Studies In Official Catholic Prophecy

[Protestant101]

I am sure after a number of people respond to this absurdity, you will say, after all is said and done, “I was just kidding”.

Put doiwn the kool-aid, 101. You’ve had enough.

peace

September 8th is the Nativity of the BVM

O Mary, Mother of God, pray for us.

Just to clarify, the above part of my post (post #91 I think) which you quoted was not by Adam Clark, as you made it appear in your post. The remarks you quoted from me were my own, and an exerpt followed that, which was a direct quote from Clark.

And no; I am not kidding. I am studying the subject intensely; and from what I can see; Jesus was a Protestant. And there were many others well before Him.

 

[mgrfin]

Excellent **Eisegesis, **

You mean ‘exegesis’.

Peace

 

[mgrfin]

Just to clarify, the above part of my post (post #91 I think) which you quoted was not by Adam Clark, as you made it appear in your post. The remarks you quoted from me were my own, and an exerpt followed that, which was a direct quote from Clark.

And no; I am not kidding. I am studying the subject intensely; and from what I can see; Jesus was a Protestant. And there were many others well before Him.

Well, I didn’t quote any of your post, so it is apparent, you have had too much kool-aid.

peace

 

[Protestant101]

You mean ‘exegesis’.

Peace

No. I mean Eisegesis; it is a noun which, defined by The Word Web Dictionary, means:

Personal interpretation of a text (especially of the Bible) using your own ideas

 

[Protestant101]

Well, I didn’t quote any of your post, so it is apparent, you have had too much kool-aid.

peace

yes; you are correct. it was actually “mercygate” who quoted me wrong, by making it look like my personal comments were by Adam Clark. I was motoring too fast and did not catch that in time before I posted it, so I deleted that message.

You should know that I do not like “Kool-Aid.” But I still did mean to use the word “eisegesis;” which means “personal interpretation.”

 

[mgrfin]

No. I mean Eisegesis; it is a noun which, defined by The Word Web Dictionary, means:

I know what you mean by ‘eisegesis’. That brand of interpretation has little validity in modern day biblical scholarship.

The great biblical scholarship of Protestantism of old has fallen into this rut in the road.

You should stick to exegesis, which is acceptable scriptural interpretation.

peace

 

[spauline]

ALL of the Bible is “prophecy”, as it is “from God”.

The “obsession” of trying to “tell the future” with the Bible, and calling THAT “prophecy” is an incorrect use of the term “prophecy”.

Admittedly, the purpose of the apocalyptic mysteries is not to "tell the future" for the sake of foretelling the future. And admittedly, the data of futurism would be useless. I comment on this in the thread i ran on ecclesiology in the apoc. Namely, once humanity gets into an incurable manifestation of sin, it is fruitless to know “political scenarios” of how they’ll blow each other up, because that’s not the point, for, regardless of the endless possibility of permutations of WW IV or whatever, the issue is that they are in an incurable apostasy, their self destruction is simply the symptom.

However, that is just the point of the apocalypse: By what process will humanity come into an incurable apostasy? That depends on the whole process of salvaiton history itself, a spiritual and psychological process. Hence, in some sense, there must be a truly necessary spiritual and psychological structure to the whole of salvation history, including the age of the Church. That is, the end of the world is not arbitrary. And the Church will dogmatically understand at the time of the great apostasy that it is then the irrevocable turning away from the Gospel. Therefore, the ages of the Church and of all Salvation history must somehow be veiled in the Catholic Scriptures and Tradition, as well as their meaning.

In other words, Dispensationalism is not utterly off base. There is more to Salvation history than simply “The Old and the New.” Spriitual subages of these great ones will have to be discerned, as well as why they go this way. Where dispensationalism goes wrong is not that it attempts to discern ages of salvation history, but that first, it does so arbitrarily, instead of using basis in Scripture and Trad, and secondly, because the Fundamentalist regards the ages as islands unto themselves, instead of as a linear process of a progressive Redemption of humanity.

But, again, salvation history is not completely linear. For there is the analogy of the beast that was and is not: in the beginning, prior to the Flood, the beast “was”, that is, the fallen nature of man reigned in humanity. The beast is “not”, because, beginning with the Flood, God is progressively redeeming humanity. But at the end, the beast is “again”, because then the fallen nature once again reigns, although then, incurable, as opposed to the beginning, where it is healable.

*And the mystery of how spiritually humanity will come to be “where it was in the beginning” is the whole issue of the apoc, and so, then, the **“future” *is revealed in the sense that the ages of the Church that outline this completion are veiled in Public Revelation.

 

[Zooey]

OOps! I apologize; I didn’t mean to call you something you are not!

No harm; no foul.

I think that I do grasp the basic idea of public versus private revelation; as depicted by Catholic doctrine; I guess that there are just aspects of it that I question. It seems to me that Catholics are saying that whenever I read something in the book of Revelation, or anywhere else which is prophetic in nature; that as long as I didn’t try to decide what the passage means; then I am in the world of public revelation; but as soon as I try to decipher what it means, using the Bible’s own clues, then suddenly it’s called “private revelation.” it seems like the Catholic view here leaves us no alternative but to flounder about in the fog of “private” revelation, if we dare to stray into the “interpretation” of a Bible passage - be it prophecy or otherwise.

Why would God even write these things in the Bible; if He did not care whether or not we figured out (interpreted) what it means? That concept doesn’t make sense to me.

The book was written as an encouragement to the early Christians, living under the persecution of the pagan Roman emperors. I have no doubt that they understood the words better than we do…because it was for them.
We too, can turn to it, as an inspiration, when our own lives are hard. We can see how much we have against how little they had. (I think that, for example, Christians in communist China, may understand Revelation better than you & I ever will.)
The interpretation is, in a sense, easy: The right side always wins.

“God is still on the throne.
He never forsaketh His own.
Though trials may press us, & burdens distress us,
He never will leave us alone”.
That is, you see, all we need to know…The rest is “none of our business”.

As far as prophecy being a snare; may I ask you to demonstrate that from:

**a) **the Bible
b) any official Catholic writings/teachings

Thanks! I will look forward to your answer.

David, we see this in life. I am an old lady. I have seen a lot of things in my lifetime, & I have come to realize, that whenever God’s people become involved in side issues, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ gets lost in the shuffle…
Paul wrote, " For I determined to to know nothing among you, except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified".(I Corinthians). This is sound advice for all of us…
We can get so wound up with when the world is going to end, what version of the Bible is the best one, all these peripheral issues…Even silly things…I have seen a church nearly split apart, over whether the carpet should be red or green or tan.

So, you see, I see people who love our Lord dearly. Who want to serve Him in the best way they can.
And then someone sells a series of books about who is & who isn’t going to be left to go through “the tribulation”.
Those Christians in China are going through tribulation now. Arrested, beaten, jailed, tortured, shot.
While a couple of men (perhaps wellmeaning) make money off the curiosity of a world where so few even worship the Saviour of men…
While men & women live & die without ever hearing the Name of Jesus.:crying:
Because that’s what we’re called to do, David: “to know nothing…except Jesus Christ & Him crucified”.
We are not called to figure out what day the Lord is returning. It doesn’t matter. What matters is having our garments white, having our hearts & souls & minds, all brought under the Lordship of the King of all ages, the only God, & His Son Jesus Christ, Whom He sent.
Anything else is a snare. I’ve been there, David. I’ve been so caught up in other things, that I had no time for prayer. Not worldly things: Reading Christian books, running rummage sales, attending fellowship dinners…but I wasn’t praying. I wasn’t spending time with the One Who died on Calvary’s cross for you & for me.
I broke out of that snare…CAF has had a lot to do with it. Knowing that I have a community of brethren here, for whom prayer is THE center of everything. It keeps me plugging away, hoping against hope, that I may be able to “show myself approved unto God, a worker that does not need to be ashamed”.
May we all so work.
God bless you, David.
God bless all here.

 

[Protestant101]

I know what you mean by ‘eisegesis’. That brand of interpretation has little validity in modern day biblical scholarship.

The great biblical scholarship of Protestantism of old has fallen into this rut in the road.

You should stick to exegesis, which is acceptable scriptural interpretation.

peace

Actually, I had originally used the word eisegesis to describe in a parodying sense towards the comment to me by another forum member how that “Protestant 101 has just left the room folks!” That is what I had applied the word to.

 

[spauline]

The rest is “none of our business”.

Admittedly, understanding the apocalyptic mysteries (most of which is none of what the fundamentalists think they are) is not necessary for salvation. But that doesn’t mean they matter in no sense. Eventually the Church will understand the spiritual mysteries, and we are in a time when the Church in general, at least IMHO, should look deeper than just preterism.

See above.

 

[mercygate]

No. I mean Eisegesis; it is a noun which, defined by The Word Web Dictionary, means:

My crack that Protestant101 had left the building was in response to the statement that Jesus was a Protestant.

What else could have accounted for such an absurd statement other than that P101 had left the building and a space alien had taken over his computer . . . If that is eisegesis, so be it. Makes more sense than thinking he actually meant that Jesus was a Protestant. I guess it’s my equivalent of saying that “upon this rock” doesn’t really mean “upon this rock.”

 

[Protestant101]

My crack that Protestant101 had left the building was in response to the statement that Jesus was a Protestant.

What else could have accounted for such an absurd statement other than that P101 had left the building and a space alien had taken over his computer . . . If that is eisegesis, so be it. Makes more sense than thinking he actually meant that Jesus was a Protestant. I guess it’s my equivalent of saying that “upon this rock” doesn’t really mean “upon this rock.”

The only problem here is that “this rock” did not refer to Peter himself; it was referring to Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ; and Christ was the Rock that the Church was, and is and will be built upon.

Jesus was a Protestant; for he always protested tradition and other falsehoods which do not belong in the Church. He did not go along with the relgious leaders. The religious leaders of the day were the ones who left Jesus, and started their own Catholic denomination just after the Apostles. Protestants stayed with Jesus.

 

[mgrfin]

The only problem here is that “this rock” did not refer to Peter himself; it was referring to Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ; and Christ was the Rock that the Church was, and is and will be built upon.

Jesus was a Protestant; for he always protested tradition and other falsehoods which do not belong in the Church. He did not go along with the relgious leaders. The religious leaders of the day were the ones who left Jesus, and started their own Catholic denomination just after the Apostles. Protestants stayed with Jesus.

How do you prove that your private interpretation is the real meaning, that 'this rock did not refer to Peter himself; it was referring to Peter’s confession…"???

Otherwise, you can take any verse of Scripture and put your own spin on it, even if it is a ‘non sequitur’.

peace

 

[Mark_LePard]

It was a play on words.
Petros-stone- Peter.
Petra-rock-

Peter, you are a small stone, on this material - petra- Peter’s confession, I will build my church.

Besides, it is pretty clear from Acts, and Galatians that James the Lord’s brother, (Oops, there goes another thread) was the leader of the church. In Galatians Paul talks about how the “infalible 1st Pope” Peter was rebuked by Paul for hypocrisy kissing up to the men sent by James who was heading the church from Jerusalem.
When Paul stated his case against forcing gentile converts to accept Jewish law, hepleaded to the head of the church, James, not Peter.

 

[Protestant101]

How do you prove that your private interpretation is the real meaning, that 'this rock did not refer to Peter himself; it was referring to Peter’s confession…"???

Otherwise, you can take any verse of Scripture and put your own spin on it, even if it is a ‘non sequitur’.

peace

This has nothing to do with my "personal interpretation. it is right in the scripture text itself. it is unwarranted to lift one verse out of context such as Catholics do, (mat.16:18) and make a great long doctrine out of it that simply is not in that text. You must seek for the context of the text in question or it is a pretext.

Here is the passage under consideration:

Mat 16:12

Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mat 16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.The conversation that jesus was having here with Peter shows the context; there is no private revelation going on here. it is well withing the “public” domain. Verses 17&18 are actually the full answer that Jesus gave to Peter, so it is out of context to just use verse 18 all by itself; for then one might read anything into it like Peter, instead of Jesus. So vs.17&18 are answering to the confession that peter made in response to Jesus’ question; and this is where Peter declares: “Thou art the Christ;” and it was upon this Rock that the Church was to be built. Jesus spoke to Peter, but did not say Peter was the Rock. How could Peter trump Jesus, as the foundation of the Church?

 

[Protestant101]

The New Testament was originally written in the Greek, from which the Latin, English, and other versions were translated. If you study the Greek text you will find that the word Peter and the word Rock on which Christ was to build His church are two separate and distinct words, each having a different meaning.
Is the True Church Built on “Petros” or “Petra”?

The word Peter in Greek, is petros, which means “a piece of rock; a stone; a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or rolling.” The word rock is Petra,which means “a rock, a cliff; a mass; a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; solid formation. Fixed;immovable; enduring.” (Compare the definition in any standard work.)

The word petros for Peter in the Greek is in the masculine gender, and the word Petra for the rock is in the feminine gender. Petros and Petra are two distinct words in the Greek. Petros (Peter) is a shifting, rolling,or insecure rock, while Petra (Jesus) is a solid, immovable rock.

In the English language the gender is not specified by the article. We say, the fork, the spoon, and the knife. The three words have the same article. In the Greek, as in many of the modern languages, each noun and corresponding article is in the masculine, feminine, or neuter gender. In many cases it is an arbitrary arrangement, regardless of sex.

Take, for example, these three words in German with their respective articles: the fork, (die Gabel) feminine; the spoon, (der Loffel) masculine; the knife, (das Messer) neuter. Even inanimate objects are thus assigned some gender. This is the way the nouns are classified in the German language, and the same is true in the Greek language.

The Spanish language has two articles for the English article the. They are el (masculine) or la (feminine). Every noun is either in the masculine or in the feminine.

It sometimes happens in Spanish that two different words are spelled the same, but take different articles according to gender. For example, el papa (masculine), means the pope; and la papa (feminine),means the potato.

You can readily see from those examples that the article is important. If one noun is in the masculine it must have a masculine article, and if it is in the feminine it must have a feminine You would not be using good German if you were to say, in the nominative case, der Gabel or die Messer. It is die Gabel (das Messer).

The text under consideration in the Greek shows that petros, in the masculine, and Petra in the feminine, proving that they are two distinct words; and each one has a different meaning. Now the question is, on which of the two, petros or Petra, did Christ establish His church? Was it on petros, a movable rock,or Petra, an immovable rock?

Let us quote the text again: “I say also unto thee [to Peter], That thou art Peter [petros, masculine gender], and upon this Rock [Petra, feminine gender] I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Verse 18. The text indicates clearly that the church of Christ is built on Petra and not on Petros.

Now, who is this Petra or rock on which Christ built His true church? Let the Holy Bible again give the answer. If the Bible gives the answer, we make no mistake in accepting it because the definition is authentic. “They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock [Petra, in the Greek] was Christ.” 1 Corinthians 10:4. Here we have evidence that Petra refers to Christ, and not to Peter, petros.

Again we quote: “Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Cornerstone.” Ephesians 2:20. “He is the Rock, His work is perfect.” Deuteronomy 32:4; 2 Samuel 22:2, 3 (Douay, .2 Kings 22:2, 3). If Jesus would have built His church on Peter, petros, He would have said: “Thou art Petros, and upon this Petros [or upon it] I will build My church,” but such is not the case. He plainly says: “Thou art Petros, and upon this Petra 1 will build My church.”

 

[Protestant101]

Paul tells us that the Petra is Christ. Peter is never designated by Petra. If Peter is the rock on which Christ was to build His church, Peter could not be overcome and the gates of hell could not prevail against him. But the fact is that he was overcome, and the gates of hell did prevail against him. Didn’t he deny his Lord? This was after Christ told him that the Rock was not to be overcome. The gates of hell would never prevail against it!!!

Jesus told Peter on one occasion: “Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me: for thou savors not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” Matthew 16:23.

The gospel story reveals that later on Peter was overcome by temptation; so he could not be the rock to which Christ referred. Peter himself gives the answer as to who the Rock is. Speaking of Christ, he says: “This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders;” so Christ must be the rock on which God built His church.

Peter and Paul agree that Christ is the Rock; but the pope claims the title for himself. Which testimony should we accept?

“Let God be true, but every man a liar.” Romans 3:4.

When Christ was crucified, an inscription was written in three languages and placed above His head on the cross. “And a superscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, and Latin and Hebrew.” Luke 23:38. This proves that the three languages were used at that time. John records: “This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city.” John 19:20.

In the Latin Bible that the priests use today, the two words Petrum (Peter) and petram (rock) are used as in the Greek. In this the modern scholars contradict themselves. First, they say that the Latin Bible is the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church; then, they endeavor to make one word out of two in their own text.

If Matthew 16:18,19 is important, then why are not other scriptures equally important? Why take one text and build a theological system on it, and reject others? If “the Bible is all true,” then all texts are true and important. To reject one text and accept another would not be consistent, logical, or honest.
“And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Against what? Against Petros or against Petra? It refers to Petra. The gaits of hell will not prevail against Christ, on whom the true church is built.

Peter was not the head of the church in his day. Instead of teaching the disciples, apostles, and other believers to call Peter pope, or Holy Father Peter, Jesus said: “Be not you called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all you are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven… But he that is greatest among you be your servant.” Matthew 23:8-11.

“Call no man your father could not refer to an earthly parent, but to the spiritual title. Of course, Jesus recommended our paying full respect to earthly parents when He quoted the commandment:

“Honor thy father and thy mother.” Mark 7:10. Sometimes 1 Corinthians 4:15 is used to prove that we may call spiritual leaders our fathers. Paul writes: “I have begotten you through the gospel.” They were begotten through the gospel and not through Paul. Again Paul writes: “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes.” Romans 1:16.

It is through the gospel that we are begotten, and not through Paul or some other person. It is the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation, and not man.

If Jesus delegated Peter as the head of the church, why did the other disciples quarrel among themselves as to who would be the greatest? If this decision had already been made by Christ, why should the others fret about it? The other disciples would have submitted to the wish of their Master. Thus it seems evident that no such appointment had been made by Jesus.

Neither Peter nor any of his successors were heads of the true church. Paul explains this when he says: “The head of every man is Christ.” 1 Corinthians I 1: 3. God “gave Him to be the head over all things to the church.” Ephesians 1:22. This explains that Jesus is the head of every person and also of the church. We are responsible to the head, which is Christ, and not to men who try to circumvent the work of Christ and take His place. Christ is the head of every person, and we are responsible to Him as individuals.

There is not a trace of evidence in the Bible that Peter was a pope. What would you think of historians who would write accounts of Abraham Lincoln, yet in not a single instance mention his title as President of the United States of America? Could you imagine such an oversight? If Peter had borne some such title as “pope,” don’t you think that at least one inspired writer in the Bible would have mentioned it?

Peter wrote two epistles, but he does not use the title of pope in either. Can you imagine a pope today writing two letters to the church and forgetting his title? Peter could have mentioned it on the Day of Pentecost when he delivered that stirring sermon, but he did not do so. The church in the days of the apostles did not recognize Peter as the head of the church.

Long before Jesus was born He was considered the Rock. Isaiah declares: “Therefore thus said the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone,a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.” Isaiah 28: 16. Peter applies this prophecy to
Christ. He wrote: “Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief Cornerstone,elect, precious: and he that believes on Him shall not be confounded.” 1 Peter 2:6.
David said: “Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I.” Psalm 61:2 (Douay, Psalm 60:3). Paul writes that the “Rock was Christ.” 1 Corinthians 10:4 “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 3:11.

And Jesus said: “Upon this Rock,” said Jesus, 1 will build My church.” Matthew 16: 18.

 

[Protestant101]

And by the way; those “keys” that Peter received were the unalterable Ten Commandments!

 

[Techno2000]

And by the way; those “keys” that Peter received were the unalterable Ten Commandments!

Peter all ready had the Ten Commandments.

 

[spauline]

Dear Protestant101,

The real issue is this: Some of Peter’s successors later became bad witnesses, therefore, they don’t have the authority they claim. This actually is a good time to bring up a possible way to look at the apocalypse.

Why does the current Global North not have faith in general? Mainly, because of religious divisions and the history of religion. The devil wanted it this way. But he couldn’t bring about an apostasy overnight. No, when Constantine conquered, the blood of the martyrs on the ground of the Roman Empire was still quite fresh. Could the devil get the Romans who were just brought (some unfortunately against their will) into Catholicism to completely throw it away and become either atheists or relativistic hedonists. “No WAAY!” as Pizza the Hutt put it. No, the devil in the end has to try to reverse the loss he’s endured by getting to them to cast aside the faith. But hey, you can’t put a live frog in boiling water. Tooo-hot, tooo-hot, as Dark Helmet put it.

Rather, put the frog in lukewarm water and gradually turn up the heat. So then, here’s the devils Plan. Because the devil understood all things anyway before he fell, he knows that there are five primary sources of Divine Truth, from top to bottom, like a pyramid. The higher on the pyramid, the more reliable is the source, both in quantity and detail as well as certainty of truth. But also, the higher up, the least evident is the source. So then the dragon cannot attack the most evident sources, that’s too hard. Rather, start with the least evident (but most reliable), and work down. Here they are:

I. The Trinity and Incarnation
II. The Pope
III. The General Apostolic Succession and Oral Tradition
IV. The Scriptures
V. Reason

Just look at the history of the last 1700 years, P101, and it is interesting that all the great attacks against the RCC start at the top and go down, until today, nobody even listens to reason, let alone the others.

And here is relating to the issue of is Peter the rock or not. The devil knows that the Pope is infallible and that Bishops are a better source than Scripture because they already have the proper interp to understand it. So he knows he has to make em look bad so that people won’t trust them.

Hence, the Devil knows the perennial rule in religion: *people attack the message because of the [bad witness] *messenger(s)

So, then in the beginning of the Church’s doctrinal development, they attack the Trinity or Incarnation because they can’t comprehend it (for that matter, who can?, “Ah, but Augustine, it will be easier for you to empty the Ocean into this little hole than for you to explain the Trinity”). Of course ,these attacks culminate with Islam. Islam is like Catholicism with the heart removed: no Trinity, no Incarnation, and an extra-Christological Revelation [Muhammed].

Next, the devil makes the Pope look bad and has him send crusaders to do a little of bitty bad stuff to the Eastern City. So then the east rejects the message because of the messenger. Your people come massacre and plunder us, and you still have the ba–s to tell us you’re still the boss? You take a hike.

Next, the devil gets to bishops in the West to get lazy as well and look to be served rather than to serve. So then, the Protestants reject the message because of the messengers. You hypocrites! You say I will go to hell unless i confess to you and give alms, but you do even worse things. You just invented Oral Trad to justify your wealth and power. Give us them Scriptures. They are the only thing that can be trusted. We don’t need you, we’ll interpret them for ourselves.

Now, of course, since the Protestants, even understandably given scandal, no longer listen to even the Oral Tradition, it was inevitable that they would, even well-meaningly, confound the living hell out of trying to find Supernatural Truth. For remember, the Scriptures are beneath the Tradition in reliability. The Tradition gives the implied assumptions and doctrines and interpretation of the Scriptures. That is why the Orthodox agree with Catholics far more than Protestants. After all, they are valid bishops and accept the Oral Tradition in general.

So, again, in the next step, the Enlightenment, it is once again, REJECT THE MESSAGE OF THE MESSENGERS. Hence, in wake of Protestantism, the Protestants largely have as many doctrinal opinions as there are Protestants. So then Catholics kill some more heretics, Protestants kill Catholics, Protestants kill other types of Protestants, and many of them mutually excommunicate all the others to hell. So then the deists and the rationalists, again, reject the message because of the messengers. Hence, since the only Revelational source of truth the Protestants excepted in the mediated sense was Scripture, rather than realize the confusion was due precisely to the loss of Tradition, the Enlightenment doesn’t get it. They get WORSE. (And just to break it to you, from a Catholic perspective, this is exactly what’s been happening all along, more or less, anyway). So the rationalists say, “You hypocrites. You kill one another, wage wars, hate and betray, and tell all the others they’re going to hell. You have as many theologies as heads. And all this in attempt to ‘interpret Scripture.’” Therefore, your whole problem is the Scripture. I mean, if God intended to reveal things, is this what he wanted? People in myriads of factions killing one another over how to interpret his da-- book? Enough. So then, yes, there must be some “Supreme Being” up there, but let’s get one thing straight. He doesn’t “intervene” and He doesn’t “reveal.” Just honor Him and strive for virtue according to Reason. Reason is our only guide.

But of course, if the truth is already confounded like crazy with only Scripture left, it is in even more confusing when no Revelation is believed and the Scriptures are just one claim among many religions of texts. So then, just as there were as many types of Protestantism as Protestants, there were as many forms of deism and rationalism as there were deists and rationalists.

So then finally, man casts aside even Reason, no longer cares about God in any sense, whether it be atheism or relativistic materialism.

So, again, it’s blame the messenger for your rejection of the message.