The devil was part of the Reformation

[SolaChristo]

Church Militant:

Bunk! But that’s a really slick hair split you did there…

You never answered my question.
Would you condemn a women who left her husband who was abusive and had no intention of change?

It is the prefered method for the wife to move out of a situation if the husband is abusive and an alcholic or drug addict. She is no longer an enabler or codependent but forces the husband to make a decision. If during that time he takes up with another women then she has scriptural backing for a divorce.

 

[SolaChristo]

RyanL:

SolaChristo,

Are you denying that the “Reformers” divorced themselves (and their followers) from the Catholic Church? Or are you claiming that you’re still married, just not living with us?

God Bless,
RyanL

The reformers and those that follow them are certainly part of Christs Church.

 

[Thal59]

SolaChristo:

You never answered my question.
Would you condemn a women who left her husband who was abusive and had no intention of change?

It is the prefered method for the wife to move out of a situation if the husband is abusive and an alcholic or drug addict. She is no longer an enabler or codependent but forces the husband to make a decision. If during that time he takes up with another women then she has scriptural backing for a divorce.

Would you condemn a women who left her husband who was abusive and had no intention of change?<<<

I would not condemn her, I would condemn her leaving him. She is the one who vowed “for better or for worse,” not merely “until it becomes convenient for you to walk out on your spouse.”

It is the prefered method for the wife to move out of a situation if the husband is abusive and an alcholic or drug addict. <<<

Whose preffered method are you talking about? You are now saying that the preffered method is for one person to abandon their spouse, as well as their vow before God, if their spouse is abusive, alcoholic, drug addicted, etc. Why not throw in there greedy, lazy, argumentative… etc. The method you are talking about is called quitting.

She is no longer an enabler or codependent but forces the husband to make a decision.<<<

So all is lost forever once a spouse takes up alcohol or drugs or becomes abusive? You have never heard of a person’s love and commitment to their spouse “reforming” their loved one’s life to the point that the marriage is saved and the sanctity of the relationship returning? But according to you, once something becomes difficult, one has the right to leave, no matter how sacred the vows or binds previously were.

Ten of the twelve tribes of Israel walked out on the “authorized” leader of the children of Israel (Roboem) because they felt life, for a time would be too difficult. What did God do to them?

Many disciples of the Lord walked out on Him when He gave His flesh and blood narrative in John chapter 6 because “This is a hard saying, who can listen t it?” Were they justified?

But it is obvious that your bone of contention lies in the belief that if certain portions of the Catholic church’s heirarchy have become corrupt, then one can forgoe any faith that God will set His church straight and one is free to walk away as he pleases. Please see…

Matt 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees have sat in the chair of Moses. All things, therefore, that they command you, observe and do. But do not act according to their works, for they talk but do nothing.”

Christ clearly commands that the congregation must obey the Pharisees because of their authority; regardless of their hypocrisy. Christ clearly establishes that no one has the right to walk away from His “authorized” church when the inevitable periods of weakness or sin will affect the heirarchy. To do so is to break one’s sacred covenent oath’s to God and His church, to deny its authority, which is the same as denying the one who gave that authority, and to bring division to the one body. It mocks the prayer by Christ at the last supper for unity, and aids the devil in his attempts to prevail against the Lord’s church by breaking that unity.

You can walk away, but you are on the wrong side of Biblical precedent, you are in schism, you are in heresy, you are a quitter, but you are not justified.

Thal59

 

[RyanL]

SolaChristo:

The reformers and those that follow them are certainly part of Christs Church.

So they’re still Catholic?

 

[SolaChristo]

>>>Would you condemn a women who left her husband who was abusive and had no intention of change?<<<

I would not condemn her, I would condemn her leaving him. She is the one who vowed “for better or for worse,” not merely “until it becomes convenient for you to walk out on your spouse.”

It is the prefered method for the wife to move out of a situation if the husband is abusive and an alcholic or drug addict. <<<

Whose preffered method are you talking about? You are now saying that the preffered method is for one person to abandon their spouse, as well as their vow before God, if their spouse is abusive, alcoholic, drug addicted, etc. Why not throw in there greedy, lazy, argumentative… etc. The method you are talking about is called quitting.

She is no longer an enabler or codependent but forces the husband to make a decision.<<<

So all is lost forever once a spouse takes up alcohol or drugs or becomes abusive? You have never heard of a person’s love and commitment to their spouse “reforming” their loved one’s life to the point that the marriage is saved and the sanctity of the relationship returning? But according to you, once something becomes difficult, one has the right to leave, no matter how sacred the vows or binds previously were.

Ten of the twelve tribes of Israel walked out on the “authorized” leader of the children of Israel (Roboem) because they felt life, for a time would be too difficult. What did God do to them?

Many disciples of the Lord walked out on Him when He gave His flesh and blood narrative in John chapter 6 because “This is a hard saying, who can listen t it?” Were they justified?

But it is obvious that your bone of contention lies in the belief that if certain portions of the Catholic church’s heirarchy have become corrupt, then one can forgoe any faith that God will set His church straight and one is free to walk away as he pleases. Please see…

Matt 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees have sat in the chair of Moses. All things, therefore, that they command you, observe and do. But do not act according to their works, for they talk but do nothing.”

Christ clearly commands that the congregation must obey the Pharisees because of their authority; regardless of their hypocrisy. Christ clearly establishes that no one has the right to walk away from His “authorized” church when the inevitable periods of weakness or sin will affect the heirarchy. To do so is to break one’s sacred covenent oath’s to God and His church, to deny its authority, which is the same as denying the one who gave that authority, and to bring division to the one body. It mocks the prayer by Christ at the last supper for unity, and aids the devil in his attempts to prevail against the Lord’s church by breaking that unity.

You can walk away, but you are on the wrong side of Biblical precedent, you are in schism, you are in heresy, you are a quitter, but you are not justified.

Thal59

Often the only way for the husband to realize how much he is in error is for the wife to move out so that he is confronted with his situation. You can not be as hard hearted as you are perporting. For a women to remain in an abusive situation is not recommended by none that I know of, if not they will both go under.
It is not a matter of quiting —it is a matter of confronting the abusive husband with what he has become.

 

[SolaChristo]

RyanL:

So they’re still Catholic?

Not by your definition.

 

[RyanL]

SolaChristo:

Not by your definition.

Christ established one Church.
That Church was demonstrably Catholic.
The “Reformers” are not Catholic by any historical usage of the term (which is the definition I employ, for lack of a better one).

How are they, by your definition, still Catholic?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Thal59]

SolaChristo:

Often the only way for the husband to realize how much he is in error is for the wife to move out so that he is confronted with his situation. You can not be as hard hearted as you are perporting. For a women to remain in an abusive situation is not recommended by none that I know of, if not they will both go under.
It is not a matter of quiting —it is a matter of confronting the abusive husband with what he has become.

Often the only way for the husband to realize how much he is in error is for the wife to move out so that he is confronted with his situation.<<<

What we have here is completely unsubstantiated personal opinion.

For a women to remain in an abusive situation is not recommended by none that I know of, if not they will both go under.<<<

More unsubstantiated personal opinion.

It is not a matter of quiting —it is a matter of confronting the abusive husband with what he has become.<<<

Everything you have said is again unsubstantiated personal opinion based on a vague hypothetical “what if” situation that you are using to justify the schism of the reformers. Since we are both Christian (I assume) let’s stick with the bible. Lets see if we can stick with my previous statements and questions…

Ten of the twelve tribes of Israel walked out on the “authorized” leader of the children of Israel (Roboem) because they felt life, for a time would be too difficult. What did God do to them?

(Can you give me a direct answer to this? What happened to those who seperated?)

Many disciples of the Lord walked out on Him when He gave His flesh and blood narrative in John chapter 6 because “This is a hard saying, who can listen t it?” Were they justified?

(How about a direct answer to this one too. Were they Justified?)

But it is obvious that your bone of contention lies in the belief that if certain portions of the Catholic church’s heirarchy have become corrupt, then one can forgoe any faith that God will set His church straight and one is free to walk away as he pleases. Please see…

Matt 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees have sat in the chair of Moses. All things, therefore, that they command you, observe and do. But do not act according to their works, for they talk but do nothing.”

Christ clearly commands that the congregation must obey the Pharisees because of their authority; regardless of their hypocrisy. Christ clearly establishes that no one has the right to walk away from His “authorized” church when the inevitable periods of weakness or sin will affect the heirarchy. To do so is to break one’s sacred covenent oath’s to God and His church, to deny its authority, which is the same as denying the one who gave that authority, and to bring division to the one body. It mocks the prayer by Christ at the last supper for unity, and aids the devil in his attempts to prevail against the Lord’s church by breaking that unity.

(Any comments on Matthew 23:2-3, and please… no hypothetical nonsense about a ficticious woman and abusive husband.)

I am really looking forward to your answers. Thanks.

Thal59

 

[Church_Militant]

SolaChristo:

You never answered my question.
Would you condemn a women who left her husband who was abusive and had no intention of change?

It is the prefered method for the wife to move out of a situation if the husband is abusive and an alcholic or drug addict. She is no longer an enabler or codependent but forces the husband to make a decision. If during that time he takes up with another women then she has scriptural backing for a divorce.

Lots of nice modern terms borrowed from psychology, but without any more authority than the Jews had for writing their letters of divorce. Moreover…the Council of Trent showed that the church did indeed want to work it out. Who remained outside the church? So even given your analogy they are still without excuse.

 

[SolaChristo]

RyanL:

Christ established one Church.
That Church was demonstrably Catholic.
The “Reformers” are not Catholic by any historical usage of the term (which is the definition I employ, for lack of a better one).

How are they, by your definition, still Catholic?

God Bless,
RyanL

As part of the Body of Christ I am part of His Church.

 

[SolaChristo]

>>>Often the only way for the husband to realize how much he is in error is for the wife to move out so that he is confronted with his situation.<<<

What we have here is completely unsubstantiated personal opinion.

For a women to remain in an abusive situation is not recommended by none that I know of, if not they will both go under.<<<

More unsubstantiated personal opinion.

It is not a matter of quiting —it is a matter of confronting the abusive husband with what he has become.<<<

Everything you have said is again unsubstantiated personal opinion based on a vague hypothetical “what if” situation that you are using to justify the schism of the reformers. Since we are both Christian (I assume) let’s stick with the bible. Lets see if we can stick with my previous statements and questions…

Ten of the twelve tribes of Israel walked out on the “authorized” leader of the children of Israel (Roboem) because they felt life, for a time would be too difficult. What did God do to them?

(Can you give me a direct answer to this? What happened to those who seperated?)

Many disciples of the Lord walked out on Him when He gave His flesh and blood narrative in John chapter 6 because “This is a hard saying, who can listen t it?” Were they justified?

(How about a direct answer to this one too. Were they Justified?)

But it is obvious that your bone of contention lies in the belief that if certain portions of the Catholic church’s heirarchy have become corrupt, then one can forgoe any faith that God will set His church straight and one is free to walk away as he pleases. Please see…

Matt 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees have sat in the chair of Moses. All things, therefore, that they command you, observe and do. But do not act according to their works, for they talk but do nothing.”

Christ clearly commands that the congregation must obey the Pharisees because of their authority; regardless of their hypocrisy. Christ clearly establishes that no one has the right to walk away from His “authorized” church when the inevitable periods of weakness or sin will affect the heirarchy. To do so is to break one’s sacred covenent oath’s to God and His church, to deny its authority, which is the same as denying the one who gave that authority, and to bring division to the one body. It mocks the prayer by Christ at the last supper for unity, and aids the devil in his attempts to prevail against the Lord’s church by breaking that unity.

(Any comments on Matthew 23:2-3, and please… no hypothetical nonsense about a ficticious woman and abusive husband.)

I am really looking forward to your answers. Thanks.

Thal59

Do you have any training and or experience in dealing with alcoholics and drug users? Check what I say with those that are in that ministry, you will find out that Im not off on this.

 

[SolaChristo]

Church Militant:

Lots of nice modern terms borrowed from psychology, but without any more authority than the Jews had for writing their letters of divorce. Moreover…the Council of Trent showed that the church did indeed want to work it out. Who remained outside the church? So even given your analogy they are still without excuse.

It took the reformation for the conterreformation to be birthed.

 

[Celtic_FC]

This is from “God’s Soldiers” by Jonathan Wright, “All mortal men decay, but some mortal men decay more disgustingly than others. The corpse of Martin Luther, Richeome was delighted to point out, had quickly begun to give off ‘an odour so nasty and abominable’ that it threatened to spread disease, much as the ‘stench of his infernal heresy had infected the skies over parts of Europe.’”

 

[Thal59]

SolaChristo:

Do you have any training and or experience in dealing with alcoholics and drug users? Check what I say with those that are in that ministry, you will find out that Im not off on this.

SolaChristo, are you on alcohol or drugs? I am truly try to find out what your malady is, because I keep asking you pointed questions and you keep bringing up your argument based on a completely arbitrary hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with the thread.

I couldn’t care less about alcoholics or drug users right now, nor do I care about what an “imaginary housewife” who is being “hypothetically abused” by a “non-existent husband” should do about her problem; more or less how such a circuitous analogy could somehow be indirectly applied in a general broadbrush manner to the **reformation! **

Look, if you do not want to answer the specific questions I asked in post # 88, fine. Just say so. Don’t worry, I have no intention of taking an “I’m right, you’re wrong” position. But if all you are going to do is make generalized statements based on hypothetical possibilities, then please don’t waste anyone’s time here.

Thal59

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Celtic_FC:

This is from “God’s Soldiers” by Jonathan Wright, “All mortal men decay, but some mortal men decay more disgustingly than others. The corpse of Martin Luther, Richeome was delighted to point out, had quickly begun to give off ‘an odour so nasty and abominable’ that it threatened to spread disease, much as the ‘stench of his infernal heresy had infected the skies over parts of Europe.’”

That sort of remark does no discredit to Protestants - for the human corpse, being full of decaying organisms, might reasonably be expected to give off a stink.​

That Catholics can try so hard to discredit Luther by mentioning something over which he could not reasonably be expected to have any control whatever, does them nothing but discredit. Luther is not in the least discredited, or honoured for that matter, by the state of his remains. Catholic Luther-bashing is as juvenile and pointless as as Protestant Pope-bashing. Sniffing around in the gutter for filth to hurl at Luther, or anyone else, is despicable - it’s the temper of Hell, which rejoices in the downfall of others, and delights to hear evil of them. Charity by contrast “rejoices in the good…covers a multitude of sins”. This is not the temper of the controversialist; for controversy thrives on belittling others, and exaggerating evils done by others, and ignoring the grace of God to others.

Since Richeome was an anti-Protestant polemicist, why should he be given any more credit by Catholics than anti-Catholics should be given by Protestants ? He may be no more than a 16th century Jesuit equivalent of Jack Chick, for all any of us know. ##

 

[SolaChristo]

Thal59:

SolaChristo, are you on alcohol or drugs? I am truly try to find out what your malady is, because I keep asking you pointed questions and you keep bringing up your argument based on a completely arbitrary hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with the thread.

I couldn’t care less about alcoholics or drug users right now, nor do I care about what an “imaginary housewife” who is being “hypothetically abused” by a “non-existent husband” should do about her problem; more or less how such a circuitous analogy could somehow be indirectly applied in a general broadbrush manner to the **reformation! **

Look, if you do not want to answer the specific questions I asked in post # 88, fine. Just say so. Don’t worry, I have no intention of taking an “I’m right, you’re wrong” position. But if all you are going to do is make generalized statements based on hypothetical possibilities, then please don’t waste anyone’s time here.

Thal59

John Kennedy said that if you discourage peaceful revolution you encourage violent ones.

My point is that there was a climate that needed to be reforormed. Luther tried to change the system from within but in time decided that it was better to leave than to stay. There can be no arguement that:

1. Change was neccesary
2. The RCC was reluctant to change until after the reformation

I presented a good analogy but you continue to put all of the blame on the reformers and take none of the responsiblity yourself.

 

[RyanL]

SolaChristo:

As part of the Body of Christ I am part of His Church.

I would not deny this (as I firmly believe that you are), but I am forced to ask you to justify your position…

Christ started one Church, that Church was demonstrably Catholic, the “Reformers” separated themselves from that Catholic Church and you follow the “Reformers”. Since Christ established one Church, that Church was Catholic, that Church remains his Body and you are not a professing member of that Church, what claim of right do you have to be a “part of the Body of Christ”?

What I’m looking for is a historical justification for you laying claim to the term. Please cite one member of the Church which Christ founded from the first 1400 years of Christian history who believed as you do (this should not be a tough task - there are tens of thousands of Christian writers from this time period). If you cannot, you are not a member of the Christian faith as was passed down from Christ. This is, of course, assuming that you believe that Christ and the Apostles weren’t completely incompetant and were able to teach at least some people the “true” Christian faith. If it’s the case, however, that you cannot find any historical trace of what you believe, again I would ask - what justification do you have to claim to be a member of the Body of Christ?

Your brother in Christ,
RyanL

 

[Singinbeauty]

RyanL:

I would not deny this (as I firmly believe that you are), but I am forced to ask you to justify your position…

Christ started one Church, that Church was demonstrably Catholic, the “Reformers” separated themselves from that Catholic Church and you follow the “Reformers”. Since Christ established one Church, that Church was Catholic, that Church remains his Body and you are not a professing member of that Church, what claim of right do you have to be a “part of the Body of Christ”?

What I’m looking for is a historical justification for you laying claim to the term. Please cite one member of the Church which Christ founded from the first 1400 years of Christian history who believed as you do (this should not be a tough task - there are tens of thousands of Christian writers from this time period). If you cannot, you are not a member of the Christian faith as was passed down from Christ. This is, of course, assuming that you believe that Christ and the Apostles weren’t completely incompetant and were able to teach at least some people the “true” Christian faith. If it’s the case, however, that you cannot find any historical trace of what you believe, again I would ask - what justification do you have to claim to be a member of the Body of Christ?

Your brother in Christ,
RyanL

The ‘thing’ is… As protestants believe that the Church founded by Christ is not the physical one run by humans but the mystical one of the body of Christ made up of His followers it would only make sense that though we disagree on how to worship we still believe that Christ died for us so that we may be cleansed and able to be with God.

As a side note… Paris, love ya to death sister but the more I read your posts the more I think you are just out for the blood of the protestants OR you are just trying to convice yourself that you have chosen the right path. Either way, please just design your own anti-protestant website and be done with it. By sitting here and just spouting off that we are protducts of the devil to your catholic friends you are just ‘gossiping’ rather than brainstorming on what to do to make things better. Your anti-protestant statements would be better if you were to ask at the end of them ‘how do we correct this’ or ‘what do we do to begin to heal this’ rather than just saying we are pawns of the devil because I keep waiting for the next line to be ‘and they should all burn in Hell’.

 

[Thal59]

SolaChristo:

John Kennedy said that if you discourage peaceful revolution you encourage violent ones.

My point is that there was a climate that needed to be reforormed. Luther tried to change the system from within but in time decided that it was better to leave than to stay. There can be no arguement that:

1. Change was neccesary
2. The RCC was reluctant to change until after the reformation

I presented a good analogy but you continue to put all of the blame on the reformers and take none of the responsiblity yourself.

I asked you, and for the last time by the way, to answer specific questions and you came back with a Kennedy quote then dove back into your analogy.

Why is it so impossible for you to simply say “Sorry thal59, I really don’t care to answer your questions right now.”

Right now, SolaChristo, you have zero credibility and have shown an innate inability to hold a useful discussion on a specific or biblical level. Believe me, I am not angry with you. But you have demonstrated that any further attempts to communicate with you is a waste of time. So… I am signing off.

Thal59

 

[TPJCatholic]

The best way to convert the world is for every Catholic to live the faith–every day of their lives, and to exhibit a great peace and joy in that faith.

There is nothing like a person who lives life as a Christ-like example to help convert hearts and minds. People who talk the talk, but refuse to walk the talk, are not helping at all. A person is either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground.

Think of Pope John Paul II andMother Teresa as recent real life examples of people who converted people simply by the way they lived the faith.

I