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

[Bengoshi]

Actually since all of the Christians for the first 1500 years were Catholic Christians I don’t think you could accuse the Catholic church of heresy; Apostasy perhaps but not heresy. Still an accusation is just that until you provide evidence.
Evidence please…

Yeah, apostasy is the more correct term.

 

[Bengoshi]

For anyone who believes that contraception is even remotely permissable, here are a few things to meditate on:

the word ‘contraception’ means “against the beginning.” (learned this from Janet Smith).

"Contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be for any reason justified - John Paul II, 1983

We were all embroyos once. Let’s think about this when pondering the words of Jesus 'what you do to the least, you do to me."

Again, Catholics keep on misunderstanding contraception. Contraception is NOT abortion. There is no embryo to speak of yet in contraception because there hasn’t been any fertilization of the egg by the sperm yet! Exactly, it is against the beginning, so life has not begun yet. There is NO embryo yet.

 

[Bengoshi]

You are the first person I have met here who thinks there is a difference between the Roman Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church…The Catholic Church is universal, and all who claim to be Catholic acknowledge the Pope in Rome as the leader of Christ’s church here on earth. There is NO difference between the Catholic and Roman Catholic faith. If you do not acknowledge the Pope in Rome as leader then you are NOT Catholic.

Are you serious?! I guess you better start studying your church history more! Not all Catholic churches are Roman! The eastern and orthodox churches are also Catholic by faith and doctrine but are not under the authority of the pope in Rome.

 

[Bengoshi]

I see alot of emotional biases in the remarks given by non-Catholics, as well as not grounded in early church history, or not acknowledging the use of Scripture and its synthesis throughout the Mass.

To just understand worship, read Michael Aquilina’s , ‘The Mass of the Early Christians’.

My Baptist girlfriend was shocked we have Bible readings at Mass…

The Anglican Church was the first to OK contraception in the early 1930’s that all other Christian denominations and sects condemned.

There have been successors to Peter who had failed. But the founder of the Anglican Church, King Henry…it began with him not having a male heir…he died of syphilis. One of the vows said at the earlyl Christian liturgies was not only to not steal or lie, but not to commit adultery.

The Catholic Church has been faithful throughout its 2,000 year history to the permanency of marriage and the sanctity of human life, and I believe it is not only work of the Holy Spirit, but the rock of Peter – the sign of unity among us.

You have a girlfriend?! Hmm… LOL! Just kidding!

 

[Bengoshi]

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.

I have to agree with this one. Based on my reading of church history and the movies that were made about this part of history, King Henry VII did separate from the RCC due to the disapproval by Pope Clement of his divorce with Cahterine of Aragon so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. RC was banned from England but was subsequently returned by Queen Mary (Bloody Mary), the daughter of Catherine. She had more than 300 protestants killed by burning at the stake and other means.

 

[erikd]

Again, Catholics keep on misunderstanding contraception. Contraception is NOT abortion. There is no embryo to speak of yet in contraception because there hasn’t been any fertilization of the egg by the sperm yet! Exactly, it is against the beginning, so life has not begun yet. There is NO embryo yet.

I guess that would apply to the issue if Scripture Itself didn’t mention this issue. Fortunately for us, Scripture does mention this issue. If you go back to post 819, which you have not yet answered, you might see that. The Trinity promotes life not the destruction of viable seed, which God has implanted for the sole purpose of procreation. Of course, not everyone can procreate for many different reasons. But the destruction of the seed that God provided is like the destruction of anything that God provides to us with love and charity. Do you want to willingly destroy that special gift that God graced you with? Do you think that God Himself would want to see that gift destroyed? If you go back to post 819 thinking in this manner you might rethink your stance. Unless, of course, the traditions of men, going back to the 1930s and 40s are more important to you than the love of God? (1930-1940 is the time frame when many Christian churches began to change their approach to this issue, after 1900 years of following the Catholic Teaching. Do you honestly believe that loving God was the main reason for the change?)

 

[luckyfredsdad]

~1534

History according to steve b.

Henry unilaterally broke with Rome.

**So you say! Are you infallible just as the pope claims to be? Where’s your proof?
The Church in England pointed out that according to the Holy and Ecumenical Councils,no Bishop can interfere in another See! That is all the pope is, a Bishop.
**

Roman emperors were never head of the Church.
**But the pope was a territorial magnate and he was at least in suburbicarian Italy head of the Church.
At least with Henry, the English Synod put in thee proviso, ‘As far as the law of God allows!’
**

**The Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nice because he was ,‘fed up,’ of being badgered by Christian Bishops taking their problems to him for answers! The pope was never even in the framework of the picture! If you read history from Greek sources or from the early Church, you will find the Emperors had a great deal to do with the Councils either they, or their commissioners sat in on the discussions and generally directed the procedures. and the Church in general. /B]

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

Quite frankly that is rubbish! The pope did ratify them and when he queried certain canons, he was ignored . All the Bishops had to ratify and agree, being in agreement with the Councils, especially Nice and Chalcedon was the mark of a Catholic! The Bishops from Britain ratified the Ecumenical Councils and took part at least, in Nice.It is, as I say, what Bishops did!**

Where are your sources?

The Celtic Saints and the See of Rome.
Liber de Concilia, Cardinal Pole. Amsterdam 1730. [Not my usual copy.]

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

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

**When I get involved in apologetics, there are two sets of source material I do not accept,one is Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and the other is the Vatican publications.
Both are untrustworthy!
**

 

[Bengoshi]

I guess that would apply to the issue if Scripture Itself didn’t mention this issue. Fortunately for us, Scripture does mention this issue. If you go back to post 819, which you have not yet answered, you might see that. The Trinity promotes life not the destruction of viable seed, which God has implanted for the sole purpose of procreation. Of course, not everyone can procreate for many different reasons. But the destruction of the seed that God provided is like the destruction of anything that God provides to us with love and charity. Do you want to willingly destroy that special gift that God graced you with? Do you think that God Himself would want to see that gift destroyed? If you go back to post 819 thinking in this manner you might rethink your stance. Unless, of course, the traditions of men, going back to the 1930s and 40s are more important to you than the love of God? (1930-1940 is the time frame when many Christian churches began to change their approach to this issue, after 1900 years of following the Catholic Teaching. Do you honestly believe that loving God was the main reason for the change?)

I did not find it necessary to reply to Post # 819 anymore because others have sufficiently responded to it already. Science devlops. There are many discoveries today which were unknown before. Science has already defined that contraception is not the same as abortion. That is why other Christian churches already changed their stance on this issue. The RCC can remain stubborn and medieval in its thinking for all I care! I am appealing tho to other readers of this thread to use their brains and think for themselves whether or not the claims of the RCC are truly biblical and logical. Such unreasonable, impractical, irresponsible, unscientific and unbiblical medieval RC teachings against artificial contraception are merely forced interpretations from Scripture which are clearly silent on the matter. Such doctrines inhibit progress and growth such as the time when the RCC condemned Galileo for espousing the heliocentric theory (which proved scientifically correct as against the geocentric position that the RCC stubbornly held to during that time).

The RCC claim that God abhors artificial contraception is a mere conjecture and opinion based on human tradition which has no clear biblical basis whatsoever.

 

[erikd]

I did not find it necessary to reply to Post # 819 anymore because others have sufficiently responded to it already. Science devlops. There are many discoveries today which were unknown before. Science has already defined that contraception is not the same as abortion. That is why other Christian churches already changed their stance on this issue. The RCC can remain stubborn and medieval in its thinking for all I care! I am appealing tho to other readers of this thread to use their brains and think for themselves whether or not the claims of the RCC are truly biblical and logical. Such unreasonable, impractical, irresponsible, unscientific and unbiblical medieval RC teachings against artificial contraception are merely forced interpretations from Scripture which are clearly silent on the matter. Such doctrines inhibit progress and growth such as the time when the RCC condemned Galileo for espousing the heliocentric theory (which proved scientifically correct as against the geocentric position that the RCC stubbornly held to during that time).

The RCC claim that God abhors artificial contraception is a mere conjecture and opinion based on human tradition which has no clear biblical basis whatsoever.

So when I asked you whether you’re okay with destroying God’s gift to you, a gift that could only be given out of love and could only be used for procreation, your answer is yes? And you state that I don’t understand the Bible? If you give a special gift to someone you love, is it loving to destroy it?

You make the same claims over and over again, yet I’ve already described to you why the penalty for “Onanism” was death, and that’s an issue you have not yet addressed. If you’re not able to, yet you still want to hold to your position, at least be honest with yourself.

By the way, I have a fair amount of interest in heliocentrism and have studied Copernicus and Galileo and can tell you that Galileo was never fully censured. The Church, which at that time was still trying to fight off the spread of Muslims into Christian countries, did not want anything that could weaken the Church position, at least until after a fair amount of scientific discovery was completed. Imagine if a riff began within the Church Itself during a tender time when Muslim extremists wanted to kill Christians and it was the Catholic Church’s position to defend, even militarily, the honor of Christ. Perhaps you should thank these people for decisions like that so that you don’t have to pay homage to Allah.

Within a hundred years of Galileo’s death, his findings were published with expressed permission from the Church. By the way, the person who originally suggested this idea, Copernicus, was himself a Catholic Priest, who grew up in a family of people devoted to the Catholic faith, including an uncle who was a Bishop.

What does all this talk of heliocentrism have to do with Onanism, anyway?

 

[Bengoshi]

So when I asked you whether you’re okay with destroying God’s gift to you, a gift that could only be given out of love and could only be used for procreation, your answer is yes? And you state that I don’t understand the Bible? If you give a special gift to someone you love, is it loving to destroy it?

You make the same claims over and over again, yet I’ve already described to you why the penalty for “Onanism” was death, and that’s an issue you have not yet addressed. If you’re not able to, yet you still want to hold to your position, at least be honest with yourself.

By the way, I have a fair amount of interest in heliocentrism and have studied Copernicus and Galileo and can tell you that Galileo was never fully censured. The Church, which at that time was still trying to fight off the spread of Muslims into Christian countries, did not want anything that could weaken the Church position, at least until after a fair amount of scientific discovery was completed. Imagine if a riff began within the Church Itself during a tender time when Muslim extremists wanted to kill Christians and it was the Catholic Church’s position to defend, even militarily, the honor of Christ. Perhaps you should thank these people for decisions like that so that you don’t have to pay homage to Allah.

Within a hundred years of Galileo’s death, his findings were published with expressed permission from the Church. By the way, the person who originally suggested this idea, Copernicus, was himself a Catholic Priest, who grew up in a family of people devoted to the Catholic faith, including an uncle who was a Bishop.

What does all this talk of heliocentrism have to do with Onanism, anyway?

You are assuming that it is God’s gift. It may not always be the case. God’s gift is our ABILITY to have offspring, but that doesn’t mean we should have to! Check out the following links:

religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/Protestants_endorse_family_planning.htm

ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43280

philippineasiannewstoday.com/pinky-a-bartolome/312-the-ironic-twist

Catholics, wake up! This is the sad reality we are facing, especially in poor countries like the Philippines and others in the Asian region.

 

[greggy53]

**]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!

I not making anything up

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I not making anything up

Probably not friend! I,m not making accusations. But you have made a mistake or misunderstood what was said, as we all do at sometime. I’ve been studying history for 60yrs and I make enough, believe me!
Luckyfredsdad

 

[greggy53]

**]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!

This is the last that I’m going to respond to this because it is off topic and I don’t take kindly to being called a liar.
The quote below was taken from an on-line History of Scotland. This act of thievery is well documented in History books across the world.

“King Edward Of England crossed the border in 1296, took John de Baliol prisoner, and proclaimed himself king of Scotland. To symbolize the union he carried off the ancient Stone of Scone, on which Scottish kings had long been crowned, and placed it in Westminster Abbey where it lay beneath the coronation chair.”

 

[steve_b]

The Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nice because he was ,‘fed up,’ of being badgered by Christian Bishops taking their problems to him for answers! The pope was never even in the framework of the picture! If you read history from Greek sources or from the early Church, you will find the Emperors had a great deal to do with the Councils either they, or their commissioners sat in on the discussions and generally directed the procedures. and the Church in general. /B]

The emperor was NOT head of the Church. THAT’s the point. Now if you talk about the Byzantines, after THEY broke away, they had a problem with emperors. Later even the Muslim Sultans controlled them to the point of naming and deposing Patriarchs at will.

Anglicans had that problem during the Protestant revolt with the king, Henry VIII who took over as head of the English Church.

Catholics still existed, loyal to the pope, unlike those who divide with the king.

lucky:

When I get involved in apologetics, there are two sets of source material I do not accept,one is Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and the other is the Vatican publications.
**Both are untrustworthy!
**

And it appears you think history accepted by even your own Anglicans are untrustworthy too.

 

[guanophore]

“The Founder of the Anglican Church”?

The Anglican Church is no more than a showing forth of the One ,Holy Catholic Church in this country. It is the Church in England!

The Anglicans became separated during the Reformation, due to the self serving desires of the rulers. Most of the laity did not change their beliefs, and did not agree with the King taking over headship of the Church.

Further more, it has been so for two thousand years or more. British Bishops attended Nicea, according to at least one modern Roman Scholar and when you belittle the Church , you belittle the Body of Christ!

I agree that belittling the Church is belittling the Body. However, it is not right to pretend that separations do not exist. There is significant “anti-Romanism” in the Anglican communion. It is our prayer that these divisions will be healed, so that the Church truly can demonstrate the unity God commands.

When you go on about Henry Tudor's infidelities, I have no doubt at all that many of the accusations are true. How-and-ever if this is a road you wish to go down, first I must say it has no place in a discussion about Christ and Scripture! Secondly, the behaviour of various popes, leaves a lot to be desired, not so much that many of them were thought to be pagan, but their sexual peccadilloes, were not beyond reroach ,especially the one , a sixteen year old, who had relations with his mother!

Truly the sins of men have done a great deal to harm and divide the Body.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

The emperor was NOT head of the Church. THAT’s the point. Now if you talk about the Byzantines, after THEY broke away, they had a problem with emperors AND later even the Muslim Sultans controlled them to the point of naming and deposing Patriarchs at will.

Anglicans ahd that problem with the king took over as head of the English Church.

**The Emperors were the head of state! They had an interest in all that was going on and when the Christian leadership ignored or didn’t know about papal claims they used the Emperor’s to settle the questions. Had you any idea whatsoever, you would know that Henry claimed Imperial authority ,he was the Chief magistrate no more and the English Church tacked on to the legislation the claim that Henry was “the singular protector only and supreme lord and so far as the Law of Christ will allow of the English Church and Clergy!” That is the case in any civilised country! Or do you think that the Church should be above the laws?
**
There is a difference between the Foxe’s martyrology and the vatican Publishing! Foxe’s Book was written in the 16th, Century when standards were not to trustworthy, The vatican publishing House is a modern ,[comparatively ] business, catering for the non to fussy!

**Yet, again, you have not tackled the (name removed by moderator)ut of the state in to the authority and place of the Bishop of Rome within the catholic Church! His authority chiefly came from the state, he was a civil servant in orders, the Church in Rome was a Dept of the Empire. He was allowed to enforce his orders by means of the Stasi. Further, something else that you avoid, the pope was a territorial magnate over most of Northern Italy A Prince and a bishop? What is the difference between England and Italy? Except that the English Catholics limited, as far as they were able the chances of Henry becoming a tyrant. As far as the Roman Church was concerned their was not even a muffled burp!

**Regarding the True Roman, whom you call Byzantines, they acknowledged the place of the Roman Emperor in the place of things,he had a part, not like the Bishop of Old Rome who wanted everything!

---

And it appears you think history accepted by even your own Anglicans are untrustworthy too.

There is a difference between the Foxe’s martyrology and the Vatican Publishing! Foxe’s Book was written in the 16th, Century when standards were not to trustworthy, The Vatican publishing House is a modern ,[comparatively ] business, catering for the non to fussy!

**Anglicans, as Catholics, believe in the revelation of Christ once delivered to the saints.[Jude.]

They believe that this revelation was eventully recorded in Scripture by the Church!

Also that revelation is explained and interpreted by the Bishops in Council Holy tradition,]whereas the new Roman System limits the bishops to be running boys for the Vatican. We prefer them to be the Episcopal College as scripture records them!**

 

[luckyfredsdad]

too.

The Anglicans became separated during the Reformation, due to the self serving desires of the rulers. Most of the laity did not change their beliefs, and did not agree with the King taking over headship of the Church.

**There’s no doubt that Anglicans became separated during the Reformation! The question is, who initiated the break? Rome did by breaking off Communion ,not so much with Henry, but with the Englich Church! Apart from one bishop, one Lord Chancellor and some unfortunate monks, [not many,] very few bothered about the title.However, it was limited by the Church just in case! You have got to remember that the reformation came at the end of century of unrest against the papacy. What the Roman Church now call Ecumenical Councils, but what we refer to as Latin Councils, were a series of councils where the Church attempted to put aright the errorrs of the papal sysytem. Pisa, Florence etc…Where popes were deposed and regulated by the Church, where an attempt was made to curb their power. It failed, but not through the want of trying. Even More , who protested against Henry to the ultimate degree told Cromwell that he believed the Pope was subordinate to a an Ecumenical Council. This is what we believe and we claim it is scriptural.
There is significant anti romanism amongst Anglicans, that has been fed over the years by, what I consider, dishonest controversy.Also by the fact that Rome is considered in a somewhat similar view as that given to Hitlers Germany and Soviet Russia.

I agree that belittling the Church is belittling the Body. However, it is not right to pretend that separations do not exist.
There is significant “anti-Romanism” in the Anglican communion. It is our prayer that these divisions will be healed, so that the Church truly can demonstrate the unity God commands.

Truly the sins of men have done a great deal to harm and divide the Body.**

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The trouble Galileo had with Rome was not one of science, it was one of theology. He challenged the Catholic Church’s right to interpret Scripture. Galileo’s scientific ideas were similar to Copernicus’ (who wasn’t condemned as a heretic). If Galileo had stuck to the subject he was good at (science) and left theology to the Church things may have turned out differently…

 

[erikd]

You are assuming that it is God’s gift. It may not always be the case. God’s gift is our ABILITY to have offspring, but that doesn’t mean we should have to! Check out the following links:

religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/Protestants_endorse_family_planning.htm

ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43280

philippineasiannewstoday.com/pinky-a-bartolome/312-the-ironic-twist

Catholics, wake up! This is the sad reality we are facing, especially in poor countries like the Philippines and others in the Asian region.

Wow, the news in the Philippines seems really biased, or are these just opinion pieces? I guess I could give you a few opinion pieces of my own, but what’s the point of that when the facts are available?

Also, wanted to get one point cleared up. Are you saying that viable seed is not God’s gift? Have you ever asked someone who cannot have children whether he thinks that is God’s gift?

Contraception is forbidden by the penalty of death according to Holy Scripture. It is something you have yet to answer and continue to avoid. The Catholic Church, along with all other churches throughout the world, for 1900 years taught abstinence. Christians, until the beginning of the 20th century, had always been taught abstinence. But I guess that position is not as popular, so it’s easier for non-Catholic churches, who really don’t have to hold to any Biblical standards, to teach whatever seems popular at the time. The narrow road is the one you’re avoiding by avoiding the teachings of Holy Scripture. Perhaps it is not the Catholics that need to wake up.

 

[Janet1983]

Contraception is forbidden by the penalty of death according to Holy Scripture.

Woah! What???