Posted on 12/07/2015 3:37:20 AM PST by markomalley
No, actually they never were. This, for instance, is irrefutable: Protestantism is a 16th century heresy. Protestant sects are a 16th century creation. That simply cannot be denied. It cannot be refuted.
Heresy compared to what?
Compared to a corrupt Church which had all but entirely destroyed Christianity in the West, having slip-n-slide subtle change and addition morphed it into something yet else.
You are the one who is illogical, vladi. You still lose, and will keep losing.
“Heresy compared to what?”
Truth.
“Compared to a corrupt Church which had all but entirely destroyed Christianity in the West, having slip-n-slide subtle change and addition morphed it into something yet else.”
Your comment is not even rational. All reputable historians agree that Christianity was alive and well BEFORE the heresy of Protestantism. There was no more corruption in the Church then than there is among Protestants or Catholics now.
“You are the one who is illogical, vladi. You still lose, and will keep losing.”
No, everything I said is logical - that’s probably why you don’t actually deal with it. I have not lost and won’t. I side with Truth. You don’t.
Sure it was.
There were highly placed individuals within the RCC who themselves wrote (in a joint letter to a pope) that the Church had been all but destroyed, in a sense, (by elements within the priesthood) themselves in that letter focusing merely upon the grotesque error of selling indulgences.
It can be argued that they did not go far enough in that letter, failing to delve into yet other considerations, but then again, one thing at a time I suppose --- and the letter which they wrote was subject to possibly facing opposition from others who had that pope's ear near to the same time. So they had to not put too much on the plate all at once, be circumspect, and take pains to not anger that 'pope' while including the then (by social conventions) prerequisite, smallish notes of groveling & flattering.
You're living in a highly provincial (and severely limited) fantasy world if you believe that truth is entirely on your side of this discussion, and none of my own.
“Sure it was.”
No, it wasn’t - as you yourself here help prove:
“There were highly placed individuals within the RCC who themselves wrote (in a joint letter to a pope) that the Church had been all but destroyed, in a sense, (by elements within the priesthood) themselves in that letter focusing merely upon the grotesque error of selling indulgences.”
Except that never happened: The Church was not “all but destroyed” by the selling of indulgences or anything else. The view you apparently hold to is out of touch with reality. It’s a myth created by Protestants trying to rationalize their rebellion against the Church. All you have to do is actually read historical works to know this is the case. No one can read Eamon Duffy’s Stripping of the Altars and believe the myth of the “all but destroyed” Church. After all even Protestants commonly admit that the Catholic Church in that same century of time was founding universities, sending missionaries as far away as Japan, publishing great works, and seeing plenty of indisputable saints raised by God in the bosom of the Church. That’s not an “all but destroyed” Church. What you’re saying is rational. You need to read this; you probably won’t:https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.sf.written/lxbX7oRpEeA%5B1-25%5D
“You’re living in a highly provincial (and severely limited) fantasy world if you believe that truth is entirely on your side of this discussion, and none of my own.”
No, you’re living in a fantasy world of your own making if you think truth can be fractured to satisfy your personal needs.
I studied the information you gave me. First of all, the finding of something written decades or even centuries after a person’s death does not necessarily mean it’s a forgery. St. Louis De Montfort’s writings were discovered decades after his death. Even among secular writers, how many were unknown during life only to become famous after their deaths? Because of the VAST amount of paper work the Vatican has, it doesn’t surprise me when they find papers even centuries after they were written.
Also, I don’t think the prophecies are that “vague”. De labore Solis (Labor of the Sun or Eclipse of the Sun) seems to describe John Paul II. A former laborer who labored hard for Jesus, there was a solar eclipse visible in the Americas during his funeral, April 8, 2005.
John XXIII is described as Pastor et Nauta (Pastor and Mariner). Knowing the prophecy, one of the cardinals sailed to the conclave trying to send a signal to his fellow cardinal-electors that he should be elected. He wasn’t, the former Patriarch of Venice (a city built on the water), Cardinal Roncalli, was.
Paul VI is referred to as Flos forum (flower of flowers). He had 3 lillies on his coat of arms.
Again, people can have their own opinions about the prophecies. But IMO, they have not come close to being “proven” false.
Truth itself, objective truth, the truth(s) of God are unchangeable as He is immutable & Eternal, and is not malleable to RCC "needs" either, nor is objective truth subject to the customs of men in regards to their own notions of Him, and again are not then, because those customs belong to one particular sect (the most sectarian of them all, judging by how RCC adherents often conduct themselves) become His own truth and self.
It's too bad that hasn't stopped those of that (Roman Catholic) church from inventing many a 'doctrine', including an inter-locking plethora which assert that it is *they*, and they either alone, or else foremost (only 'foremost' when they are in generous mood and acknowledge other Churches, such as *some* of the Orthodox) and are large and in charge of all things, not limited to merely ecclesiastical concerns, but as in past times have asserted themselves over governments and kings -- whenever they could sufficiently browbeat everyone into submission, that is.
When that didn't work, they'd hedge & make deals which included financial considerations --- collecting taxes FOR kings (and directly for the RCC too) taking a cut of the proceeds.
Taxation wasn't the only way they had tentacles interwoven into society, which in end results would (and often did) result in no one much being able to enrich themselves, unless either born into nobility and in the front of the line regarding familial inheritance (lands, estates, and all which went those) or else entrance into the priesthood to work one's way up through hierarchy to gain control of lands and peasant workforce (serfs). More than a few churchman held numerous Church titles at once, enriching themselves as absentee landlords, themselves living not as poor parish priests, but like the landed gentry class to which many of that class of "priests" were otherwise born.
One may try to argue for the more positive sides of these kind of arrangements, but the part where one prelate would hold sway over multiple estates (and be served by them, enriched by the $$$ those lands could produce) in absentee fashion was the Church hierarchy's doing, and was eventually a factor among others which resulted in people rising up against them.
Yourself or others may believe that Dark Ages Europe was the way the Lord most desired things to be, but the OT solidly enough refutes that notion, it being not the Lord who sought for Israel to be ruled over by earthly kings ("just like the rest of the world", as the Jewish people demanded).
But my own personal needs, you say? BWAAAHAAHA!
My own personal needs are not the issue, and saying so is also to attribute motive/get personal/make it all personal -- which you of course can rarely if ever cease from doing -- and when those "if ever" do come along, they never last, being always quite short in duration.
"Truth" fractured? No, I'm fracturing nothing much that is arguably objective truth.
How about ---mistaken assumptions be separated from truth.
That can done regardless of what is being sifted, and regardless of who does it- truth existing fully independent of any one person, or particular ecclesiastical association also.
That's more the way it was in the early Church. It was only much later that one particular gathering among all gatherings, or clusters of ekklesia, from among all whom were the Church up until that point, began to to vaunt itself as being "infallible".
There's some truth you could chew on for a while... while you try to get over the incessant butthurt (the RCC being thoroughly spanked) by corrections coming mostly from outside of it's own (then, during Reformation era defined) visible confines. If not for that pressure, there would have been no Counter-Reformation. Historians agree to that, except perhaps for the white-washers kind of historian.
I suppose I have to show (translated copy of) the letter?
You claim to be a historian.
Do you not know the name of the letter (what it came to be later referred as)? It's rather notable (no pun intended) although I cannot recall what it commonly referred to as, I can still recall the gist of it.
What I had just said was that priests within the RC church had written that very thing --- by which I intended to mean that they said as much in concept anyway, if not exact word-for-word.
If I'm illogical and irrational, then they were too.
Funny thing is, the pope they were writing to payed attention to what they were saying, and enacted reform (in part, anyway, though not the extents sought after, if memory serves) along lines of what they were more or less requesting...yet too there was much pressure from OUTSIDE the priesthood to do this also, so it's not like the RCC reformed itself from within on that one point (the sale of indulgences), all on it's lonesome.
Maybe that pope was "irrational" also. He would have to have been, if I am now as fully so (irrational) as you would have that to be (if you could get your way, and have everyone around here agree with you ---but I can't help but notice hardly anyone comes to your aid in these endeavors of yours to demonize whatever opposition you encounter on these pages).
I "need" to huh? From a Google forum is it? What's it going to say? Some extract at best, with fuller contexts safely distanced away somewhere else, inaccessible unless I buy and read a particular book. Correct? And then accept that one book as if it says it all, as if the selected extract is the "last word"?
And what would the subject matter be? That indulgences were not sold -- woops--- they were sold (they simply have to admit to some sale of indulgences, once the issue is pressed, anyway) but that it was just isolated occurrence, there wasn't all that much money involved, and besides, not much made it all the way to papal coffers, is that it? Just a minor detail, blah, blah, whitewash ---YOUR SPECIALTY---.
Why should I bother?
We are talking about differing things using the same words. This began with your own assertion that Churches other than the RCC (with the exception of the Orthodox, then again possibly not *all* of those, depending upon which RCC scorekeeper is consulted) are not Churches.
That's been backed by argument of assertion, coupled with added conditions which Christ did not include.
“I suppose I have to show (translated copy of) the letter?”
No. Learn to read. I said, “Except that never happened: The Church was not “all but destroyed†by the selling of indulgences or anything else.” The “never happened” comment was in reference to your claim about the Church being “all but destroyed” not the existence of a letter. Rather than worrying about having “to show (translated copy of) the letter” you should focus some attention on developing reading comprehension.
“You claim to be a historian.”
That’s what you’re reduced to by your repeated failure to make an actual argument?
“Why should I bother?”
Bother resorting to make repeated errors? Yeah, I don’t know why you bother either.
“We are talking about differing things using the same words. This began with your own assertion that Churches other than the RCC (with the exception of the Orthodox, then again possibly not *all* of those, depending upon which RCC scorekeeper is consulted) are not Churches.”
No, sects are not Churches. Period. I never claimed some Churches are not Churches. Sects are not Churches. Protestants only have sects. They can’t have Churches because they only have sects started in the 16th century or last week or ten years ago or whenever recent.
“That’s been backed by argument of assertion, coupled with added conditions which Christ did not include.”
You keep avoiding the Protestant Elephant in the room - Protestant sects are ALL recent sects founded by men. None were started by Christ. None. It’s just that simple.
Your other post is just as much the usual blather as your second post here. There’s no point to commenting on both when you clearly are struggling with basic reading comprehension.
Go ahead. Make another error. Go ahead. Post more prattle that doesn’t deal with the entirely man-made and recent foundation of each and every Protestant sect. It’s all you can do apparently.
I know how to read. So stopped right about there.
I'm in no mood for any further abuse from you.
You're continuing assertions and all the "what I said" back and forth, returning to the same old garbagey patterns of inter-acting with others that you've long exhibited here, don't work, and in the larger scheme of things (beyond your own limited parochial horizons) do not mean all that much, not in light of what the real truths of the matters are.
Things are not true simply because you, or even the RCC says they are, despite all the added conditional 'because of this or that' appealed to in efforts to justify the assertions.
Speaking of people around here needing to "learn" something, get that through your head.
Didn't I already tell you that it was the underlying pretense & assumptions that were where the problem with your little rants lay? Ok, I didn't say "little rants" but have added that now.
Go study up on "reading comprehension" yourself. Or go play in the freeway. Your choice!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.