HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Polls  Debates  Trump  Cruz  Kasich  OPSEC  Benghazi  InfoSec  BigBrother  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Please keep those donations coming in, folks. Our 2nd quarter FReepathon is off to a great start and we have a chance of getting 'er done early! Thank you all very much!!

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $40,219
Woo hoo!! And the first 45% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Ottofire

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • More Catholics Seek ‘De-Baptism’ Over Pope’s Gay Marriage Remarks

    01/03/2013 7:49:38 AM PST · 66 of 72
    Ottofire to HarleyD

    No, no no Harley! You can’t start quoting scripture!

    And whatever you do, don’t look to scripture where it compares circumcision to baptism. And uncircumcision, SKIP THAT PART! And definitely skip all that about human tradition, oh my! Too confusing without a inspired interpreter... (which none of the Catholics here are, unless that cheeky Freeper BennyXVI has finally unlurked.)

    Rather turn to canon law, and the vast, unconfusing, unending and constantly revised, dust covered volumes of what the Roman Catholic Church has taught from the time of Peter the First (except when it didn’t... just ignore that part.)

    /sarc off

  • An excerpt from the Book of Enoch

    01/03/2013 6:59:06 AM PST · 9 of 13
    Ottofire to Rashputin

    Yup, the Jews, who were entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:2), did not consider it inspired.

  • John Calvin was America’s ’Founding Father’ [Presbyterian Rebellion Day]

    07/06/2012 8:58:36 AM PDT · 79 of 159
    Ottofire to Salvation

    -The Catholic Church was established in Florida decades and decades before the Pilgrims came to America.

    I KNEW it! Catholicism could only have started in Florida... (Sorry, had to, but I don’t care who you are, that is funny.)

  • John Calvin was America’s ’Founding Father’ [Presbyterian Rebellion Day]

    07/04/2012 8:40:50 PM PDT · 12 of 159
    Ottofire to Gamecock

    “The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox’s gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again.”—C. H. Spurgeon

  • You Might Just Be A Calvinist If….

    06/21/2011 4:34:23 PM PDT · 98 of 99
    Ottofire to Gamecock

    The FIRST thing I see, after a long, long hiatus from the FR Religion forum, is this...

    Thanks Lord for predestining this, I needed this chuckle just now, and thanks Gamecock!

  • Vandals hit GOP office

    08/31/2010 12:15:19 PM PDT · 7 of 8
    Ottofire to Paul46360

    Personally, I blame Robb Akey. I think his mustache is fake.

    (Go BRONCO’S!)

  • Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?

    10/25/2009 6:59:56 AM PDT · 26 of 568
    Ottofire to Petronski

    >>...or you can follow the word of God.

    >I do, in the Church He founded for us to guide us and protect us from error: the Catholic Church.

    And if the Catholic Church at one time taught error, then where are you? Oh, that is where we have to use the old ‘private-interpretation,-and-not-really -taught-by-the-Church” trick...

    “Missed it by THAT much...”

    (”Would you believe two Boy Scouts and a pen knife?”)

  • The Salvation of Babies That Die (pt 1)

    10/06/2009 1:45:56 PM PDT · 7 of 9
    Ottofire to Campion

    Campion, as I think that you know your Catholic doctrines, I put this to you; is it only unborn babies that are speculated to go to limbo, or is it also the unbaptized born babies?

  • The Salvation of Babies That Die (pt 1)

    10/06/2009 10:47:48 AM PDT · 2 of 9
    Ottofire to Ottofire

    Great way of messing up the title, Otto...

    Oh well...

  • The Salvation of Babies Who Die (pt2)

    10/06/2009 10:46:24 AM PDT · 1 of 13
    Part 2 of this HUGE article, both length- and Theologically-wise.

    Have a blessed day, Otto

  • The Salvation of Babies That Die (pt 1)

    10/06/2009 10:39:23 AM PDT · 1 of 9
    Something that was featured on the show Wretched the other day...

    Have a blessed day Otto

  • Did Athanasus Have Any Right?

    08/07/2009 7:17:33 AM PDT · 14 of 34
    Ottofire to Kolokotronis

    >Most of this article is revisionist nonsense. +Athanasius the Great was NOT a proto-protestant of any kind and what he was fighting was the theology of probably the then majority of the Church of Antioch, not of the “Established Church”.

    Proto-protestant? He was a protestor against what he saw as heresy in the church. As such, he was a protestant.

    Did he hold to what I hold? No. Do all the church fathers agree on everything? No, there is a cacophony of voices from the fathers, and there is little agreement on anything, just as in the Protestant church. Hmmm.

    Does that matter that he does not agree with me? No, he is not the authority for faith, but as he said to the Arian, (I paraphrase) it is to the scriptures we must turn, since we do not hold to the same traditions. And I agree whole-heartedly with him. Do you?

    So what is meant by Athanasius Contra Mundum if it was only his diocese that was turned away from orthodoxy? Why was is the Emperors that repeatedly banished him if it was only a local phenomenon? Why did Nicea need to happen if it was only Antioch? Why was there STILL Arians about after Nicea, or was Antioch the only bad seed? Or is that just a bunch of revisionist double-talk?

    >That said, from an Orthodox perspective, it is even more nonsensical to say that the reformers had no right to attempt to reform the Latin Church in the 16th century. The “laos tou Theou”, the People of God, the laity, ALWAYS are the guardians of orthodox Christianity and it is their duty and role within The Church to keep hierarchs and clergy on an orthodox path. To say otherwise is to turn The Church over to hierarchs, some of whose skulls, we are taught, pave the floor of Hell, and reduce the laity to the status of pay, pray and obey serfs.

    Interesting! So the church is held on it path by the laity, not those that teach the laity? That the hierarchs and clergy, those that know the sacred traditions, and pass them from generation to generation, are the source of heresy?

    That is, as I could easily hear a Catholic say, is a blueprint for anarchy! Where is the authority, if it does not come from the Apostolic Succession, if those that are OF the succession are the ones we need to keep our eyes on for apostasy? Search your doctrine with fear and trembling! :o) You are sounding downright protestant there, Koloktronis! (I feel the protestant rising within you! Turn to the Dark Side! Bwah-ha-ha-HA!)

    (Darth Kolokotronis? Hmmm. A bit long I think....)

  • Did Athanasus Have Any Right?

    08/07/2009 6:46:15 AM PDT · 5 of 34
    Ottofire to cmj328

    >The Church is always reformed, but always in need of reform.

    >Therefore everyone has the right to call for the authentic reform of the Church.

    >And nobody has the right to call for the deformation of the Church.

    Does that mean that nobody has the right to stop the reform of the Church, if needed?

    Hmmm. So then Trent was wrong to kick out those that were attempting what is needed?

    You will note that the Reformers wanted to be back with the RCC, and were, much like Athenasius calling for the reform needed within, until Trent kicked them out... Trent was a door slammed in the reformers faces, a firm rebuke to those doctrines that were fine just a decade prior to Luther, though Hus might argue that the debate was getting rather heated, pardon the pun. That was the cause of the schism, not the call for reform.

    Athanasius, like the reformers, was not just fighting one diocese, but the majority of the church was Arian, and after the Pope Honorius signed, maybe coerced, an Arian creed, then (according to Vatican I) the whole of the Church was against him. Athanasius Contra Mundum.

    Should Athanasius have submitted to the Pope and, now, the whole of the church on this, a central tenet of the small o orthodox faith? With the reformers, there was a movement, with Athanasius, there was only him. Even after Athanasius, and after Nicea the point was not settled (which makes the reaction of the church to the early popes not quite the same as the church gave to later popes.) It took many many years of convincing through the scriptures to kill that heresy.

    Note that prior to the reformation, those that held to reformational ideas were happily within the RCC, with hardy debate, but nothing worth a Foxes Book of Martyrs entry, oh, except for Hus and a few others (so much for separated brethren being an unchanging teaching of the Church.) The Reformation did not come out of whole cloth, thus those of the Protestant ilk can truthfully claim that what we believe was held by those within the church prior to Trent.

    Note that during Trent, a plurality, not a majority, actually voted for the canonization of the deuterocanonical books, thus even within the scholars and doctors of the faith, had they stuck with their pre-Trent beliefs, they too would be outside the body of Catholic believers. But unlike Athanasius, they did not stick with their beliefs, and just submitted to something which they did not hold. Not that this is a HUGE issue with Protestants, it might have led to a firmer grip on the scriptures.

    Just saying...

  • Did Athanasus Have Any Right?

    08/07/2009 5:46:08 AM PDT · 1 of 34
    "I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both- the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."
  • The Ministry Continues [Lakeshore Baptist Church update]

    07/16/2009 10:31:03 AM PDT · 1 of 3
    After Katrina, Lakeshore Baptist was instrumental in building houses for those left homeless, and churches from around the country donated time and supplies to aid in the effort.

    God bless this congregation!

  • Gregory of Nyssa's Unwritten Traditions....

    07/04/2009 12:04:28 PM PDT · 15 of 18
    Ottofire to Notwithstanding

    >2 Thessalonians 2:15
    >New Testament apostolic teaching to abide by oral tradition

    Okay, what we have here is indeed a statement that the teachings of Paul, at least, since he was the one who wrote the verse, were to be held whether through oral teachings (preaching) or epistle.

    Does this mean that what Paul wrote and preached are different? No. It would be wise to think that if they were that one or the other would be suspect. Since the scripture is God-breathed, inspired by the Holy Spirit, we know that that cannot be wrong. Thus if there is any contradictions between the oral traditions that Paul taught and the scriptures, the tradition must be wrong, unless you would put forth that the Spirit could make mistakes. I pray that this is not the case.

    2 Thessalonians 2:15 just says that you are to stand firm in Paul’s teachings however you find the teachings. Both of us can agree that Paul should be held as an authority of the church. Peter wrote that Paul’s epistles were scripture. (Funny that he said nothing of what Paul taught orally. Good argument that they were one and the same. )

    What we do have is inconsistencies in how the Catholic church judges tradition. Ireneaus claimis that Jesus died at age 50 (Against the Heresies, chapter 6 I believe), and that John and the apostles taught that to him personally. And the Catholic church, as far as I know, do not hold to that ‘apostolic’ teaching even though it comes through the very means of transmission from which the Catholic Church suggests it gets everything else. So if a claim is made through traditions what is the standard of measure for them?

    I can dig up the list, much like yours, of Early Church Fathers that said that the SCRIPTURES are the measure. Will that hold water with you? No, for like your list, it is easy to cherry pick the massive and contradictory writings of the ECF’s, and as the original article shows, even the translations of their writings are suspect. Do we have as many original manuscripts of the Early Church Fathers as we have Scripture? Or are these ninth century translations which contain many errors, much like the medieval bible.

    So what can we do? Well, we still have the actual writings of the apostles. Any traditions must be suspect without direct revelation by God, since there has yet to be a list of traditions which are shown to be canonical, inspired or that can even be verified to be something taught by Jesus, the Apostles, or even in some cases, the early church fathers themselves.

    Now as for your list that I must agree is very very long, is there anything there that is taken from older works, which might be mistranslated, on purpose or mistaken? If you read James Swan’s blog, you can see the effects of the writings of the Catholic apologists during the time (and later) of Luther, and their purposeful twisting of Luther’s statements during the heated time of the Reformation.

    The echos of such polemics are still being found on the lips of popular apologists who just do not do their homework. Have you done yours, checking the sources of that list? Are you sure you are not echoing the mistakes or possible sins of others?

    Do you care enough to check? THAT is why I posted the article.

  • Gregory of Nyssa's Unwritten Traditions....

    07/03/2009 5:36:04 AM PDT · 1 of 18
    How much of your apologetic is made up of such blatant attempts at deception? Do you test your own arguments? Do you read/listen to the other side? Or do you justify it because it is in defense of the "Truth"?
  • A Reasonable Question

    07/02/2009 4:15:17 AM PDT · 1 of 2
  • Michael Jackson’s Faith

    06/30/2009 9:13:21 AM PDT · 23 of 28
    Ottofire to paulist

    I agree that it is non-biblical, and a bit trite. It usually is served up with a sinners prayer, and once said, it is sometimes claimed that the one who offered the prayer is ‘born-again’.

    It is not to say that some are not saved by this method, but too many have no signs of true regeneration (” show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works....” James 2:17-19. Note that this statement is descriptive, not proscriptive, which would lead to works righteousness ).

    This, like child baptism/one true church-ism often leads to false converts who do not know they are false converts. “Hey, I was baptized/am part of the one true church/said the sinners prayer... I AM saved.”

    Where did ‘asking Jesus into your heart’ come from? I suspect that it is from the time of the Second Great Awakening of Finney. Ugh!

  • Michael Jackson’s Faith

    06/30/2009 8:53:22 AM PDT · 21 of 28
    Ottofire to NYer

    >May he finally find peace with God.

    I understand that this is merely a prayer for his salvation, and that is something I can agree with. I pray that there were evidences of fruit that we could not see. I must also pray that should there have been none, that the mercy of the judge not be extended to MJ.

    It is right that all of us sinners fall into the eternal pit. It is only through the grace of God that we are not cast there upon the first sin. We deserve nothing better than the wrath which Jesus took the full brunt of. It is not unjust or wrong that any face the judgement and wrath. It is not unjust or wrong to praise God for pouring out wrath. Yes it is a frightening thing, but it is right to praise God for punishing those that deserve it, and should make our commission that much more desperate and motivated to save those of His Flock.

    Believe me, I would desperately love to have some small evidence that Michael Jackson was saved, but I see nothing of Christ in his life. All praises to that Judge who pours out His righteous wrath on those that are not washed by the Blood of Christ. All praises to Him that has chosen to extend unmerited favor to His ekklesia, His Called out ones from all the peoples. May He be blessed for both His wrath and grace for He is full of Righteousness and Mercy and that is good.

  • No Salvation Outside the Church

    06/29/2009 10:00:53 AM PDT · 585 of 2,817
    Ottofire to Petronski

    LOL, thanks.

    I think I have been misusing that term for at least a few decades, and never been corrected! Again, thanks!

  • No Salvation Outside the Church

    06/29/2009 12:34:02 AM PDT · 532 of 2,817
    Ottofire to bdeaner

    But bdeaner, Vatican II takes what is clear in Florence and ignores the fact that ALL outside the Catholic faith are thrown into hell, whether by no fault of their own or not.

    I read what the Catechism says and then re-read the statement from Florence and they just do not jive.

    Again Florence [with commentary added]:

    It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, [who are pagans by choice? Or through no fault of their own?] but also Jews [again with Vat II these are only those who have heard the Gospel and rejected it] and heretics and schismatics [ditto] cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation [does this include separated brethren? I thought we have to be part of a church with apostolic tradition to have real sacraments???], and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, [How can one who rejected the gospel shed their blood for Christ, as you tell me the original language suggests???] unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger 714).

    Again, this is one counsel saying one thing and then a later counsel saying something completely different. I cannot see any way to have them agree. This is quite clear that those Vatican II says are separated brethren unless they remain in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church and benefit from the sacraments of said church cannot be saved.

    I would like to point out that according to the written word of the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter 1 and 3, all in the world are judged as unrighteous, and only those that have submitted to God’s will can be washed clean. Again, as Paul points out, the natural and carnal man cannot choose to do good in God’s eyes, and only the creation of a heart of flesh and a spiritual rebirth, which is caused by the Holy Spirit, not by the will of man, can cause someone to want the things of God.

    This is where I think that Florence was nearly right, but had wandered from the clear teachings of Holy Scripture. Only the invisible church, those who are born from above, the ecclesia, will be saved. All outside this body is damned, all willfully enjoying the sin nature that Adam’s fall caused to be our birthright.

    Of course, all I am basing this on is only the clear writings of the Old and New Testaments, who we agree were God-breathed.

  • The Faith Shaped Life

    06/28/2009 11:41:51 PM PDT · 1 of 3
    The comfort of the Sovereign Lord writ brilliantly.
  • No Salvation Outside the Church

    06/28/2009 8:09:12 AM PDT · 80 of 2,817
    Ottofire to bdeaner; All

    Perhaps you can give me the interpretation of the following from the Council of Florence, which I believe is considered to be an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church, which is in line with the article?

    It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger 714).

    Wow, shedding blood for Christ! That is a doozy for the Catholic Church to defend with its new Vatican II veneer. Is that one of those two thousand year old unchanging traditions taught by Christ to the apostles? Auigh!

    Father, forgive them for they know not what they do in Your name...

  • ESV-Kindle-Only Churches Growing Fast

    06/26/2009 4:15:23 PM PDT · 32 of 37
    Ottofire to Alex Murphy

    Thanks Alex. It had me going for a while...

  • News analysis: Generation gap creates dilemma for SBC

    06/26/2009 9:40:32 AM PDT · 8 of 9
    Ottofire to WKB; prairiebreeze; Beloved Levinite; TwelveOfTwenty; arderkrag; dixiebelle; raynearhood; ...

    Baptist Ping!

  • Reflections on the #SBC2009

    06/26/2009 9:39:22 AM PDT · 2 of 4
    Ottofire to WKB; prairiebreeze; Beloved Levinite; TwelveOfTwenty; arderkrag; dixiebelle; raynearhood; ...

    Baptist Ping!

  • Reflections on the #SBC2009

    06/26/2009 9:37:52 AM PDT · 1 of 4
  • Is 'Ecumenism' a Bad Word?

    06/26/2009 8:43:57 AM PDT · 47 of 94
    Ottofire to bdeaner

    >This is a false choice. All one needs to do is spend a few minutes exploring FR’s Religion Forum, and it becomes obvious that the great majority of Protestants who criticize the Catholic Church are actually attacking a straw man, due to their ignorance and/or exposure to anti-Catholic propaganda.

    How can there be unity when there are unreconcilable differences? Trent laid down the law and evicted many that were rightly in the church of the West who a few hundred years earlier were considered orthodox (small o). After Trent, the line was laid that cannot be erased without 1) Rome admitting it was wrong, 2) wholesale conversion of Protestants from what we see as Biblical truth to what we see as man-made tradition. Either side must reject their beliefs to unify.

    As for straw-men and anti-X propaganda, there are plenty of them on both sides. This is why I prefer to watch debates betwixt the sides, rather than just read the literature that either side puts out. The arguments placed side by side, passionately discussed and challenged by those that who really know their stuff is greatly illuminating.

    As for those Vatican II, I just simply point out the the writings of Trent and Florence are pretty clear. Any outside the RCC are under the anathema. Unless you are saying that Trent and Florence have changed their clear meaning. It is pretty clear that those in the time of Trent and Florence believed that we are not separated brethren who might have a bit more time in purgatory, but heretics doomed to hell.

    >While Catholics these days seem to be relatively open to dialogue with Protestants, thanks in part to the ecumenical spirit of Vatican II, a lot of Catholics do not have a clear understanding of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism—a problem that is in large part due to the diversity of Protestant beliefs, in contrast to one, unified doctrine of beliefs over the course of history in the Catholic Church.

    Um, actually I find that within those that actually hold to the teachings of the Reformation, there is little diversity in the essentials, where when I look to the RCC I find a diversity that is so great I can hardly see how it retains unity. I see many such as are found here, being conservative and then there is the Kennedy, Pelosi and the liberal ilk. When over 70% of Ecumenicals vote for McCain and over 50% of Catholics vote for Obama, where is the unity? Is Life is an issue with the magisterium only, but not so much with those that sit in the pews? Is that your definition of unity?

    I see a church that apparently has no real authority, and has to ignore or compromise continually to maintain this unity. The lack of church discipline in the RCC does not argue for its truthfulness. The claim of unity just does not hold water. Maybe if the teachings of the Magisterium were more clear. Maybe there needs to be an infallible interpreter for it... oh wait. Sorry.

    Then again, it is also clear that from the beginning there is no one teaching of the church, that there really was no unity. You will find that in each of the councils there were people that disagreed. Each council pared off believers from the unity of the church. And since the paring of the Orthodox (big O) you have to admit there were those that deserve the title Christian whom were separated from the ‘one true universal church’, BY the ‘one true universal church’. As such, the church divided itself from the unity that the later RCC is trying to reclaim. Does Athanasius Contra Mundum suggest that there was unity?

    In the bedrock issue of the Canon of Scripture, the matter was not settled for some 1500 years after Christ!

    One unified doctrine of beliefs indeed.

    The problem with both the Protestant and RCC is that there are a majority of people that have no clue and no interest in finding out, what their churches teach. In the Protestant churches, whole churches wander from the clear teaching of the bible to liberalism, legalism and heresy. In the RCC there are those that think it is okay to be a cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing what is okay to believe and what is okay to ignore. And then there is the RCC ignoring that to maintain a semblance of unity. In both cases there is no want to know doctrines, and in too many cases, no real spiritual rebirth in those that sit in the pews. Thus the problem with both is the lack of real believers changed by the Spirit of Truth.

    >Both sides can learn something from each other without compromising. If nothing else, ecumenism among Christians is necessary in order to create a unified front politically and philosophically against the securalism and other anti-Christian forces taking root in our time — which requires focusing on common ground rather than differences — also very much a possibility, without compromising anything.

    As for unifying for political and social issues, I agree. HOWEVER we cannot agree to do so under the banner of faith due to the fact we are not united in faith. I would not allow a Catholic to lead my children in prayer in school. Why? What if that prayer included references to Mary or the Saints? Would you allow a Mormon or a JW lead your children in prayer? I hope that sets your teeth on edge.

    Such unity must be under where we are unified. Such as here, as fellow Freepers. As I stated prior, not all that are of your faith tradition agree with me on 5% of what you and I do. Thus they are embarrassed by you standing arm and arm with me, and would argue that the RCC does not stand for social conservative issues.

    I know, I was all over the place on this, but I have only had one cup of coffee, so I apologize for the meandering response.

    I understand the desire to unify, but again, it is impossible, outside God. Until He returns there is going to be disunity, unfortunately.

    May God bless you, bdeaner, and I pray we will be united in Christ after He is proclaimed King by all people.

  • Is 'Ecumenism' a Bad Word?

    06/26/2009 6:58:22 AM PDT · 30 of 94
    Ottofire to bdeaner

    Ecumenicalism with compromise is an attempt to compromise truth.

    Ecumenicalism without compromise is merely a conversion attempt hidden by guile and deception.

    Either way it is a dissipation of the gospel.

    Now we see that after the disunity that was caused by Florence and Trent, among others, the Catholic Church is trying to bring together Christians that were driven forth from the united Church by those that were seeking to retain worldly power in the RCC, rather than spread the gospel. And those that were driven forth are blamed for it by the RCC’s most vocal apologists. Yeah, that is the way to bring Christianity back together.

    The only way to bring the church back together is to repudiate all the councils and go back to those first seven and stick to those alone. Since that is not going to happen, the RCC has painted itself into a corner. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen. Pride is seriously a deadly thing.

    Like Reagan, the Protestants can truly say “We didn’t leave the RCC, the RCC left us.” And now the RCC is trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

    Soli Deo gloria

  • Why I Don’t Have a Television and Rarely Go to Movies

    06/26/2009 6:22:04 AM PDT · 3 of 10
    Ottofire to All

    Hat tip to Triablog for this one.

    ( http://triablogue.blogspot.com/ )

  • Why I Don’t Have a Television and Rarely Go to Movies

    06/26/2009 6:19:57 AM PDT · 1 of 10

    May we be guardians of our ears and eyes, and walk in Christ and not the ways of the world.

  • Reasons for Changing the Original Bible (Ecumenical)

    06/21/2009 6:21:54 AM PDT · 59 of 59
    Ottofire to restornu

    Still your answer is lacking. Why is it you are using a corrupted text instead of one laid out by one that the LDS claims is THE restorer of the faith?

    Corruption leads to corruption. Truth leads to Salvation. Yet the LDS continues to preach from a text it claims that Satan himself helped alter from the original, which was re-revealed by Joseph Smith the First Prophet.

    If you teach from the KJV you are preaching what Satan had written down according to the LDS. Thus when the LDS preaches from the KJV it is preaching Satan’s gospel. The LDS is preaching an anathema upon itself (Galatians 1: 6-9).

    Does this not concern you?

  • Reasons for Changing the Original Bible (Ecumenical)

    06/16/2009 8:55:26 PM PDT · 57 of 59
    Ottofire to restornu

    Yeah, I was afraid you might go all kinds of post modern on me.

    Too bad there are no real Mormons left who would argue their points. Thirty years ago there might have been some perhaps heated discussion, prior to the retreat from the banning of black elders. When the church crumbles in the face of public opinion it must be really embarrassing. What does Jesus say about that? I bet He didn’t suggest caving even in the Joseph Smith interpretation.

    Where did the men go in the Mormon Church? Brigham Young would never allow his church to bend the knee without bloodshed. He had some grit and guts and would get in anyones face to challenge them. Joseph Smith would argue that HIS bible was the real bible, and that what we have is the apostate remains. Heck, he died with a gun in his hand. Got to give the guy credit for that, (even if perhaps that alone.) Did all the men go to those LDS offshoots?

    But there is no one that stands for anything in the LDS anymore. I think it is because the Mormon church really knows there is no toe, much less a foot to stand on factually, and always has to fall back to the “my feelings tell me” defense. And that must be so satisfying to run from every hill and front. I really wish more Mormons would fight. Instead, we must expect the Mormons to crumble instead of continuing to fight beside the Christians for moral issues, when the fight gets really tough. How long before they abandon the barricades in California? If and when the church starts to get taxed?

    The modern Mormon church was feminized and probably will never recover. A worthy foe falls to post modernism. Alas!

  • The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

    06/15/2009 7:40:01 AM PDT · 86 of 169
    Ottofire to bdeaner

    As stated in a prior post, transubstansiation is not found here unless you read back into the quotes the CURRENT RCC meanings.

    I might suggest you look to those that in the ninth century argued against transubstantiation as the new doctrine swept the Roman Church. I would recommend “On the Body and Blood of Our Lord” by Bertram (or Ratramn) where he argues against it. Found here ( http://books.google.com/books?id=y1wEAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=ratramn#PPP1,M2 )

  • Reasons for Changing the Original Bible (Ecumenical)

    06/15/2009 7:25:49 AM PDT · 55 of 59
    Ottofire to Kolokotronis; All

    >We certainly think so...and for very good reasons. We Greeks are God’s other favorite kids and like those other favorite kids, we are very, very bad people with big mouths. He wanted us to have every advantage and use those big mouths to spread the word! :)

    God uses all things for the workings of His will. He definitely used the Greeks extensively. From Alexandrian prophesy in Daniel, to the Septuagint and the use of the term Parthenos to further underline the virgin birth of the Messiah, to the use of the Greek NT letters and books to spread the word throughout the Eastern Med, God surely had His hand on them poor loudmouthed Greeks.

    >BTW, if you want scriptures likely nearest to the “originals”, the Byzantine Text of Orthodoxy is what you should look for.

    Which one? The Byzantine text family is pretty diverse itself. Since the Ninth Century it was the only Greek text being copied due to the encroaching Muslim hordes, (the Latin, of course being found in the West) but this does not say the OTHER Greek non-Byzantine texts are inferior just because they were not being published.

    The use of differing manuscripts is not a weakness but a strength. It shows that the Dan Brown “Constantine had all the other versions of the bible destroyed” myth is just that. As well as the fact that even with all the thousands of manuscripts most of the differences are scribal errors and there are NO doctrinal differences between them. No, we don’t need the bible to have differences in churches, we just need to ignore it.

    I personally LOVE textual criticism and would push all those interested in the field to read read read good Christian scholars.

    But NOT Bart Ehrman, as he is an apostate with an agenda. Dr. James White really highlighted that in his debate with Dr. Ehrman. (I know, I know, Dr. White is an evil protty CALVINIST, but the debate is quite interesting. Funny that, lots of Catholics love when White debates Christian cultists, apostates and others that they do not agree with...)

    I suggest anyone interested to take a gander at this for some good crunchy textual criticism goodness —> ( http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?amount=0&blogid=1&query=An+Introduction+to+Textual+Criticism )

  • Reasons for Changing the Original Bible (Ecumenical)

    06/15/2009 6:55:18 AM PDT · 54 of 59
    Ottofire to restornu

    Interesting take. I really wonder why, since the KJV is so flawed, the Mormon church (LDS) does not use the Joseph Smith ‘translation” of the KJV? Is it not corrected by an infallible prophet of God?

  • No-Cross Protocol ["New" Mormon tradition]

    06/14/2009 6:57:09 AM PDT · 37 of 81
    Ottofire to huldah1776


    Unity in Christ is something that IS important. However which Christ are you seeking unity with? You better be looking to the true Christ, the one that died for your sins once for all, and who is God, and is to be the Lord of your life. Does the Mormon Church have the true Christ? Is Christ the spirit brother of Lucifer? Does the cross only pay for some sins, the others you must work to have washed clean (some sins by your own filthy blood?)

    Mormons are nice hard-working family-oriented people. And if you want to show the love of Christ to them, you must be willing to share the true Gospel even if it annoys them. For otherwise they face unending torment in the end. If not, you are just willing to let them follow their false gospel and false teachers into hell, and that is not showing any love at all.

    Do not fall prey to those that say “We worship the same Christ” without testing their doctrines. By this standard the Watchtower Bible Tract people are also brothers in Christ, something at least old-time Mormons would vehemently deny.

    Cling to the only and true God and read the word that He graciously inspired for us to guide us. Anything that strays is false, and you must jealously avoid that which is not His.

    Mark 13
    21”And then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ’; or, ‘Behold, He is there’; do not believe him; 22for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 23”But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.

    2 Peter 2
    1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.2Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

    Deuteronomy 13
    1”If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.4”You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him.

  • No-Cross Protocol ["New" Mormon tradition]

    06/13/2009 9:38:29 AM PDT · 1 of 81
    Why no crosses? Something I was not aware of...
  • "Adam-God" - Brigham Young's Theory or Divine Doctrine?

    06/12/2009 6:54:14 AM PDT · 1 of 26
    "Brigham Young places the honest Latter-day Saint on the horns of a dilemma. If the Mormon wishes to claim Young as a true prophet, he must also accept his Adam-God teaching since a true prophet must have a correct theology concerning God (Deut. 13:1-3). If Young's teaching is not accepted, then the Mormon must conclude that Brigham Young was a false prophet. The Mormon can't have it both ways."

    Deuteronomy 13:1-3 (King James Version) 1If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

  • Grace Alone

    06/05/2009 7:06:17 AM PDT · 1 of 7
  • IMB cuts and the GCR call [Southern Baptist Inside Baseball stuff]

    05/26/2009 8:49:46 AM PDT · 1 of 2
    If someone could ping the Baptists please. I musta lost my link to that pinglist...

    Always good to hear "...there are some things we can cut, but sending missionaries is not one of them....That is not an option" from the head of a denomination.

    Amen, brother Hunt, AMEN!

  • From Apostolicity To The Twenty-Seven-Book New Testament

    05/25/2009 9:27:24 AM PDT · 5 of 11
    Ottofire to Campion

    -Wow. He really doesn’t get it at all.

    Please tell us what you mean? That was a big excerpt you c/p’d.

  • From Apostolicity To The Twenty-Seven-Book New Testament

    05/25/2009 8:47:19 AM PDT · 1 of 11
    Just a little interesting article on the dating, authorship and stuff on the NT books.
  • Christianity and Evolution -- Seeing the Problem

    02/18/2009 5:38:04 AM PST · 9 of 9
    Ottofire to jimt

    >The article is nothing more than an eloquent restatement of the Bishop Usher interpretation of history. Along with a “my way or the highway” definition of Christian.

    My way or the highway? It seems that is what you are saying also. If things do not fit in your idea of how things work, it MUST be wrong.

    Of course a biblically based individual would be saying -God’s- way or the highway. I know that if I had my fallen, twisted corrupted way we would end up quite far from the biblical and God’s ideal. My way has no authority, and ultimately is evil.

    >If you believe in a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible, you might try reading The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

    Interesting. Is there any other way to read ANYTHING but literally? How am I to interpret anything? Do I get to bring a nice liberal interpretation that lets me put my own meaning into anything I read? It is hard enough to read something WITHOUT putting my own meaning in...

    >Or maybe you have an explanation of why...

    Why do you demand to be allowed to say what is good and what is evil? This is a fallen world, and as God says multiple times in the bible (and yes I am paraphrasing) “What right does the clay have in questioning why the Potter has made things the way they are?”

    Of course there are those that want to judge God, thus setting themselves up as their own gods. Hey, if you want to take that liberal interpretation of life, that is fine as far as that is going to get you, but it is going to get you nothing but what all self justifying people get, and in the end God is the one that has the final say.

    >This type of tripe is no more the literal “Word of God” than Mohammed’s ravings. I refuse to believe God (or the Godly) capable of such behavior.

    >But I know men are.

    And being a man you are also capable of doing the exact same evil behavior, but you are demanding the right to say what is good and what is evil. In doing so you are putting yourself above the Creator. Like a drunken bum in the gutter muttering about the state of the world, we have no objective point of view, but oh, we set ourselves up as judges over the whole world with about as much authority. God is the only authority in any matter. God is the only objective participant. But hey, keep muttering. Some of us bums might listen.

    Now, if the Word of God was as self contradictory as the Koran, you might have a point. Of course what you see as contradictions are just you, again, attempting to judge being a twisted and fallen creature (just as I am) and as such you have a twisted and fallen judgement. You WANT to find contradictions, thus you find them. Your preconceptions will not allow the bible to be other than what you want to find. (And yes, I have my own preconceptions. I at least am aware of them.)

  • Christianity and Evolution -- Seeing the Problem

    02/16/2009 7:39:22 AM PST · 1 of 9
    For those that think that evolution as defined by science and Christianity are compatable...
  • Clash of the Titans: Sungenis vs. DA

    01/17/2009 6:02:29 AM PST · 14 of 15
    Ottofire to Zionist Conspirator

    Yeah, Sungenis has jumped into the deep end of the Tiber.

    DA is Dave Armstrong, another Catholic apologist.

    As for Sungenis’s private interpretations, I have no clue about what these guys are saying. I really am surprised that the RCC leadership has not pulled the reins tight on ‘em, for they wander all over the landscape, often without rhyme nor reason, but with that CATHOLIC stamp on everything they say. But then again the RCC is not all that tight on church discipline, unfortunately. It seems like anything goes as long as you don’t do something TOO embarrassing.

  • Clash of the Titans: Sungenis vs. DA

    01/17/2009 5:55:45 AM PST · 13 of 15
    Ottofire to vladimir998

    >Actually he kept most if not all of his earlier beliefs about Mary. He also distorted scripture and deliberately mistranslated it, dropped books from the canon, etc.

    Conjecture without support. Fail.

    >No. Liberal Lutherans will have no influence on the Church. They are dying out anyway. Non-Catholics cannot be canonized by the Catholic Church. Luther wasn’t Catholic by the middle of his life.

    The good Catholics in the link provided think that, sorry, that Unchanging Eddifice of the RCC is gonna change, as it has in the past. Disunity in the Church! Chaos!

    >The only “faith alone” verse in James is where he clearly is saying there isn’t supposed to be any such thing.

    Actually only the commentary that you have on that link was really saying that. But hey, you see what you want to see.

    >>“Some Catholics, of course end up with some weird Works First which allows them to play footsie with the Moslems, Pagans, Hindu, etc by saying that the righteous ‘good work’-doing Moslem, Pagan, Hindu, etc can work his way to heaven, totally ignoring the fact they have no faith. Thus we get Mother Teresa saying she was trying to make the Moslem, Pagan, Hindu etc into better Moslem, Pagan, Hindu etc, totally ignoring the fact that without faith that Jesus was the I AM, that they are going to take their seemly righteous works to hell with them. But hey, that is an off-topic rabbit trail.”

    >Not only a rabbit trail, but a fantasy rabbit trail of your own creation.

    I don’t know how many times I can ask, I believe Gamecock or Alex, to post that nice picture of John Paul II kissing the Koran, or shall we look to the Hindu’s dancing in the Cathedral in India, or perhaps read the nice quote from Mother Teresa about making Moslems better moslems, or that nice quote from the up and coming black archbishop saying that there MIGHT be some postmortem regeneration of the righteous unbelievers. Again, conjecture without support. Fail.

    >onsense. It always amazes me how Protestants try so hard to push that line and it always backfires. Do you really think that St. Bernard of Clairvaux, a monk, a priest, devoted to the Eucharist, devoted to the Virgin Mary, who strongly supported the papacy, really would be a Lutheran, or Presbyterian or a Baptist if he showed up now in the 21st century? What your suggesting is as nonsensical as the “St. Patrick was a Baptist” trash that shows up every now and then. Please come back to reality.

    I really think you are in a state of surreallity yourself. I never claimed they were Protestant. I would say most of them are early Christian or Mideival Christian, but have only traces of what eventually developed into the accreted traditions of the RCC. What I alway love is the assumption that Protestantism developed out of whole cloth by Romanists. It is one or the other with them. Either the RCC is right and Luther et al invented the whole thing, or everyone was Protty before Trent. That is just ridiculous. I do not see how you could come up with that idea from what I wrote, so I must assume you are placing your own presupositions and worldview in the sentence. Fail.

    >What? When did the Church kill Muslims? When did the Church kill pagans? And Hindus? When? Where?

    When the Church sends men under arms to retake the Holy Land, under the guise of Crusade, you are going to deny that the Church had some responsibility for the deaths incurred? Dude, you are in massive denial. Do you also say that the conquistadores were doing a good and Christian thing in South and Central America?

    >>“Actually this is from the same source that Catholic Answers gets the 30k denominations of Protestant faith that follow Sola Scriptura.”

    >Uh, no. The source for the 30,000 Protestant denomination idea (and 30,000 is a gross underestimation) is the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982).

    Yeah. The World Christian Encyclopedia by Oxford Press. Did I not put that in my post?

    >>“(Steve Ray in particular is in love with that claim. It is taken from the The World Christian Encyclopedia. (If you can find it, the denominations included in the list also includes the RCC, Orthodox, and other semi-christian churches, as well as all the christian cults like the Watchtower, LDS in all its hundreds (!) of forms.”

    >Irrelevant. That still leaves, nearly 30 years later, at least 30,000 Protestant denominations.

    Um, that includes all the RCC and the Orthodox churches, hit the link there is a photocopy of the page, and you can plainly see that. But even a brainwashed cultist knows the difference between the LDS and Watchtowerites and the Protestants. Do you? Even your Pope called the Protties an Ecclesiastical community though missing an apostolic succession. But you can do no other than put the Christian Cults in the same basket with the Protestants. Dude, for once I say this. Listen to your leader.

    >Irrelevant. That still leaves, nearly 30 years later, at least 30,000 Protestant denominations.

    Dude, seriously. No evidence to support your claim? FAIL.

    >No. There are tens of thousands (actually I would say hundreds of thousands) of Protestant sects. You can whine about it, but that fact won’t change.

    I could WHINE that there are ten thousand different sects in the Catholic Church, and repeat it as often as you make your baseless claim. I would be WRONG. Can you admit you might be. No? FAIL. Really dude, whine?

    >>“Listed on the very next page is a list of how the millions of Christians have been martyred over the years. Luckily the RCC is only number five on the list, and if you see on the list here:http://mp3.aomin.org/images/jpeg/P11.jpg";;

    >And what it says is nonsense. WHen did this happen? Where? How was it done? By whom?

    Um, the same source that Catholic Answers uses for their 30k Protestant sects. I did write that, I believe. So I guess I can call it a source that Catholics use.

    >>“I understated the Catholic body count by 1.9 million. Sorry, I was not checking my sources. Also note that the Protestants, listed as Other Christians by my guess, did indeed kill 222,000, most of which were probably Catholics during the wars of the Reformation.”

    >And you’re still wrong. The Catholic Church did not kill 1.9 million or 4 million. Again, where’s the proof?

    Again, it is a Catholic used source, ask Steve Ray about it sometime. I think he has a show you can call in.

    >And you’re still wrong. The Catholic Church did not kill 1.9 million or 4 million. Again, where’s the proof?

    >>“But hey, this is a book copied on an evil Anti-Catholic web site (oh, and used by Catholic Answers for their apologetics...).”

    >Is it? So far all I see is a list with no source at all. Care to actually provide the proof? I have no reason whatsoever to trust James R. White. I have no reason to trust you. I also know from experience that there are tens of thousands of Protestant sects (there are no fewer than 4 major Lutheran sects in my town and apparently several smaller ones - and that’s just the Lutherans). Yet, I have never seen anyone persecuted to death by the Catholic Church. So, what evidence do you have that the photocopy is actually from the same book, and is actually accurate? So far, I see none of that.

    Okay dude. I can see that you will not accept that any opponent of the Catholic Faith can be honest. I think that even if I got that book, and personally pointed it out to you, you would then say that the book was wrong.

    If that is the case then I have really should just leave this conversation, for you are really not talking to someone that is honest in your mind, and I will twist facts and lie. If you think that I am doing that then we cannot have any kind of a serious talk here.

    >Nancy Pelosi isn’t Catholic. She just hasn’t been formally excommunicated. That may happen one day. The same goes for Ted Kennedy. And, in case you haven’t noticed it, the Catholic Church has diocese. They are responsible for excommunicating Pelosi and Kennedy. There’s one Church, but it has many bishops and not all of them are doing their jobs.

    >You have failed again. You must be getting used to it by now.

    No actually the RCC has failed. Failed to discipline members, and allows them to continue to enjoy the title of Catholic. Lack of church discipline is a sign of a failed church. Bishops not doing their jobs? A sign of a failed church. Bishops not doing their jobs and still getting to be bishops? A sign of a failed church. Why does the Pope not rectify the situation? Politics anyone? A big blinking neon sign in front of the church that says FAIL.

    >You and other anti-Catholics post often against the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church. You and other anti-Catholics misconstrue Catholic beliefs and apparently don’t care one bit about correcting your mistakes. If you want to cry over being labelled an anti-Catholic, go ahead and do so. The behavior of anti-Catholics here, however, is manifestly anti-Catholic. That’s the way it is, so that’s what I said. And just as I thought would happen, you utterly failed to show how I was using “liberal victim terminology”. First, “anti-Catholic” is not a liberal term. The term is used by both liberals and conservatives and has been for decades. Second, I did not use it in anyway a liberal would in regard to a liberal issue. There are anti-Catholics here at FR so I used the correct and appropriate term anti-Catholic.

    And you accused me of whining. I actually think of the term as a badge of honor. An anti-Catholic is someone that is against falsehood, so thanks!

    >ROFLOL! Vatican II did not supercede any previous council. All councils must be interpreted according to the councils before and after them. Such is the teaching of the Church in regard to councils. The pope was always infallible. It just wasn’t defined by a council until the 1870s (not 1850s as you erronously stated) and it had been discussed in the same terms since at least the 13th century, and was nearly defined in council in the 15th century). You need to study.

    Well, at least I got you to laugh. Um, where is an infallible interpretation of the councils? I would LOVE to see them. And I hate to correct you again, but the Pope cannot ALWAYS be infallible. He has to follow the tight laws of infallibility set forth in the 18-whenevers. You should know that, riiight? Please get YOUR dogma straight. Maybe YOU ought to study some too?

    Oh, and I like that you are finally admitting that the accretion of tradition occurs. So much for the idea of the unchanging traditions.

    >Protestantism is Liberalism. Everytime I see a Protestant attacking Christ’s Church - the Catholic Church - I am reminded of the fact that Protestant sects are de facto tools of Satan no matter how much good they accomplish oterwise. They were born in schism and heresy. They foment hatred of God’s Church, His sacraments, His mother and even His sacred word by distorting it. Protestantism was the first great step toward atheism.

    Lol. Distorting His word? This is from a church that dissuaded people from reading His word for how long? Kept the people from having it even available in a language that they could read for how long? Thought that saying the word in a language that the people could not understand somehow was effective, like a spell or something?

    >>“Actually, I hate to correct you, but Protestants use the oldest works of the Christian faith,...”

    >Heresy and schism are not the oldest works of the Christian faith. Faith and the Sacarments are.

    Lol, actually schisms are good. And you will agree, no, that the schism with the Arians and Pelagians was a good thing? Heck, you would even agree that Athanasius’s break with the near totality of the church, which was arian at the time, was a great thing. Athanasius contra mundum!

    >>“...and do not accrete traditions to justify dogma.”

    >Really? Altar calls, sinner’s prayer? Those aren’t traditions in some Protestant sects?

    I can not speak to those, for, like all that hold to the Reformation, I look to the bible for authority, and I do not see that either of those traditions are biblical. Just as you cannot speak for those in the RCC that want to make priests outta women and homosexuals. If they do not respect the authority of the said group, they cannot truly be of that group, as I am sure you agree. I would never say that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were truly Catholic. But of course that would mean those who give Ted and Nancy the opportunity to participate in Mass are not truly Catholic either. Which would mean a good deal of the official Catholic leadership in the USofA are not really part of that church. Hmm.

    >>“The RCC is the liberal flavor, the Reformed Protestants are the ones that are the most conservative.”

    >No. There are (sadly) liberals everywhere. Liberalism was non-existent in the Catholic Church 200 years ago. That changed because of liberal Protestants. All Protestants are liberals by definition. Whereas the era of “Catholic liberals” will wane in less than a generation, liberalism will always haunt Protestant sects because Protestants are liberals.

    I agree with you lament that liberals are everywhere, however to blame everything on the Protestants is a bit short sighted. There are always those in any group that want change. Often change is good. However never is change good in the foundations of the faith. Saying that the EVIL of protestantism is the cause of all the bad in the world is revealing. I now understand your prejudice. Unfortunately you could perhaps blame the Protestants for the Jesuits, and that in turn lead the RCC further from the faith. But I would suggest that those who want to have their ears tickled with humanist bullstuff are going to seek out humanist bullstuff. Those that hear His voice will come to Him.

    Of course returning to the oldest writings is a great leap away from liberalism, and I would suggest that listening to those who hear from those who hear from those who heard from the apostles instead of actually reading what the apostles wrote is a good way to wander from that which is theopneustos. But hey, I just read what we both agree came from God. You listen to the faint and distant voices of saints long dead, picking through their words for that which God might have said. Do as your conscience tells you. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe.

    >And Luther can never be canonized because he wasn’t Catholic, and died an unrepentent heretic, scismatic and excommunicant.

    Well, I would truly hate to see that you were wrong. The ecumenical movement is sickening, and for the RCC to glom onto the atheist Liberal ‘protestant’ groups is stepping farther from the faith. Of course the footsie with the unbelieving moslem hindu and others continues. Erg. Watching that hurts from the outside, it must put your teeth on edge.

    >They might, but your view misses at least two things: 1) a proper world view is Catholic, and 2) the Catholic here seem to know a whole lot more about the Catholic faith than the anti-Catholics. The Catholics also seem to know more about history, the Bible, common sense, logic and how to make an argument. Coincidence? Nope. The very fact that you can’t get basic facts about the Church right, but would never waver from attacking her, tells us all we need to know about the worth of your view.

    Actually I have been a RC, when young, and not fully Catechized, I must add, and I listen to debates with RC views presented. I am not totally ignorant of the Catholic view, but I do know that there is the Catholic view and many problems with it. Unlike some, I can actually see problems with the Protestant view as well. But on this side of Glory things are not perfect.

  • Clash of the Titans: Sungenis vs. DA

    01/16/2009 6:23:15 AM PST · 10 of 15
    Ottofire to vladimir998

    >>“True, and Doctor Luther was totally within his rights until Trent.”

    >On some things yes. On others no. And on some points, Luther’s theology kept evolving. Ten years AFTER Oct. 31, 1517, for instance, Luther still believed in Purgatory but in a different way - according to his own admission - then he had in years past.

    Nothing but agreement here. He even dropped his Catholic Mariology eventually, and was able to read the scriptures plain teachings that everyone starts off with sin.

    >>“Where did I put that list of worthies that also put ‘alone’ in that dratted verse in Romans? That is good for at least one anathema from Trent...”

    >Make sure Luther is on that list.

    Well, I wonder how much longer. Though I do not think the canonization of Luther is going to get the fast-track that Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II or the dogmatization of Mary as a second redeemer, the ecumenical movement betwixt the liberal Lutherans and the RCC is going to have a lot of pressure to change things.

    >Bernard of Clairvaux didn’t mean anything any different than Peter Kreeft. Has he been burned yet? No. I guess you’ve been reading this trash?: http://reformation500.blogspot.com/2008/12/references-to-sola-fide-prior-to-luther.html

    >Tsk-tsk. Here, you should read this then: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/fathers.html

    Okay, yeah Bernard echoes James. As Jesus said “A good tree will produce good fruit...” only those with faith can even produce works. It is the rectification of all the Faith Alone verses with James, and is taught as such by the reformers.

    Some Catholics, of course end up with some weird Works First which allows them to play footsie with the Moslems, Pagans, Hindu, etc by saying that the righteous ‘good work’-doing Moslem, Pagan, Hindu, etc can work his way to heaven, totally ignoring the fact they have no faith. Thus we get Mother Teresa saying she was trying to make the Moslem, Pagan, Hindu etc into better Moslem, Pagan, Hindu etc, totally ignoring the fact that without faith that Jesus was the I AM, that they are going to take their seemly righteous works to hell with them. But hey, that is an off-topic rabbit trail.

    >Uh, no. You not only don’t read Latin, but you do read Reformation500 Blog so you’re bound to not learn much that is accurate about the Catholic faith.

    Right, I am learning a bit about what these men thought of their faith, not about the Catholic church. There is too much evidence that these guys did not hold to the same two thousand year traditions that you do. Heck, they liked to kill those righteous Moslem, Pagan, Hindu etc men. The latest incarnation of the Western Church wants to hug them. Not making a judgement about either course of action, but they ain’t the same, and it is not the same church.

    >There were no “three million Christians” put to death by the Church. What’s your source for that nonsense? Oh, wait, is it something you made up out of thin air or are you relying on some blog?

    Actually this is from the same source that Catholic Answers gets the 30k denominations of Protestant faith that follow Sola Scriptura.

    (Steve Ray in particular is in love with that claim. It is taken from the The World Christian Encyclopedia. (If you can find it, the denominations included in the list also includes the RCC, Orthodox, and other semi-christian churches, as well as all the christian cults like the Watchtower, LDS in all its hundreds (!) of forms. When it gets down to it there are less than 10k that follow Sola Scriptura, and with that, they would get my ‘same church’ label, much like you would the various Eastern Catholic churches, which are all listed separately. Link to photocopied page: http://mp3.aomin.org/images/jpeg/WCEP16sml.jpg)

    Listed on the very next page is a list of how the millions of Christians have been martyred over the years. Luckily the RCC is only number five on the list, and if you see on the list here:http://mp3.aomin.org/images/jpeg/P11.jpg
    I understated the Catholic body count by 1.9 million. Sorry, I was not checking my sources. Also note that the Protestants, listed as Other Christians by my guess, did indeed kill 222,000, most of which were probably Catholics during the wars of the Reformation.

    But hey, this is a book copied on an evil Anti-Catholic web site (oh, and used by Catholic Answers for their apologetics...).

    >Non-Catholics can’t be canonized. I know of a St. Martin church in Leavenworth, Kansas - but that’s a Lutheran church. I often wondered whether it was St. Martin of Tours (or the drunken ex-monk we’re talking about) that the church was named after.

    Oh, sorry. I guess I was reading about a different Catholic church when I read this: http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2000/0100cz2.htm

    Of course it might be the other Catholic Church that had more people voting for Obama than McCain. Is that the one that keeps Nancy and Ted (and others) in its ranks? Yeah, there must be two.

    >>“Wow! A second shot of using the liberal victim terminology.”

    >Noting - correctly - the common ignorance of anti-Catholics here is not “using liberal victim terminology.” It’s just stating the truth. Anti-Catholics aren’t familiar with the truth though either.

    >And just for kicks, tell me what “liberal victim terminology” is in this paragraph: “There is a good chance that all this thread will do is highlight how much anti-Catholics here at FR don’t know and don’t care to research.”

    >Then please explain why any term in there is “liberal victim terminology”.

    Sorry. I guess you do not notice than when anyone points out problems in certain liberal victim groups, that the first thing outta the progressives mouths is “yer just an anti-X”. Thus every time I see you echo their reflexive response, I have to adjust my glasses and make sure you ain’t Ted Kennedy. No, there is NOTHING wrong with the Catholic Church you ignorant protty!

    >There is no chance I would ever be a liberal or a Protestant - but that’s redundant isn’t it.

    Actually, I hate to correct you, but Protestants use the oldest works of the Christian faith, and do not accrete traditions to justify dogma. The RCC is the liberal flavor, the Reformed Protestants are the ones that are the most conservative. The Catholics are the ones with the ‘living traditions’, (thus Florence and Trent are superseded by Vatican II, the Pope becomes infallibly in 1850’s and Martin Luther is going to be canonized in our lifetimes.)

    >My point still stands: “There is a good chance that all this thread will do is highlight how much anti-Catholics here at FR don’t know and don’t care to research.”

    Research? Well, actually I think that the Catholics that stick to Catholic sources for stuff are, for some strange reason, going to only see the Catholic world view. For several hundred years the RCC has been in an echo chamber, and yeah, there is a bunch of Catholic material that justifies the fact that the Catholics have been ignoring the clear word of the Scriptures. But hey, who am I to tell such a scholar of the faith. I mean, l am merely foolish, and you are so wise in the ways of the world.

    >Thanks for the assist!

    Not a prob.

  • Clash of the Titans: Sungenis vs. DA

    01/15/2009 5:43:48 PM PST · 7 of 15
    Ottofire to vladimir998; All

    >The comments from the anti-Catholics are hilariously ignorant.

    You’re right. Maybe I should have hidden this under the ‘ecumenical’ forcefield to keep all the riff-raff out. Ah, too late, I am already here.

    >Catholics are allowed to disagree and debate on issues that are not defined.

    True, and Doctor Luther was totally within his rights until Trent. Hey, lets make a list of the early church fathers who would also be listed as ‘stakeworthy’ by the mistake at Trent!

    Where did I put that list of worthies that also put ‘alone’ in that dratted verse in Romans? That is good for at least one anathema from Trent...

    Dude, Jerome? Augustine? Origen? (Nah, lets leave Origen off that pile. He shoulda been staked for his other weird teachings. Heck, St. Francis woulda staked Origen.) Cyril of Alexandria? John Chrysostom? Bernard? Maybe you can tell me what he meant In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” I am just an ignorant protty anti-Catholic. I don’t read latin, but I am sure you probably do. Thomas Aquinas? Auigh! Not Thomas! Dude, that really sucks. He was such a good Catholic too! Of course, he was really big on burning heretics, so maybe it would be good for him...

    Oh man, this is getting too long to wade through. Just assume it is lots and lots of others who woulda been barbecued next to Hus, and all the other three million Christians put to death by the good ole ‘One and Only Church’ doing business in Rome.

    If we had put all those great and wholesome teachers to the stake when they had taught against the infallible two thousand year traditions, which of course were fully in effect at their time, for those traditions were handed down unerringly from the Apostles for, um... (did I mention two thousand years yet? I guess I did. Starting to sound CATHOLIC, egads!), it would have saved a bunch of people heart ache and suffering later on. Shoulda burned them good Catholic/heretic teachers when they were actively teaching against the traditions.

    Maybe Brother Martin coulda stayed at the monastery and had a good boring life instead of being put under the eternal anathema. Btw, how is the canonization of dear Brother Martin going? How does that work? You guys and your moving traditional goalposts sometimes makes me dizzy.

    >There is a good chance that all this thread will do is highlight how much anti-Catholics here at FR don’t know and don’t care to research.

    Wow! A second shot of using the liberal victim terminology. You really should wean yourself, lest you start thinking like them. That I pray never happens to you. Seriously.

    But hey, I am taking away from the big debate betwixt these great apologists! Who’da thunk I would every cheer for Dave ‘in the tree’ Armstrong? Go Dave!