. So your history is confused.

I was just trying to clarify that ‘the British Isles’ does not equate to ‘Britain’. Does ‘North America’ equate to the USA? No, because in both cases, one term is geography, one is political…

Right, It wasn’t technically illegal to be a papist there, but they couldn’t vote, couldn’t own land, and couldn’t make a living. England conquered Ireland and Scotland. They stole the Scottish throne and still crown their Kings on it. That’s why it’s called the British Isles. Ulster is still under the English thumb. Sectarianism is alive and well there. I thank God every day my ancestors left that place. More then a few of my ancestors were English and Scots as well. Perhaps I am feeling bitter because recently the English released a terrorist that murdered Americans. They sold us out for a few barrels of oil ! I have a great English surname, and I’ve always been proud of it until now. I sure hope you don’t get our help the next time the Huns come marching over the hill. Sorry, I’m off topic but I had to that out of my system. The “bible believing “ issue is one thing, but an “Anglican Catholic” that takes the cake.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

****Well which is it, is it Scotland or Ireland?

You first told us that your grandfather came from Scotland, after being persecuted by Anglicans and forced to flee!

There were no Anglicans in Scotland only Episcopalians and the last time they had enough clout to persecute anyone and make them flee was under a Roman Catholic King in 1688! Since then Scotland has been aggressively Calvinist!

You later changed your mind and grandfather came from Ireland by means of a potatoe boat! My relatives, or some of them came to Britain and they have been Romans since Trent, 1564,and they have no problems with the religious set up, only with political ideas.
Also the religious divide in Ulster is chiefly between two sets of dissenters, Romans and Presbyterians.
Do try to get it right!****

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Right, It wasn’t technically illegal to be a papist there, but they couldn’t vote, couldn’t own land, and couldn’t make a living. England conquered Ireland and Scotland. They stole the Scottish throne and still crown their Kings on it. That’s why it’s called the British Isles. Ulster is still under the English thumb. Sectarianism is alive and well there. I thank God every day my ancestors left that place. More then a few of my ancestors were English and Scots as well. Perhaps I am feeling bitter because recently the English released a terrorist that murdered Americans. They sold us out for a few barrels of oil ! I have a great English surname, and I’ve always been proud of it until now. I sure hope you don’t get our help the next time the Huns come marching over the hill. Sorry, I’m off topic but I had to that out of my system. The “bible believing “ issue is one thing, but an “Anglican Catholic” that takes the cake.

**]England conquered Scotland and Wales? Stole the Scottish Throne?

You read the Comics, get real history books for heavens sake. The Scottish Royal family took over the English Throne, the Stuarts! This lot are German and Scots!

The Church in England was first named Anglican in 750AD. From that time on that was our name and reflected the political realities somewhat better than Celtic did. During the Middle Ages the term was used regularly to reflect who we were in correspondence with the Continental Church and at the reformation when the Donatist faction seceded at the pope’s behest, the term Anglican became the standard fare for Catholics whilst the splitters became Roman Catholics.**

The Roman Catholics in England didn’t become a Church till much later in the 19th, Cent. Before that they were only a collection of individuals about 2% of the population! See Cardinal Vaughan, Manning and Newman.
And stop making things up! It made Pinnochio’s nose grow!

 

[paperwight]

Right, It wasn’t technically illegal to be a papist there, but they couldn’t vote, couldn’t own land, and couldn’t make a living. , .

Just to clarify… are you still claiming the 50 year rule? In other words, are you saying that Catholics weren’t allowed to vote etc up to 50 years ago?

In which country contained within the British Isles do you mean?

 

[FCEGM]

The Eucharist has no grounds.

You might want to begin considering whether the early Church Fathers agree with you:

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

 

[steve_b]

Just when did Henry, or the Church in England break from the Roman Church?

~1534

lucky:

Neither he nor the Church did! What happened was that the Synod passed a canon that foreign bishops have no jurisdiction in this country! [rough trans.] In doing this they simply followed the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. It is these latter, that have and hold the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Henry unilaterally broke with Rome.

lucky:

At no time did the Anglican Church breakaway or separate themselves from the Church on the Continent!

You’re incorrect…

lucky:

You bring out the business of the Headship of the Church!!

Henry in claiming this was doing no more than the Roman Emperors had done.

Roman emperors were never head of the Church.

lucky:

After all they had called Ecumenical Councils, had appointed the chair at these councils and had
in some cases chosen time and place. They had even ratified the results of the Councils. Which is a ll the Bishop of Rome has done!

Calling councils is NOT controling them. The only thing that made the council ecumenical was the pope ratifying it.

lucky:

Further to this, the Bishop of Rome was the ruler of vast lands in Northern Italy, Civil Ruler, mark you and he claimed headship of the Church. What was the difference? There was a difference, tradition was on the side of the various monarchs, the pope’s entry into feudalism was of comparitively recent provenance. More even than this . In claiming headship,*** Henry*** was holding to Catholic belief at that time, Cardinal Pole, his cousin, writing of Princes said,’ They too are the Vicars of Christ’. He goes on, ’ He, the monarch,] is the Regal Head of the Church, as the pontiff is the Sacerdotal Head. Both are Vicars of Christ, who is both Priest and King. The Emperor is indeed like Christ, who is King of Kings. ’ And in a General Council he has those parts exactly which Christ as their Lord , Master and King discharged towards His Apostles…as Christ contolled the contentions of his Aposstles
…this he must do without despising.’

There’s a lot more and all from a Cardinal who very nearly reached the position of pope himself. The trouble is that most Romanists believe only that which suits there particular fad of the moment, their preconceived notions.

Where are your sources?

Re: Pole, Henry, the pope, newadvent.org/cathen/12201b.htm

Re: Vicat of Christ newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

 

[Bengoshi]

Jake,

**You wrote: ** *We can be assure this a person with a great lack of education and truth! seriousely far off! *​

Just a word to the wise, fellow Cathlic (as I hope that you are or become) when accusing someone to be more literate: spell and conjugate correctly yourself and link phrases and clauses together with the right connector words. Probably, though, you only had needed to proof-read your contribution! You should have written in correct English: We can be assured that this **is **a person with a great lack of education and of truth! seriously far off!.

More in humour than in hubris, Jerry Parker

Hehehe! Funny!