It sounds like you forgot to take OFF those glasses. :o)
This work is quite extensive and extremely well-sourced and footnoted. It includes information such as:
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. vii. cap. i.
Socrates, Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. xxiii. xxiv.
Mosheim, cent. iv. chap. ii.
Taylor's Ancient Christianity, p. 443.
Ranke's History of the Popes, book i. chap. i. sec. i.; Bohn's edition, 1847.
And that's just a few from chapter two out of seven from the FIRST book. The entire document contains four books. I have a little doubt that you could have read it all in this short time.
Book Two, entitled Dogmas of the Papacy Chapter two makes a salient argument that I think is the gist of why we will always disagree with Catholicism:
Papists concur with Protestants in admitting that God is the source of all obligation and duty, and that the Bible contains a revelation of his will. But while the Papist admits that the Bible is a revelation of the will of God, he is far from admitting, with the Protestant, that it is the only revelation. He holds, on the contrary, that it is neither a sufficient rule of faith, nor the only rule; but that tradition, which he terms the unwritten word, is equally inspired and equally authoritative with the Bible. To tradition, then, the Papist assigns an equal rank with the Scriptures as a divine revelation. The Council of Trent, in its fourth session, decreed, "that all should receive with equal reverence the books of the Old and New Testament, and the traditions concerning faith and manners, as proceeding from the mouth of Christ, or inspired by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church; and that whosoever knowingly, and of deliberate purpose, despised traditions, should be anathema."[1] In the creed of the Council of Trent is the following article:-"I do most firmly receive and embrace the apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and other usages, of the Roman Church." "The Catholics," says Dr. Milner, "hold that the Word of God in general, both written and unwritten,-in other words, the Bible and tradition taken together,-constitute the rule of faith, or method appointed by Christ for finding out the true religion."[2] "Has tradition any connection with the rule of faith?" it is asked in Keenan's Controversial Catechism. "Yes," is the answer, "because it is a part of God's revealed Word,-properly called the unwritten Word, as the Scripture is called the written Word." "Are we obliged to believe what tradition teaches, equally with what is taught in Scripture?" "Yes, we are obliged to believe the one as firmly as the other."[3] We may state, that the traditions which the Church of Rome has thus placed on a level with the Bible are the supposed sayings of Christ and the apostles handed down by tradition. Of course, no proof exists that such things were ever spoken by those to whom they are imputed. They were never known or heard of till the monks of the middle ages gave them to the world. To apostolical is to be added ecclesiastical tradition, which consists of the decrees and constitutions of the Church. It is scarcely a true account of the matter to say that tradition holds an equal rank with the Bible: it is placed above it. While tradition is always employed to determine the sense of the Bible, the Bible is never permitted to give judgment on tradition. What, then, would the Church of Rome lose were the Bible to be set aside? Nothing, clearly. Accordingly, some of her doctors have held that the Scriptures are now unnecessary, seeing the Church has determined all truth.
In the second place, Papists make the Church the infallible interpreter of Scripture. The Church condemns all private judgment, interdicts all rational inquiry, and tells her members that they must receive the Scriptures only in the sense which she is pleased to put upon them. She requires all her priests at admission to swear that they will not interpret the Scriptures but according to the consent of the fathers,-an oath which it is impossible to keep otherwise than by abstaining altogether from interpreting Scripture, seeing the fathers are very far indeed from being at one in their interpretations. "How often has not Jerome been mistaken?" said Melancthon to Eck, in the famous disputation at Leipsic; "how frequently Ambrose! and how often their opinions are different! and how often they retract their errors!"[4] The Council of Trent decreed, that "no one confiding in his own judgment shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures to his own sense of them, contrary to that which hath been held, and still is held, by holy Mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred writ." And they further enact, that if any disobey, they are to be denounced by the ordinaries, and punished according to law.[5] In accordance with that decree is the following article in Pope Pius's creed:-"I receive the holy Scripture according to the sense which holy Mother Church (to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense of the holy Scriptures) hath held and doth hold; nor will I ever receive and interpret it otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." "Without the authority of the Church," said Bailly the Jesuit, "I would believe St. Matthew no more than Titus Livius." So great was the fervour for the Church, of Cardinal Hosius, who was appointed president of the Council of Trent, that he declared, in one of his polemical writings, that were it not for the authority of the Church, the Scriptures would have no more weight than the fables of Aesop.[6] Such are the sentiments of modern Papists. Dr. Milner devotes one of his letters to show that "Christ did not intend that mankind in general should learn his religion from a book."[7] "Besides the rule," says he, "he has provided in his holy Church a living, speaking judge, to watch over it, and explain it in all matters of controversy."[8]
Such is the rule of faith which Rome furnishes to her members,-the Word of God and the traditions of men, both equally binding. And such is the way in which Rome permits her members to interpret the Scriptures,-only by the Church. And yet, notwithstanding that the Church forbids her members to interpret Scripture, she, as a Church, has never come forward with any interpretation of the Word of God; nor has she adduced, nor can she adduce, the slightest proof from the Word of God that she alone is authorized to interpret Scripture; nor is the consent of the fathers, according to which she binds herself to interpret the Word of God, a consent that has any existence. Her claim as the only and infallible interpreter of Scripture implies, moreover, that God has not expressed, or was not able to express, his mind, so as to be intelligible to the generality of men,-that he has not given his Word to all men, or made it a duty binding on all to read and study it.
So, when I read threads that are titled in such a way to provoke, demean and intimidate all those who do not agree with the author, I feel no need to worry or fret that I'm "in the wrong place" or I've "missed out" on something. I KNOW what the word of God says. I've studied it word by word, line by line for over forty years. My confidence comes from knowing Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit within me giving me understanding, illuminating the truths of Scripture and assuring me that I CAN know I have everlasting life through faith in Christ. The Roman Catholic Church, at some point in time, lost that truth and substituted a false gospel that cannot save - one based on merit, works, good deeds, with a side of faith - and that gives NO real assurance to her members of their eternal destiny but only a "hope" that, if all goes well and all the "i's" get dotted and "t's" crossed, at the very moment of death, you just might make it. God wants better for us, He desires that we KNOW we HAVE eternal life. A life lived with THAT promise is one that is completely different. I pray others eyes are opened, too, which is why I respond to these threads.
I was pointing out that you claimed to be above prejudice but linked to a source filled with straw man arguments and mockery. Your source fails to live up to the high standard you claim to hold. And I don't find it persuasive because last time I checked, mockery and incorrectly stating your opponent's position weren't fruits of the Holy Spirit. They're propaganda tactics used when arguments can't stand on their own merits.
So, when I read threads that are titled in such a way to provoke, demean and intimidate all those who do not agree with the author, I feel no need to worry or fret that I'm "in the wrong place" or I've "missed out" on something.
Now there I agree with you! As I said in my first post on this thread, I think the article at the top of this thread (what little I skimmed of it) is divisive and doesn't reflect accurately the Catholic position on nonCatholics as fellow Christians.
I KNOW what the word of God says. I've studied it word by word, line by line for over forty years. My confidence comes from knowing Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit within me giving me understanding, illuminating the truths of Scripture and assuring me that I CAN know I have everlasting life through faith in Christ.
I don't doubt your love of Christ. Or your biblical knowledge. I don't see you as a "bad" Christian. I just disagree with some of your theology.
The Roman Catholic Church, at some point in time, lost that truth and substituted a false gospel ...
You're entitled to your opinion. I believe what Jesus said about his Church. We disagree, although I'd never accuse you of following a false gospel. I might accuse you of assuming for yourself the very charisms you deny that a pope could possibly have, but I'd never say you follow a false gospel.
that cannot save - one based on merit, works, good deeds, with a side of faith - and that gives NO real assurance to her members of their eternal destiny but only a "hope" that, if all goes well and all the "i's" get dotted and "t's" crossed, at the very moment of death, you just might make it.
This is not what the church teaches, however you've made this kind of statement often enough that I believe you believe this. I have no interest in changing what you believe although I may sometimes correct false statements about the church because of others on the thread. I also don't presume to limit the ways God can save a soul. I'd never say your gospel "cannot save."
God wants better for us, He desires that we KNOW we HAVE eternal life. A life lived with THAT promise is one that is completely different.
No offense, but I'll follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what I believe his will is for my life, and the direction he leads me in my spiritual life. What anyone else (apart from a spiritual director or confessor) thinks about it isn't anything I'm much concerned with. I attend Mass as well as Protestant services every week (to take a relative). I trust that God has led me to the place I am to be. I am a joyful Catholic and I've never felt more fully embraced by the Lord.
May peace and God's joy be yours always.
In the creed of the Council of Trent is the following article:-"I do most firmly receive and embrace the apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and other usages, of the Roman Church."Wow, that Aesop statement is interesting in so far as it seems like the "Church" has done just that."The Catholics," says Dr. Milner, "hold that the Word of God in general, both written and unwritten,-in other words, the Bible and tradition taken together,-constitute the rule of faith, or method appointed by Christ for finding out the true religion."[2] "Has tradition any connection with the rule of faith?" it is asked in Keenan's Controversial Catechism. "Yes," is the answer, "because it is a part of God's revealed Word,-properly called the unwritten Word, as the Scripture is called the written Word."
"Are we obliged to believe what tradition teaches, equally with what is taught in Scripture?" "Yes, we are obliged to believe the one as firmly as the other."
We may state, that the traditions which the Church of Rome has thus placed on a level with the Bible are the supposed sayings of Christ and the apostles handed down by tradition. Of course, no proof exists that such things were ever spoken by those to whom they are imputed. They were never known or heard of till the monks of the middle ages gave them to the world.
To apostolical is to be added ecclesiastical tradition, which consists of the decrees and constitutions of the Church. It is scarcely a true account of the matter to say that tradition holds an equal rank with the Bible: it is placed above it.
While tradition is always employed to determine the sense of the Bible, the Bible is never permitted to give judgment on tradition. What, then, would the Church of Rome lose were the Bible to be set aside? Nothing, clearly. Accordingly, some of her doctors have held that the Scriptures are now unnecessary, seeing the Church has determined all truth.
In the second place, Papists make the Church the infallible interpreter of Scripture. The Church condemns all private judgment, interdicts all rational inquiry, and tells her members that they must receive the Scriptures only in the sense which she is pleased to put upon them.
She requires all her priests at admission to swear that they will not interpret the Scriptures but according to the consent of the fathers,-an oath which it is impossible to keep otherwise than by abstaining altogether from interpreting Scripture, seeing the fathers are very far indeed from being at one in their interpretations. "How often has not Jerome been mistaken?" said Melancthon to Eck, in the famous disputation at Leipsic; "how frequently Ambrose! and how often their opinions are different! and how often they retract their errors!"
The Council of Trent decreed, that "no one confiding in his own judgment shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures to his own sense of them, contrary to that which hath been held, and still is held, by holy Mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred writ." And they further enact, that if any disobey, they are to be denounced by the ordinaries, and punished according to law.
In accordance with that decree is the following article in Pope Pius's creed:-"I receive the holy Scripture according to the sense which holy Mother Church (to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense of the holy Scriptures) hath held and doth hold; nor will I ever receive and interpret it otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." "Without the authority of the Church," said Bailly the Jesuit, "I would believe St. Matthew no more than Titus Livius."
So great was the fervour for the Church, of Cardinal Hosius, who was appointed president of the Council of Trent, that he declared, in one of his polemical writings, that were it not for the authority of the Church, the Scriptures would have no more weight than the fables of Aesop. Such are the sentiments of modern Papists.
A lot of denial that the Holy Spirit can interpret scripture. Hmmmm, that's His job!
Thanks for the informative post boatbums!