The Catholic Church

[Bill_Pick]

The Church abolutely did need reform at the time - but nothing like what the “Reformers” did.

As for indulgences - they were never sold and the Church never condoned their abuse. These were actions by individual men within the Church.

As for the myth of not allowing the laity to read scripture - prove it. This is a long-debunked and slanderous lie.

Yes, bibles were chained to the pulpit but only because they could ill-afford to acquire new ones should they be stolen. Remember that they were hand-written and very expensive to come by in the middle ages. They couldn’t simply go to the corner bible store and get a new one.

More correctly, it is called “The Protestant Revolt” since it did not “Reform” anything.

 

[grampben]

More correctly, it is called “The Protestant Revolt” since it did not “Reform” anything.

It did. The council of Trent would not have happened if it wasn’t for the reformation. The reforming of the abuses in the church would not have happened if it were not for the reformation.

 

[Bill_Pick]

It did. The council of Trent would not have happened if it wasn’t for the reformation. The reforming of the abuses in the church would not have happened if it were not for the reformation.

WHAT ABUSES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AND THAT DOES MEAN MORE THEN ONE

 

[grampben]

WHAT ABUSES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AND THAT DOES MEAN MORE THEN ONE

The failure of the Holy See to condemn the selling of indulgences. Nepotism in the church hierarchy, refusal to let the laity read the word of God in the vernacular.

 

[Bill_Pick]

The failure of the Holy See to condemn the selling of indulgences. Nepotism in the church hierarchy, refusal to let the laity read the word of God in the vernacular.

THATS ONE, AND IT WAS WRONG THE SELLING OF INDULGENCES BY A FEW BAD PRIESTS

 

[grampben]

THATS ONE, AND IT WAS WRONG THE SELLING OF INDULGENCES BY A FEW BAD PRIESTS

No that was three my friend. Why didn’t the chruch condemn these ‘bad priests’?

I see there’s no way I can have a decent, civil argument with you, BILL PICK, so I’ll leave it there.

 

[elvisman]

They were NOT handwritten! What about the innovation of the printing press? When Tyndale translated the Bible into the vernacular, using a printing press to print it, he was killed.

The regular peasant could not read latin, so regardless of whether it was chained up or not is irrelevant.
Every christian has a right to be able to read the Bible in the vernacular. Wyclif and Tyndale were condemned for this (I know they were heretics to catholics too, but one of their ‘crimes’ was translating the Bible into English.)

Yes, most of the population oat the time WAS illiterate - Latine or otherwise. * How can you forbid an illiterate from reading??*

At the time of Tyndale, the printing press was still in it’s infancy.
You make it sound like they had presses that could grind out thousands of volumes at a time.
Do you have any idea how primitive the priting press was in the 16th century? The bottom line is that Bibles were STILL hard to come by.

As for Tyndale’s death - it was a matter of the state - NOT the Church because he incurred the King’s wrath for opposing his divorce.
Wycliffe died from the effects of a stroke.

You, my friend should study your history before making these ludicrous accusations.

 

[grampben]

Yes, most of the population oat the time WAS illiterate - Latine or otherwise. * How* can you forbid an illiterate from reading??

At the time of Tyndale, the printing press was still in it’s infancy.
You make it sound like they had presses that could grind out thousands of volumes at a time.
**Do you have any idea how primitive **the priting press was in the 16th century? The bottom line is that Bibles were STILL hard to come by.

As for Tyndale’s death - it was a matter of the state - NOT the Church because he incurred the King’s wrath for opposing his divorce.
Wycliffe died from the effects of a stroke.

You, my friend should study your history before making these ludicrous accusations.

Again, it seems simple discussion is impossible. After he died his body was taken from his grave by an English bishop at the command of the Pope, his bones were crushed then burned to ashes, and thrown into the river Swift.

 

[Bill_Pick]

No that was three my friend. Why didn’t the chruch condemn these ‘bad priests’?

I see there’s no way I can have a decent, civil argument with you, BILL PICK, so I’ll leave it there.

THANK YOU…THINK YOU DID GET ONE RIGHT. DID YOU GET UPSET BECAUSE I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION

 

[elvisman]

Again, it seems simple discussion is impossible. After he died his body was taken from his grave by an English bishop at the command of the Pope, his bones were crushed then burned to ashes, and thrown into the river Swift.

**You’re right - a simple discussion does not seem to be impossible with you. You fling ridiculous, unfounded accusations at the Catholic Church with nothing to back it up historically or otherwise. **
Then you back-pedal and and say it was his bones that were condemned. He was condemned for his obstinacy and disobedience but not put to death by the Church. His bones were the only thing that you might be able to say were treated unfairly - nothing else.

BILL PICK was unable to have a simple discussion with you as well because you wouldn’t give him a straight answer.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, grampben,

First of all, your post is simply a series of gratitutious assumptions. Making statemens without any references proves nothing. And, tends to produce more heat then light.

Second there is absolutely no way to prove what would or would not have happened in the future given any preceeding event. For example, immediately after the Italian sailor Christopher Columbus set sail from Spain no one would have thought Spain would become the dominant power in Mexico, Central and South America.

The church didn’t ‘self-reform’ until after the reformation. The only reason these guys didn’t directly reform the church is because the church chucked them out.
Without the reformation, the Council of Trent and the ‘self reform’ of the church would not have happened.

Let’s gets some ‘current’ facts out for discussion:

1.) Luther posted his 95 Thesis on the church door in 1517
2.) Pope Leo X issued a rebuttal to Luther in 1520, and
3.) Council of Trent was from 1545 - 1563 … issued a condemnation of heresy and numerous items of church reform.

The question is, was the CC interested in reform before Luther and the other so called “Reformers”? Simply answered: yes and here are the facts to back this statement:

Please note there were 8 Ecumenical Councils that preceeded the one in 1123 (the point where I chose to begin). The idea was to give a view that CC had been reforming itself long before Luther. For an authorative source for these Councils, here is the link: newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

1123- Ninth Ecumenical Council: Lateran I- abolished the right claimed by ruling princes of lay investiture (chruch reform) and focused on church discipline.

1179- Eleventh Ecumenical Council: Lateran III- condemned the errors of the Albigenses and Waldenses herisies and issued numerous rulings on the moral reform of chruchmen and religious.

1215- Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV - continued to condemn the Albigenses heresy, Trinitarian errors, and published 70 important reformatory decrees

1274- Fourteenth Ecumenical Council: Lyons II Among other activities, laid down the rules for Papal elections

1311-1313- Fifteenth Ecumenical Council: Vienne - Among other activies, reform of the clergy.

1414-1418- Sixteenth Ecumenical Council: Constance - Reformed itself by putting and end to the Western schism and Condemned the heresies of Wyclif and Hus

1431-1439- Seventeenth Ecumenical Council: Basle/Ferrara/Florence - Among other activities, the reform of the entire church was undertaken.

1512-1517- Eighteenth Ecumenical Council: Lateran V - disciplinary decrees aimed at reform

The church didn’t ‘self-reform’ until after the reformation. The only reason these guys didn’t directly reform the church is because the church chucked them out.
Without the reformation, the Council of Trent and the ‘self reform’ of the church would not have happened.

The issue of ‘reform’ vs ‘hijacking’ may need to be addressed. Let me simply address this through three of the Sacraments.

1-) The need for Baptism (John 3:5) man must be born again of water and the Holy Spirit - yes numerous Protestants consider baptism optional or even un-necessary

2-) The need for Confession (John 20:20-21) Only God can forgive sin - and Christ gave this Power and Authority to His Apostles and they in turn handed it down to their successors who again passed it on to those who are alive today! Protestants claim to go directly to God for forgiveness - but, the Second Person of the Trinity provided a way for man to be forgiven His sins - and going directly to God was not it.

3-) The need for Eucharist (John 6: 22-72) Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man you have no life in you. Protestants deny Christ’s very words and claim this is only a memorial event.

There was no ‘reform’ here - this is a complete re-write - another gospel, may be a better term for what we have here. It appears to have deformed the message of Christ.

God bless,

 

[nbtb1348]

Hi, nbtb1328,

In my opinion, there are some significant issues that have not been addressed in your post.

In reality, these are all moot points - that is, they are subject to debate

The idea that there is, “…the universal church…” defined as you have explained it, is certainly not scriptural. You are now invited to supply the text to refute this statement.

tqualey,
You state your points well. But I think what you lay out, with some critical exceptions, makes my point–You state that the RCC has had its bad popes, but has continued on the desired path. I say the same thing about what I call the Universal Church (certainly not a new phrase to you.)

What does Scripture say about this Church (THE Church)?
“Whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” God is saving and equipping those ‘whosoevers’ all over the world, starting powerful ministries, planting churches, amassing genuine conversions, translating scriptures into all the known dialects, and doing it very well, thank you, apart from the RCC.

I could have you walk into literally tens of thousands of non-catholic churches this weekend, where, if you were honest, you would say you not only hear Scripture taught powerfully, and accurately, but you would witness worship that is majestic, transcendant, and explained only by the presence of Christ and his Holy Spirit.

Guys ranging from Billy Graham to Tim Tebow, son of missionaries to the Phillipines, to Truet Cathy, Christian founder of Chik Fila, to Rick Warren, to Franklin Graham, to Tony Dungy, George Whitfield Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, to Dawson Trotman, founder of the Navigators, to amazing pastors and missionaries all over the world, who live in the power of God BUT HAVE NO ROOTS IN THE RCC WHATSOEVER…these are the flesh and blood fulfillment of the promise to “whosoever” and proof Christ is building His Church universally.

God Bless, My Friend!

 

[elvisman]

tqualey,
You state your points well. But I think what you lay out, with some critical exceptions, makes my point–You state that the RCC has had its bad popes, but has continued on the desired path. I say the same thing about what I call the Universal Church (certainly not a new phrase to you.)

What does Scripture say about this Church (THE Church)?
“Whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” God is saving and equipping those ‘whosoevers’ all over the world, starting powerful ministries, planting churches, amassing genuine conversions, translating scriptures into all the known dialects, and doing it very well, thank you, apart from the RCC.

When I read these kinds of biblical quotes by Protestants, I ask them why they leave out all of the scriptures that speak to the obedience of that faith. CONTEXT, my friend. that’s how you must take these passages - in the context of all Scripture.
Read what the following passages say about how you are saved:
Matt. 7:21 - You must DO the will of the Father
1 Peter 3:21 - Baptism now saves you
John 6:31-71 - Unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life within you. Those who do will be saved.
Luke 18:22 - Charity and love gains eternal life
1 Cor. 13:13 - Faith isn’t even the greatest virtue - LOVE is.

I could have you walk into literally tens of thousands of non-catholic churches this weekend, where, if you were honest, you would say you not only hear Scripture taught powerfully, and accurately, but you would witness worship that is majestic, transcendant, and explained only by the presence of Christ and his Holy Spirit.

**Not accurately - otherwise you’d have the Eucharist present, which they don’t.
**They don’t **have the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus in the Eucharist, so they’re all missing out.
**

Guys ranging from Billy Graham to Tim Tebow, son of missionaries to the Phillipines, to Truet Cathy, Christian founder of Chik Fila, to Rick Warren, to Franklin Graham, to Tony Dungy, George Whitfield Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, to Dawson Trotman, founder of the Navigators, to amazing pastors and missionaries all over the world, who live in the power of God BUT HAVE NO ROOTS IN THE RCC WHATSOEVER…these are the flesh and blood fulfillment of the promise to “whosoever” and proof Christ is building His Church universally.

God Bless, My Friend!

**The tragedy is that all of the people you named teach a partial truth, but not the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is only found in the one Church established by Jesus himself - the Catholic Church. That’s the only Church he equated himself with in Acts 9:4-5. and the only one that he said that even the gates of hell would not prevail against. Matt 16:18

 

[grampben]

3-) The need for Eucharist (John 6: 22-72) Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man you have no life in you. Protestants deny Christ’s very words and claim this is only a memorial event.

God bless,

Nonsense, Luther believed in the real presence, and Calvin was no memorialist!
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what these unfounded accusations are. My comments about the church’s self reform were just my opinions, and I don’t claim them to be fact. What I said about Wycliffe’s corpse being dug up on the order of the Pope is true!
Ugh, I promised I wouldn’t come back to this thread.
Thanks for being charitable by the way, much appreciated

 

[Cinette]

Nonsense, Luther believed in the real presence, and Calvin was no memorialist!
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what these unfounded accusations are. My comments about the church’s self reform were just my opinions, and I don’t claim them to be fact. What I said about Wycliffe’s corpse being dug up on the order of the Pope is true!
Ugh, I promised I wouldn’t come back to this thread.
Thanks for being charitable by the way, much appreciated

Wait a minute Mr Grampben!

What accusations are those?
How can you have an opinion about something that happened 500 years ago without making an analysis based on fact??

You can’t just make gratuitous affirmations and then duck!! That is not worthy of you surely!

So if you want to make your exit please explain yourself first.

Thank you

 

[Cinette]

Nonsense, Luther believed in the real presence, and Calvin was no memorialist!
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what these unfounded accusations are. My comments about the church’s self reform were just my opinions, and I don’t claim them to be fact. What I said about Wycliffe’s corpse being dug up on the order of the Pope is true!
Ugh, I promised I wouldn’t come back to this thread.
Thanks for being charitable by the way, much appreciated

Oh and by the way Mr Grampben!

Luther and Calvin believed in the Eucharist - modern day Protestants don’t;
Luther and Calvin loved the Virgin Mary and believed her to be the Mother of God - modern day Protestants don’t

and I am sure there are many other things in which they believed which modern day Protestants don’t.

You must not get upset if we differ - you know G K Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw didn’t agree on almost all the issues and yet they were friends - this is because Chesterton was able to be genial yet orthodox in his beliefs. He never offended anyone and we all should try to emulate him. So permit me to be orthodox:

"If this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them"

Acts 5:38-39

I ask you please to stay and debate with us and let us all be genial - let us be friends having a discussion.

 

[nbtb1348]

When I read these kinds of biblical quotes by Protestants, I ask them why they leave out all of the scriptures that speak to the obedience of that faith. CONTEXT, my friend. that’s how you must take these passages - in the context of all Scripture.
**Read what the following passages say about how **you are saved:
Matt. 7:21 - You must DO the will of the Father
1 Peter 3:21 - Baptism now saves you
John 6:31-71 - Unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life within you. Those who do will be saved.
Luke 18:22 - Charity and love gains eternal life
1 Cor. 13:13 - Faith isn’t even the greatest virtue - LOVE is.

Not accurately - otherwise you’d have the Eucharist present, which they don’t.
**They don’t **have the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus in the Eucharist, so they’re all missing out.

**The tragedy is that all of the people you named teach a *partial ***truth, but not the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is only found in the one Church established by Jesus himself - the Catholic Church. That’s the only Church he equated himself with in Acts 9:4-5. and the only one that he said that even the gates of hell would not prevail against. Matt 16:18

I’ll say more on all you’ve posted later but, first of all, I only gave the one verse on salvation because I wasn’t debating what it takes to be saved, I was talking about the all-inclusiveness of God’s grace. I was talking about how one steps into the kingdom. Do you object that God put verses like that in Scripture? I beleive true faith produces a life of obedience. But not perfect obedience.

 

[grampben]

Wait a minute Mr Grampben!

What accusations are those?
How can you have an opinion about something that happened 500 years ago without making an analysis based on fact??

You can’t just make gratuitous affirmations and then duck!! That is not worthy of you surely!

So if you want to make your exit please explain yourself first.

Thank you

Hey Cinette.

My comments on what happened Wyclif’s body after his death were not opinion. You seem to have misunderstood what I said, I meant my beliefs that the self reform of the church would not have happened if it wasn’t for the reformation. That is opinion that I have came to after looking at the facts. I don’t claim that to be fact. I did not make an opinion of whether or not events happened, but the significance they had.

Also in your next comment after the one I quoted you say Luther and Calvin believed in the eucharist. Luther did believe in the real presence, and venerated Mary. Calvin believed in a spiritual presence at communion between the community of believers (in between memorialism and real presence) and while he didn’t venerate her as such or pray to her, he had a lot more respect for Mary than most modern day evangelicals.

 

[elvisman]

I’ll say more on all you’ve posted later but, first of all, I only gave the one verse on salvation because I wasn’t debating what it takes to be saved, I was talking about the all-inclusiveness of God’s grace. I was talking about how one steps into the kingdom. Do you object that God put verses like that in Scripture? I beleive true faith produces a life of obedience. But not perfect obedience.

My problem with what you posted was your comments – not the scripture passage itself.

---

You state that this passage encompasses all who claim to believe in Christ and that they are all part of “the Church”. Protestants are Christians but are unfortunately not part of “the Church”. They are parts of tens of thousands of different churches with different beliefs who believe that they all fall under the umbrella of “the Church”.

---

“The Church” spoken of in the New Testament and by all of the Early Church Fathers and abandoned by the “Reformers” is the Catholic Church. There is only one – Jesus didn’t establish thousands – only ONE.

 

[Cinette]

Hey Cinette.

My comments on what happened Wyclif’s body after his death were not opinion. You seem to have misunderstood what I said, I meant my beliefs that the self reform of the church would not have happened if it wasn’t for the reformation. That is opinion that I have came to after looking at the facts. I don’t claim that to be fact. I did not make an opinion of whether or not events happened, but the significance they had.

Also in your next comment after the one I quoted you say Luther and Calvin believed in the eucharist. Luther did believe in the real presence, and venerated Mary. Calvin believed in a spiritual presence at communion between the community of believers (in between memorialism and real presence) and while he didn’t venerate her as such or pray to her, he had a lot more respect for Mary than most modern day evangelicals.

Hey Mr Grampben!

Insofar as Mary is concerned I know and have seen text from books that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all loved Mary and believed that she was the Mother of God.

Regarding the Eucharist you may be right because anyone who believed Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist and then turns his/her back on that teaching would know s/he was committing a grave offense - a mortal sin.

I cannot go looking now but you must have seen the posting demonstrating with dates the different ecumenical councils and their purpose which clearly demonstrated that the Church is always actively seeking to improve. Conversion is a continual activity in our lives, the lives of every one of us. The Popes produce encyclicals all the time - the encyclicals also relate to the modern world.

You may not be aware for instance that Protestantism believed that articficial birth control was a sin until the Anglican Church determined that it was not so bad after all in 1931and what happened after that - all other non-Catholic churches abandoned their stance which, ultimately led to Abortion and the like. It gets worse and worse.

The Catholic Church stands firm by Jesus’ teachings and does not compromise. You bet it is hard to be Catholic but it is worth it.

:yup: