Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[benedictus2]

If Luther would have left it go and back down, recanted, said he was wrong, would anything had changed? The church would have gone on selling indulgences, selling bishoprics, having uneducated priests and having corruption.

Yes there would have been change. Change came not from him but from saints like Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Ignatius of Loyola and St Francis de Sales and the many saintly people who devoted themselves to prayer and penance for all the ills of the church at that time.

The Church is a spiritual body and so any transformation has to come not from an insistence on one’s will but on a total abandonment to God’s will. This is where I find Teresa’s humility a model for anyone who would wish to reform anything.

GK Chesterton’s dictum should always be heeded as well. When asked what was wrong with the world, he replied: “What’s wrong with the world is me.”

The only thing we can change is ourselves, and that happens when we become more holy, more abandoned to God’s will. Not by insisting on our will.

Just look at the ever splintering protestant denominations today. That alone should tell you that whatever spirit was in power during the reformation, it was not the Holy Spirit.

Your comment betrays a lack of trust in the Son of God who established this Church and made a promise to be with her always. It highlights an insistence on having things done my way and in my time.

The Church is Christ’s. Trust in Him. This is something Luther failed to do.

 

[benedictus2]

What he assumed was, in practice, the political powers, not the spiritual ones. Henry had few innovations in the theological realm, for the most part what he proclaimed was to be followed hewed closely to the RC origins, i.e., the Six Articles. He had some original thought, as in an insistence on wider availability of vernacular Holy Scripture, but his aim in the Act of Supremacy was to proclaim that whatever the Church in England followed, it would be enforced by the political, Royal arm, and not by any agency outside the realm.

And who determines what the Church of England followed? Was it not him? That he did not change much of the articles of faith is beside the point because by virtue of being head of the church he had the power to change the articles of faith had it so pleased him.

** If a point of doctrine did catch his eye, as with Scripture, he could enforce it,** but as a part of the political role of a Sovereign who was also (by Act of Parliament) the head of the Church in England.

And if he disagreed with a point of doctrine, whose view rules? His or or someone else’s? And since it is a matter of Scripture, then is that not taking over the spiritual command?

 

[seamusmohr]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

In answer to your question, the titles of the books and your use of ‘Romanist’ told me quite a lot as to your point of view being anti-Catholic … or you are really are just fascinated with anti-Catholic terms and tracts and use them whenever possible.

I gather you are unwilling to simply state the problem you had with Trent. Shame. Why not try again and reduce your issues to writing.

God bless

The Lutherans and traditional Catholics at the time of the English Reformation used to confound their papist opponents with the cry of, “Where was your Church before Trent.”
( Bishop Hickes 's Reply. 1713. )
In fact the Council was called by the pope as an attempt to call halt to the inroads of both Lutherans and Calvinists in Europe and was classified as a,'General Council,".
But in fact it was a factional Council, being called by a section of the Catholic Church that was already embattled by dissension with the Eastern Church and the Catholic Church in England. The pope supplied the organisers, the officials;it was called in a place controlled by the Emperor of Germany a servant and abetter of the popes aspirations to be dictator and no one was allowed to attend unless by permission of the pope. He sent out the invites to a selected few and when he failed to gain enough support from the Church in Europe put pressure on the traditional followers of Rome throughout Italy. When this failed to produce sufficient bodies, he resorted to paying their costs and even went further making bishops simply to attend the conference and make the numbers up. He invited Anglican Bishops , but they were prevented by the State from attending even if they wanted to do so.

Once their they were not even able to formulate an agenda, this was produced by the pope’s creatures and revealed piecemeal as necessary! Nor were the bishops allowed to discuss the material before hand, indeed they were not even allowed to mix freely, but were assigned to two groups who were kept apart socially.

The result was, the medieval innovations complained about by the dissidents were accepted by the papal followers,Even so , it is estimated that at the early sessions, at least a third of the bishops supported Lutheran ideas by their votes.( Kidd.The Counter Reformation.)
No subjects were accepted by the managers, unless it had been agree upon previously by the Papal Court!
The Ecumenical Councils had been classed as free, with invitations being sent to all Catholic Bishops, but here the matter was hole and corner, with the question of a free vote being rubbished.
At the end of the Council, the results were sent to Rome for the Pope’s agreement before being affirmed by the Council. This was an innovation of enormous consequence, the hitherto free bishops, the Magisterium, abandoning their responsibilities on to the shoulders of one man, or rather what was known in those days as the ,“Court of Rome.”.+
It then became a sect.After Trent the guidance of the Church was assumed in an increasingly exclusive and direct fashion
+Dictionary

A sect being a breakaway from parent organisation on a single principle. such as Baptism , or Calvinism.
In this case the breakaway was on the principle of authority in the Catholic Church, being Revelation, Scripture and Bishops in Council. (Seven Ecumenical Councils.)

The guidance of the Church was assumed in an increasingly exclusive and direct fashion by the Bishop of Rome, through a series of structured reforms effectuated or brought to a completion in the decades immediately following the close of the Council.

To emphasise their beliefs there was a change of name, the organisation became The Holy Roman Church . This according to the Tridentine Creed. (TraditionalCatholic.net.prayer.

 

[seamusmohr]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

In answer to your question, the titles of the books and your use of ‘Romanist’ told me quite a lot as to your point of view being anti-Catholic … or you are really are just fascinated with anti-Catholic terms and tracts and use them whenever possible.

I gather you are unwilling to simply state the problem you had with Trent. Shame. Why not try again and reduce your issues to writing.

God bless

The Lutherans and traditional Catholics at the time of the English Reformation used to confound their papist opponents with the cry of, “Where was your Church before Trent.”
( Bishop Hickes 's Reply. 1713. )
In fact the Council was called by the pope as an attempt to call halt to the inroads of both Lutherans and Calvinists in Europe and was classified as a,'General Council,".
But in fact it was a factional Council, being called by a section of the Catholic Church that was already embattled by dissension with the Eastern Church and the Catholic Church in England. The pope supplied the organisers, the officials;it was called in a place controlled by the Emperor of Germany a servant and abetter of the popes aspirations to be dictator and no one was allowed to attend unless by permission of the pope. He sent out the invites to a selected few and when he failed to gain enough support from the Church in Europe put pressure on the traditional followers of Rome throughout Italy. When this failed to produce sufficient bodies, he resorted to paying their costs and even went further making bishops simply to attend the conference and make the numbers up. He invited Anglican Bishops , but they were prevented by the State from attending even if they wanted to do so.

Once their they were not even able to formulate an agenda, this was produced by the pope’s creatures and revealed piecemeal as necessary! Nor were the bishops allowed to discuss the material before hand, indeed they were not even allowed to mix freely, but were assigned to two groups who were kept apart socially.

The result was, the medieval innovations complained about by the dissidents were accepted by the papal followers,Even so , it is estimated that at the early sessions, at least a third of the bishops supported Lutheran ideas by their votes.( Kidd.The Counter Reformation.)
No subjects were accepted by the managers, unless it had been agree upon previously by the Papal Court!
The Ecumenical Councils had been classed as free, with invitations being sent to all Catholic Bishops, but here the matter was hole and corner, with the question of a free vote being rubbished.
At the end of the Council, the results were sent to Rome for the Pope’s agreement before being affirmed by the Council. This was an innovation of enormous consequence, the hitherto free bishops, the Magisterium, abandoning their responsibilities on to the shoulders of one man, or rather what was known in those days as the ,“Court of Rome.”.+
It then became a sect.After Trent the guidance of the Church was assumed in an increasingly exclusive and direct fashion
+Dictionary

A sect being a breakaway from parent organisation on a single principle. such as Baptism , or Calvinism.
In this case the breakaway was on the principle of authority in the Catholic Church, being Revelation, Scripture and Bishops in Council. (Seven Ecumenical Councils.)

The guidance of the Church was assumed in an increasingly exclusive and direct fashion by the Bishop of Rome, through a series of structured reforms effectuated or brought to a completion in the decades immediately following the close of the Council.

To emphasise their beliefs there was a change of name, the organisation became The Holy Roman Church . This according to the Tridentine Creed. (TraditionalCatholic.net.prayer.

 

[benedictus2]

The Lutherans and traditional Catholics at the time of the English Reformation used to confound their papist opponents with the cry of, “Where was your Church before Trent.”
( Bishop Hickes 's Reply. 1713. )
In fact the Council was called by the pope as an attempt to call halt to the inroads of both Lutherans and Calvinists in Europe and was classified as a,'General Council,".
But in fact it was a factional Council, being called by a section of the Catholic Church that was already embattled by dissension with the Eastern Church and the Catholic Church in England. The pope supplied the organisers, the officials;it was called in a place controlled by the Emperor of Germany a servant and abetter of the popes aspirations to be dictator and no one was allowed to attend unless by permission of the pope. He sent out the invites to a selected few and when he failed to gain enough support from the Church in Europe put pressure on the traditional followers of Rome throughout Italy. When this failed to produce sufficient bodies, he resorted to paying their costs and even went further making bishops simply to attend the conference and make the numbers up. He invited Anglican Bishops , but they were prevented by the State from attending even if they wanted to do so.

Once their they were not even able to formulate an agenda, this was produced by the pope’s creatures and revealed piecemeal as necessary! Nor were the bishops allowed to discuss the material before hand, indeed they were not even allowed to mix freely, but were assigned to two groups who were kept apart socially.

The result was, the medieval innovations complained about by the dissidents were accepted by the papal followers,[Even so , it is estimated that at the early sessions, at least a third of the bishops supported Lutheran ideas by their votes.( Kidd.The Counter Reformation.)
No subjects were accepted by the managers, unless it had been agree upon previously by the Papal Court!
The Ecumenical Councils had been classed as free, with invitations being sent to all Catholic Bishops, but here the matter was hole and corner, with the question of a free vote being rubbished.
At the end of the Council, the results were sent to Rome for the Pope’s agreement before being affirmed by the Council. This was an innovation of enormous consequence, the hitherto free bishops, the Magisterium, abandoning their responsibilities on to the shoulders of one man, or rather what was known in those days as the ,“Court of Rome.”.+
It then became a sect.After Trent the guidance of the Church was assumed in an increasingly exclusive and direct fashion
+Dictionary

A sect being a breakaway from parent organisation on a single principle. such as Baptism , or Calvinism.
In this case the breakaway was on the principle of authority in the Catholic Church, being Revelation, Scripture and Bishops in Council. (Seven Ecumenical Councils.)

The guidance of the Church was assumed in an increasingly exclusive and direct fashion by the Bishop of Rome, through a series of structured reforms effectuated or brought to a completion in the decades immediately following the close of the Council.

To emphasise their beliefs there was a change of name, the organisation became The Holy Roman Church . This according to the Tridentine Creed. (TraditionalCatholic.net.prayer.

Can you provide source? Without it this is nothing more than mere histrionics

[/quote]

 

[benedictus2]

Friend it is incumbent on yourself and the Vatican Acolytes around you to prove your point regarding the Position of the Bishop of Rome and his authority, which I maintain doesn’t go beyond the Suburbicarian Church of Italy! You are making fantastic claims that are ignored certainly before 350 AD. It is up to you to prove them and not from the later popes or their acolytes!

Well then here’s a little bit of reading for you. Now that you’ve asked you will then have to read.

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

And in fact, since you are the one asserting an innovative position not held by the Aposltes and their disciples, it is incumbent upon you, rather, to prove that the three rocks in that passage, Christ, Cephas, and the rocky statement can or should be somehow separated one another.

Easily done. Christ said You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church. Kepha means rock. That is why Peter is called Cephas.

Read the early fathers! Not just isolated clips.

Perhaps you should give that advise to yourself and take it.

You have to go farther still and tell us how the Petrine mantel falls upon the Bishop of Rome?

Refer to the links above

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, you may not call yourself a Jew, but surely you take the Old Testament, which began as a Jewish work, as part of the Christian faith. Surely, you accept the Old Testament prophets as your forefathers in faith, as well as being Jewish ones. It is in the same way Protestants see early church history.

Here’s where that reasoning fails.

Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism so of course Catholics would see the Old Testament prophets our forefathers in faith.

Protestantism however IS NOT a fulfillment of Christianity but rather its corruption. The Jew who becomes Catholic becomes a fulfilled Jew. The Protestant who becomes Catholic becomes a fulfilled Christian. Not the other way around.

 

[benedictus2]

You do not want to answer my question? That’s cool.

That was interesting. Your question should have been very easy to answer. “Sigh!” is just evasion which makes Bluegoat sound like she had an answer but just refuses to give it when in fact she didn’t have any.

 

[seamusmohr]

can you provide source? Without it this is nothing more than mere histrionics

I** PROVIDED A SOURCE, BISHOP HICKES, ONE OF THE GREAT SCHOLARS OF THAT AGE. He was the Non Juring Primus!

It is also contained within Colliers, Ecclesiastical History!

You should really read the mails you quote rather than simply suffering a rush of blood to the head!**

 

[seamusmohr]

---

Well then here’s a little bit of reading for you. Now that you’ve asked you will then have to read.

**

And in fact, since you are the one asserting an innovative position not held by the Aposltes and their disciples, it is incumbent upon you, rather, to prove that the three rocks in that passage, Christ, Cephas, and the rocky statement can or should be somehow separated one another.

I do not accept the vatican propaganda as proof of the validity of Papal additions or innovations, it is like asking the police to judge them selves! I REPEAT, Holy Scripture has to be proved and judged by the Holy Fathers! Further, we should have some idea of the times we are arguing about, yours and your colleagues appear to go no father than the Vatican Publishing House! There are two sources I look askance at, one is Fox’s Book of Martyrs, and the other is the Vatican printing Press.
Further to the Rock and the Fathers, Launoy, a Jesuit scholar from the 16/17th, Cent, said famously, that there were 17 Fathers who named S.Peter as being the Rock.
44, for it being the Faith Peter proclaimed, that was the Rock 16 for it being Christ Himself, and eight for it being all the Apostles!
Maldonatus, another Jesuit writes, "There are amongst authors some who interpret, ‘on “this rock,'as on this Faith.” Amongst these he quotesS.Hilary, Gregory Nyssen and Chrysostom,S.Cyril of Alexander as well as Augustine! though Augustine really interprets the Rock, as Christ Himself. Origen, interprets this Rock business as ,"All men who have the same faith’. i.e. Catholicis

m!

**I am not sure whether canonisation makes one infallible, but S.Vincent of Lerins in his works gave the advice to enquirers,
"Seek the advice of the General Councils. This where such have been held.Their decisions rank first as authorised and final interpreters of Scripture.

If new questions arise on which no Council has dealt, then the enquirer is to collect the opinions of the ancient fathers, who remain in the Communion of the Church, masters of repute, not to INDIVIDUALS, however great a christian, but to teaching on which they all agree.

Vincent of Lerins. Comitorium.****

 

[GKC]

And who determines what the Church of England followed? Was it not him? That he did not change much of the articles of faith is beside the point because by virtue of being head of the church he had the power to change the articles of faith had it so pleased him.
And if he disagreed with a point of doctrine, whose view rules? His or or someone else’s? And since it is a matter of Scripture, then is that not taking over the spiritual command?

His aim was to govern the country without political influence or control from outside it. And since the spiritual and political sides were so intertwined, he could not do so without addressing the spiritual. But that was not his aim and he did little of it. He didn’t want to be Pope. He wanted the Pope not to be King. And in European development, that was the way things evolved, the Church yielding the political side, the secular powers the spiritual side.

GKC

 

[seamusmohr]

Who determines what the Church of England follows?.

**Anglicanism, which is Catholicism with an English face , 'follows the Revelation of Christ, Recorded in Scripture and completed,interpreted and explained by the Holy Fathers in Council". That is the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the first thousand years.

This would have been the basis of your faith until it was changed by the Council of Trent!

One gets the impression that both Rome and Canterbury now make belief up as they go along.**

 

[GKC]

**Anglicanism, which is Catholicism with an English face , 'follows the Revelation of Christ, Recorded in Scripture and completed,interpreted and explained by the Holy Fathers in Council". That is the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the first thousand years.

This would have been the basis of your faith until it was changed by the Council of Trent!

One gets the impression that both Rome and Canterbury now make belief up as they go along.**

Canterbury, certainly.

GKC

 

[seamusmohr]

Regarding the Petrine Claims and the Papacy!

I note that none of our worthy opponents have enlightened us as to how the Mantle of Peter, (The Petrine Claims,) are settled on the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Regarding the Petrine Claims and the Papacy!

I note that none of our worthy opponents have enlightened us as to how the Mantle of Peter, (The Petrine Claims,) are settled on the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome!

Matthew 16:19
" [CHRIST] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven[PETER]; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Isaiah 22:22 " I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."

Matthew 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

John 20:23 “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Revelations 1:18 “I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades”

Revelations 3:7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

…

Matthew 16:18 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Ephesians 2:20 “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone”

Acts 20:28 “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood”

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

I thought I had all these scripture verse’s together but apparently not. My intention here is just to place them all in one place for view. Sorry

Jesus Christ gave HIs Apostles FULL athority over His church, and PETER was the first in Charge. And of course there are the Early Church Fathers comments also of Irenaeus and Ignatius. There on this thread with “NO REPLY”.

Then of course theres Council of Nicaea in 325 which defines the Bishop of Rome as the “proto”.

God Bless, Gary

 

[benedictus2]

I** PROVIDED A SOURCE, BISHOP HICKES, ONE OF THE GREAT SCHOLARS OF THAT AGE. He was the Non Juring Primus!

It is also contained within Colliers, Ecclesiastical History!

You should really read the mails you quote rather than simply suffering a rush of blood to the head!**

Oh there was no such blood in the head on my part but I did perceive one in yours which I assumed the reason for the diatribe. Your post consisted mostly of ranting and raving which is the reason why I asked for a reference. It didn’t look like the product of a “scholarly” mind.

Citing bishop Hickes sadly is not sufficient. I don’t know whether his credibility is any higher than that of Boetnners.

 

[benedictus2]

Regarding the Petrine Claims and the Papacy!

I note that none of our worthy opponents have enlightened us as to how the Mantle of Peter, (The Petrine Claims,) are settled on the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome!

Yes, we have but there is a rather persistent desire in yourself to remain uninformed so there is not much to be done. One cannot open the eyes of one who insists that ignorance is bliss.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Regarding the Petrine Claims and the Papacy!

I note that none of our worthy opponents have enlightened us as to how the Mantle of Peter, (The Petrine Claims,) are settled on the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome!

Early Church Fathers? The Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church is denied exactly where?

Ignatius of Antioch

“Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism *, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine *, he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]). \

Shortly after the death of the apostle John, his disciple, Ignatius of Antioch, referred to the Church as the Catholic Church. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (8:2 [A.D. 107]).

In reading the Early Fathers we see a Church with bishops in authority over priests and deacons. We see a church that baptized infants and believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. We see a Church that believed in the primacy of Rome, the intercession of the saints in heaven and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Thus we are lead to the inescapable conclusion that the early Church was the Catholic Church.

Justin Martyr

“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace” (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

“[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place *” (ibid., 4:33:7–8).

Clement of Alexandria

“Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews” (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

“[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God” (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).

“I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If the Protestant hypothesis is correct, the gates of hell did some serious prevailing and Jesus Christ is a liar. But of course such is not the case.

God Bless, Gary***

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hn160,

I think you have given us a truly wonderful gratuitous statement… that really needs to be examined in some detail. Let me explain.

In addition to the thoughtful response given by Benedictus2, let me add the efforts of St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380). Here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm. As you can see, she preceeded Luther in history, so there is nothing anti-Lutheran in this woman’s life at all. The link is instructive because of two elements:

1- It identifies serious abuses in the Catholic Church, and,

2- It identifies how this humble woman worked with the Grace of God to enable necessary changes in the Church to take effect.

Now, this is just a matter of personal opinion, but I think Catherine had far more serious abuses to deal with than Luther. In reading about her one gets a view of a truly humble person who God had chosen to bring His Church back into line. You really do not get anything like that sense in reading the majority works of Luther’s works. To me, it was ore of a ‘them-against-me’ outlook.

One of the most profound things about the Catholic Church is that it is both human and divine. The Holy Spirit is truly guiding it and ensuring that no error is taught. Human beings are running the operation and they were all ‘born in sin’, carry the effects of both original and actual sin on their person and are regularly tempted to not cooperate with the Grace of God. In brief - people just like you and me!

If the idea you are presenting is that the Catholic Church is incapable of genuine reform - then the work of St. Catherine of Siena will be instructive as serious evidence to the contrary. But, do not stop there - the Catholic Church has a long and established history of abusing a lot in its 2,000 year history - and a great number of these abuses - and heresies - come directly from the clergy! Like the Chosen People, we lose sight of God’s Love - and wander off. And, just like the Chosen People, certain individuals were called by God to point out abuses and encourage corrections. What makes Luther such a profoundly tragic figure is that he jumped off the ship during the storm thinking he could swim the distance by himself. He was wrong and those who followed him and his example have been wrong. Reform is not carried out with a wildly flung ‘sledge hammer’ - but with a ‘screwdriver’ under the direction of God. Truly, Luther’s message of revolt to the Vatican was, “My way or the highway” and this is solid evidence Luther left the Catholic Church prior to his formal excommunication.

Had it not been for his incredible pride, he could have been known as St. Martin Luther today - just like St. Catherine of Siena is known today. The abuse involving the sale of indulgences and church offices and other abuses would have been stopped (as other abuses in the past were stopped).

God bless

If Luther would have left it go and back down, recanted, said he was wrong, would anything had changed? The church would have gone on selling indulgences, selling bishoprics, having uneducated priests and having corruption.

 

[benedictus2]

**** And in fact, since you are the one asserting an innovative position not held by the Aposltes and their disciples, it is incumbent upon you, rather, to prove that the three rocks in that passage, Christ, Cephas, and the rocky statement can or should be somehow separated one another. ****

Sorry but not quite. We are not asserting an innovation. It is you who is asserting this hence the burden of proof rests on you.

Asserting non belief is not proof you know. The text goes against your assertion so you are actually pitting your own understanding against the plain text of scripture.

One needs to go into so much convolution to be able to come up with your conclusions. Perhaps it will prove difficult for you to do the convolutions so you have decided to throw the ball in our court when it squarely belongs in yours.

---

I do not accept the vatican propaganda as proof of the validity of Papal additions or innovations,

---

No such innovation. A person with a modicum of intelligence will discern rightly based on the text that this conclusion is unavoidable.****

it is like asking the police to judge them selves!

The analogy does not apply. Try again.

I REPEAT, Holy Scripture has to be proved and judged by the Holy Fathers!

****On this one my friend, Holy Scripture can stand on its own. It is extremely clear. But nonetheless, the links I gave you give support towards this from the Fathers as well.

If you are truly honest then perhaps you can explain in your own words how you can come up with “Peter’s confession is the rock” based on the text.

After all, you are able to understand the text yourself aren’t you?

---

Further, we should have some idea of the times we are arguing about, yours and your colleagues appear to go no father than the Vatican Publishing House! [/qutoe]

---

And your understanding go no farther than the 1500s. Where were you before that again? Aaahh yes, nowhere.

Watch it or you will burst a blood vessel. Not good for the health.****

---

There are two sources I look askance at, one is Fox’s Book of Martyrs, and the other is the Vatican printing Press.

Well I suppose that explains that lack of lucidity then.****

Further to the Rock and the Fathers, Launoy, a Jesuit scholar from the 16/17th, Cent, said famously, that there were 17 Fathers who named S.Peter as being the Rock.
44, for it being the Faith Peter proclaimed, that was the Rock 16 for it being Christ Himself, and eight for it being all the Apostles!
Maldonatus, another Jesuit writes, "There are amongst authors some who interpret, ‘on “this rock,'as on this Faith.” Amongst these he quotesS.Hilary, Gregory Nyssen and Chrysostom,S.Cyril of Alexander as well as Augustine! though Augustine really interprets the Rock, as Christ Himself. Origen, interprets this Rock business as ,"All men who have the same faith’. i.e. Catholicis

---

And why would we take whatever you have written here as dogma? Pay a visit to the links I have provided then perhaps this kind of histrionics will cease.

**I am not sure whether canonisation makes one infallible, [/qutoe]
**

And who said that canonisation makes one infallible?**

but S.Vincent of Lerins in his works gave the advice to enquirers,
"Seek the advice of the General Councils. This where such have been held.Their decisions rank first as authorised and final interpreters of Scripture.

First you said the Fathers are the final adjudicators now you say it is the general councils. Will you tell us when you have made up your mind?

If new questions arise on which no Council has dealt, then the enquirer is to collect the opinions of the ancient fathers, who remain in the Communion of the Church, masters of repute, not to INDIVIDUALS, however great a christian, but to teaching on which they all agree.

So you are saying that truth is adjudicated via a ballot?

Now pray tell, is there any Church Father or general council of the Church who has decreed that a king may form his own church and this church will be valid?**