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

[steve_b]

**Friend, I have no wish to be rude but I feel I have gone far enough in this discussion with you, as you give the impression a that you have very little knowledge of the subject we’re engaged in, or even a desire to hear another side of the question. **

When you ask who is Cyprian and who is Leo, though we are talking about the Ecumenical Councils, I realise I have neither the heart or the time to spend with you.

No doubt we’ll meet at some future date when I’ve got over the shock!

God bless

**Lucky. **

I don’t wish to be rude either but I’m always suspisious of people who won’t provide their source for their statements properly referenced, and go off in a huff blaming the one who asks for the proof…

When you said the following,

:

"in the Seventh, Pope Leo sent a Letter, which the Council first read, then debated and finally compared it to a letteer from S.Cyril, when the letter from Leo was seen to agree with Cyril’s earlier offering, Leo’s letter was finally accepted. "
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5763431&postcount=959

And I ask you for which letter from Leo, and which letter from Cyril, and you do all this protesting and resisting the request to provide the reference, and then blame me as if I’m the one who needs his head examined. I gotta tell ya, that’s kinda nuts. I’m not going to resist anyone who asks me for my sources. I’m not offended when someone wants that information. By the same token, I’m not going to accept what you’ve been saying without question. No offense, but you don’t know me and I don’t know you. And because we disagree on issues, we should BOTH be courteous and provide the proof and the evidence that backs up what we say when the other asks.

I think this also has to do with my challenge to you further down that page on the above link. Notice, when I mentioned S Bede, I gave my source properly referenced and even gave the link. I just didn’t say S Bede said such and so and expect you to take my word for it.

If you go back through my posts to you ~7 or so, you’ll find I give sources and references properly in advance out of courtesy, and to make light the work of the one who maybe asking themselves, I wonder if what he’s saying is accurate or manipulated. Look at your posts. You don’t reciprocate.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

It is amazing that such a careful student of history could make such a blatantly false statement. Even if one does not agree with the notion of the Papacy, it clearly has historical testimony since the second century.

Your own posts have demonstrated this, bringing quotes from the ecumencal councils legislating against interference from foreign bishops. If the Bishop of Rome had not been throwing his weight around, then this would not have been necessary!

Friend,

You have misunderstood my comment, though it was probably, badly written.
The Council was the Holy Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, 451AD, as you know.It was a Council the pope didn’t want and he tried to stifle discussion before it started,even. Whilst his legates sat in the Chair, it is usually accepted that the imperial commissioners ran the Synod. The letter of the Synod to Leo stated that,’ the believing emperors presided for the sake of order’. [Mansi] Leo had sent his famous Tome, it has been called,“the one outstanding document explanatory of the faith,” that Rome has produced.{Right Rev,W.S.Kerr.] It was only accepted after it had been compared to S.Cyprian’s Letter, to judge Leo’s orthodoxy.
Then after a successful Council, that got through amazing amounts of business and as Bossuet, the famous 17th,Cent, bishop said,‘It was resolved to refer Leo’s epistle to a legitimate examination of the Council". At the 15th,CanonThe Holy Fathers gave priviliges to ,“the See of elder Rome on account of it being the imperial city:” they gave then, the same priviliges to the,’ most Holy See of New Rome,’ on account of it being the new capital city of the empire. In protest the Legates absented themselves from tthe session in protest! Their protests were ignored. Explanations were given by the president that everything was done regularly and above board.At no time did the Legates fall back on the plea of Rome’s priviliges!

There’s lots more, but the amazing point is inspite of not accepting leo’s offing until it had been compared or tested for orthodoxy against the Cyprian’s Epistle, inspite of the Council not allowing a Bishop charged with Heresy to take his seat, even though he had the backing of Leo, inspite of infuriating the Bishop of Rome in the question of perogatives, they then passed this marvellous acclamation!

They had no conception of papal claims as given for instance in ,“Satis Cognitum.”

Iam sorry if I caused you offence, it was not meant to believe me!

 

[Bengoshi]

equally as irritating is the term “Full Gospel” used by the Word of Faith “name it and claim it” folks.

Hahaha! I agree! What on earth is a “Full Gospel” church? Does that mean other congregations do not teach the full Gospel?

 

[Hisalone]

Never heard someone use the term before. Then again I have never heard of the Word of Faith movement either.

Should I consider myself lucky in that regard?

God bless

Full Gospel is a term that is not limited to the word faith folks, it is much larger. Full Gospel Businessmen hold prayer lucheons in most cities and large towns throughout the country.Full Gospel is an expression of those that believe in the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Many religious believe the gifts of the Holy Ghost died out in the apostolic age. Full ospel believe that the baptism and gifts of the Holy Ghost are for today.

 

[Stephen3970]

Full Gospel is a term that is not limited to the word faith folks, it is much larger. Full Gospel Businessmen hold prayer lucheons in most cities and large towns throughout the country.Full Gospel is an expression of those that believe in the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Many religious believe the gifts of the Holy Ghost died out in the apostolic age. Full ospel believe that the baptism and gifts of the Holy Ghost are for today.

There are indeed other groups who use the term “Full Gospel” but it most frequently used by word faith folks around my neck of the woods. Even still, it is still a rather rediculous concept - the Gospel isn’t really about speaking in tongues, getting “slain in the spirit”, or the like. The Gospel is Christ and Christ is the Gospel.

 

[guanophore]

Hahaha! I agree! What on earth is a “Full Gospel” church? Does that mean other congregations do not teach the full Gospel?

They are Oneness Pentecostals, and yes, they do believe that other congregations lack the full gospel. They believe it is found in the copious practice of the gifts of Pentecost.

 

[Stephen3970]

Never heard someone use the term before. Then again I have never heard of the Word of Faith movement either.

Should I consider myself lucky in that regard?

God bless

Yes indeed.

The Word of Faith movement was primarily born from teachings that a man by the name of Kenneth Hagin which he had plagarized (and I do mean plagarized) his teachings from one E.W. Kenyon (who in turn was influenced by Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy).

You can read more about it here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith

Basically, it is false doctrine

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Hahaha! I agree! What on earth is a “Full Gospel” church? Does that mean other congregations do not teach the full Gospel?

Thereby proclaiming themselves no different from most other people:
Catholic - ‘Universal’ Christianity
Orthodox - ‘The right’ Christianity
Baptist - True teachings on ‘baptism’
Evangelical - The only ones who ‘evangelise.’

Protestants - We ‘protest’

Number one rule of mob mentality (now there’s an oxymoron!): “We are the only ones demonstrably factual.”

 

[Bengoshi]

Thereby proclaiming themselves no different from most other people:
Catholic - ‘Universal’ Christianity
Orthodox - ‘The right’ Christianity
Baptist - True teachings on ‘baptism’
Evangelical - The only ones who ‘evangelise.’

Protestants - We ‘protest’

Number one rule of mob mentality (now there’s an oxymoron!): “We are the only ones demonstrably factual.”

:clapping: LOL!

 

[Hisalone]

There are indeed other groups who use the term “Full Gospel” but it most frequently used by word faith folks around my neck of the woods. Even still, it is still a rather rediculous concept - the Gospel isn’t really about speaking in tongues, getting “slain in the spirit”, or the like. The Gospel is Christ and Christ is the Gospel.

The Gospel is the good news of Christ. Part of the good news is that Christ gave the apostles power to proclain it and gifts to edify or build up the church those that deny it are not full gospel.

 

[Zundrah]

Thereby proclaiming themselves no different from most other people:
Catholic - ‘Universal’ Christianity
Orthodox - ‘The right’ Christianity
Baptist - True teachings on ‘baptism’
Evangelical - The only ones who ‘evangelise.’

Protestants - We ‘protest’

Number one rule of mob mentality (now there’s an oxymoron!): “We are the only ones demonstrably factual.”

Hey, you forgot about mormons!

 

[greggy53]

I think that folks who identify themselves as “Bible believing” and or “Full Gospel” and the like do so to try and stand out, to make themselves feel special and apart from the rest of the Protestant horde. Because there are so many of us Catholics some people feel “lost in the crowd” and I think they are attracted to the small, and often peculiar Protestant sects for that reason. They visit a small church, and everybody there makes a big deal about them being welcome etc. It is easier for some people to connect I think to the “homey” feel of small informal Churches.

 

[Zundrah]

I think that folks who identify themselves as “Bible believing” and or “Full Gospel” and the like do so to try and stand out, to make themselves feel special and apart from the rest of the Protestant horde. Because there are so many of us Catholics some people feel “lost in the crowd” and I think they are attracted to the small, and often peculiar Protestant sects for that reason. They visit a small church, and everybody there makes a big deal about them being welcome etc. It is easier for some people to connect I think to the “homey” feel of small informal Churches.

When I asked my sister (who by the way is an athiest), “What church do you prefer? My methodist church or the roman catholic church?” She replied, “The methodist church, because everyone is so nice!”

… so as you can see, it’s not about “Christ” for some people, but it’s about the social atmosphere and how “easy” it is on sunday to go to church…

 

[greggy53]

I found that when I attended the Assembly of God, and other evangelical churches it was very emotional. People who like to jump and shout don’t like the reserved and regimented Catholic Mass. They equate emotionalism to closeness to God. The more you get worked up during a service the closer you are getting to the “spirit”. Which I think was being faked by most of the people because that is what was expected. If you were quiet and reserved then “your heart must not be right with God”. You must have sin in your life otherwise you would be jumping up and down and clapping like everyone else. On the other hand the Holy Mass is boring to a lot of people. I used to be bored in Mass too when I was young, but when I returned to the faith after a few years of riding the emotional Pentecostal rollercoaster I found the beauty, and majesty of the Mass much more spiritually fulfilling. The Sacraments are what is missing from the Protestant services especially the Holy Eucharist, and I think they unconsciously try to make up for that void with the jumping, clapping, and shouting.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Greggy 53,

**You wrote: ** *I can’t believe some Anglicans can have the gaul to call themselves Catholic. *​

Yes, indeed! Some Anglicans (called “Anglo-Catholics” or, with at times less pertinence, “High Church”) have presumed to call themselves Catholic. However, they are as Protestant as their Low Church and Evangelical Anglican fellow-religionists. Anglo-Catholics simply exercise their Protestant proclivity, for picking and choosing and interpreting for themselves, by opting to be Protestants with Catholic tastes and habits. There is no Catholic stability amidst them or among such other “High Church” followings among the Lutherans.

However, to be generous and charitable, one should have sympathy for Anglo-Catholics’ noble aspirations in times that increasingly isolate and marginalise them in mainstream Anglican “churches” in the English-speaking world which ever increasinly have become apostate, revealing the bad fruits of all Anglicans’ mutual Protestant heritage and lineage. Now many see the light and “swim the Tiber” or flail acqueously with arms and legs, belly downwards, crossing the Bosphorus, to convert, either, respectively, to the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Jerry Parker

 

[luckyfredsdad]

---

Yes, indeed! Some Anglicans (called “Anglo-Catholics” or, with at times less pertinence, “High Church”) have presumed to call themselves Catholic.

When I grow to be as old as you, I pray to heaven that i do not devolope such pompous attitudes.

Do you realise that the Anglican Church in this country ,at least, has never used the term protestant to describe their beliefs? The only Church that has is the Roman Catholic Church in 1791, who when writing to the Government described themselves as,'Protestant Catholic Dissenters"! What were they protesting and dissenting about? Why, Catholicism!
I’ve just noticed something else, about this thread, most of the unpleasant folk on it are ex protestants, ,people who have left,as it were. I realise now, you have a lot to make up!

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Lucky Fred’s Dad,

**We wrote: *Jerry Parker: *Yes, indeed! Some Anglicans (called “Anglo-Catholics” or, with at times less pertinence, “High Church”) have presumed to call themselves Catholic. **

**Lucky wrote: ** When I grow to be as old as you, I pray to heaven that I do not devolop such pompous attitudes.

Quote [from wherever Lucky found it]: *Do you realise that the Anglican Church in this country ,at least, has never used the term protestant to describe their beliefs? The only Church that has is the Roman Catholic Church in 1791, who when writing to the Government described themselves as,'Protestant Catholic Dissenters"! What were they protesting and dissenting about? Why, Catholicism!

**Lucky (I presume): ** *I’ve just noticed something else, about this thread, most of the unpleasant folk on it are ex protestants, ,people who have left,as it were. I realise now, you have a lot to make up! **​

Well, I don’t know that my remark merits that description as being “pompous”! It is common Catholic consensus that, whatever they are, Anglicans are not truly Catholic, as Roman and Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are. The Vatican II Council documents graciously deal with Anglicanism as a special case. Well, Anglicans are a different (and special) kind of Protestant. That term (“Protestant”) is ** not** meant as a term of abuse, just as descriptive. I have much sympathy for the Anglo-Catholic predicament, which has come to an head with recent apostate decisions in, especially, the Protestant Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. I hope that one day the beauty and dignity of Anglican worship, hymnody, and choral music become an integral component of Western Catholicism or of Orthodoxy, as well may happen, to God’s Glory!

Jerry Parker

 

[luckyfredsdad]

quote. It is common Catholic consensus that, whatever they are, Anglicans are not truly Catholic, as Roman and Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are. The Vatican II Council documents graciously deal with Anglicanism as a special case.

Who are the “Catholics,” who hold this consensus? Pray tell! I presume you mean the followers of Trent and Vatican 1&2. They are Roman Catholics and not quite the same species! I have to smile when you mention the Orthodox! In a by monthly magazine I get, the,’ papists,’ as the orthodox refer to the Roman Church are known as as the ,‘first protestants.’ By the way the reference to my other quote is, HANDBOOK FOR THE CLERGY, A.W.Robinson,D.D. pg,30.,

info info info@impantokratoros.gris the Online magazine from the orthodox which they send out to subscribers.

 

[Stephen3970]

Hahaha! I agree! What on earth is a “Full Gospel” church? Does that mean other congregations do not teach the full Gospel?

That is, I think, more or less what is being implied when they say that.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

** We wrote: * Jerry Parker: *** It is common Catholic consensus that, whatever they are, Anglicans are not truly Catholic, as Roman and Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are. The Vatican II Council documents graciously deal with Anglicanism as a special case.

***You quoted in rebuttal : *** *Who are the “Catholics,” who hold this consensus? Pray tell! I presume you mean the followers of Trent and Vatican 1&2. They are Roman Catholics and not quite the same species! I have to smile when you mention the Orthodox! In a by monthly magazine I get, the,’ papists,’ as the orthodox refer to the Roman Church are known as as the ,‘first protestants.’ By the way the reference to my other quote is, HANDBOOK FOR THE CLERGY, A.W.Robinson,D.D. pg,30., *​

Well, for my part, I do not see how your quote really affects things. As to who the Catholics are in your quote’s question, they are the same Catholics from before the Councils of Trent and the two Vatican Councils. They were Catholics then and they, as well as the Eastern Orthodox, are Catholics now. As a former Anglican and Lutheran, I used to think that Trent marked when the Roman Catholic Church lost its catholicity; I finally got around to reading the Tridentine decrees and canons and realised that they did not mean what Chemnitz and other Anglican, Lutheran, Protestant, and sectarian antagonists claimed that they meant (albeit there are things in those conciliar statements, rather “uptight” as they were worded, that are not well expressed in some ways). The Church of England may or may not have retained some Catholic character for some time, but it and the other Anglican denominations ceased being Catholic either at the beginning or as they drifted into aspostasy on one matter after ever another increasingly important one (birth control, divorce, ordination of intransigent hussies, approval of homosexuality as still another rejection of the authority of Holy Scripture and of Catholic Tradition).

Anglicans think that tactile succession of bishops and bishoppesses is enough to guard Catholicity in the Church. Nay, there are several marks of the Church, of which Apostolic Succession is only one; Anglicanism lost its catholicity on many fronts bit by bit and certainly by now! An heretical ecclesial body cannot be Catholic. However, the Church (Catholic and Orthodox alike) do regard Anglicanism as a sort of “mixed bag” of which there is much that is good, holy, and valid, so they regard if differently than they do the sects. Anglicanism in some manifestations has marks of catholicity, alas more synthetic than organic, even if its defectiveness deprives it of what being the Catholic Church requires.

Refreshing, though, Lucky, at least we are dealing with genuinely Catholic questions, not with the snottiness and partiality in sectarian opinion of Baptists, Pentecostals, and their ilk whose contributions about one matter after another have so besotted this C.A. Forum. In many ways, probably in most, you are far more a brother to those of Catholic faith.

Pax, Jerry Parker