Skip to comments.The Reality of Romanism
Posted on 05/17/2007 10:08:04 AM PDT by Gamecock
click here to read article
And you attempt to do what with staements like that?
If you noticed, I said Harnack was one of many. You can also include Phillip Schaff, whom Roman Catholics are fond of citing when they think Schaff supports RC positions.
Are you denying that Roman popes have not been found to be heretics?
Wrong, but like most later doctrines and Rome's revised versions of history, Roman Catholics read the present paradigm back into past history, writings and Scripture where they do not exist.
And it is not represented by the Roman Catholic religion.
That makes more sense than the Catholic position of believing in post-Biblical miracles but insisting that the miracles of the "old testament" are nothing but "mythology."
Where do you find that to be the Catholic position?
Perhaps I worded myself imprecisely. It is indeed the position of the majority of modern Catholics and is near universal among the clergy, theologians, and the "well educated." The Catholic proclivity for evolution and higher criticism of the "old testament" is well-known and is in no need of proof. The Pope himself is an evolutionist, as was his predecessor. So far as I know, the last pope who might not have been an evolutionist was Paul VI, and even the "arch-conservative" Pius XII, just a year or two after issuing the allegedly "anti-evolution" encyclical Humani Generis read a statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences which said that there was absolutely no doubt that some evolution of the human body had taken place. It is also indisputable that contemporary Catholic publications frequently attack Biblical inerrancy and promote "critical theories" of the TaNa"KH that were popularized by late nineteenth century German Protestant scholars. And editions of the Bible that teach these theories in the commentary have long received the nihil obstat and imprimatur, which are SUPPOSED to indicate that nothing taught in the work is contrary to Catholic doctrine.
But one example that particularly sticks in my mind at the present moment is the difference in the way the two solar miracles of Joshua and Fatima are treated. The former (related in the Biblical Book of Joshua) is regarded as an embarrassment on the level of geocentrism, something to be explained away as a scandalous obstruction to the conversion of scientists and intellectuals. The latter, though not officially required as an article of belief, is widely held by a majority of Catholics without causing the least bit of embarrassment or scandal. Apparently scientists and intellectuals are not as offended by the sun dancing at Fatima as they are it standing still for Joshua, though both are just as contrary to the laws of science. What can I conclude but that the miracle of Fatima is a "Catholic" miracle but that of Joshua, being Biblical, is "Jewish" or "Protestant" and somehow threatening to contemporary Catholics?
I hope I have explained myself.
Would your heart leap for joy upon hearing the truth, even though it would be bitter in the stomach, or are you a permanent resident in Hotel Know-it-all? World’s full of them out there, lots of them even on FR.
Or should have been, anyway. Pope Alexander VI, anyone?
"What you bound on earth shall be bound in heaven. And what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"...."Whoever hears you, hears me."..."If he will not listen to the Church, let him be to you as a heathen or tax collector."
That's a grant of personal authority. Power to bind with legislation, power to teach authoritatively, and power to excommunicate. Not absolute authority no, but an authority insofar as the Church is the ultimate judge on certain key matters of religion.
The Apostolic Tradition was recorded in the Scriptures, and was and is passed on to every genuine believer, so said 98% of the Church Fathers.
98% eh? I'd be surprised if it was 2%. Let's see some quotes.
Please refrain from confusing the issue with facts, sir!
Are there or are there not legends about George Washington? Chopped down the cherry tree?
Whoa! That invalidates the whole thing, then! America is a corrupt whore of Babylon...you can't trust any history book any American writes about him! How dare we celebrate a holiday in Washington's honor!
I frankly expect better from you, Dr. Eckleburg....that sort of historical hyper-criticism is a stupidity invented by the left.
No fair unless you post the full comic! LOL.
I promise to remember, and I love the Irish. They're white Italians, as far as I can tell. :)Though I do ask forgivness in advance, should I forget. La vecchiaia, don't you know. To save you the google trouble that means old age.
At 51, when I try to use that as an exuse with my Mom, she replies in her sweet, and mishevious broken English, you got a long way to go, baby!
Not to worry, that happens to me a lot.
Though when he was younger, he did have cherubic cheeks...
I'll have to check out his youtube debut later, and thanks.
You are even younger than me! I’ll be 53 this September.
White Italians indeed! More like the Italians are Irish who eat olives :>)
Jack Chick is not allowed here at all, we want nothing to do with hate mongers.
Only if a legitimate church and only if the church is not teaching false doctrine and other teachings contrary to God, which the Roman religion does.
98% eh? I'd be surprised if it was 2%. Let's see some quotes.
Will you drop the Roman pretense of papal supremacy when I present the quotes? Yes or no?
Irrelevant. George Washington never claimed to be the one, true, only church or the supreme leader of not only the church but the temporal world too.
It amounts to another form of demonization.
As God wills.
Where does it say that in Scripture?
Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ because God ordained that He Himself would live and suffer and die like a man in order to satisfy His perfect justice. And so Christ was born of a woman.
But it is Christ we should be worshipping, not the earthly vessel that bore Him which to most Protestant minds again smacks of idolatry.
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Colossians 1:16-17
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Colossians 1:16-17
That sounds pretty conclusive. And there's no distinction being made among men. There is Jesus Christ...and then there's everyone else in need of Jesus Christ.
Prove it. Mere assertions are a dime a dozen.
Another straw man. At some point it becomes clear that there is no intention of avoiding misrepresenting the Church's position; rather the sense is that you are seeking to malign her.
That's not "misrepresentation;" that's evidence.
I don’t doubt you, dear brother in Christ!
But all "evidence" must be rightly interpreted. (Since you don't believe in interpretation, you frequently misinterpret things.) And bowing does not necessarily imply worship. It can also be a sign of honor or respect. For example, after the deacon incenses the congregation, he bows toward the congregation. In doing so, he is not worshipping the congregation. And the same is true when we bow or kneel before an icon or image of a saint to pray.
Such a defense is a non sequiter in itself. The "right interpretation" has to be interpreted itself, namely by each party who inquires of it after the fact. This is necessary, and should be expected due to each/any/all language/time/location/culture/education differences and displacements that fall between the original interpretation and the subsequent audience.
It's simply not factual, nor logical, to claim that personal interpretations aren't needed (or even that they don't occur) following a "right interpretation", nor to claim that no personal misinterpretation can occur during the transmission of a previous "right interpretation".
Only arguments can be non sequiturs. So which of my arguments was a non sequitur?
The "right interpretation" has to be interpreted itself,
You just stepped into an infinite regress, for now the right interpretation of the right interpretation must be interpreted, and so on ad infinitum.
But I never used the term "right interpretation". I said that evidence must be "rightly intepreted".
It's simply not factual, nor logical, to claim that personal interpretations aren't needed (or even that they don't occur) following a "right interpretation",
I never claimed that personal interpretations are not needed or don't occur following a "right interpretation".
nor to claim that no personal misinterpretation can occur during the transmission of a previous "right interpretation".
I never claimed that either.
Prove it. Mere assertions are a dime a dozen.
Yes, I know the Roman mere assertions and twisting of Scripture and inventing history are a dime a dozen.
You see, Roman Catholics have been force-fed the false teaching that, the Roman church is to be believed and obeyed, without question, blindly, unconditionally, no matter what. So, when you cite a passage such as you did that says "listen to the church", etc, you see it through that lens of blind, unconditional obedience, when there is the precedence of obeying God and the Truth over that of men.
When the gospel first began being preached in Jerusalem, the "one true only church and supreme rulers" at that time ordered Peter and the disciples to stop preaching the Gospel.
Pay close attention to Peter's reply at the end.
24 Now when the high priest,[b] the captain of the temple, and the chief priests heard these things, they wondered what the outcome would be. 25 So one came and told them, saying,[c] Look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people! 26 Then the captain went with the officers and brought them without violence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned. 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 saying, Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Mans blood on us! 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: We ought to obey God rather than men.
Paul commends the Bereans for not blindly believing his preaching, but checking the Scriptures to see if Paul's preaching was true.
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
Paul goes further to say that if he or anyone, even an angel of God preached another gospel and another Jesus than what he had preached, that they should be eternally damned.
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
God has never required unconditional, blind obedience and believing of anyone who purports to be proclaiming something to be true. Quite the contrary, as Peter and Paul both stress, the first obligation is to obey and please God, not men who teach false doctrine.
Rome requires unconditional, blind obedience contrary to the clear teaching of Jesus, Peter, Paul and the Scriptures.
Jesus and the Apostles warned of false teachers and false prophets, who would come looking like the real thing, but are wolves in sheep's clothing, meaning they are deceivers, treacherous and stealthy.
Once again, pay attention to Paul's strong comment in Galatians:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Rome preaches another gospel than what Jesus, Paul and the Apostles preached.
Rome makes it absolutely necessary for salvation belief in the Assumption of Mary.
Rome makes it absolutely necessary for salvation belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Rome makes it absolutely necessary for salvation belief in Roman Papal Infallibility.
Rome makes it absolutely necessary for salvation belief in Purgatory.
Those are to name just a few additions which pervert the Gospel of Christ, thus preaching another gospel, which is not good news at all, but is bondage making whereas Jesus came to set His sheep free.
Rome has practiced deceit in it's increase of papal power since the medieval period, with it's use of fraudulent, forged, deceitful manufacturing of forged documents that it used to make it appear that the Roman pope had held spiritual and temporal supremacy from antiquity, with fraudulent documents like "The Donation of Constantine", "Liber Pontificalis" and especially the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals", which became the basis for RC canon law, all of them deliberate frauds.
Therefore, the RCC preaches a false gospel, seized power by treacherous deceit, deliberate fraud and intrigue, and by the authority of Scripture is NOT a legitimate church, is a false teacher and false prophet, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
We obey God, not men in Rome claiming to be supreme rulers when their claims are self assuming and fraudulent.
Your forum, your rules. However, the very title of the thread, its “pack calls” to others in “Pings,” and comments like this:
make me wonder why Catholic apologists bother? We are bound to by our Faith, I guess.
The triumphalist “Rome goading” is evident in this and other threads on FR. I will acquiesce to your ban on Jack Chick images and will post no more. I beg you to consider, however, that there is no discussion going on here really—just camps warring at one another goaded by provocateurs. And, YOU know it and I know it.
I just pray that some “lurkers” can see the Truth and have the Spirit move them accordingly.
In obedience R.M.,
Francis Xavier Sheed
a Roman Catholic, one billion strong and growing...
I didn't know this was for scoring points. I thought it was a search for the Revealed Truth. Should we figure out a way to post a scoreboard? Perhaps we could force a surtax on religious threads or something?
In a certain sense, the “truth” (about this thread) has been revealed.
Bless you! Remind me to buy you a Guinness if I ever learn your identity!
Concerning the blasphemous practice of praying to Mary, angels or the spirits of saints who have departed earthly existence, listen to these church fathers.
In writing against a certain Celsus who was introducing the practice of praying to departed spirits, Origen sound condemns the practice;
But, conformably to our hypothesis, let this knowledge of them, which is something wonderful and mysterious, be obtained. Then this knowledge, making known to us their nature, and the offices to which they are severally appointed, WILL NOT PERMIT US to pray with confidence TO ANY OTHER THAN TO THE SUPREME GOD, who is sufficient for all things, and that through our Saviour the Son of God, who is the Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and everything else which the writings of God's prophets and the apostles of Jesus entitle Him....And being persuaded that the sun himself, and moon, and stars pray to the Supreme God through His only-begotten Son, we judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers to God, seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer between God and them....Celsus forgets that he is addressing Christians, who PRAY TO GOD ALONE through Jesus"---Against Celsus, 5:4-5, 5:11, 8:37
Origen comments that Christians pray only to God:
"For every prayer, and supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest, who is above all the angels, the living Word and God. And to the Word Himself shall we also pray and make intercessions, and offer thanksgivings and supplications to Him, if we have the capacity of distinguishing between the proper use and abuse of prayer. For to invoke angels without having obtained a knowledge of their nature greater than is possessed by men, would be contrary to reason."
In his condemnation of praying to angels, Origen makes it emphatic that to God and God ONLY do Christians pray.
Yet another Church Father, Irenaeus wrote:
"Nor does she [the church] perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, DIRECTING HER PRAYERS TO THE LORD, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error....The altar, then, is in heaven (for towards that place are our prayers and oblations directed)"----Against Heresies, 2:32:5, 4:18:6
Notice in what direction and to whom Ireneaus states our prayers are to be directed: 'TO THE LORD".
Notice that Irenaeus also condemns invoking angels, as is also practiced by Roman Catholics, saying, "Nor does she [the church] perform anything by means of angelic invocations"
Now lets consider Cyprian. Cyprian wrote a treatise on The Lord's Prayer, a treatise that addresses prayer in general, even though it focuses on that one prayer in the gospels. He describes prayer as something done "in God's sight", something directed to God, not to people:
"Let us consider that we are standing in God's sight. We must please the divine eyes both with the habit of body and with the measure of voice. For as it is characteristic of a shameless man to be noisy with his cries, so, on the other hand, it is fitting to the modest man to pray with moderated petitions."---On the Lord's Prayer, 4
Later in the treatise, he explains that The Lord's Prayer addresses "all our prayer", which implies that we're to pray only to God, since The Lord's Prayer is addressed only to God:
"What wonder is it, beloved brethren, if such is the prayer which God taught, seeing that He condensed in His teaching all our prayer in one saving sentence? This had already been before foretold by Isaiah the prophet, when, being filled with the Holy Spirit, he spoke of the majesty and loving-kindness of God, 'consummating and shortening His word,' He says, 'in righteousness, because a shortened word will the Lord make in the whole earth.'"---On the Lord's Prayer, 28)
In other words, Cyprian considers The Lord's Prayer to be an outline for all prayer, which necessarily excludes praying to anybody but God.
But later, Cyprian tells us that we pray to "NOTHING BUT THE LORD", "TO GOD ALONE":
"Moreover, when we stand praying, beloved brethren, we ought to be watchful and earnest with our whole heart, intent on our prayers. Let all carnal and worldly thoughts pass away, nor let the soul at that time think on anything but the object only of its prayer. For this reason also the priest, by way of preface before his prayer, prepares the minds of the brethren by saying, 'Lift up your hearts,' that so upon the people's response, 'We lift them up unto the Lord,' he may be reminded that he himself ought to think of nothing but the Lord. Let the breast be closed against the adversary, and be open to TO GOD ALONE"---On the Lord's Prayer, 31
Throughout the treatise, Cyprian instructs the reader how to pray to God, and he repeatedly says that he's addressing all of our prayers in this treatise, yet he says nothing of praying to Mary, praying to Joseph, praying to angels, or praying to anybody else other than God. Rather, he describes prayer as an act of worship and reverence to God, something addressed to God alone. An angel might bring our prayers to God, as we see in the book of Revelation, for example, but the prayer is to be addressed only to God. That's the Protestant view of prayer, it's the Biblical view, and it's the view of the earliest church fathers.
Why don't you believe them?
It seems that practice had crept in, being taught by Celsus, which motivated Origen to write against it. Alas, it came back in the Roman religion.
>> Are you denying that Roman popes have not been found to be heretics? <<
One council found that a pope (Liberius?) in the 4th century anathematized a previous pope, and a heresy they believed him to have promulgated. The pope in question, however, was imprisoned by Rome (Constantinus?), and likely did not sign the proclamation of his own free will. Therefore, it is highly questionnable whether the pope had truly held false doctrine, or committed the sin of caving into ungodly secular forces.
>> You can also include Phillip Schaff, whom Roman Catholics are fond of citing when they think Schaff supports RC positions. <<
Ah, yes... Philip Schaff. He was tried for heresy for holding positions which were “too Catholic.” Then, he reaches far more counter-Catholic positions, and continues to secure cooshy jobs. While I can see why Catholics may cite his early conclusions, he is not the best candidate for an appeal to authority, when citing his later counter-Catholic positions.
I’m trying to think who are you going to cite next in a race for less credible theologians, Howard Dean, Leon Trotsky, or Jim Jones?
You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you whose interpretation of Scripture is *not* authoritative. I asked you whose interpretation of Scripture *is* authoritative.
Here's Origin, uncensored
For to invoke angels without having obtained a knowledge of their nature greater than is possessed by men, would be contrary to reason...But because Celsus has not read our holy Scriptures, he gives himself an answer as if it came from us, saying that we "assert that the angels who come down from heaven to confer benefits on mankind are a different race from the gods," and adds that "in all probability they would be called demons by us:" not observing that the name "demons" is not a term of indifferent meaning like that of "men," among whom some are good and some bad, nor yet a term of excellence like that of "the gods," which is applied not to wicked demons, or to statues, or to animals, but (by those who know divine things) to what is truly divine and blessed; whereas the term "demons" is always applied to those wicked powers, freed from the encumbrance of a grosser body, who lead men astray, and fill them with distractions and drag them down from God and supercelestial thoughts to things here below.
What Origin is condemning is praying to a pagan god, which Celsus has supposed may be angels, for fear such "angels" are, in fact, demons. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm The chapters are very short, and this context should become quite plain from chapters 2 to 5. In chapters 8 through 9, again, Origin criticizes bowing to angels, but here it is plain he is referring to astrology. "Angels" simply means "messengers," and the "messengers" Irenaeus refers to are not Gabriel or Michael, but stars and planets, including one planet known to Romans as Lucifer.
I think the thread has been very informative — even all the removed comments.
I don’t know whose they were, but I have a good idea.
Meant to ping you, too, and thank you for your very enlightening comments. I’ve learned a lot.