M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Like their Catholic brethrens from who they originated from.The true adopted children of God.
- Status
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
“Protest” meant “reject”. As I said, what was rejected was the Diet of Speyers. It proved to be a largely transient episode in the history of the Reformation, bascially a failed peace effort, but the name stuck.
P
PC_Master
Guest
shrug So I should call you a Protestant as well, in other words saying that you’re protesting against God’s true will? I think you would take offense at that, would you not?
Yes, I am protesting Roman Catholic belief. Indeed, I am totally opposed to the flawed theology of Roman Catholicism, a concept totally foreign to the Early Church Fathers and Scripture.
Can you really say that that doesn’t offend you?
I’d really like to hear more about this. Could you link me to some reading material on the subject? (Preferably online, because I can’t afford to purchase lots of books on these subjects right now.)
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I am Catholic. I am defending what the Church upheld for over 2,000 yrs. Protestantism didn’t exist until the 1500s by a disgrunted old Augustinian monk, name Martin Luther. He and others have no right. Umph, let me say, they have no AUTHORITY to reform the Church. It was not them whom Jesus give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. He gave those Keys to Peter.
Protestantism is more of a flawed system that grown out of 1500s. There is no historical proof that Protestantism belief is consider to be ancient.
Roman Catholicism is one of the 5 Patriarchiate Church long before the Schism. There were five Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople.
Though the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church split in 1054 AD, the West and East still maintain its heritage from the Apostles themselves. The only difference is Catholicism maintain this unity. Eastern Orthodoxy is a complete departure from the concept of being united.
Protestantism is a complete departure because they lack Apostolic Succession. As far as I know, Protestantism did away with Christian Tradition except the tradition of going to Sunday for worship.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Unfortunately PC Master, your claim that you are “totally opposed to the flawed theology of Roman Catholicism, a concept totally foreign to the Early Church Fathers and Scripture” has not been proven.
I like to point out several of the ECF quotes which support the Catholic position.
Primacy of Peter:
“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).
"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).
I like to point out several of the ECF quotes which support the Catholic position.
Primacy of Peter:
“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).
"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
REAL PRESENCE:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
VIRGINITY OF MARY
“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).
“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).
“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).
"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).
“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).
“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).
“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).
"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
** Mary’s Assumption into Heaven**
“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).
“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…” Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).
“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.” Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).
**
Mary’s Immaculate Conception**
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).
“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).
“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415
“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).
“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…” Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).
“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.” Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).
**
Mary’s Immaculate Conception**
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).
“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).
“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
As we can all see PC Master assertion that the Catholic Church teachings is flawed and foreign to the ECF is wrong. Rather, we see Protestantism is a flawed system that no Christian should follow. In Protestantism it only fractures. There are 33,000 Protestant denomination, ladies and gentlemen. Each man is his own magisterium. You can if you wish make your own church if you feel your home church is teaching something that is contrary to Scripture.
We rarely see any historical text to prove any of the ECF had Protestant belief. Protestantism is man-made foreign. God did not intend his Church to fracture. He teaches that His Church is One. Protestantism is the false religion. If you want an authentic, liturgical worship. You are better as an Orthodox if you have issues with the Pope. However, if you want a unified Church, you should consider the Catholic Church as the One True Church of Christ.
We rarely see any historical text to prove any of the ECF had Protestant belief. Protestantism is man-made foreign. God did not intend his Church to fracture. He teaches that His Church is One. Protestantism is the false religion. If you want an authentic, liturgical worship. You are better as an Orthodox if you have issues with the Pope. However, if you want a unified Church, you should consider the Catholic Church as the One True Church of Christ.
P
PC_Master
Guest
An interesting turn you took, trying to show that Roman Catholic teachings are in line with the ECFs. However, the discussion in this thread was not about the validity of those statements, whether or not they were in agreement with Roman Catholic or Protestant theology. The point of the discussion to which you were responding is that your label of “Protestant” is intended to be insulting, and that is sinful.
Come on – even the most basic logic would tell you that a fracture is a fracture is a fracture. You can’t exempt the RCC from this qualification.
So you claim, and so I disagree. Your opinion is yours. My opinion is mine. It’s unlikely that you asserting yours to be correct will do any good here.
I love your misinterpretations, but that’s not really the point of this thread.
I see…four of the five Patriarchates are still together, and one is separated…but it’s the four that departed from unity? That honestly makes me laugh. Perhaps you should re-evaluate what unity means.
You assume apostolic succession, as the RCC teaches it, is a valid teaching, and is a defining characteristic of unity within the true church. I simply reject that such a teaching is valid. Unity is determined by being united to the teachings of Christ, which I believe the RCC has deviated from. It’s really that simple. It’s also something that we’re probably not going to agree on, nor make headway on.
Baptism, salvation through faith, and various other Christian Traditions (found in the earliest days of the church) are still present in many, if not all, Protestant denominations.
To me, it has. To you, your claims have been proven. Neither of us will accept evidence produced by the other. However, using this rhetoric, followed by a long series of out-of-context quotes (most of which have been debunked previously) doesn’t actually prove your position.
That you still toss around the number of 33,000 shows that you have very little understanding of Protestantism, and are trying to fit it into a Roman Catholic framework. However, I expect your rhetoric will sway any Roman Catholics to your way of thinking, because of the predisposition to thinking in that manner.
I see, so the Great Schism, and the Reformation, and all the other schisms with (not from or against) the Roman Catholic Church don’t count as fractures?
Come on – even the most basic logic would tell you that a fracture is a fracture is a fracture. You can’t exempt the RCC from this qualification.
R
reneeville
Guest
**
T
Teflon93
Guest
It is times like these that it is quite clear you don’t know what charity means, much less offensive intent. But I presume you’ve searched Manny’s heart and know his intent, farbeit for you to show lack of chairty, PC.
Sometimes the definition of charity among interlocutors here is, “the last refuge when I’m losing an argument”.
There is nothing uncharitable in calling Protestants Protestant. I called myself one for many years before my conversion, and have never heard anyone object to it despite having lived in the Bible Belt for years now.
And whereas I have never witnessed a Catholic claiming Protestants are not Christians, you can see that sentiment rife regarding Catholics on the Protestant side in many threads on this forum. Catholic Militant and I have launched several threads to discuss it should anyone care to check.
P
PC_Master
Guest
I stand by my previous statements. I also reject Teflon93’s most recent rhetoric as exactly that (rhetoric, something designed to bolster an argument, while effectively adding no actual substance).To call one being in protest to God’s one true church is to call one a heretic, which is not any more charitable than if I said “all Roman Catholics are heretics”. I have no doubt that I’d get banned for such a comment, so yes, it’s uncharitable to say such things.
H
Harpazo
Guest
First off, I’ve noticed nothing but uncharitable, snide, and narcissistic remarks from you throughout this entire thread. You flaunt the term “Roman Catholic” extremely loosely, but this is clearly a misnomer on your part. Roman Catholics are only a part of the Catholic Church, albeit one of the largest parts.Think of it in parts of the body. The fingers are different from the toes, but still are a part of the body and have many of the same characteristics.
To call one being in protest to God’s one true church is to call one a heretic, which is not any more charitable than if I said “all Roman Catholics are heretics”. I have no doubt that I’d get banned for such a comment, so yes, it’s uncharitable to say such things.
Now hypothetically, for someone to call Catholics heretics is laughable. I know you haven’t said it directly, but you’ve tended to hint at it in your posts. If Catholics are heretics, how would that make Protestants not Heretics? Assume a human mother gives birth to children. If the mother erred and made mistakes ( as Protestants proclaim) does that make the children not human, but elephants or other creatures superior to the mother? Food for thought…
It doesn’t take much to see that Protestantism is separate from the Truth. You needn’t go any farther than your phone book.
I myself call Protestants, Protestants. They continually protest against the Church and even against each other. Now for one to call Catholics “Protestants” b/c we protest the divisions and “right to interpret” is erroneous to the core. Considering we were here first, we protest nothing and proclaim only Truth.
Pace e Bene
Andrew
T
Teflon93
Guest
At some point, PC Master will look up the definitions of terms he throws around.
To call one being in protest to God’s one true church is to call one a heretic, which is not any more charitable than if I said “all Roman Catholics are heretics”. I have no doubt that I’d get banned for such a comment, so yes, it’s uncharitable to say such things.
To call someone a Protestant is not synonymous with calling one a heretic. The Church’s teaching is quite clear in the Catechism. As for getting banned, non-Catholics have not so much as earned a warning for claiming Catholics non-Christian. I can attest to this as well; I’m sure others can. The position of the Forum seems to be “Make 'em prove their assertion”—which Church Militant and I, among others, have done. Needless to say, they couldn’t prove any such thing.
Of course, those who understand what heresy means also understand it requires authority. Few Protestant communities have sufficient authoritative bodies to declare anyone among them a heretic, even at the fullest extent of the definition.
Despite PC Master’s hysteria, the vast majority of Protestants today cannot be claimed to be heretics because they a) have not been sufficiently exposed to Catholic teaching and b) have not explicitly rejected it and c) are not Catholics and therefore not subject to correction.
Ex-Catholics may fall into this category, depending on their particular circumstance.
Feel free to demonstrate your lack of charity and wisdom through such ridiculous statements, though, PC. A bad example is often instructive too.
H
Hellisreal
Guest
I do not refer to non trinitarians as Christians. I simply will call them by the name of their denomination ie: Jw, ect.
Anyone who proclaims the Triune God I call a Christian, or if their preference is to be called by the name of a sinner- a mere man in the case of Lutherans, I am happy to oblige and call them Lutherans.
Anyone who proclaims the Triune God I call a Christian, or if their preference is to be called by the name of a sinner- a mere man in the case of Lutherans, I am happy to oblige and call them Lutherans.
T
Teflon93
Guest
Ultimately, Protestants will continue to be called Protestants simply because there is no other descriptive label for non-Catholic non-Orthodox Christian communities birthed in the various Reformation movements.
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
Go to Wikipedia and type in “Diet of Speyer”. Obviously you don’t accept anything that Wiki says at face value, it could have been edited by some radical bigot of either persuasion. However the broad outline will be correct, and there are also links to other material.
The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t have an entry, though it mentions it briefly uder “diocese of Speyer”. However it has lots of material on the Reformation, all biased to the Catholic perspective, of course.
A
Atemi
Guest
That is honest. Thank you.
So it would indeed be accurate to label you as a Protestant as well.
A
Atemi
Guest
You might want to try Christian…or evangelical Christian…or baptist Christian…or methodist Christian.
That may be quite too painful for some who ironically expect no less from others…but we can at least ask.
…
- Status