Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius: what did he really about the "ancient" Baptists ^

Posted on 03/30/2002 12:03:57 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM

Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius: did he really make THAT statement?


When Baptists attempt to maintain their descent from the time of the Apostles, they often will bring up a purported statement of Cardinal Hosius from the sixteenth century, which „proves“ so they think, that the Baptists have been around from the beginning, so they are the true Christian church. That this statement was supposedly made by Hosius, who was a papal legate at the Council of Trent, is sure to cause doubts as to its authenticity, except among those who would like to believe it`s genuineness. It is the purpose of this essay to show the evidence for the inauthenticity of this statement, and to show also what Cardinal Hosius really did have to say about anabaptists in his writings.

A little about Hosius

Born 5.May.1504 in Krakow, Poland, of German parents.
Died 5.August.1579 in Capranica (near Rome).
Cardinal from 1561. Bishop of Ermland from 1551 to 1579.
Legate for Vienna 1560; papal legate for Council of Trent 1561-1563; legate for Poland 1566.
Fought entry of Protestants into Poland. In 1564 he called the Jesuits into Poland for that purpose.
Wrote the „Confessio“, a famous catechism, in 1577
Complete works published Cologne 1584.

More info at Catholic Encyclopedia: Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius

PART I. Cardinal Hosius and that infamous "statement": Is it genuine?

The statement reads as follows:

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)" Quoted in the „Trail of Blood“ by J. Carroll.

Does this statement exist in his complete works? No.

The complete works of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius were published in two volumes in 1584 in Cologne, under the title „Opera Omnia“. The complete title reads as follows:


“Opera Omnia in Duos divisa tomos, quorum primus ab ipso auctore plurimus subinde in locis, integris & dimidijs paginis sic auctus & recognitus, ut novum opus fere censeri possit. Secundum autem totus novus, nuncque primus typis excusus.“

Apud Maternum Cholinum

The purported statement is nowhere to be found in the letters of Cardinal Hosius


PART II: What Cardinal Hosius DID have to say about the „Anabaptists“.

Cardinal Hosius meant by the term „Anabaptist“ a general term for any kind of re-baptizing sect. We see the proof of this in his assertion that the Donatists were Anabaptists. But we know, of course, that the Donatists had completely different beliefs from modern day Baptists (or even 16th century Anabaptists.). For example, they only believed in re-baptism for those Christians who had apostasized under persecution and later returned. Thy did not say infant baptism was wrong, they did not day baptism must be by immersion only, they did not say baptism was merely a symbol. So it is absolutely wrong for modern-day Baptists to suggest that Cardinal Hosius testifies to their existence at the time of Augustine!!!

See Catholic Encyclopedia: Donatists

a) The following is an extract from „Liber Primus De Haeresibus Nostri Temporis“ found in „Opera Omnia“ on page 432 of the Cologne, 1584 edition. It shows clearly how the Anabaptists of the time of Hosius could not agree among themselves, just as the anabaptist groups of Augustine’s time were also likewise hopelessly disunited.
(Note: original Latin will be shown in italics)

( Margin heading: Anabaptistae inter se dissecti)
"But this sect of Anabaptists is greatly divided. For they neither agree on the main doctrines among themselves .."( Est autem & haec Anabaptistarum secta valde dissecta: Neque enim doctrine capitibus inter se conveniunt. ) .It has also been in Augustines century, (fuit etiam Augustini seculo, & ficut aliae pleraeque omnes haereses) all heresies immediately from the beginning divided into many parts (sic & haec statim ab initio multas in partes fuit divisa).

b) Cardinal Hosius then goes on to list some of the anabaptist heretical groups of Augustine’s time. This is significant, because among other things it shows that Hosius regarded the Donatists as „anabaptists“ or re-baptizers. However, since we know exactly what the Donatists believed (and it certainly wasn’t what Baptists believe) we see that Hosius used the term „anabaptist“ as a generic term for sects which re-baptized. Here is his quote:
(Nam alij vocabantur Donatistae, alij Rogatistae, alij Maximianistae, Circenses alij, qui conversi tandem sunt a factione Donatistarum ( hoc enim nomen caeteris erat celebrius) ad Ecclesiae Catholicae societatem. )
(„For some are called Donatists, others Rogatists, other Maximinianists, othere Circenses, which at length are changed from the faction of the Donatists to the Catholic Church“)

c) And he continues by listing some of the sects of the sixteenth century.

“Muncerani, alij Orantes, alij Silentes, Somniantes, pueris similes, Synceri, Impeccabiles a Baptismo, Liberi, Binderliani, Sabbatarii, Maderanii, Hoffmannici, & post eos exorti Circumcisi: fortassis & Adamitae ad Anabaptistarum sectam pertinent. „

So it is clear from this that Hosius grouped all re-baptising sects together under the heading „Anabaptists“. This is very important to note, for it destroys conclusively any notion that the Baptists of today can trace their lineage back to the time of Augustine.

d) A quote from letter CLVII „Carolo Archiduci Austriae“ (from „Opera Omnia“, Liber Epistolarum)

„Nonne videmus a Lutheranismo ad Calvinismum, a Calvinismo ad Anabaptismum, ab Anabaptismo ad Trideismum, a Trideismi ad Atheism iam esse ventum? „
(„Do we not already see the wind to be from Lutheranism to Calvinism, from Calvinism to Anabaptism, from Anabaptism to Trideism, from Trideism to Atheism?“).

Proof again, if it were needed, that Cardinal Hosius certainly didn’t see the Anabaptists of his time being in any way descended from the groups at the time of Augustine.

e) Letter CL „Alberto Bavariae Duci“ (ibid.): in this letter we do have a reference to Anabaptists from 1,200 years earlier , („quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos“), however as we have seen, this refers to sects such as the Donatists, who did not reject infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling, they merely insisted that apostates should be „re-baptized“, hence their status as „ana-baptists“.

Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur.“

f) Finally note the following reference. Again Hosius is goruping the Donatists as anabaptists:

Page 436 „Liber Primus De Haeresibus Nostri Temporis“ (ibid.)

Neque vero tantum Augustini seculo tales fuerunt: Ante quadringentos etia annos, quibus Bernardus vixit, fuerunt Anabaptistae non minus vitae prodigi, quam Donatistae.“
(„Not only in the time of Augustine were they as such. 400 years ago, during which Bernard lived, there have been anabaptists no less prodigious of life than the Donatists.“)
(Refs Augustus epist. 50 „Donatistae mortis oppetendae cupidi“; Bernardus. sermo 66 in cantic.)

Once again, there is absolutely no connection in Hosius' mind between the groups of the time of Augustine and those of the sixteenth century.


In summary:

We have shown that (i) it is almost certain that Cardinal Hosius never made that remark which is attributed to him, for reasons given in section I above, and (ii) that Cardinal Hosius certainly did not regard the Anabaptists of his time as being in any way descended from the sects of the time of Augustine.

An understanding of the general nature of the term „anabaptist“ as simply meaning „re-baptizer“ will clarify why Hosius says they existed as early as Augustine`s time. Note that in contrast, the term „Catholic“ has always meant something quite specific, union with the See of Peter in the universal Church. For this reason, the Catholic Church of today CAN and DOES claim continuity from the time of the Apostles.

As a final comment, it is well to note that the Catholic Church has much more ancient testimony than anything the Baptists can come up with. Just read the Early Church Fathers on Baptism, the Eucharist, the Primacy of Peter etc. See for example or
The Baptists cannot provide any kind of support of this kind for their position.


Catholic Encyclopedia Links:

The following are some links to Catholic Encyclopedia articles relating to pre-reformation heretical sects. The casual reader will note that the teachings of these groups vary widely and can in no way be seen to be doctrinally consistent with modern-day Baptists!



Note 1.

The Landmark Independent Baptist Church website cites the following quotation:

"If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptist since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more generally punished or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and even offered themselves to the most cruel sorts of punishment than these people. (Cardinal Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, 112-113)." Baptist Magazine CVIII, 278. May, 1826)

Obviously, this is very different quote from the one quoted earlier. Yet they both have the same reference (Letters, Apud Opera, 112-113).


Note 2.

The list of contents for Cardinal Hosius‘ Complete Works (Colonia, 1584 edition) reads as follows:
Operum Tomi Primi

Confessio catholica fidei Christiana folio 1
Confutation Prolegomenon Brentij. 419
De expresso Dei verbo libellus 611
Dialogues de communione sub utraq. specie

Iudicium & censura de adoranda Trinitate 669
Stanislai Orechouij Epistola ad Stanislaum Hosium Cardinalem 708
Stanislaj Hosij Cardinalis, ad eundem de loco, & auctoritate Romani Pontificis in Ecclesia, & in Concilijs 711
Fabiana Quadrantini Recantantiones 719.

Operum Tomi Secundi

De oppresso Dei verbo libellus 1
De Actis cum diversis Haereticis 61
Liber Epistelarum 145
Examen siue exiussio Confederationis Hareticorum 454
Altera exiussio eiusdem Confederationis 459
Orationes funebres duae, in Exequijs duorum Regum Poloniae Sigismundi primi & secundi recitatae 462.469
Eiusdem auctoris Testamentum ex manuscriptus adversarijs excerptum 483
Epistola Stanislai Rescij, de transitu Cardinalis Hosij 485
Eiusdem Ode lugubris 495.

Your comments are welcome at

Forgeries Index

Sean's Faith Website homepage

Copyright © 2001 Sean Hyland. This text may be reproduced in its entirety provided the copyright notice is included, but may not be sold or exchanged for profit.

TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: abortionlist; catholiclist; christianlist; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

1 posted on 03/30/2002 12:03:57 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; Father_Elijah; Patent; saradippity
Just wanted to clarify a point about a statement OP made in a subsequently deleted thread. Fanciful hysteries...
2 posted on 03/30/2002 12:06:22 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Baptist History

Question from A Reader:

Hello!!!! My question is, what is the begining point for the ana-baptist faith and then later the baptist. Some say 350 A.D. some say earlier. When did they begin and where can I find some more information on this topic?? Another thing, doesn't the Council of Trent mention the "persecutions of the Anabaptists 1200 years earlier ?"

Answer by Warren H. Carroll, Ph.D on 07-24-1998:

Though the Baptists like to claim ancestry in the early Church, in fact nothing like the Baptist religion is found in history until the 13th century, when groups such as the Waldensians and the "Spiritual Franciscans" began to develop doctrines similar to theirs. I am unaware of anything in the Council of Trent that specifically refers to persecution of Baptists more than a thousand years before, though it may have referred to other heresies of that period. There is no reliable book of history that finds any significant part of the Baptist religion before 1200. - Dr. Carroll

Follow-up to Jacob Dreher on Baptist Church History

Question from Art Kelly on 07-28-1998:

The Council of Trent certainly does NOT make ANY mention of persecution of Anabaptists 1,200 years earlier. If anyone asserts that it does, please indicate in which session of Trent such a statement can be found.

Anabaptists are today?s Amish and Mennonites and do NOT claim ancient lineage.

Baptists were founded in 1609 and are NOT related to Anabaptists.

First of all, Anabaptists believed, as Catholics do, in salvation by grace through BOTH faith AND works. Since Baptists have always strongly believed in the (anti-Biblical) view of salvation by faith ALONE, with nothing else required, it would be hard to imagine a more fundamental Second, Anabaptists practiced baptism by affusion, rather than immersion. For Baptists, that ranks almost as important.

Third, a look at history will reveal that ties to the Anabaptists were continually DISAVOWED by early Baptists, while at the same time they all claimed the closest of ties with the so-called Protestant Reformation.

For verification of this, I would direct Mr. Dreher to several BAPTIST sources:

Phil Johnson?s Hall of Church History with separate sections on the Anabaptists and the Baptists

A Primer on Baptist History: The True Baptist Trail by Chris Traffansted

Baptists , by Pastor Fred Zaspel of the Word of Life Baptist Church, Pottsville, Pennsylvania

[and, finally] Baptist Successionism: A Critical Question in Baptist History by James Edward McGoldrick, a scholarly book which can be obtained through interlibrary loan.

Mr. Dreher should know that the claims of "ancient Baptists" by the likes of the Landmark Baptists and Dr. J. M. Carroll?s 1931 booklet, A Trail of Blood, have been examined by Baptist scholars and found to be without any merit whatsoever. . .

Answer by Warren H. Carroll, Ph.D on 07-28-1998:

Very well said! Thank you particularly for the references. - Dr. Carroll

3 posted on 03/30/2002 12:10:23 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: *Catholic_list
The fanciful hystery of the (ana)baptists has been making its rounds on several Catholic threads lately, so I thought it a good idea to present the truth of the matter. Here's another good article:

"Ancient Baptists" and Other Myths
By Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.
Illustration by Maria Korusiewicz

Nicea, August 24, A.D. 325, 7:41 p.m. "That was powerful preaching, Brother Athanasius. Powerful! Amen! I want to invite any of you folks in the back to approach the altar here and receive the Lord into your hearts. Just come on up. We've got brothers and sisters up here who can lead you through the Sinner's Prayer. Amen! And as this Council of Nicea comes to an end, I want to remind Brother Eusebius to bring the grape juice for tomorrow's closing communion service . . ."

Ah yes, the Baptists at the Council of Nicea. Sound rather silly? It certainly does. And yet, there are those who claim the Church of Nicea was more Protestant in belief and practice than Catholic. I recently read an article in The Christian Research Journal, written by a Reformed Baptist apologist, who argued this very point. No, I'm not making this up. The article, "What Really Happened at Nicea?" actually claimed the Fathers of the Council were essentially Evangelical Protestants.

As a trained patristics scholar, I always feel a great deal of sadness and frustration when I encounter shoddy historical "scholarship," whether it be in the pages of The Watchtower, a digest of Mormon "archaeology," or a popular and usually well-produced Evangelical Protestant apologetics journal. But this article was so error-laden, so amateurishly "researched," and so filled with historical and theological fallacies, that I simply couldn't let it stand without response.

All the classical Protestant confessions of faith expressing the beliefs of the various Reformation branches include the doctrinal proclamations of the ancient Catholic Council of Nicea, whereby Christ is professed to be "of one essence" with the Father. The original Lutheran Augsburg Confession of 1531, for example, and the later Formula of Concord of 1576-1584, each begin with the mention of the doctrine of the Nicene Council.

Calvin's French Confession of Faith of 1559 states, "And we confess that which has been established by the ancient councils, and we detest all sects and heresies which were rejected by the holy doctors, such as St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose and St. Cyril." The Scotch Confession of 1560 deals with general councils in its 20th chapter. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, both the original of 1562-1571 and the American version of 1801, explicitly accept the Nicene Creed in article 7.

Even when the particular Protestant confessional formula does not mention the Nicene Council or its creed, its doctrine is nonetheless always asserted, as, for example, in the Calvinist Scotch Confession just mentioned, or in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of 1647.

At first glance, this all seems rather odd to the Catholic reader. After all, every branch of Protestantism professes the absolute and sole sufficiency of Sacred Scripture for establishing the fundamental points of doctrine. Why, then, do these various Protestant confessions bother to bring up the early councils (or any councils) when establishing their core teachings? Well, we shouldn't be too quick to accuse them of inconsistency just yet, for all of these confessions make it abundantly clear that the councils of the Church have no authority of their own, but only insofar as they teach things which have a clear warrant in the written Word of God.

For a Protestant, then, the general councils of the ancient Church and their creeds provide useful historical references for the expression of orthodox, biblical doctrine. They don't have any particular infallible status as councils of the Church. Even less are the doctrines of the early councils proposed as sound because they reflect the Church's Tradition as a source of knowledge of revealed truth.

So far so good. A Catholic may not agree with it, but such a view at least isn't internally inconsistent. Classical Protestants accept the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation as scriptural, and so refer to the early councils which taught these dogmas. They pick and choose from the riches of Christian teaching, and sometimes they get it right. A Catholic can only be content that they do; we are not stingy with the good things we enjoy. As Pope Pius XI said of the various Protestant groups, "Stones cut from gold-bearing rock themselves bear gold."

But there's a bigger problem here. The words of Calvin quoted above give us an example of it. He refers to "the sects and heresies rejected by the holy doctors, such as St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose and St. Cyril." Protestant apologists want to claim for themselves the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, as well as the early councils. Some even go so far as to claim that the Fathers held to the principle of sola scriptura (by Scripture alone)! A brief look into the events surrounding the great Nicene Council should suffice to dispel this foolishness.

Things were hard for the Church in A.D. 325. A certain Arius, a wildly popular presbyter in Egypt, was publicly denying the full divinity of Christ. In his view, Jesus was godlike, but not God Almighty (Jehovah's Witnesses are the modern day purveyors of this position). A charismatic figure, Arius gathered about himself a school of followers, and his influence spread. The local Catholic bishops condemned him, yet his activities continued. Finally, fearing that perhaps a split in Christendom would lead to disruption in the empire, the Emperor Constantine called a general council of bishops. There is some question as to whether the emperor acted on his own, or in concert with Pope Sylvester. While the accounts contemporary to the event mention only Constantine, a statement made in the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680) indicates Nicea was called by both the emperor and the Pope. It is interesting to note this statement was made during the general session, and was received as true without question or objection. Surely they would have known better, were it not true.

Most of the Nicene Council's 318 episcopal attendees were representatives of eastern churches, like Ephesus, Jerusalem and Antioch. Pope Sylvester, too ill to make the journey himself, sent two legates. According to the ancient historian Gelasius, the Roman Church was represented by Hosius, bishop of Cordova (Spain) and the leading proponent of the orthodox position regarding Christ's divinity. Not only was Hosius representing Rome, but it seems he also presided over the council after Constantine's introduction. St. Athanasius, an attendee and tireless defender of orthodoxy, wrote admiringly about Hosius, "What council can be mentioned in which he did not preside?" (Apologia de Fuga, 5).

So the Council proceeded, led by a bishop officially representing the Church of Rome. The debate was heated, but the outcome was clear: Christ is not some kind of minor deity, but He is one in Being with the Father — God, in the fullest sense of the term. An important question, then, arises: Just how did the Council arrive at this position?

The Reformed Baptist author of the Christian Research Journal article claims, "The council had no idea that they (sic), by their gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority." This statement, though brief, is littered with errors.

First, even if the proceedings of the Council were nothing more than a debate on Scripture, it is thunderingly clear that the participants believed they had the authority to give the definitive interpretation of the data. According to the position of the Protestant apologist, the Church had no final interpretive authority; if an individual Christian believed the conciliar arguments to be unbiblical, he could reject them. How different this is from the position of the Council itself. The very end of the original Nicene Creed reads: "And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, 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."

Again, recall that the real issue is whether or not the Council believed itself to be the final authority in interpreting the data regarding Christ's deity. Clearly, the Church that anathematizes (cuts off) those who disagree with its findings is a Church that believes itself to have the last word.

But there is another problem with the claim that the authority of Nicea rests solely on biblical authority. The Council did not declare that the doctrine it proposed was simply a restatement or clarification of the Scriptures, but that "the Catholic and Apostolic Church" believes it, and condemns the contrary. The Scriptures are not cited even once in the Fathers' definition, hardly a likely thing had they been adherents of some "Bible only" ideology. To be sure, the Fathers of Nicea were certain that the orthodox doctrine was found in Scripture, but because they most assuredly did not hold to sola scriptura, it never occurred to them to separate the Church's authority from the interpretation of Scripture. Rather, if anyone at that time held to a view akin to the "Bible only," it was the heretical Arians, who rejected the Church's definition because it used terms not found in Sacred Scripture, but rather taken from Greek philosophy.

The absurd, and the outrageously absurd.

In trying to make his argument that the Council attendees were Protestant, our apologist makes the outrageous claim that, "Convinced that Scripture is 'sufficient above all things,' Athanasius acted as a true 'Protestant' in his day." Oh really? Did Athanasius hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura? Everywhere in his writings, St. Athanasius takes the Church's faith as the rule whereby the Scriptures are to be rightly interpreted. This rule of ecclesiastical faith (Greek: ho skopos tes ekklesiatikes pisteos) he adopts as a canon for rightly establishing the sense of the sacred text. The Arian heretics, on the other hand, use their private opinion (Greek: ho idios nous) as their rule or canon of interpretation.

Glancing through St. Athanasius' Discourses Against the Arians, one will quickly see how classically Catholic his use of Scripture is: "[S]ince they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense" (Discourse 1, 37).

"This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that a very ecclesiastical sense" (Discourse 1, 44).

"This then is what happens to God's enemies the Arians; for looking at what is human in the Savior, they have judged Him a creature . . . But for them, learn they, however tardily, that 'the Word became flesh;' and let us, retaining the scope of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation" (Discourse 3, 35).

"Had Christ's enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith" (Discourse 3, 58).

And these are just snippets. Repeatedly throughout his discourses, St. Athanasius gives the Church's rule of faith, and then applies it to the passages of Scripture misinterpreted by the Arians. There is simply no other way to understand his defense of the Faith against them.

In his Letter to Serapion on the Death of Arius, St. Athanasius distinguishes the orthodox Faith from widely held opinion, not by reason of its Scriptural basis solely, as a Protestant would, but because it is the teaching of the Church. Thus, the dictum "Athanasius against the world" points out his defense of the Nicene Faith against those who reject the Church's interpretation of Scripture, not his defense of Scripture against the "established church" (as our Protestant friend claims in his article).

Athanasius declared: "For the Lord Himself judging between the threats of Eusebius and his fellows, and the prayer of Alexander, condemned the Arian heresy, showing it to be unworthy of communion with the Church, and making manifest to all, that although it receive the support of the Emperor and of all mankind, yet it was condemned by the Church herself" (Letter to Serapion, 4).

Perhaps our Protestant apologist is a bit disappointed that I have not yet engaged him in any quibbling about Greek. Well, he's offered me a beauty of an instance; in fact, it's his very favorite quotation from Athanasius, the one in which he pretends that Athanasius professes the doctrine of sola scriptura over and against Church councils. Speaking of the Arians, St. Athanasius says:

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a council is needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in the divine Scriptures" (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, 6).

Does St. Athanasius' original Greek really say that Scripture is "sufficient above all things"? No. In a very simple sentence which a first-year Greek student should be able to translate correctly, St. Athanasius declares "For divine Scripture is more sufficient than all [other writings, councils, etc.]." The sentence in transliterated Greek reads Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe. Here we do not have an absolute statement, but a comparative one. To say that Scripture is the primary source of doctrine is not to say that it is the sole source of doctrine. I do not know of any Catholic theologian, doctor, or council of prelates of any period in the Church's history who would not view arguments from Sacred Scripture as the more authoritative among various sources of doctrine. This quotation gives absolutely no support to the Protestant error of sola scriptura. The issue here in the Greek is subtle, yes, but seemingly too subtle for the Protestant apologist to have caught.

Athanasius' entire anti-Arian corpus is nothing if not a scriptural refutation of heresy. The heretics claim Scripture as their guide. Fine, then let's show them how they err from Scripture itself. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, all the doctors of the Church, patristic and scholastic, prefer scriptural authority. In doing so, they do not reject, but rather assert, the teaching of the Church.

But there's more. The very context of this alleged Athanasian "Bible-only" proof-text (which just went "poof" as a proof) shows that even with the mistranslating, it demonstrates the exact opposite of the Protestant apologist's thesis. Immediately preceding the passage cited, and in the very same paragraph, St. Athanasius rejects the Arians' call for new councils based on the already sufficient expression of the Church's authority. He writes: "What need is there of Councils when the Nicene is sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest, which has condemned one and all by means of the sound faith?" (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, 6).

In other words, the Council of Nicea has decided the matter; the authoritative interpretation of the data has been given. The progression of the holy doctor's reasoning is clear: "Why do the Arians call for further councils when the Church's definition at Nicea suffices? Indeed, why do they want a council at all since Scripture, on which they claim to base their teaching, is so clear on this point? In any case, Nicea is enough for clarifying the true faith found in the Scriptures. Nicea is sufficient, and Scripture is more sufficient still, but either one would be enough." This, ladies and gentlemen, is a traditional Catholic argument through and through.

St. Athanasius wrote the famous Life of Antony, the semi-biography of the patriarch of monks — a work that later spurred St. Augustine on to his full conversion to Catholicism. In it, Athanasius gives St. Antony's dying words, a fine summary of the Catholic attitude toward Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the Church in the face of heresy: "Have nothing to do with the Arians, for the irreligion of these is plain to everyone . . . Therefore keep yourselves clean from these and watch over the tradition of the Fathers, and above all, the orthodox faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, as you have learned it from the Scriptures, and as you have often been put in mind of by me" (Life of Antony, 89).

So was St. Athanasius a "true Protestant," as the Baptist apologist claims? The Athanasius who believed that a Christian could lose his salvation through mortal sin (cf. Discourses Against the Arians 3, 25)? The Athanasius who venerated Mary as "the Mother of God" (Greek: theotokos; cf. Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, 8)? The Athanasius who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity (cf. Discourses Against the Arians II, 70)? The Athanasius who believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Sermon to the Newly Baptized)? If indeed Athanasius can be called a Protestant, then the word "Protestant" has no meaning at all.

But what about the other Fathers of Nicea? Did they give evidence of any Protestant leanings? Not even remotely. The Council of Nicea was a Catholic Council in the fullest sense, Catholic in the sense commonly understood today. If someone were handed the canons of this council for examination, he would immediately recognize the things treated there as matters of Catholic Church order, and not applying to any recognizable Protestant group.

The Council of Nicea dealt with many of the same canonical issues in 325 that are dealt with in the Church's current canon law, both Eastern and Western. Its decrees concern the qualifications, precedence and jurisdiction of bishops and priests (canons 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19), the proper role of deacons at the celebration of the Eucharist (canon 18), measures to ensure the validity of the ordination of bishops (canon 4), uniformity in the celebration of the Church's Eucharistic Liturgy (canon 20), the preservation of the celibacy of the clergy (canon 3) and the treatment of penitents and their reconciliation (canons 11, 12, 13, 14). It's worth quoting a few of these canons that show the Council's Catholic character quite unambiguously.

Canon 3 states: "The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion."

In this way, the Council forbade any woman to dwell in the house of a member of the clergy, except mothers, aunts, sisters or those "beyond all suspicion." It's interesting that there is no mention of wives here. Obviously, the clergy was by this time largely celibate. Perhaps even more significant, however, is the description of the sacrament of holy orders being divided into three levels of ordained ministry: bishop, presbyter (priest) and deacon. The Church of the Council of Nicea had all three, just like the Catholic Church today. The Baptist apologist who wrote the article we're critiquing does not agree with the Catholic teaching on the sacrament of holy orders (ie. bishops, priests, and deacons). In this, he is typical of most Evangelical Protestants, who likewise reject this sacrament.

Canon 18 states: "It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them . . . And if, after this decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from the diaconate."

Let's think this through. Does it seem likely that a council of "Evangelical Protestants" (which, remember, is exactly what the Baptist writer of that article in the Journal was arguing they were) would issue a canon laying out the liturgical order for the distribution of the Eucharist? Not likely. Of course, one would expect such a thing at a Catholic council. And that is precisely why we see this and similar canons emanating from this council: It was a Catholic assembly, not a Protestant one.

Another revealing canon is the 13th. In regard to the granting of Holy Communion to penitents at the point of death, it says: "Concerning those about to die, the ancient canon law is still to be maintained, namely that those who are departing are not to be deprived of their last, most necessary viaticum . . . As a general rule, in the case of anyone who is departing and seeks to share in the Eucharist, the bishop upon examining the matter shall give him a share in the sacrifice."

Is there any Protestant who would view the Holy Eucharist as "most necessary viaticum" at the hour of death? Would the Baptist apologist recognize the Eucharist as a "sacrifice" or oblation in which he shares? Do Protestants, for that matter, concern themselves with episcopal jurisdiction, the dates of feasts and the proper posture for liturgical prayer? When was the last time you heard of a Protestant pastor giving absolution and holy viaticum to a repentant excommunicate in order to ensure his eternal salvation?

No Protestant apologist attending the Council of Nicea would recognize it as an organ of his denomination or as anything resembling his version of "biblical" Christianity. The issues discussed and the conclusions reached are common only to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Of course none of the 318 council Fathers would be familiar with the expression "Roman" Catholic, since this pejorative expression was invented by the Protestants of the 16th century, and later humbly adopted by orthodox Christianity in the West. Nevertheless, the Council of Nicea bears the unmistakable mark of Catholicism. Not surprising, since the Council was Catholic.

"But wait," a Protestant might respond. "What about Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea? Doesn't that demonstrate there was no papal primacy in the early centuries of the Church?" This claim is always presented in polemical discussions of the Nicene Council.


The Players
Major Figures at the First Council of Nicea (A.D. 325)

A popular Alexandrian priest who, under the influence of Lucian of Antioch, denied the divinity of Christ. According to Arius, Jesus was the first "creation" of God, but was not God Himself. This false teaching was rebuked at a local Egyptian synod of bishops, but Arius refused to submit to their correction and was excommunicated. After several appeals, his heretical views were aired, debated and formally condemned by the bishops of the Catholic Church assembled at Nicea.

St. Athanasius
A priest from Alexandria (who would become the bishop in 328) and tireless defender of the Trinity and Catholicism. Along with Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, he stood as Arius' chief and most formidable opponent.

Roman Emperor and convert to Christianity. The growing tension between the orthodox Catholics and the Arians on the matter of Christ's deity compelled him to call the Council to settle the issue.

Bishop of Cordoba, and presider over the Council. He played a central role in Constantine's conversion, and acted as the Emperor's theological advisor. A vocal opponent of Arius, Hosius represented the Church of Rome, along with two Roman priests.

Vito and Vincentius
The two Roman priests sent by Pope Sylvester (who was too sick to travel) to represent the Church of Rome at the Council of Nicea. They, along with Bishop Hosius, signed the acts of the Council before the other convened bishops did — which was a remarkable thing for mere priests to do, unless they had special authority as legates of the pope.

Major issues addressed by the Council of Nicea

The relationship of the Son to the Father was the primary issue of dispute. Arius claimed the Son was a creation of the Father; the orthodox argued the Son was one with the Father (homo-ousion, one in being). The orthodox position was adopted and the defenders of the Trinity prevailed. The 20-year-old Meletian schism was brought to an end. Its instigator, Meletus, was returned to his see in Lycopolis but was forbidden to ordain any more bishops. The ordinations he had previously performed were declared null and void.

The traditional date of Easter held by the Church of Rome was adopted by the universal Church. The extent of the penance required of apostates before readmittance to the sacrament of the Eucharist was settled. Several qualifications for ordination to the office of bishop were outlined. Deacons, priests and bishops were to remain in their diocese. The jurisdictions for ecclesial ordinations were set forth.

Canon 6 reads: "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

Are we to understand from this that the bishop of Rome is no greater in authority than the bishop of Alexandria? Indeed, our Baptist apologist writes, "This canon is significant because it demonstrates that at this time there was no concept of a single universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else." Is this true? Not at all. The first thing one must do is note the context. What is the nature of the "jurisdiction" mentioned here? It is, primarily, the authority to ordain bishops. Notice that after laying out the territory for each of the metropolitans, the canon explains what is to take place within those limits: the selection and ordination of bishops. This point also fits the context of the preceding canons, paraphrased here:

Canon 4: Bishops are to be chosen by bishops of their province, and their choice is then to be ratified by the metropolitan having jurisdiction over that area.

Canon 5: Those excommunicated by one bishop are not to be re-instituted by a bishop of a different territory. Every province should have regular synods to decide these issues.

Canon 6: The metropolitans have jurisdiction over their respective territories. No one is to be made a bishop without their final approval.

Notice the function of canon 6 in context with the preceding two canons: It sets out territorial boundaries for more efficient administration. Recall that the pope is also the bishop of the city of Rome. He has a special administrative jurisdiction over Rome, whereas the bishop of New York has the same jurisdiction over New York, the bishop of Alexandria over Alexandria, etc. But this is not to say the Roman bishop has no authority over the Church; these are two different kinds of jurisdiction. So a plain reading of canon 6 in context shows it is hardly a blow against Roman primacy.

In the end, there is no way to avoid the inescapable fact that the Council of Nicea was Catholic in every sense of the term. Unfortunately for the Protestant author of the Journal article, no amount of cut-and-paste patristic work, no feats of "scholarly" gymnastics, no grotesque historical contortions can change that.

8:12 p.m.

"Brothers and sisters, I want to announce to you all that we've just had 23 people saved up here. Keep on coming! I see some more folks in the back. Let them through. Sister Pearl, can you make your way to the piano and do 'Onward Christian Soldiers'? It's the Emperor Constantine's favorite, you know . . ."

Evangelical Protestants at the Council of Nicea? The idea would be funny, if it weren't so sad that some people actually believe it.

Call 1-800-55-ENVOY today and subscribe at our special introductory rate, order directly with our online subscription form, or buy a copy of Envoy at a location near you!

4 posted on 03/30/2002 12:16:46 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I think you were involved in that other thread. You might be interested in this trivia too.
5 posted on 03/30/2002 12:21:52 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
Good on you! Thanks for addressing this. God bless.
6 posted on 03/30/2002 3:48:42 AM PST by father_elijah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
Thanks for posting this. I've read some of it and will bookmark it to read the rest at my leisure. I'm a former Southern Baptist convert to Roman Catholicism. I think it was Dr. Scott Hahn that said to become familiar with Church history was to become Roman Catholic.

More importantly for me was learning the actual teachings of the Church as opposed to the misconceptions I was exposed to in my fundamental background. Understanding the sacraments was the key.

Pope as Anti-Christ, idol worshiping, cannibalism, etc. I was familiar with these and other outrageous charges, but it was actually a minor bias that I recalled from working with a puppet ministry in a Baptist Church that sticks in mind. I had found a picture of Jesus on the cross to use in one of the performances. Some of the parents complained about it, considering it blasphemy. They claimed that showing our Savior on the cross is a denial of his resurrection (???) and that only an empty cross is acceptable. If that is the case, says I, isn't an empty cross a denial of his sacrifice? They looked at me as if I were from another planet.

Anyway, my point is, that Anti-catholic bigots should be aware that their hysterical ranting and slandering of the Catholic Church is as likely to push people into the Church as it is to keep them out.

7 posted on 03/30/2002 5:36:34 AM PST by Nubbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
Great reading! Thanks for posting it.
8 posted on 03/30/2002 5:49:47 AM PST by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC;patent
Apparently your ping to the catholic list did not work, as I didn't get a bump to this thread and I am on that list. Maybe it has something to do with the new software?
9 posted on 03/30/2002 6:17:44 AM PST by Nubbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nubbin

The *Catholic list that Proud2brc pinged above is not the same as the bump list I keep. It's simply a marker that people who want to search for articles relevant to Catholics can use to do that searching. It doesn't place a bump in anyone's self search. My bump list is an old fashioned type of thing that does place a bump in.


10 posted on 03/30/2002 7:00:06 AM PST by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
Ker-BUMP! Happy Easter, all! We officially "moved into the church" (spend a lot of time there!) on Thursday evening, and since half the choir and the other cantors were all away on vacations or other necessary trips, I was "elected" to sing at all masses. I love to do it, but it is very hard on the voice. Please pray for me tonight that my "faltering trumpet" will be equal to the task! I'll be praying for all of you. God bless...
11 posted on 03/30/2002 7:20:32 AM PST by redhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: redhead; proud2bRC
I'll be praying for you, redhead, that with God's help you may sing as beautifully and strongly as St. Cecelia.

And I want to bump this thread back to the top -- it is a most excellent post.

12 posted on 03/30/2002 7:26:13 AM PST by OxfordMovement
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: patent
Thanks for explaining this. Hmmm...I wonder how many excellent articles I've been missing in my ignorance? I'm going to search that Catholic list now.
13 posted on 03/30/2002 7:36:57 AM PST by Nubbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
Thank you for posting this. Several years ago - around 1995-6 - this "Hosius" deal was brought up on our local Freenet. I searched forever, it seemed like, to find Hosius's supposed statement, and all Icould find were sites citing the same sites. It was a real joke - frustrating for me - as I knew it couldn't be true... but a real joke just the same, as the poster couldn't go any further than that either. The Freenet is no longer - but I remember it like it was yesterday. Thanks for all your work.

Millie in Michigan

P.S. I don't understand how the "pings" work, but I'd like to be included for your RC posts.

14 posted on 03/30/2002 7:51:09 AM PST by gramcam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
Wonderful! Simply Wonderful! Thanks for posting this important thread!

I don't want to change the subject, so could one of you kind people tell me via "Freep-mail" how to create a "Bump list" for myself? (I'm also a little unsure about how to "bookmark." ...well, 'unsure' isn't quite the right word... ignorant would be a better one!) Thanks, in advance!

15 posted on 03/30/2002 8:12:34 AM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dittojed2;Jerry_M
16 posted on 03/30/2002 8:16:41 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
Now I just want to say that if a Calvinist had posted something like this about Catholics all the crybabies would be out in force whinning about RC bashing...we will not whine however..because we believe in free speech!
17 posted on 03/30/2002 8:18:14 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Now I just want to say that if a Calvinist had posted something like this about Catholics all the crybabies would be out in force whinning about RC bashing...

Nice Non-Whine.

18 posted on 03/30/2002 9:08:01 AM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: grumpster-dumpster
I thought you'd like it:>)) Have a Blessed Easter
19 posted on 03/30/2002 9:19:49 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I did enjoy it. A Blessed Easter to you as well.
20 posted on 03/30/2002 9:23:11 AM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
You mean The Trail of Blood is shoddy scholarship? My goodness. ( /sarcasm ) Great post.
21 posted on 03/30/2002 10:04:45 AM PST by pegleg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Out of curiousity, what part of this post was your "I won't whine" comment not whining about?


22 posted on 03/30/2002 1:13:06 PM PST by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: patent
Out of curiousity, what part of this post was your "I won't whine" comment not whining about?

LOL..the best part of my non whine was I did not push the abuse button :>) Happy Easter Patent !!

23 posted on 03/30/2002 1:17:37 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
That isn't much of an answer, what would you have pushed the abuse button on if you were one of us poor whiny Catholics?
24 posted on 03/30/2002 1:19:05 PM PST by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: patent
I do not know the answer to that..just it happens alot....too much for it to be an accident...Now because exchanges like this are dangerous due to the PC speech code thats it Patent
25 posted on 03/30/2002 1:24:30 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Don't be silly!!!

A Calvinist DID post "something like this" on a Catholic thread earlier this week, (a thread for Catholics to prayerfully fight trouble in their own church, not a thread inviting Calvinists to bash the Church, mind you) as proof that the RCC was wrong and Calvinists were correct in their interpretation of scripture and history. I was aghast that OrthodoxPresbyterian would use such blatantly false "history" to try to bash us Catholics. It truly is below his level of scholarship and apologetics style, and I'm truly concerned he would trav el down such a tin foil hat path.

Regardless, it was necessary to correct the sinister deception he was foisting on Christians here by posting this response.

I never would have posted this if he had not entered a Catholic thread to spew forth such lies.

And I'm disappointed in you for whining about this measured response to such unadulterated lies.

26 posted on 03/30/2002 1:44:05 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Above you make a factual statement:
Now I just want to say that if a Calvinist had posted something like this about Catholics all the crybabies would be out in force whinning about RC bashing...we will not whine however..because we believe in free speech!
You call Catholics crybabies, whiners, and then you set yourself up as superior to them by saying you won’t whine about it, though you just had. Now you seem to admit you don't have much proof that its Catholics getting these recent posts pulled, and you know full well that there are other people who can act with or without our request. You also know full well that many of us don't use the abuse button.

When asked what it is about this post that bugs you, you say nothing. You can’t pinpoint anything wrong with this post. Now you claim to be afraid to speak. So much for your loud protestations about refusing to "preach a gospel of compromise" on the thread about the religion forums. Your fear certainly didn’t stop you from interrupting a thread where we were trying to discuss what to do about pedophilia in our Church, so whatever. You have spine when you want to, you just don't have anything to support your name calling, so you just wave your hands. I didn’t think I'd see anything different.

This article is a historical discussion of what a Catholic Cardinal did or did not say about Anabaptists. That is hardly bashing, you folks rely on this guy, one of our Cardinals, for words he supposedly said, when he didn’t say them. You are full of it, I don't recall seeing Catholics complain about similar objective posts. What bugs us is being called non-Christian, babies, whiners, idolaters, subjective things like that.

You have this thing for whining about a double standard around here. Yet, when asked to support it you can’t point to anything. You can’t point to anything in this article that compares to what some of you say on threads attacking Catholics, even non theological threads like the pedophilia one I referenced above. You complain your posts get pulled, etc. Maybe you should ask yourself what it is about your style and that of your fellows in faith that gets them dumped.

patent  +AMDG

27 posted on 03/30/2002 1:46:01 PM PST by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: *Catholic_list; *Christian_list; *Abortion_list; *Pro_life; patent; notwithstanding; JMJ333...
Finally got back to my other computer for the ping list. Sorry for any redundancy. Please let me know if you would like on or off my little list. Thanks.
28 posted on 03/30/2002 2:38:35 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
A Calvinist DID post "something like this" on a Catholic thread earlier this week,

A thread that got do make my point

29 posted on 03/30/2002 2:55:30 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Nubbin
I think it was Dr. Scott Hahn that said to become familiar with Church history was to become Roman Catholic.

Dr. Hahn may have been paraphrasing Cardinal Newman, who I believe said, "To be learned in Church history is to cease to be Protestant." Newman converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism after having set out to research and prove Anglicanism from Church history (he obviously ended up coming to a different conclusion than he set out to prove).

30 posted on 03/30/2002 4:12:59 PM PST by Proud2BAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
No he doesn't make your point. You still have the burden on you to move beyond complaining to actual engagement with the article. Hit the abuse button if you don't like it. Or jump in and be part of a real discussion that doesn't include whining and subjective assaults. Or just go away to a thread where you and your buddies can congratulate each other on being so superior to Roman Catholics.
31 posted on 03/30/2002 4:59:12 PM PST by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Well, considering that in early February Jim Robinson made it abundantly clear that he would tolerate no more Catholic bashing, it does not surprise me that that thread was pulled because of the patently false hystories posted by our calvinists there.
32 posted on 03/30/2002 5:46:05 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
This is a fearful amount of labor to have undertaken on a holiday weekend. A masterly performance, for which we are all in your debt. Bumped AND bookmarked!
33 posted on 03/30/2002 6:55:50 PM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: overseer5
A Blessed Easter to you!
35 posted on 03/30/2002 8:01:33 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Glad to see you are still active on this site. The "Neverending" has regressed, as I noted you observed, but the same ROMAN ("Latin Rite") Catholics are also still around, like pegleg and Proud2B.

Some of the readers of this thread could learn a few things by reading some of the earlier postings on the "Neverending" by yourself, Havoc, gracebeliever, ksen, JHavard, and others.

My only comment is the truth of church history has been very successfully obscured through the efforts of the RC Church, as documented by this poster. RCs, BTW, are APOSTATE Baptists!!! (All early Christians were "Baptists," who were obediently baptized by immersion as a testament to their salvation according to the Scriptures - certainly NOT for the forgiveness of sins, as is taught by the RCC)

The RC Church began their split about 350 A.D. from the early, primitive and fundamental church primarily over infant baptism and church hierarchy. The early church did not call themselves "Baptists" - they just were!! So the "2000 year history of the RC Church" is just one of many fables they promote, and similar to Peter being the First "Pope," etc.

He is Risen!! Enjoy worshiping our Lord!

36 posted on 03/30/2002 8:50:46 PM PST by First Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Forgeries? LOL The pot calling the kettle black, I'd say.

Heads up.

37 posted on 03/30/2002 9:20:52 PM PST by Iowegian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: First Conservative
the truth of church history has been very successfully obscured through the efforts of the RC Church, as documented by this poster

If the "truth" of your god and your version of the gospel is so easily obscured, the god you serve must not be the awesome, omnipotent God we Catholics serve.

This is your only response to historical reality? History proves your position completely wrong, so instead of rejecting the errors of your system and following Christ's Church, you must make up a history out of whole cloth to rationalize your continued rejective of the obvious TRUTH?


38 posted on 03/30/2002 10:19:42 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: First Conservative
Thanks for a hoot of a laugh. (Where do you mini-Popes come from?) I thought feminists were bad with their revisionist history writing -- but they have nothing on you!
40 posted on 03/31/2002 12:41:52 PM PST by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: proud2bRC
Funny how prots always have to get their licks in on Holy Mother Church. If their religion were true, they wouldn't be so threatened by the real faith of the Catholic Church. But never mind, God being the merciful Lord that He is will probably allow all of them to be re-educated in Purgatory.

A blessed Easter to you!

42 posted on 03/31/2002 12:44:23 PM PST by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Be_Ye_Glad
If your interest is genuine, ask him via Freepmail. This thread is about Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius who is always cited incorrectly by enemies of the Catholic Church. Similarly, there is an FR Calvinist who cites part of an article on John Calvin from the Catholic Encyclopedia -- as if to say the Catholic Encyclopedia gives John Calvin a thumbs up. But what that FR Calvinist does not do is quote the entire article from the Catholic Encyclopedia -- and the entire article is a serious indictment of the dictator John Calvin. Why cite Cardinal Hosius --or more accurately, Why lie about what Cardinal Hosius said --- because opponents of the Holy Catholic Church are desperate to find some Roman Catholic somewhere who might give a sliver of legitimacy to a Protestant movement.
43 posted on 03/31/2002 12:52:53 PM PST by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: Be_Ye_Glad; proud2bRC
My interest in genuine. But I don't need you to moderate my post. So do be a dear, and show some fruits of the Spirit and clam yourself down.

Oh clam 'down' yourself, and enough of the smarmy sanctimonious posturing. You obviously do need a moderator since one of your posts on this thread has already been deleted.

There is nothing new in what you are trying to do here. You are on this thread doing what you have done by any other name ... redirect and misdirect a thread to your agenda of attacking the Catholic Church and Catholics any way you can.

There are other threads where you can sing, extol, praise, and worship the so-called King James book. You can start your own thread based around anything you please -- even the spurious misreading of Scripture.

45 posted on 03/31/2002 2:05:46 PM PST by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
Truth? You wouldn't know it if it hit you in the forehead like a two by four. Read the Scriptures and tell me where you find your beliefs. Oh, that's right - you have to check first with your "Magic Sternum" to know what you "believe."

There is NO "history" of any form of Roman Catholicism before about 350 A.D. Ever hear of the Isodorian Decretals?" What makes you think the RCC did not do away with what Cardinal Hosius really said?

Rather than attack what fundamentalist Christians believe, why not tell us what you believe and why?

46 posted on 03/31/2002 2:11:59 PM PST by First Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: First Conservative; Be_Ye_Glad
Two points:

Christianity has ALWAYS been Catholic. The very earliest Christian were absolutely and thoroughly Catholic. And the Church has never taught error in matters of faith and morals. Christ promised it wouldn't.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Church is Christ's body, which He protects from error, or it is not. If the Church fell into error, Christ lied when He said, "I will be with you always," and "what you hold bound on earth will be held bound in Heaven," and (most importantly) "The gates of Hell shall never prevail against you."

If you believe Christ lied and Rome introduced error, then your entire Christian belief system is schizophrenic. You should be an agnostic or an atheist if you honestly believe Christ allowed His own Church, which He instituted and promised to protect, to fall into error.

The Church is the Body of Christ, with Him as its Head. If the Body is sick (in error) the Head (Christ) is sick.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, a disciple of John, a Christian writing around 110 ad, less than 80 years after the death of Christ, was very clear:


They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.


See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery [priests] as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.


Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does[in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ[shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.

This PROVES the early Church, even during the life of the personal disciples of the apostles, was

1)Sacramental (The Holy Eucharist IS the Body of Christ) 2)Hierarchical 3)given authority by Christ Jesus 4)CATHOLIC

47 posted on 03/31/2002 3:35:08 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: First Conservative; Be_Ye_Glad
See my profile page at the bottom for more on "what I believe." Many of the articles I've written are posted there.

These two sum up my own "story" if you are truly interested:

Complacency and Abortion - Dr. Brian J. Kopp, DPM

Complacency and Abortion

by Brian J. Kopp, DPM

     I received a tremendous grace in 1991. I was a "Sunday Catholic" who never really rejected the faith but never really embraced it either. In my pursuit of a residency training program in my specialty, foot surgery, I began visiting a doctor in central Pennsylvania. He was the residency director of a program at a small rural hospital here. And like so many others in late twentieth century America, he was a fallen away Catholic who had found faith, hope, and solace in an independent bible believing church.

     He was not afraid to witness to his born again Christianity. He challenged me and I very nearly lost my Catholic faith. I spent the summer of 1991 in agony, searching my soul and the Christian landscape for Christ’s church. In the midst of this spiritual turmoil, where I questioned everything I believed and thought to be true about Christianity, I had what that doctor would call a "born again" experience. After bible study one morning in his office in June of 1991, I walked out the back door in tears, convinced God was leading me to leave the faith of my youth, my friends and family. I made a heartfelt, sincere commitment to God: I told Him I would go wherever He wanted me to go, do whatever He wanted me to do, say whatever He wanted me to say, be whatever he wanted me to be.

     He heard that prayer and showered me with His Grace. By early fall I had met many good Catholics who built me up in my faith and led me to the books and resources I needed to find the truth. A study of the writings of the early Christians and the history of scripture and its proper interpretation led me to the conviction that God wanted me right where I had been, in His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

     Along with this intense search for Christ’s true Church came the search for moral truth, especially in the area of marriage and sexuality. This lead to the realization that today’s Roman Catholic teachings on sexual morality were the same as those of the earliest Christian writers. For instance, all of Christianity unanimously taught that contraception was inherently immoral until 1930. It wasn’t until the Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops in 1930 that any Christian body taught that contraception could be morally licit, under certain circumstances. This came as a shock to my wife and I, who had been using the birth control pill since our marriage in August of 1990.

     Although I had managed to maintain a strong pro-life outlook even as a "Sunday Catholic," I had never bothered asking why the Church maintained its teaching that contraception was inherently sinful. My wife, who was Lutheran at the time, had been taught that a prudent Christian couple contracepted until they could "afford" children. As a financially strapped third year student when we married, I fully agreed. By the end of that summer of 1991 I was beginning to have serious doubts.

     In school I had access to many texts on physiology and pharmacology. It didn’t take long to discover that the oral "contraceptives" that we were using weren’t just contraceptive. Due to the progressively lower doses of hormones in birth control pills (to decrease the life-threatening side effects that had become all too apparent with the pill) release of an egg during the woman’s monthly cycle was known to occur in 2% to 10% of cycles with the most common birth control pills, and up to 20% to 50% of cycles with the mini pill, Norplant implants, and Depo-Provera shots.

     When this "breakthrough ovulation" occurs, so can fertilization. But an egg that is released and subsequently fertilized almost always dies, because it cannot implant and grow on the thin, shriveled lining of the uterus that is formed under the influence of these so-called contraceptive birth control pills. Proof of this can be found in an article in Archives of Family Medicine (one of the Journals of the AMA), Vol. 9 No. 2, February 2000, called "Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent."

     Imagine the horror of learning that our contraceptive could be killing our own newly formed babies! Despite confessing this grave sin to a priest who claimed that contraception was no longer sinful in the eyes of the church, my wife and I persevered in our newfound conviction that, at least from a pro-life position, contraception was terribly sinful. We purchased a book and video and taught ourselves Natural Family Planning.

     In December of 1991 we made a pilgrimage to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Because our knowledge of the practice of Natural Family Planning was so limited, we conceived our first born son that evening. Of course there are no accidental babies in God’s Divine Plan, a fact we would come to learn and appreciate later as our knowledge of the practice and morality of Natural Family Planning grew.

     My wife, Sue, was very responsive to my newfound knowledge of scripture, tradition, and Catholic morality, and was received into the Roman Catholic Church on the Easter Vigil of 1992.

     I graduated from school and started my residency under the direction of the "born again" Christian doctor in central Pennsylvania that summer. (This was no small miracle itself. I had taken to praying the rosary every day in the fall of 1991, asking for Mary’s intercession so that I could return to my home region in central Pennsylvania. I put all my eggs in one basket, so to speak. While my classmates applied to literally dozens of residencies in the hopes of getting accepted into just one, I only applied to that central Pennsylvania program. Several years later I learned that I wasn’t the residency director’s first pick either.)

     Michael Joseph was born in August 1992. We took NFP classes from a teaching couple in the area and successfully mastered it this time. As we embraced the Catholic faith more fully and came to a deeper understanding of marriage and sexuality, we decided to take courses to become Natural Family Planning instructors ourselves. Looking back, this may also have been an attempt to assuage our consciences and make reparation for our former contraceptive lifestyle. We began teaching several NFP courses per year. I was called upon to give a talk here and there on sexual morality and NFP to pre-Cana and confirmation classes.

     We felt good about ourselves and the work we were doing for God, almost feeling self-righteous for our good deeds. This is our pro-life work, we told ourselves. We may not have been standing in front of an abortion mill praying, but we were educating people about the abortive nature of chemical contraceptives, about the fact that the unitive and the procreative aspects of the marital act cannot be separated. We were showing God’s people His will for limiting and spacing children, and what constitutes a grave moral reason for having recourse to NFP. We were striking at the root of the problem of abortion. As the Supreme Court admitted in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, "in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraceptives.... people have organized intimate reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail." (Contraceptives will always fail. God is Life. He is the Creator. We are made in the image and likeness of God. In marriage we are co-creators with God. Fertility, that which leads to life, cannot be suppressed or eliminated any more than God, Who is Life, can be suppressed or eliminated.)

     I prided myself that I was doing important work for God, pro-life work. But my commitment to this really was no more than a couple NFP classes and talks each year. I really had forgotten those innocent babies who should never be forgotten.

     I had become complacent.

     I did not realize it until 1997. I had returned to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on October 13, 1997, to attend the culmination of an international week of prayer and fasting to end abortion, under the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, on the eightieth anniversary of the miracle at Fatima. I sat there during the mass and listening to the various speakers, and I realized I had become complacent. I thought about those intervening years since I had last sat in that beautiful Basilica, and I cried. I thought of the evening our first born son was conceived in that city, and the magnificent gift of our three children, and the one we lost to miscarriage, and I cried. I thought of that commitment I made to God in June of 1991, seemingly so long before, and I cried. I listened to them speak of partial birth abortion, euthanasia, the newest, latest assaults on the innocent and defenseless, and I cried. I thought of all the many blessings my God had bestowed on me in my short life, and the biblical admonition that to those to whom much is given, much will be expected. I asked God to forgive me for my complacency.

     Then I made a new commitment that night, similar to that one I made to God so many years ago. I prayed to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of my Lord and God, Jesus Christ. I promised that with her intercession I would renew my efforts to end this evil of abortion. I told her I would go wherever she wants me to go, do whatever she wants me to do, say whatever she wants me to say, be whatever she wants me to me. Through her intercession, by the Grace of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I would no longer be a complacent Catholic.

     Daily, I need to recall my committment to this battle. The routine of everyday life, the demands of work, the bills we’re never quite able to keep up with, the childrens’ colds and homeschooling and dirty diapers, all these little distractions can cause us to forget, if only for a time, God’s forgotten ones. However, we cannot let ourselves slip into complacency. Along with our daily decision to follow Jesus must come our daily decision to pick up the Cross. Part of the Cross we bear is the knowledge of what is happening to God’s forgotten ones each minute of each day.

     Abortion continues because of complacency, but God’s forgotten ones don’t have the luxury of being complacent. Neither do we. Today our complacency threatens the lives of those we do not know. Tomorrow it may threaten our own life or that of our loved ones. Most importantly, our embrace of the Cross today, and the pro-life battle that is part of it, is not optional, if we hope to attain Eternal Life.

Back to Dr. Kopp's Page

My Conversion Story - Dr. Brian J. Kopp, DPM

My Conversion Story

(or, "The Rest of the Story," if you've read my article,
"Complacency and Abortion" on my sub page here.)

by Brian J. Kopp, DPM

     Sometimes you just don't appreciate all you have and all that has been given to you. Sometimes it takes another to challenge your thoughts, beliefs and preconceived notions, in order to make you see that which has been sitting right under your nose all along. God sometimes uses others, and even their own errors and misconceptions, to wake us up to His presence and the Truth He has preserved for us in His Roman Catholic Church.

     Throughout college, in all my pre-med courses, I was constantly taught the Darwinian dogma, that we are all the products of the blind forces of evolution, and that there was no purpose, rhyme nor reason to evolution. The orthodoxy that reigned then was that man was simply a physical being, the result of nothing more than chance. I ate it up. If they had offered a minor in evolution, I would have received it, for I took every evolution, anthropology, and archeology course my "liberal arts" college offered. I teetered precariously on the edge of the despairing atheism that is the home of those who embrace this philosophy, this hypothesis. At that time, I simply was not mature enough or well read enough to realize that this "objective scientific" position, of humanistic atheism, was neither scientific nor objective. The ego and rebellion of young adulthood is ripe for the stroking of the intellect that these errors of humanistic philosophy produce. "Man's mind is the highest power on Earth" and "Scientific knowledge is our God," could well have been the banner over the science building where I spent so many hours studying.

     Many of my classmates did indeed imbibe these heady notions, and unfortunately, some never came down from the "high" that scientific pursuit engenders, until it was too late. When the promise of science fails to fulfill ones life and bring the happiness that the grasp of pure knowledge promises, an abyss of despair, depression and even suicide often awaits. I saw it in a friend who took the road of atheism and never looked back.

     Twelve years of Catholic school, and the watered down, post Vatican II catechesis that accompanied it, had failed to prepare me for the trials and temptations of the world of college. I had given up the sacrament of Confession even during high school, and college saw my days full of study and my weekends full of debauchery. I'm glad my parents knew little of my time there. With my understanding now of the spiritual life, I realize and regret that my Lord saw all of it. Even then He was kind, merciful and loving of His lost sheep.

     All through college I simply could not shake a recurrent nightmare. It always occurred immediately before awakening. I was sitting on a mountain or a large plain, enjoying nature, when missiles suddenly whistled overhead and mushroom clouds burst over the horizon. At that instant, in this recurring dream, I knew that at any moment I too would die in a nuclear annihilation. And every time, in my dream, I died weeping for Jesus to forgive my sins, but knowing that to die in them brought Eternal Damnation. Even as my intellect struggled with God's existence, my soul was crying out for Him. During those years my intellect won, and the struggling of my soul had to step aside to my intellect that countered, "Not now, Lord, someday when I'm older I'll investigate this religious stuff seriously." Maybe that in itself was a prayer or a promise. It surely was the grave sin of presumption, that I would live long enough to reform my life and live as if I believed. But apparently God heard that prayer, and was Faithful, and waited.

     Throughout med school the dream persisted, but was not as intense. I became engaged at the end of college, and was married after my second year of med school. The rebellious years of young adulthood gave way to the hope of marriage and family, and my wife's Lutheran faith had never faltered, a challenge to my lukewarm, at best, Catholicism.

     Then, in searching for a residency-training program in my specialty, foot surgery, I visited a doctor that shook my world and all my preconceived notions. During my first visit to his residency program, I was immediately made aware that he was a former Catholic, and a "born again" Christian. He was on fire with a love of Jesus and knowledge of scripture that I had never before encountered. He talked about his Savior with anyone who would listen, as well as some who didn't care to. He challenged me to defend my faith, a faith that, in his opinion, had failed him.

     All my fears, embodied in the existential angst of that dream of nuclear annihilation, came flooding back to me. The thought of dying then, having never taken my faith seriously, having been shown by a recurring dream the damnation I could face, and recalling my unconfessed sins of many years, brought his challenge to the immediate present and the front of my intellect. I could not tell God to wait any longer. I could not suppress the commitment I knew I must make now, or risk never making again.

     We were having Bible study in that doctor's office one Tuesday morning in June of 1991, when it all hit me. I walked out the back door of his office in tears, and right then, I did as the doctor recommended. I accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. I told Him I would go wherever He wanted me to go, do whatever He wanted me to do, say whatever He wanted me to say, and be whatever He wanted me to be. I felt certain that at that moment He no longer wanted me to be a Catholic, in a church that withheld this vital message to its ignorant adherents, who likely would fail to achieve Heaven because they thought they would get there by works and attending mass, not by accepting Him as Savior.

     But this also meant abandoning the Faith of my youth, my family, and my friends. My tears were just as much from relief at finally deciding to take Him seriously, as they were of thinking that this meant searching for a real Christian Church and breaking the news to all those I loved. But I truly intended to search. If anything, I wanted to know the Truth. If it had been withheld from me during 25 years of Catholicism, then my first mission was to find that Truth. I was not going to look for a popular church or a comfortable church, or just any "Bible believing" church. I wanted to find Truth.

     The rest is not that ground shaking, really. Using both protestant and Catholic guides, I started reading the writings of early Christians, so that I could better judge the teachings of all the different "Bible believing" churches that I suddenly started noticing dotting the landscape. They all had their own beliefs about baptism, salvation ("once saved, always saved" versus the belief that salvation can be lost), works, sin, etc. Mostly it was not so much differences of opinion about the Bible, but differences in how to interpret scripture. Each church claimed personal interpretation of scripture under the individual guidance of the Holy Spirit. But there were so many opposing interpretations that I thought it best to see how the early Christians interpreted it. The writings of Catholics such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating solidified my rapidly growing conviction that all these "Bible believing" churches just weren't very biblical at all.

     More importantly, I learned that I had not been taught a faith that misinterpreted scripture and added things to scripture. Frankly, I simply HAD NOT been taught much Catholicism at all. The watered down Catechesis I had received in a liberal Catholic parish, during the chaos of the post Vatican II crisis, was actually more mainstream protestant than authentically Catholic. Once I seriously started studying scripture, and the writings of early Christians, the "scales fell from my eyes," in a certain sense. It was abundantly clear that God wanted me right where I had been supposed to be all along, in His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. More than anything, it was my own laziness and failure to build on the skeleton of faith I had received as a youth that left me open to both the errors of humanistic atheism and "Bible" Christianity.

     Finally, the most important thing I've found, after the initial necessity to make an adult decision to follow Christ and His Roman Catholic Church, is the necessity of rooting out personal sin that true conversion of the heart demands. After learning the basics of the Faith and apologetics, the greatest area of interest for me has been moral theology. Learning how to walk in the ways of the Lord, in a world immersed in vice and corruption, is the second great hurdle of the Christian life that is presented after that first hurdle of an adult commitment to Christ is passed.

     This second great hurdle is also where I parted company from the "Bible Christians." Although they teach the basic necessity of conversion of the heart to Christ, it seems they have failed, to a degree, in being faithful in calling their members to conversion of their lives from sin. Much of this is due to a residual anti-Catholicism, left over from the Protestant Revolt, and the perverted notion that if one believes, sin is no longer an issue, for salvation cannot be lost by sin. Since only the Catholic Church maintains a strong cohesive teaching on life issues such as contraception, masturbation, chastity, divorce, abortion, and homosexuality, it seems these issues are sometimes disregarded as simply "Catholic" issues that are not very important to many "Bible Christians."

     In this regard it is time for us to start reaching out to help convert those "Bible Christians" who once sought so eagerly to convert us. I owe much to a fearless fallen away Catholic "Bible Christian," and I will never forget that God used some of the errors of his biblical interpretation to point out to me True biblical interpretation, found only in its entirety in the Roman Catholic Church. Many of these brothers in Christ live in ignorance of lifestyles that are objectively mortally sinful, such as divorce and remarriage and contraception. But if these Bible Christians too are sincerely searching for the Truth, then the time is ripe for us to return the favors that, like the doctor in my conversion, they once granted to us. Its time to bring home the Lord's sheep.

Back to Dr. Kopp's Page

var site="sm7newlerepos"
48 posted on 03/31/2002 3:42:07 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Be_Ye_Glad
Actually, no, my posts were not pulled. VLH's posts were indeed pulled, and she was banned, because she was such an ignorant anti-Catholic bigot. In early February, several more anti-Catholic bigots were also banned when they came onto a thread by Jim Robinson where he was instructing the bigots to stop bashing Catholics, and used his thread to bash Catholics. That thread was subsequently pulled. I will readily admit that on that thread I had completely lost my patience and temper with several particularly obnoxious bigots, and was involved in the ensuing exchange that caused that thread to be pulled. And as a result of that thread, approximately four particularly ignorant and bigoted anti-Catholic Freepers were permanently banned, for which I cannot honestly say I am sorry.
49 posted on 03/31/2002 3:53:00 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Indeed, I think there will be a special wing of Purgatory for the "purgatory-doesn't-exist,-it-ain't-scriptural,-so-what,-Lord,-am-I-doing-here" Christians...
50 posted on 03/31/2002 4:42:34 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson