The Bible is Catholic -

[mercygate]

Then why use a pseudonym with the word protestent in it? Leads me to believe otherwise.

Ah yes. You are correct. There will ALWAYS be “protest” against the Church, whether or not it is warranted.

When I say the days of protest are over, I mean that the abuses against which the reformers legitimately protested have long since been corrected.

Today many “protest-ants” are still “protesting” things that simply are no longer THERE. Some of the things they protest never WERE there. Of course, some things they “protest” are contrary to the historic faith (AND Scripture) - but that’s another story, and the technical word for THAT is heresy.

 

[Protestant101]

It was by reading primary sources that I realized that “my” Bible was a catholic book,

What do you mean “primary sources?” Such sources of “true history” are claimed by other denominations too.

The one thing you cant do here is to prove from the Bible, why it is Catholic; for the Bible says otherwise of itself. it only mentions God as being the Author. It is God’s Word, not the Church’s Word, and certainly not a denomination’s word such as the Catholic denomination.

Your excuses here are much like the Jehovah’s Witness professions of having the “real truth” about history. There is actually little difference between what your two denominations say about the Bible, and who can “interpret” it. No wonder Christians and non-Christians are so confused over the Scriptures. Many groups try to thus weaken them with the “real truth” about “history.” But true History is really HIS-Story, which is best found, in the Bible.

The Bible is capable of standing on it’s own; it is it’s own best Expositor. It doesn’t need a Church, a Pastor, a Pope or a Bishop to “interpret” it. The written Word stands alone just fine, without Apocrypha, or Magisterium, or Catechism. All Catholics can say they “did” is that they provided a translation of the Bible; but they did not write it for it existed before they did. The Apocryphal books are not even scripture; they are heretical journals with the doctrines of spiritualism therein. So if you say those are Catholic, then maybe you are saying something about Catholicism, and spiritualism?

 

[joe370]

What do you mean “primary sources?” Such sources of “true history” are claimed by other denominations too.

The one thing you cant do here is to prove from the Bible, why it is Catholic; for the Bible says otherwise of itself. it only mentions God as being the Author. It is God’s Word, not the Church’s Word, and certainly not a denomination’s word such as the Catholic denomination.

Your excuses here are much like the Jehovah’s Witness professions of having the “real truth” about history. There is actually little difference between what your two denominations say about the Bible, and who can “interpret” it. No wonder Christians and non-Christians are so confused over the Scriptures. Many groups try to thus weaken them with the “real truth” about “history.” But true History is really HIS-Story, which is best found, in the Bible.

The Bible is capable of standing on it’s own; it is it’s own best Expositor. It doesn’t need a Church, a Pastor, a Pope or a Bishop to “interpret” it. The written Word stands alone just fine, without Apocrypha, or Magisterium, or Catechism. All Catholics can say they “did” is that they provided a translation of the Bible; but they did not write it for it existed before they did. The Apocryphal books are not even scripture; they are heretical journals with the doctrines of spiritualism therein. So if you say those are Catholic, then maybe you are saying something about Catholicism, and spiritualism?

Who codified the bible? I know that for the first 400 years there were inspired apostolic writings based on apostolic tradition within the C.C. a long with gnostic and apocryphal writings based on the traditions of mere men, circumventing the entire Mediterranean Sea. Everyone, heretics included were all claiming to be the true apostolic Christian church. This was reason the C.C. decided to go by catholic instead of Christian; to differentiate the true apostolic church from the heretical pseudo-churches. It was because of these menacing heretics that the C.C. WAS FORCED TO CODIFY THE BIBLE AND STAMP IT AS INFALLIBLE. We know that the C.C. is not infallible, yet we have in our possession the infallible word of God; what gives!!! It didn’t just fall out of the sky did it?—NO! The VERY FALLIBLE C.C. guided by the INFALLIBLE Holy Spirit gave you your infallible bible.

You are flat out wrong regarding the so called “Apocryphal books” and I can prove it!!!

 

[Protestant101]

You are flat out wrong regarding the so called “Apocryphal books” and I can prove it!!!

I am waiting. They are indeed “Apocrypha.”

 

[joe370]

I am waiting. They are indeed “Apocrypha.”

Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible

The 46 books and the 27 books were declared infallible in the 4th century and these same collection of books were ratified at various councils through the centuries , all the way up to the council of Trent. I guess you glossed over this as if it was pure fabrication.

Pentecost (30/33AD)

The beginning of the Church; the Church exists before a determination of a canon or a definitive list of books of what was later called the Bible. The NT was not even written yet. The Bible is the book of the Church, we are not a church of the Bible.
Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170)
Produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
Council of Laodicea (c. 360)
A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.
Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent
Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)
The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 46 books in the OT; 27 in the NT; “Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority.” The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.
Vatican I Council (1869-1870)
Reaffirmed the decree of Trent. The Church holds the books of Holy Scripture as sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them, nor because they contain revelation without error, but precisely because “having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself.”
Providentissimus Deus (1893), Pope Leo XIII, Bishop of Rome, 1878-1903

What books are not found in Protestant Bible?

They are Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and the two Books of Machabees, together with fragments of Esther (x.4; xvi, 24), and Daniel (iii, 24-90; xii., xiv). These books were contained in the Alexandrian list or Canon of Books which was used by Greek-speaking Jewsof Alexandria, Asia Minor, Greece and Italy.

Why did Luther reject 7 books from the Bible?

Because they did not suit his new doctrines. He had arrived at the principle of private judgement - of picking and choosing religious doctrines; and whenever any book, such as the book of Machabees, taught a doctrine contrary to his taste he rejected it overboard and overboard that book went because it says: 2 Mach. xii 46, “it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins.” He not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St. Paul’s doctrine, “we are justified by faith,” Luther added the word “ALONE” to make the sentence read: “We are justified by faith alone.” His explanation of this insertion is found in his own words, "I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin and Greek texts; but Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. " HMMM… i THOUGHT AUTHORITY WAS BAD St. Paul writes under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Luther creates a Lutheran Bible under his own audacity. He shows little respect for the Bible when he calls the Epistle of St. James “an Epistle of straw with no character of the Gospel in it.” He spoke disparagingly about the Epistle of St. Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John.

The Lord’s Prayer or the Our Father is in the Bible, but Catholic prayer differs from the Protestant. Protestants use a conclusion which was not in the original Greek copies of the New Testament, namely, “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen.” Catholics say the Lord’s Prayer properly. Before the last book in the New Testament was written the Catholic Church celebrated her golden jubilee; 11 of the Apostles had died.

Hence, THE BIBLE CAME FROM THE CHURCH. THE CHURCH DID NOT COME FROM THE BIBLE. Christianity existed over 300 years without one single Bible Christian.

Hey prot. 101 time to get your facts right!!!

I’m going to bed but if these historical facts aren’t enough, I look forward to discussing this further tomorrow.

In the mean time—prove me wrong; I have the backing of some protestant scholars on My side; any catholic backers for yourself.

You still believe the church is a product of the bible???

 

[joe370]

I am waiting. They are indeed “Apocrypha.”

“Truth is often the opposite of the allegation…”
Jesus does not do what the Church says; the Church does what Jesus says

And truth is often the same as the allegation.

Jesus does not do what the church says; the Church does what Jesus says. ----and every catholic the world over agrees with this quote. Which church are you referring to by the way?

I will delineate further tomorrow (although I think it’s quite obvious already, that those books were canonized along with all the others in the 4th century. It’s lights out for me.

 

[mercygate]

What do you mean “primary sources?” Such sources of “true history” are claimed by other denominations too.

In the academic world the term “primary sources” refers to documents. “Primary” documents. We read Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Josephus, Council canons. Although we read in translation, we did not read pre-screened snips interpreted by history books. Mind you, this was a secular (i.e., non-religious) university.

The one thing you cant do here is to prove from the Bible, why it is Catholic; for the Bible says otherwise of itself.

How does the Bible “say of itself” that it is not Catholic?

it only mentions God as being the Author.

Actually, my Bible claims to have been written by many people: Paul, Ezra, Luke . . .

It is God’s Word, not the Church’s Word, and certainly not a denomination’s word such as the Catholic denomination.

Understading the role of the Church in producing and ratifying the Scriptures does not make it any less God’s word.

Your excuses here are much like the Jehovah’s Witness professions of having the “real truth” about history. There is actually little difference between what your two denominations say about the Bible, and who can “interpret” it.

This is just plain absurd. Do the JW’s have extra-biblical witness to their existence and their theology going back to the second century and pointing back to the Apostles? NO.

No wonder Christians and non-Christians are so confused over the Scriptures. Many groups try to thus weaken them with the “real truth” about “history.” But true History is really HIS-Story, which is best found, in the Bible.

As has been said before, although the Bible is a fine and reliable historical resource, the Christian and Catholic case for Christ is made only by the confluence of testimony from extra-biblical, non-Church, and archaeological sources. No book, however good, can claim to be the Word of God without corroboration. Try the Qu’ran if that is what you’re looking for.

The Bible is capable of standing on it’s own; it is it’s own best Expositor. It doesn’t need a Church, a Pastor, a Pope or a Bishop to “interpret” it. The written Word stands alone just fine, without Apocrypha, or Magisterium, or Catechism. All Catholics can say they “did” is that they provided a translation of the Bible; but they did not write it for it existed before they did. The Apocryphal books are not even scripture; they are heretical journals with the doctrines of spiritualism therein. So if you say those are Catholic, then maybe you are saying something about Catholicism, and spiritualism?

Maybe the objective study of history scares you?

Maybe the Deuterocanonical books do not say what you need them to say in order to support your basesless claims about the Catholic faith?

 

[SIA]

What word games are you referring to? He answered your question perfectly! The C.C. is the apostolic church because that church can trace its origin all the way back to the apostles, and that church *(which BTW codified the 46 books of the old and 27 books of the new testament) *is the same C.C. WE SEE TODAY!!! The C.C. is orthodox because that church adheres to the Christian faith as expressed in the earliest of catholic ecumenical creeds defined at each respective council (delineate below), and continued to do so through every century, again, all of it defined by the fallible C.C. with the Divine guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Matthew 28:19-20

Jesus spoke these words to the apostolic church and no other, and promised that church He would be with them for “forever.” The C.C. is the only church that fits the bill. If you deny this then you call Jesus a liar and He in fact left His established church as orphans, and you render your bible as nothing more than the inept writings of mere men!

The Eastern Orthodox Church broke away from the C.C. at the turn of the 1st century and adopted this name; Nominally speaking it is the eastern orthodox orthodox church.

C.C. Councils right up until the worse heresy the church ever confronted.

Pentecost (30/33AD)

The beginning of the Church; the Church exists before a determination of a canon or a definitive list of books of what was later called the Bible. The NT was not even written yet. The Bible is the book of the Church, we are not a church of the Bible.
Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170)
Produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
Council of Laodicea (c. 360)
A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.
Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent
Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers.
(1545-1563)

You are well aware of what I am referring to. The Early Church split into the east and the west and out of it came Rome and Constantinople. It is not accurate to say that the east left the west and much else of what you said here is a matter of opinion. That includes the opinion of Rome that the Reformation was heresy. I don’t agree at all and that is why I was no longer Roman Catholic.

 

[JRKH]

I’m not interested in your word games. I am speaking of the Orthodox church who would have strong opposition to Roman Catholics referring to only themselves as being the earliest of Christians. You know what I am talking about.

We are not playing “word games” here. The Eastern Orthodox are, after all Catholic. And this is the word used in the Title of the Thread - Not Roman Catholic.
At the time that the Bible was Assembled, there was no “Eastern Orthodox” Church there was One Church - The Catholic Church. The Great Schism did not occur for at least another hundre years.
Certainly our Brethren in the East have issues with the Primacy of Rome, but the Church is working on that “within the catholic family” so don’t try to drive a wedge between us.

Tje point of this thread is that the Bible is the result of the efforts of the Catholic Church leaders and needs to be seen in that light.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Actually; the Catholic Church is the one church that departed from the original Church, and it is just another denomination, like the many protestants who have also departed from the original (not “early” church), for there are several early churches. The original Church is all that counts. All of the professing early churches have written their own Bible, you guys are calling your’s a "catholic Bible; but the Bible is not denominational; it’s not Roman Catholic; it is Christian; it is authored by God Himself.

The preconditioned methods of Bible perception brought about by so called “Tradition” and “Magisterium” is in effect, a Bible destroying falsehood. The “Tradition” and the “Magisterium” proffered by Rome, challenges the Bible’s authority; and supersedes it’s holy commandments.

Show us the Paper Trail !!
show us the Historical foundations for your claims!!
Show us the extrabiblical evidence for the accepting and rejecting books for the canon!!
Evidence - Evidence - Evidence

 

[mercygate]

You are well aware of what I am referring to. The Early Church split into the east and the west and out of it came Rome and Constantinople. It is not accurate to say that the east left the west and much else of what you said here is a matter of opinion. That includes the opinion of Rome that the Reformation was heresy. I don’t agree at all and that is why I was no longer Roman Catholic.

The early Church did not split to have Rome and Constantinople emerge as rival “heads” of the Church. The definitive separation did not occur until the eleventh century.

You indicate that your are “no longer” Roman Catholic (nor any other kind of catholic, I would think by what you say). If you ask me, your representation of your knowledge of the Catholic faith would make one wonder if you ever were Catholic in the sense that you actually knew the faith.

 

[mercygate]

**Show us the Paper Trail !! **

show us the Historical foundations for your claims!!
Show us the extrabiblical evidence for the accepting and rejecting books for the canon!!

Evidence - Evidence - Evidence

No need to shout. The evidence speaks for itself.

 

[JRKH]

No need to shout. The evidence speaks for itself.

Mea Culpa my friend - Just a little frustrations showing. I went back and deleted the post.

 

[mercygate]

Mea Culpa my friend - Just a little frustrations showing. I went back and deleted the post.

 

[JRKH]

After starting and following this discussion over the many days something becomes very apparent. It seems that certain of our protestant friends here suffer from “Bible Worship”. They have taken something material, ink, paper, and glue and elevated it to an unwarrented status.
Any comment made along the lines of the Bible, that COLLECTION of books, having a visible, tracable, human history going back to the One Church is met with comments such as,
“You have no respect for the Word of God”,
and other comments along the lines of,
“The Bible is the Word of God and Thats it. Don’t question where it came from, just accept it.”

I certainly support the idea of protecting and defending the Bible as God’s Word. The Church has been doing so since she canonized it around 400 AD.
But to elevate ANY book to the level of REPLACING Christ as the only True and Complete Word of God, to alter or deny legitimately researched and recorded history, to hold a coporeal collection of papers seperate and holy while actively denying the fullness of it’s history, smacks of the kind of “idolatry” that many protestants accuse Catholics of having for statues.

Unfortunately there are those who are so wrapped up in the Bible that Jesus Himself could sit down and preach to them and they wouldn’t believe Him until they could find it in the Bible, and then they would only believe it if Jesus preaching matched their interpretation.

For 2 millenia the Church has preached, recorded and defended the Truth of the Gospel. She codified and made available to all, that most Blessed Book called the Holy Bible. Her Great Bishops and the Magesterium have studied and taught, building upon the great works of the Apostles, the Church Fathers and Doctors, down through the centuries to today, a consistant yet evolving revelation of God’s Greatness and His tender love for His Children.

Yet because of some sinful men - on both sides of the reformation - a sad and tragic schism occrred. As a result this great and Holy Book has been ripped from the Church that guarded it. The people, swayed by false teachers, were told that they could interpret the scriptures for themselves. No need for Church, or Magesterium just read the Bible.

We can see the result. Not just a few protestant Churches but thousands. A Tower of babeling, varying, conflicting and contradictory theology that grows more fractured each year. No claim of apostolic succession, no reasoned submission to the authority of the Bishops, no resource for consistant and learned interpretation and teaching from the Apostles, just each man’s interpretation of one book written 2000 years ago.

We really shouldn’t need a long tome of historical connections and defences. We, all of us both protestant and Catholic, should be able to simply look at what “Sola Scriptura” has accomplished in the Protestant world to know that the Catholic Church, the most ancient and Blessed Bride of Christ holds the Key to understanding the Fullness of Faith. She stands - true to God and Protected by the Spirit.

Peace
James

 

[joe370]

You are well aware of what I am referring to. The Early Church split into the east and the west and out of it came Rome and Constantinople. It is not accurate to say that the east left the west and much else of what you said here is a matter of opinion. That includes the opinion of Rome that the Reformation was heresy. I don’t agree at all and that is why I was no longer Roman Catholic.

BACK UP YOUR STATEMENTS OR SHUT UP; YOU MAKE NO SENSE!!! — give me the historical facts; give me a history lesson, and maybe we can go from there!!! Put up or shut up!!!.. Doesn’t sound to catholic but I am only human and you make absolutely no sense!!!

 

[mercygate]

Unfortunately there are those who are so wrapped up in the Bible that Jesus Himself could sit down and preach to them and they wouldn’t believe Him until they could find it in the Bible, and then they would only believe it if Jesus preaching matched their interpretation.

Just like they did the first time he showed up.

For 2 millenia the Church has preached, recorded and defended the Truth of the Gospel. She codified and made available to all, that most Blessed Book called the Holy Bible. Her Great Bishops and the Magesterium have studied and taught, **building upon the great works of the Apostles, the Church Fathers and Doctors, down through the centuries to today, a consistant yet evolving revelation **of God’s Greatness and His tender love for His Children.

:newidea: OIKODOMESO!!! Let me repeat that: **OIKODOMESO! **Jesus said “I WILL build my church” – IOW: it ain’t finished yet.

I quibble with your term “evolving revelation” because doctrine does not evolve, only our understanding evolves – which in practice can FEEL the same. But the point here is that “oikodomeso” implies an ongoing process and not a closed one. The delineation of doctrine evolves as new challenges affront the Church, and in HIS Church, Christ rises to meet those challenges, as he promised he would.

Sometimes I am REALLY slow! :doh2:

 

[Ronald_E]

Just like they did the first time he showed up.

:newidea: OIKODOMESO!!! Let me repeat that: **OIKODOMESO! **Jesus said “I WILL build my church” – IOW: it ain’t finished yet.

I quibble with your term “evolving revelation” because doctrine does not evolve, only our understanding evolves – which in practice can FEEL the same. But the point here is that “oikodomeso” implies an ongoing process and not a closed one. The delineation of doctrine evolves as new challenges affront the Church, and in HIS Church, Christ rises to meet those challenges, as he promised he would.

Sometimes I am REALLY slow! :doh2:

I agree, not that you are slow, I am slow. It only took God 40 of Ron years to get me to return. Since my return 3 years ago the evolution of my understanding of Christ and His Church comes about only through being open and vulnerable to the mysterious unknown in our faith. That is where God’s Love is revealed in more depth. It requires an openness of heart that means always dying to self.
When I die to myself I am no longer influenced to be against something or someone or some belief. I am open to God revealing Himself in the mystery of faith that I do not understand as yet. Opposition to any mystery of faith in the sacraments is a reaction of the flesh which is a signal for me that I am living in the flesh and therefore cannot understand something that is in the spirit. At that point I ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and each time He shows me that where it seems dark it is actually the place where the Love of God is waiting to be discovered.
Where our Protestant sisters and brothers see darkness in our Catholic faith we as Catholics have found God’s Love.
Help me with scripture when Paul said something to the effect that what is good will be called evil.

 

[mercygate]

I agree, not that you are slow, I am slow. It only took God 40 of Ron years to get me to return. Since my return 3 years ago the evolution of my understanding of Christ and His Church comes about only through being open and vulnerable to the mysterious unknown in our faith. That is where God’s Love is revealed in more depth. It requires an openness of heart that means always dying to self.
When I die to myself I am no longer influenced to be against something or someone or some belief. I am open to God revealing Himself in the mystery of faith that I do not understand as yet. Opposition to any mystery of faith in the sacraments is a reaction of the flesh which is a signal for me that I am living in the flesh and therefore cannot understand something that is in the spirit. At that point I ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and each time He shows me that where it seems dark it is actually the place where the Love of God is waiting to be discovered.
Where our Protestant sisters and brothers see darkness in our Catholic faith we as Catholics have found God’s Love.
Help me with scripture when Paul said something to the effect that what is good will be called evil.

Do you mean Romans 14:16 - “Do not let your good be spoken of as evil.” It would be out of context in this discussion.

But you remind me of my grandmother’s favorite anti-Catholic rant. "The Catholic Church teaches that you have to see white as black if they tell you to! Fast forward 25 years. I am an Episcopalian, making the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola under a card-carrying Jesuit. I come to the exercises on “Thinking with the Church” and what do I read:

**To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed. **

I was stopped in my tracks. THERE it was! The evil, poisonous, brain-sucking, self-righteous Catholic Church SHAMELESSLY telling me not to think for myself. But wait! Where was I? I was already praying Papist prayers, doing Papist devotions, had already gone from a sola Scriptura, sola fide, no-sacraments, Bible-only non Catholic to High Church Anglicanism: Priests, sacraments (all 7), and was now praying under the guidance of a scion of “the Black Pope.” Before I ever began the Exercises a hundred things I had formerly seen a as “black” I had come to see as “white.”

Good grief. The Church was RIGHT. It IS wiser to accept something I do not understand that the Church proposes for my belief than to hold out for my own. “Lean not unto thine own understanding” (Prov 3:5 - Marcus Grodi’s favorite verse) suddenly took on a whole new world of meaning.

 

[mercygate]

BACK UP YOUR STATEMENTS OR SHUT UP; YOU MAKE NO SENSE!!! — give me the historical facts; give me a history lesson, and maybe we can go from there!!! Put up or shut up!!!.. Doesn’t sound to catholic but I am only human and you make absolutely no sense!!!

Good grief, Joe. Calm down. The evidence and lack of evidence are irrefutable. No need to get upset.