Radio Replies First Volume Adventists

I think you summarize my point very nicely, although I would submit that the bias was not limited to "restorationist" sects, per se. This doctrine existed throughout Protestantism.

And I would agree with you on that point. I would counter, however, that in restorationism the Catholic Church's existence takes on a much larger significance than it does in Reformed circles in two ways. For the restorationist, the Catholic Church embodies not just false doctrine, but is directly to blame for a "great apostasy." And secondly, the restorationist is deeply dispensational-premillennial in eschatology (as opposed to the amillennialist/postmillennialist Reformers, and the classic premillennial anabaptists). Not only is the Catholic Church to blame for the apostasy, it's the "great whore of Babylon" in a coming Tribulation, too! And IMO it was that view that was being advanced and popularized by pentecostals and restorationists at the turn of the century, going way beyond what the Westminster Confession's article 25 and other Reformed views taught, that the Catholic apologists were reacting to in the historical analysis you advanced.

Remember a couple of years ago when I started posting the anti-Papal portions of the founding documents from the traditional Protestant denominations? (e.g., Smalcald, Westminster, Savoy) These articles were not retracted until well into the 20th Century (and, in the case of some denominations that have further splintered since the Reformation, haven't been retracted to this date( I will be the first to state, however, that the degree to which these positions are actively taught is, especially in these days, minimal, particularly when one considers the very active nature of the Restorationist sects, so I would hate to make something like that a sticking point.

I agree - and that reinforces my point about Restorationist activites at the turn of last century.

I bring the above up because it's apparent that many of the questions received and answered through these books appear to be, not only from Restorationist Protestants, but from Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Reformation Protestants, as well.

Not neccesarewly. IMO it would be wrong to just gloss over the strong doctrinal differences (i.e. the Council of Trent) between Catholics and their "seperated brethren" in their "defective ecclesiastical communities", and between the "separated brethren" themselves.

To their discredit, of most Catholic apologetics (but not these articles) usually lump together the worst traits of each group, and then accuse/blame every "Protestant" group (Reformed, Anabaptist, Restorationist, Pentecostal, Evangelical, etc) of jointly believing in all of them. GonzoII's articles are the first I've seen that actually take the time to address individual groups of non-Catholic believers. Hopefully both sides will learn something from them.

Case in point - prior to reading these articles, I'd like to know if you thought that I myself, as a Protestant, believed in a "great apostasy" that removed the gospel from history until [pick a date], in the "trail of blood" maintaining a "pure church" through history, in a Catholic Pope being the Anti-Christ of the coming Great Tribulation?

I think that it is fortunate, though, that both sides of the argument have stepped back from the brink in recent decades.

GonzoII still posted these threads, didn't he? :D Seriously, I don't fault these threads in the slightest for being blunt. Not as long as those same Catholics don't rail against non-Catholics for being blunt in offering their side, too.

I would counter, however, that in restorationism the Catholic Church's existence takes on a much larger significance than it does in Reformed circles in two ways. For the restorationist, the Catholic Church embodies not just false doctrine, but is directly to blame for a "great apostasy." And secondly, the restorationist is deeply dispensational-premillennial in eschatology (as opposed to the amillennialist/postmillennialist Reformers, and the classic premillennial anabaptists).

True, that. And I'm not really talking about active preaching, just a deep-in prejudice (and, in honesty, that existed on both sides to varying degrees in each). For example, in the town where I grew up, the populace was basically half Lutheran and half Catholic. The two groups mostly kept to themselves socially, particularly in the school environment...and there was always sort of an uneasy peace. But I understand from relatives down south that Catholics were regarded with far more hostility down south where there was a higher proportion of Baptists (in fact, in the area where my wife came from, there was still occasional violence, though the Klan stopped operating in that area years before).

But this undercurrent (to varying degrees) is what I'm talking about.

And IMO it was that view that was being advanced and popularized by pentecostals and restorationists at the turn of the century, going way beyond what the Westminster Confession's article 25 and other Reformed views taught, that the Catholic apologists were reacting to in the historical analysis you advanced.

You are right, for the most part. But I believe that the undercurrent I spoke of above would likely color many of the questions received by the good fathers, in any case.

Remember that a lot of folks were totally unfamiliar with Catholicism in that time.

To their discredit, of most Catholic apologetics (but not these articles) usually lump together the worst traits of each group, and then accuse/blame every "Protestant" group (Reformed, Anabaptist, Restorationist, Pentecostal, Evangelical, etc) of jointly believing in all of them. GonzoII's articles are the first I've seen that actually take the time to address individual groups of non-Catholic believers. Hopefully both sides will learn something from them.

That's true. Although I think that it would, in a written form, been more appropriate to specifically list those doctrines of each group in contradiction to the teachings of the Church and rebut them, forthrightly, one by one.

As is written in the Second Vatican Council Decree Unitatis Redintegratio (DECREE ON ECUMENISM):

9. We must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren. To achieve this purpose, study is of necessity required, and this must be pursued with a sense of realism and good will. Catholics, who already have a proper grounding, need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and general background…From such dialogue will emerge still more clearly what the situation of the Catholic Church really is. In this way too the outlook of our separated brethren will be better understood, and our own belief more aptly explained.

As you point out, all too many folks who identify themselves as "apologists" fall way short in this regard.

Case in point - prior to reading these articles, I'd like to know if you thought that I myself, as a Protestant, believed in a "great apostasy" that removed the gospel from history until [pick a date], in the "trail of blood" maintaining a "pure church" through history, in a Catholic Pope being the Anti-Christ of the coming Great Tribulation?

Alex, I think we've had this conversation before. Having said that, no, I don't believe that I have ever thought that about you. Although I am at a loss to place your exact denomination, I would say that, based on your postings, your theology comes out of a traditional reformed perspective, without the influence of Darby. As far as the Pope being the Anti-Christ, I don't know your attitude toward the 25th Article of the Westminster Confession is (although, if I would guess, I would suspect that you'd put it in a historical perspective considering the behavior of some of the popes in office during that period of history).

GonzoII still posted these threads, didn't he? :D Seriously, I don't fault these threads in the slightest for being blunt. Not as long as those same Catholics don't rail against non-Catholics for being blunt in offering their side, too.

I honestly don't know the motivation, though, considering GonzoII's posting history, I would suspect they are being posted as part of a "classic" work, much the same as other threads he's started. Myself, as I've indicated earlier, I don't really like the "in your face" stuff so much -- I don't think it contributes anything to a unity of faith that St. Paul spoke of, particularly in his first letter to the Corinthians. I think that it would be more appropriate to use "Catholic" sources to describe Catholicism, "Lutheran" sources to describe Lutheranism, and "Pentacostal" sources to describe "Pentacostalism." (That's not to say that you couldn't post something from a Catholic source and ask, "what's up with that?" or that I couldn't post a paper by a Reformed source and say, "this is wrong because...") My perspective is that we have a common enemy to deal with, regardless of our differences. If we're fighting each other, we'll be far less prepared to deal with our common enemy.

"What do you think of that?"

Great, I was going to add your previous CCC references any way since they are also crucial.

The only change I'll make is to add the fact that The Two Babylons was also published in pamphlet form in 1853 based on the information provided by Alex. BTW Thanks Alex.

Ping to read your "Message from Ralph Woodrow regarding the book BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION" later...

My original book [Babylon Mystery Religion] had some valuable information in it. But it also contained certain teachings that were made popular in a book many years ago, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop. This book claims that the very religion of ancient Babylon, under the leadership of Nimrod and his wife, was later disguised with Christian-sounding names, becoming the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, two “Babylons"—one ancient and one modern. Proof for this is sought by citing numerous similarities in paganism. The problem with this method is this: in many cases there is no connection.

"I honestly don't know the motivation, though, considering GonzoII's posting history, I would suspect they are being posted as part of a "classic" work, much the same as other threads he's started."

I do like the older works. But that aside just based on the great quantity of questions and answers provided in these volumes, they cannot but answer some questions some people may have about the Catholic faith; Protestant, Catholic, lurker or other.

"Seriously, I don't fault these threads in the slightest for being blunt. Not as long as those same Catholics don't rail against non-Catholics for being blunt in offering their side, too."

Can't argue there.

Frankly, I'm just a "blunt-head"... culture, character, education?? Don't ask me.

The problem with this method is this: in many cases there is no connection.

That, I think, is the biggest issue, with many of these conspiracy theories.

The one that I really love is the ones who try to connect the word "Easter" with pagan roots...condemning Catholicism for it. They don't connect the fact that the official language of the Church is Latin, not English, and that the Latin for Easter is Pascha (i.e., passover) (not to mention the fact that bunnies and eggs are not used outside of the Germanic-influenced countries (e.g., the countries that border the Med, the Iberian Peninsula, the Aegean, the near and middle eastern countries, etc. -- i.e., where Catholicism came from). So they condemn the whole holiday based upon Anglicizations of it used in this part of the world only.