DID I REALLY LEAVE THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH?

When I’m king of the universe there won’t be any “Why I converted” threads.

Let us thank God for what He did, in His grace and love , according to His eternal decrees, so that by the incarnation, atoning death and Hell-conquering resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, we who were once rebellious sinners have been counted as righteous, and look forward as strangers and exiles on this earth to the heavenly country, and “to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.”

THAT's a 10-4.

Uh. I mean, Amen.

What’s your point?

A nine-mile long post of one person’s delusions...how many Catholics have been converted by this garbage?

Ah...as I thought...

zero.

The Catholic Church, contrary to some Protestant accusations, has always honored the Bible, read it at Masses and other services, including the monastic hours of prayer, cited it, and preached from it.

But who decided which scriptures were canonical?

In other words, the sources that you cite all stress the basic importance of the scriptures, no argument there. And there is no argument that no doctrine can be CONTRARY to the Bible. But, as in the Jewish tradition, there is a parallel tradition of teaching and interpreting the scriptures.

Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide his Church, and said that He would be always with it until the end of the world. It would be a curious thing if the Church then went astray for about 1500 years and only got straightened out when Martin Luther came along. That would suggest that Luther did a better job of founding the Church than Jesus and the Apostles did, which I find a curious idea, especially after having read a number of his works as well as a number of accounts of his life. Of course there were abuses in the Church, as good Catholics also recognized at the time. But they were not fundamental departures from biblical teaching. Every Church, demonination, or sect contains abuses, because men are sinners. But Luther’s schism was not the proper “reform” of those abuses.

Now mad dawg you now we only discussed making you king of the universe when I became Empress of All Worlds.

Well, you certainly seem convinced of Luther’s doctrine. Do you tend to follow one of the reformed traditions or do you rely more upon a personal interpretation of scripture alone?

I would simply tell you the answer. The Bible is the Word of God. Since Jesus is the Word, they are one and the same.

If you cannot distinguish between the Word/Logos/Uncreated 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity and the Word of God/Scripture/the written account of God's revelation through the Holy Spirit then we have a problem. The Bible is not God.

[Why post this one again when it was posted just 8 months ago?

I guess the 800+ posts from last time weren't enough to satisfy the craving for a food fight.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All decisions about postings on FR fall strictly within the purview of the site owner, and by extension, through the Administrators, not FR members.

Sadly, some FR members attempt to control what is posted on FR. It is a practice that I have observed many, many times during my tenure here. It never has worked, and I don't believe ever will.

Additionally, the “desire for a food fight” comment does not, IMHO, add anything to the discussion. It appears to be a supportive statement towards an attempt at controlling posting on FR.

FR’s Religious forum rules are perfectly clear to any adult reader, and within the constraints of those rules, anything is up for discussion. If it gets too hot in the kitchen for a FR member, he/she should consider moving on to another forum, or at least “taking his/her fingers off the keyboard, and stepping away from the computer”, and returning after a sufficient cool down period.

I enjoy reading posts from Protestants, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, Jews, LDS, etc. about their religion, beliefs, apologetics, etc. Why have a religious discussion forum if religious issues, agreements, and disagreements can't be discussed? And how often they are discussed is not up to individual FR members.

I don't need (and I believe the majority of FReepers don't need) gatekeeper and information controller actions from other FR members..

If that was what I was looking for, there are sufficient leftist sites that I could go hang around on.

Since Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church has liberalized its attitude toward evangelicals. In spite of this, there has been a considerable exodus of Roman Catholics into evangelical churches. This is due in part to aggressive evangelism by evangelicals, exposure to Scripture through involvement in Bible studies and the witness of friends and family who were former Roman Catholics.

This would also be due to a poor state of catechesis within the Catholic Church...

I have been a part of that movement. I was born and raised Roman Catholic, attending parochial schools and a Benedictine monastery in high school. I was thoroughly catechized in Roman Catholic theology.

I remember chatting, at length, with another so-called "well catechized" former Catholic. He was extremely misinformed about his former Faith. Since he had gone through so much "education" during his lifetime, though, he had developed an extreme case of arrogance...there was ZERO possibility that he had not been well educated and there was ZERO possibility that he was misinformed through that education.

I speak here about somebody else, so let us continue on with our review of this individual's writings to see if he is, likewise, misinformed.

But as a teen I followed in the path of many young people in turning from the church to a life of sin and rebellion. By the time I was nineteen years old I was a disillusioned alcoholic.

Ah-hah! So he fell off the wagon long before he got lured by a heretic (oops, sorry). Also of interest is the fact that he apparently fell into some rough crowd PRIOR to attending this Benedictine monastary as a high school. (One becomes a teen while in middle school. If he fell into a life of sin as a teen, this may have happened prior to his entrance into the high school)

At twenty-four, through the witness of evangelical Protestants, I was converted to Jesus Christ. I joined a Protestant church, not because of an anti-Catholic attitude, but because it was through this church I had come to know Christ, and now I had a deep desire to know more of God's Word.

Praise God that somebody was able to bring him to a knowledge of God. (I always say better a good Protestant than a bad Catholic)

I was completely ignorant of major differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.

And, of course, the best place to hear about those differences is in a Protestant church.

Over a number of years, exposure to God's Word deepened my understanding of salvation and fueled a desire to share it with others, particularly Roman Catholic friends.

That, too, is typical of ex-Catholics.

Eventually, I studied Roman Catholic teaching carefully, finally writing a book on the subject.

Pity that he didn't decide to do so while still a Catholic.

Shortly after writing my book I read Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism. Here I encountered a very aggressive Roman Catholic lay apologist attempting to validate the authority of the church and its traditions from church history, an area that most Protestants, including myself at the time, knew little about. His book underscored an issue often overlooked or misunderstood by Protestants-because of this, most contemporary Protestants do not properly understand Roman Catholics.

Lordy, ain't that one the truth.

The issue Keating raises is truth: What is it? Who has it? and How do you know? The Protestant thinks of truth as one dimensional — sola scriptura — ultimate truth and authority is in Scripture alone. But for many Roman Catholics truth is not so one dimensional. For the Roman Catholic, the church is ultimate truth and authority, not Scripture. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church affirms the full inspiration of Scripture, it is not the only truth or ultimate and final authority. The ultimate and final authority is the church. It is this Roman Catholic position that Keating attempts to argue on historical grounds.

Best thing to do is to quote a little of what Keating actually said:

Here is how Arnold Lunn put it in a 1932 letter to C. E. M. Joad:
We now approach the Bible, and appraoch it in the same spirit as that in which we should approach any other human document. We do not believe the Bible merely because it is the Bible, but because we are convinced of its veracity by rational inferences similar in kind to those which convince us of other historical facts. We do not, for instance, accept the fact that Christ rose from the dead merely because we find the Resurrection recorded in the Gospels; we accept the Resurrection because, of all theories which have been put forward to explain the origin of Christianity, the only theory which fits all the facts is the theory that Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God and proved his claim by rising from the dead …The Roman Catholic, then, claims to prove from the BIble, which he is still treating as a purely human document, that Christ intended to found an infallible Church. Where, then, is this Church? The Roman Catholic Church alone possesses, so the Catholic believes, all the "notes" which enable us to distinguish between the Church which Christ founded and its heretical rivals. The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Christ was God, that Christ founded an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the church in question. Having travelled thus far by reason unaided by authority, it is not irrational to trust the authority, whose credentials have been proved by reason, to interpret difficult passages in the Bible.⁵

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church's infallibility and the Church's infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument.
What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. From that we conclude an infallible Church was founded. Then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. It reduces to the proposition that, without the existence of the Church, we could not tell if the Bible were inspired. As Augustine said, "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."⁶
What has just been discussed is not, obviously, the kind of mental exercise people go through before putting trust in the Bible, but it is the only truly reasonable wasy to do so. Every other way is inferior -- psychologically adequate, perhaps, but actually inferior. In mathematics we accept on "faith" that one and one make two and that one, when added to any integer, will produce the next-highest integer. These truths seem elementary to us, and we are satisfied to take such things at face value, but apprentice mathematicians must go through a semester's course the whole of which is taken up demonstrating such "obvious" truths. Fundamentalists are quite right in believing the Bible is inspired, but their reasons for so believing are inadequate because knowledge of the inspiration of the Bible can be based only on an authority established by God to tell us the Bible is inspired, and that authority is the Church.

Keating continues on these lines for several pages and then arrives at a key point: without the Church's teaching authority, any number of interpretations can be made of Scripture.
Just look here on Free Republic: there are a whole HOST of different belief systems within those who identify themselves as Christians but who reject that teaching authority. There are some who accept the Trinity and others who don't. There are some who believe that an infant may be baptized and some who believe that only an adult may be validly baptized. There are those who believe that a valid baptism may be done by infusion, there are others who firmly declare that the only baptism is an immersion baptism. There are those who believe the Eucharist is transformed into the Body of Christ when consecrated; there are others who believe it is just a cookie. The only unifying force among non-Catholics is a hatred of Rome. If it weren't for Catholics, you all would be at each other's throats.
Continuing on with the article:
What we are dealing with here are basic presuppositions about authority that have direct bearing on how one approaches Scripture. From a Roman Catholic perspective, what the conflict over the interpretation of Scripture boils down to is this: the 'infallible church' versus fallible individuals who have rebelled against the 'ultimate authority,' which was established by Christ.
As I said above.
Was the Protestant Reformation truly justified, or did the Reformers forsake the faith of the early church and introduce novel doctrines?
A more valid point that the author seems to ignore is if the Great Western Schism (what the author calls the "Protestant Reformation") was truly justified, then I would imagine that the so-called "reformers" would have identified "the Truth" (capital "T") and then rightfully broken from Rome when Rome refused to accept "the Truth" (capital "T"). If it were the "Truth" that was discovered by these folks, then why in the world did even the three main "reformers" not agree on the "Truth?" Calvin hardly agrees with Zwingli. Neither of them agree, in any stretch of the imagination, with Luther. But how could all three of them have "the Truth" and yet disagree. And we haven't even gone into later "reformers," such as Darby, Scofield, and Bullinger. Each of them claimed to have "the Truth" … to say nothing of the charismatics ...
The Roman Catholic Church claims that it alone is the one true church established by Christ and boasts of a two-thousand-year consensus for its teachings. It places under anathema — that is, it condemns to hell, unless there is repentance — all who disagree with her teachings,2 anathemas that, it is important to add, have never been repudiated.
1 Cor 16:22 If any one has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed (anathema). Our Lord, come!
Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema).
The Creed of Nicea We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (?e??????ta), not made, being of one substance (?µ???s???, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (?? p?te ?te ??? ??), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
Council of Constantinople I, Canon 5 Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God.
Anathema 2 of St. Cyril against Nestorius, Council of Ephesus If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema.
The claim of the author that the Catholic Church anathemizes those who do not agree with her teachings is correct. But, the term anathema could, perhaps, be better explained by the author. He said, anathema — that is, it condemns to hell, unless there is repentance — That isn't exactly correct. Rather, it should be considered more like a shunning, in the hopes of final salvation. The old ritual went along these lines (according to the Catholic Encyclopedia):
"Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

Compare this to scripture. Paul tells the Church in Corinth to do the following to one who fornicates with his father's wife: you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Cor 5:5). Or look at what St. Paul did to Hymenaeus and Alexander. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, among them Hymenae'us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Tim 1:19b-20)
The footnote #3 to the article states, Irenaeus expresses the principle of universality, antiquity, and consent: (1) Universality: 'The universal church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the apostles' (Against Heresies II.9.1); (2) Antiquity: 'True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles and the ancient constitution of the church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops by which they have handed down that church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition, nor suffering curtailment in the truths which she believes' (Against Heresies IV.33.8); (3) Consent: 'The preaching of the church is everywhere consistent and continues in an even course and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples' (Against Heresies III.24.1).
Let's get the context correct here. The author of the article claims that Irenaeus stated, (1) Universality: 'The universal church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the apostles' (Against Heresies II.9.1);
Adv. Haer. II.9.1, does state:
1. That God is the Creator of the world is accepted even by those very persons who in many ways speak against Him, and yet acknowledge Him, styling Him the Creator, and an angel, not to mention that all the Scriptures call out [to the same effect], and the Lord teaches us of this Father who is in heaven, and no other, as I shall show in the sequel of this work. For the present, however, that proof which is derived from those who allege doctrines opposite to ours, is of itself sufficient,— all men, in fact, consenting to this truth: the ancients on their part preserving with special care, from the tradition of the first-formed man, this persuasion, while they celebrate the praises of one God, the Maker of heaven and earth; others, again, after them, being reminded of this fact by the prophets of God, while the very heathen learned it from creation itself. For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the apostles.

In context, the Irenaeus quote is a bit different.
The article's author states, (2) Antiquity: 'True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles and the ancient constitution of the church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops by which they have handed down that church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition, nor suffering curtailment in the truths which she believes' (Against Heresies IV.33.8);
What the author does not do is continue on with the rest of the thought:
8. True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes];and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].

Again, a slight change in meaning. Also, of importance, is that Irenaeus is contrasting orthodox Christianity with the heresies of Marcion, Valentinus, and the Ebionites (the purpose behind his writing this document at all).
Finally, the author quotes Irenaeus, (3) Consent: 'The preaching of the church is everywhere consistent and continues in an even course and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples' (Against Heresies III.24.1).
I'm not sure how he got "consent" out of this quote, but here is Irenaeus in context:
1. Thus, then, have all these men been exposed, who bring in impious doctrines regarding our Maker and Framer, who also formed this world, and above whom there is no other God; and those have been overthrown by their own arguments who teach falsehoods regarding the substance of our Lord, and the dispensation which He fulfilled for the sake of His own creature man. But [it has, on the other hand, been shown], that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples— as I have proved— through [those in] the beginning, the middle, and the end, and through the entire dispensation of God, and that well-grounded system which tends to man's salvation, namely, our faith; which, having been received from the Church, we do preserve, and which always, by the Spirit of God, renewing its youth, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel, causes the vessel itself containing it to renew its youth also. For this gift of God has been entrusted to the Church, as breath was to the first created man, for this purpose, that all the members receiving it may be vivified; and the [means of] communion with Christ has been distributed throughout it, that is, the Holy Spirit, the earnest of incorruption, the means of confirming our faith, and the ladder of ascent to God. For in the Church, it is said, God has set apostles, prophets, teachers, and all the other means through which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behaviour. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth. Those, therefore, who do not partake of Him, are neither nourished into life from the mother's breasts, nor do they enjoy that most limpid fountain which issues from the body of Christ; but they dig for themselves broken cisterns out of earthly trenches, and drink putrid water out of the mire, fleeing from the faith of the Church lest they be convicted; and rejecting the Spirit, that they may not be instructed.

I can see where the author could get "consistent" out of the above paragraph. I can see where the author can determine the end to those who don't keep their faith in accord with The Faith, but "consent?"
The bottom line is that this footnote does not substantiate the claim of the author. Neither does footnote #4. (I won't waste either of our time with it; if you'd like to look, you can go here and read the ENTIRE context).
So the author then hasn't proven the following premise:
To claim catholicity and apostolic authority, therefore, is not simply a matter of succession but, rather, a matter of conformity to apostolic doctrine and the test of universality, antiquity, and consent. Not only does it embody doctrines, but also the interpretation of Scripture.
I am afraid I don't quite comprehend the difference in the two concepts. They are so intertwined that I am not sure one can separate them.
Both Trent and Vatican I state that it is unlawful for anyone to interpret Scripture 'contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers.'5 These councils tell us that there is a test by which the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can be judged and validated-the test of history-as expressed in the principle of unanimous consent.
Again, I don't see the concept of "unanimous consent" being reflected anywhere. Otherwise, we'd have to reconcile Church teachings with Marcion and Arius. They were pretty prominent in their day, after all. The author cited Trent. Trent says: Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It [the Council] decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
You do see the term "unanimous consent" used there. But it says unanimous consent of the Fathers. It does not say "unanimous consent" of everybody, including heretics. And, think about it. If a Lutheran wishes to make a Lutheran interpretation of Scripture, he must stay within the bounds of Lutheran thought. If a Presbyterian interpreted scripture so as to nullify predestination, it wouldn't be very Calvinist now, would it. If a Free-Will Baptist wanted to interpret the accounts of conversion in the book of Acts to include the baptism of infants, he would be roundly criticized by his communion.
But that is not the author's point. The author's point is to set up a strawman in order to knock it down. His strawman has flaws, as shown above. Therefore, there is nothing to knock down.
There is one other point. The author cites St. Cyril as being a real "sola scriptura" man. He cites a long quote in the body of the text. What he doesn't do is to explain the context of the quote (as is his norm, throughout the article). St. Cyril's extant writings were a set of catechetical lectures that he delivered to those seeking to become Christians (read that "Catholics" or "Orthodox" -- take your pick). Naturally, as with the other patristic quotes, he takes this one out of context. You can look up the context for yourself.
However, within Lecture 18 (the individuals who had lecture 5 would have lecture 18 a couple of weeks later), he makes the following statements:
22. The Faith which we rehearse contains in order the following, And in one Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; and in one Holy Catholic Church; and in the resurrection of the flesh; and in eternal life. Now of Baptism and repentance I have spoken in the earliest Lectures; and my present remarks concerning the resurrection of the dead have been made with reference to the Article In the resurrection of the flesh. Now then let me finish what still remains to be said for the Article, In one Holy Catholic Church, on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly.
23. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly ; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.
24. And it is rightly named (Ecclesia) because it calls forth and assembles together all men; according as the Lord says in Leviticus, And make an assembly for all the congregation at the door of the tabernacle of witness . And it is to be noted, that the word assemble, is used for the first time in the Scriptures here, at the time when the Lord puts Aaron into the High-priesthood. And in Deuteronomy also the Lord says to Moses, Assemble the people unto Me, and let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me. And he again mentions the name of the Church, when he says concerning the Tables, And on them were written all the words which the Lord spoke with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the Assembly ; as if he had said more plainly, in the day in which you were called and gathered together by God. The Psalmist also says, I will give thanks unto You, O Lord, in the great Congregation; I will praise You among much people .
25. Of old the Psalmist sang, Bless ye God in the congregations, even the Lord, (ye that are) from the fountains of Israel . But after the Jews for the plots which they made against the Saviour were cast away from His grace, the Saviour built out of the Gentiles a second Holy Church, the Church of us Christians, concerning which he said to Peter, And upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And David prophesying of both these, said plainly of the first which was rejected, I have hated the Congregation of evil doers ; but of the second which is built up he says in the same Psalm, Lord, I have loved the beauty of Your house ; and immediately afterwards, In the Congregations will I bless you, O Lord . For now that the one Church in Judæa is cast off, the Churches of Christ are increased over all the world; and of them it is said in the Psalms, Sing unto the Lord a new song, His praise in the Congregation of Saints . Agreeably to which the prophet also said to the Jews, I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Almighty Malachi 1:10; and immediately afterwards, For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, My name is glorified among the Gentiles . Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, That you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
26. But since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly Acts 19:14), and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to you now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church; that you may avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which you were regenerated. And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (for it is written, As Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and all the rest,) and is a figure and copy of Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of us all; which before was barren, but now has many children.
27. For when the first Church was cast off, in the second, which is the Catholic Church, God has set, as Paul says, first Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, various kinds of tongues, and every sort of virtue, I mean wisdom and understanding, temperance and justice, mercy and loving-kindness, and patience unconquerable in persecutions. She, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, by honour and dishonour, in former days amid persecutions and tribulations crowned the holy martyrs with the varied and blooming chaplets of patience, and now in times of peace by God's grace receives her due honours from kings and those who are in high place, and from every sort and kindred of men. And while the kings of particular nations have bounds set to their authority, the Holy Church Catholic alone extends her power without limit over the whole world; for God, as it is written, has made her border peace . But I should need many more hours for my discourse, if I wished to speak of all things which concern her.
28. In this Holy Catholic Church receiving instruction and behaving ourselves virtuously, we shall attain the kingdom of heaven, and inherit eternal life; for which also we endure all toils, that we may be made partakers thereof from the Lord. For ours is no trifling aim, but our endeavour is for eternal life. Wherefore in the profession of the Faith, after the words, And in the resurrection of the flesh, that is, of the dead (of which we have discoursed), we are taught to believe also in the life eternal, for which as Christians we are striving.

I figure since the author cites St. Cyril as an authority, then we should really listen to St. Cyril. Including what I quoted above.
But, as I said, what makes this article unique is the quality of the strawman that the author attempts to set up. Otherwise, it's just more of the same.
Gamecock, I do appreciate you posting the above article. It was actually worth responding to (due to the unique method of its introduction). And I am certain that it will draw away some poorly-catechized Catholics, as is its intent. But, the problem with the Internet is that it is really easy to check footnotes.

Before you start attributing motives to me for pointing out that this is a duplicate thread, I’d advise you step away from the keyboard because that is not allowed on the Religion Forum (that’s not my rule, by the way). Nobody is trying to control what threads are posted on FR; this one has already be posted (which is fine by me) but my thoughts were that it would be better to carry on the discussion on the older thread instead of on a duplicate. I also thought that duplicate threads weren’t allowed because I know for a fact that previous duplicates have been locked or deleted. That may have been my mistake. If that doesn’t sit well with you, then too bad. You are not going to control my opinion or what I post. So buzz off.

I can’t help but notice that there have been quite a few comments in the past couple of days that are suggesting or implying that there are those on this forum who are either trying to control the forum or trying to dictate policy or even more devious—trying to shut the religion forum down.

I’m really amazed that such perceptions have been suggested as possibilities, but seemingly put forward as if they were just musings.

It makes me wonder if it hasn’t become one of those a “talking points” situations.

There would Be NO Western Civilization without the Catholic Monks.... They Educated They Gave Charity They Were The scientist they were the leaders in Farming Agriculture Printing Metallurgy winery Water Flow systems Well Maintenance Renewable Energy and they dedicated their life to GOD!

John 1:1

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Do you not understand that the Bible is a creation? It was written by people, prophets and saints, who were given revelations beyond what man can naturally know.

The Logos, the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity, who was incarnate as Christ Jesus, is an eternally begotten not created part of the Holy Trinity.

Do you think St. Paul’s letter to the Romans died on the Cross for you? Was the Gospel According to Mark resurrected on the third day? Did the Book of Revelations deliver the Sermon on the Mount?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” -John 1:1 Absolutely beautiful! Jesus is Lord and Savior! Amen?

Okay. Well, lissen here, Your Serenity, Is it okay with you if me an my regal homies ban the “how come I converted from this to that” threads?

Thanks for the digging! Wow.