Renouncing the Catholic faith formally

[lakeside]

Questions: 1) Why do you believe that "one report by a Peter Liegé" is an objective and realistic representation of a crusade summoned by a pope. 2) Why do you believe the author of that wiki article correctly represented the actual historical events, when he only quoted 1 source, from a man who is not known by ANYONE to be a credible historian or an objetive reporter of the facts?

So I'll take the guy's word for it, let's say that it happened exactly as described. [ only one person's report ] Naughty, bad Catholics. So what? What's the point? Is there some doctrine at stake here?

Catholics have done some really bad things (more readily proven than this). Catholics will continue to do some really bad things. We are a Church of both saints and sinners, and have never claimed otherwise. So what? Even Jesus' handpicked Apostles had a thief and a traitor in their midst. Why should the Church be any better than the Apostles?

We [ Catholics ] admit that back then we had a few very bad popes, in fact civil courts levied worst punishment that the Church, what about all the atrocities coming out of the Protestant religion i.e Protestant Peasant Wars, Cromwell against the Irish, Witch- burning in Europe and America, murdering of Catholic etc. Any bad pope that we had still never could change any Doctrinal Teaching, no matter how hard they would attempt, because any Teaching Jesus passed on to His Church, be it explicitly or implicitly, can never be changed by any pope, or any clergy or laymen of God's Apostolic Universal as in Catholic Church.

 

[JonC]

Oh yeah, I forgot. Christiandom. Catholics believe that the church is comprised of sinners and saints. They take the dichotomy that scripture presents between the church and the world and a place it entirely within the walls of the church.

 

[lakeside]

Protestors against God's Authority abound on this earth.

 

[DHK]

Protestors against God's Authority abound on this earth.

God's authority is the Word of God. It alone is inspired. The RCC is not inspired and has no authority at all. It took authority from governments in the past to kill, plunder, and even rape. Would Jesus do that?
Baptists take their authority from the Word of God which is our authority from God, as He has given it to us. You have no authority at all, but that which is man-made coming from depraved man, wicked and sinful--certainly not God-ordained. Think it through.

 

[DHK]

Questions: 1) Why do you believe that "one report by a Peter Liegé" is an objective and realistic representation of a crusade summoned by a pope. 2) Why do you believe the author of that wiki article correctly represented the actual historical events, when he only quoted 1 source, from a man who is not known by ANYONE to be a credible historian or an objetive reporter of the facts?

So I'll take the guy's word for it, let's say that it happened exactly as described. [ only one person's report ] Naughty, bad Catholics. So what? What's the point? Is there some doctrine at stake here?

Consider the documentation that J.T. Christian gives in his book, "A History of the Baptists,"

The severe moral demands of the Albigenses made a profound impression, since their example corresponded with their words. They mingled with their tenets a severe zeal for purity of life and were heard with favor by all classes. No wonder that the people deserted the Roman Catholic priests and gathered around the Boni Honiness. In a short time the Albigenses had congregations and schools and charitable institutions of their own. The Roman Catholic Church became an object of derision (Scliaff-Herzog. I. 47).

This state of affairs greatly alarmed and aggravated the pope. In the year 1139 they were condemned by the Lateran Council; by that of Tours in 1163, and mission after mission was sent among them to persuade them to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Henry, in 1180, employed force. Pope Innocent III published a crusade against them. Says the Historian Hume:

The people from all parts of Europe moved by their superstition and their passion for wars and adventures, flocked to his standard. Simon de Monfort, the general of the crusade, acquired to himself a sovereignty of these provinces. The Count of Toulouse, who protected, or perhaps only tolerated the Albigenses, was stript of his dominions. And these sectaries themselves, though the most inoffensive and innocent of mankind, were exterminated with the circumstances of extreme violence and barbarity (Hume, History of England, II. ch. xi).

In the second crusade the first city captured was that of Braziers, which had some forty thousand inhabitants. When Simon de Monfort, Earl of Leicester, asked the Abbot of Ceteaux, the papal legate, what he was to do with the inhabitants, the legate answered: "Kill them all. God knows His own." In this manner the war was carried on for twenty years. Town after town was taken, pillaged, burnt. Nothing was left but a smoking waste. Religions fanaticism began the war; rapacity and ambition ended it. Peace was concluded in 1229, and the Inquisition finished the deadly work.

The proof is overwhelming that the Albigenses rejected infant baptism. They were condemned on this account by a Council held at Toulouse, A. D. 1119 (Maitland, Facts and Documents Illustrative of the Albigenses, 90. London, 1832), and that of Albi in 1165 (Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of Piedmont, 150). The historians affirm that they rejected infant baptism. Chassanion says: "I cannot deny that the Albigenses, for the greater part, were opposed to infant baptism; the truth is, they did not reject the sacrament as useless, but only as unnecessary to infants" (Chassanion, Historie des Albigeois. Geneva, 1595). Dr. Emil Comba, of the Waldensian Theological College, Florence, Italy, the latest of the Waldensian historians, says that the Albigenses rejected "all the sacraments except baptism, which they reserved for believers" (Comba, History of the Waldenses, 17. London, 1889).

The story is a pathetic one. "We live," says Everwin, of Steinfeld, "a hard and wandering life. We flee from city to city like sheep in the midst of wolves. We suffer persecution like the apostles and martyrs because our life is holy and austere. It is passed amidst prayer, abstinences, and labors, but everything is easy for us because we are not of this world" (Schmidt. Hist. et. Doct. de la secte des Cathares, II. 94). Dr. Lea, the eminent authority on the Inquisition, has said that no religion can show a more unbroken roll of victims who unshrinkingly sought death in its most abhorrent form in preference to apostasy than the Cathari.

I trust that is enough.

 

[lakeside]

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (Thess 2:15)

Of course the baptist denominations don't have these word of mouth teachings and traditions. You are left only with the Bible. I actually feel a little sorry for you all as it is an incomplete faith. It's like a chair with one leg. It may have beautiful craftsmanship but it is completely useless for it's intended purpose. Sola scriptura is circular reasoning. Who gave us the Bible? The Bible you thump was given by and cannon determined by the Catholic Church. No way around that. The New Testament wasn't used by the earliest Christians as it hadn't been composed yet. There is no way that there is some tradition of sola Scriptura going to the earliest times. It was invented by people who just want to disagree with the Christ given authority of the Catholic Church. It is a tired, worn out, lame argument with no support. Even Luther admitted that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible.

 

[annsni]

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (Thess 2:15)

Of course the baptist denominations don't have these word of mouth teachings and traditions. You are left only with the Bible. I actually feel a little sorry for you all as it is an incomplete faith. It's like a chair with one leg. It may have beautiful craftsmanship but it is completely useless for it's intended purpose. Sola scriptura is circular reasoning. Who gave us the Bible? The Bible you thump was given by and cannon determined by the Catholic Church. No way around that. The New Testament wasn't used by the earliest Christians as it hadn't been composed yet. There is no way that there is some tradition of sola Scriptura going to the earliest times. It was invented by people who just want to disagree with the Christ given authority of the Catholic Church. It is a tired, worn out, lame argument with no support. Even Luther admitted that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible.

Word of mouth? The word of mouth is gone now - it died with the people who were eyewitnesses. But what they left us is the writings - the writings that the Catholic church did not decide on but the writings that were confirmed early on and were listed before any council met. The words were not given by the Catholic church but were given to us by God Himself.

You really are deluded by the lies of the Catholic church but that's not surprising. They deal in a lot of them.

 

[McCree79]

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (Thess 2:15)

Of course the baptist denominations don't have these word of mouth teachings and traditions. You are left only with the Bible. I actually feel a little sorry for you all as it is an incomplete faith. It's like a chair with one leg. It may have beautiful craftsmanship but it is completely useless for it's intended purpose. Sola scriptura is circular reasoning. Who gave us the Bible? The Bible you thump was given by and cannon determined by the Catholic Church. No way around that. The New Testament wasn't used by the earliest Christians as it hadn't been composed yet. There is no way that there is some tradition of sola Scriptura going to the earliest times. It was invented by people who just want to disagree with the Christ given authority of the Catholic Church. It is a tired, worn out, lame argument with no support. Even Luther admitted that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible.

Who gave is the Bible? God did. If the ones who "received" the 66 books as scripture knew they weren't giving anything. They acknowledged that God declared these to be scripture. God didn't need, nor has ever needed the pagan riddled RCC.

NT scriptures spread like wildfire through early churches. They were present and used.

What is the tradition Paul speaks of? It isn't RCC tradition. It is the message of Christ contained in 1 Thessalonians and oral teaching. He does not indicate anything is taught orally, that is not written. Your tradition goes beyond scripture, which Paul warns not to do. Scripture is sufficient as indicated in Timothy.

 

[lakeside]

annsni, listen, there was not such a thing as sola Scriptura in the first, second ,third and most of the fourth centuries. No ' Bible Alone" Christians, period. So that is to be understood as being no Baptists back then either. End of fiction stories. You can not try and change history.

 

[annsni]

annsni, listen, there was not such a thing as sola Scriptura in the first, second ,third and most of the fourth centuries. No ' Bible Alone" Christians, period. So that is to be understood as being no Baptists back then either. End of fiction stories. You can not try and change history.

So they made it up as they went along? Or did they work with the teachings of those who saw Jesus?

 

[DHK]

annsni, listen, there was not such a thing as sola Scriptura in the first, second ,third and most of the fourth centuries. No ' Bible Alone" Christians, period. So that is to be understood as being no Baptists back then either. End of fiction stories. You can not try and change history.

Here is what you said. Study your statement carefully:

there was not such a thing as sola Scriptura in the first, second ,third and most of the fourth centuries. No ' Bible Alone" Christians, period.

That is a logical fallacy called a "universal negative." It is impossible to prove.
How would you be able to prove such an insane statement?
In order to do so you would need to be: omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal--able to back into time.
You need to go back to the first four centuries and interview each and every person of the world at that time and find out if any one believed in sola scriptura, "Bible alone Christians," during that era. Just one would disprove your statement. You said "No Bible alone Christians, period!..no such thing in the first, second, third and most of the fourth centuries."
How do you know?
Did you talk to them all? Did you interview every last one? How are you going to prove this statement to be true?

You are wrong because your statement is a logical fallacy unable to be proven true.

 

[Revmitchell]

annsni, listen, there was not such a thing as sola Scriptura in the first, second ,third and most of the fourth centuries. No ' Bible Alone" Christians, period. So that is to be understood as being no Baptists back then either. End of fiction stories. You can not try and change history.

Prove it.............

 

[Doubting Thomas]

annsni, listen, there was not such a thing as sola Scriptura in the first, second ,third and most of the fourth centuries. No ' Bible Alone" Christians, period. So that is to be understood as being no Baptists back then either. End of fiction stories. You can not try and change history.

That depends on what you mean by "sola Scriptura". I have seen plenty of quotes from church fathers in those centuries affirming that if a doctrine can't be demonstrated from Scripture, it should not be believed.

(Now what to do in the case where two opposing views both claim scriptural support is another story...)

 

[McCree79]

That depends on what you mean by "sola Scriptura". I have seen plenty of quotes from church fathers in those centuries affirming that if a doctrine can't be demonstrated from Scripture, it should not be believed.

(Now what to do in the case where two opposing views both claim scriptural support is another story...)

Augustine says:
"What shall I teach you than what we reqd in the apostle? For holy Scriptures fixes the rule of doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else expect to expound on the words of the Teacher".

He also refused the authority of the bishop of Rome over scripture. When he found him self at odds with Rome he replied " Christ has spoken, the matter is settled". Augustine did not bow to the authority of Rome, but turned to the word of Christ to evaluate the stance of Rome.

Athanasius states:
"Scripture is sufficient above all things"

Basil states when addressing tradition to Eustathuis:
"To delete anything that is written down or to interpolate anything not written down amounts to defection from the faith." How much of Rome's tradition is added to scripture? They have defected from the faith.

 

[Rebel]

Questions: 1) Why do you believe that "one report by a Peter Liegé" is an objective and realistic representation of a crusade summoned by a pope. 2) Why do you believe the author of that wiki article correctly represented the actual historical events, when he only quoted 1 source, from a man who is not known by ANYONE to be a credible historian or an objetive reporter of the facts?

So I'll take the guy's word for it, let's say that it happened exactly as described. [ only one person's report ] Naughty, bad Catholics. So what? What's the point? Is there some doctrine at stake here?

Catholics have done some really bad things (more readily proven than this). Catholics will continue to do some really bad things. We are a Church of both saints and sinners, and have never claimed otherwise. So what? Even Jesus' handpicked Apostles had a thief and a traitor in their midst. Why should the Church be any better than the Apostles?

We [ Catholics ] admit that back then we had a few very bad popes, in fact civil courts levied worst punishment that the Church, what about all the atrocities coming out of the Protestant religion i.e Protestant Peasant Wars, Cromwell against the Irish, Witch- burning in Europe and America, murdering of Catholic etc. Any bad pope that we had still never could change any Doctrinal Teaching, no matter how hard they would attempt, because any Teaching Jesus passed on to His Church, be it explicitly or implicitly, can never be changed by any pope, or any clergy or laymen of God's Apostolic Universal as in Catholic Church.

One source. Try five.

R.J. Knecht (1984) Francis I, Cambridge University Press ISBN 978-0-5212-4344-5

History of the Waldenses – J. A. Wylie – Google Boeken. Books.google.com. Retrieved 2014-02-26.

"Milton: Sonnet 18". Dartmouth.edu. Retrieved 2014-02-26.

Scharf, Thomas J. (1888) History of Delaware, 1609–1888, L.J. Richards & Co., Philadelphia Vol. 1 Vol. 2

"Janavel". Regard.eu.org. Retrieved 2014-02-26


The poet John Milton even wrote a poem about the massacre.

Look, I have said all along that the Magisterial Protestants continued the state church atrocities of their harlot Mother. The RCC and Magsterial Protestants murdered each other and the Anabaptists and Baptists.

No pope changed any doctrine? You are delusional.

 

[lakeside]

First, there was not a completed Bible OT and the NT together, that is the only way one can completely comprehend the full understand of Holy Scripture to do otherwise is a non-Christian practice, the completed Bible that Bible Alone adherents accept as their sole rule of Faith was not compiled until 389 A.D.. Up until that time it was impossible to be a Baptist, Methodist, Universalist, Moony, JW, Mormon, Anglican, Presbyterian, church of Christ, or any other KJV church or Bible Alone church of any type. The insanity, as DHK states ,s not as he implies,but this: that some people actually are convinced through the last multi-generational tradition of repeated false revisionist history that it is ingrained into that gray matter of the brain, now that is insanity.

I will repeat again to respond to the post written by Rebel. And that is this-- Not one Catholic Doctrine has ever been changed by any Pope of the Catholic Church.

 

[McCree79]

I will repeat again to respond to the post written by Rebel. And that is this-- Not one Catholic Doctrine has ever been changed by any Pope of the Catholic Church.

You can say it all you want. It doesn't make it true. The pope embraced pelagianism public and it was taught by western bishops. The emperor and bishops in the east charged him with heresy (emperor issued an order to stop). Then the bishop of Rome denounced the teachings of Pelagius.

They have changed the doctrine of salvation many of times. Added sacraments, added that you have to be a member of the Roman church, added you can fight and die in the crusades. Added the treasury of merit.

Changed the doctrine of the trinity by adding other mediators to act on our behalf. Or maybe that would be a Christology doctrinal change?

 

[DHK]

I will repeat again to respond to the post written by Rebel. And that is this-- Not one Catholic Doctrine has ever been changed by any Pope of the Catholic Church.

You need to do your homework

►Present:
• Nostra Aetate: Indeed, the Church deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism levelled at any time or from any source against the Jews (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, “Nostra Aetate,” Oct. 28, 1965)

►Past:
• Pope Innocent III: The crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection. (Pope Innocent III, “Epistle to the Hierarchy of France,” July 15, 1205)

That is just one example. There are dozens of others, Like this one:

]
►Present:
• Nostra Aetate: Therefore, the Church reproves as foreign to the mind of Christ any discrimination against people or any harrassment on the basis of race, color, condition in life, or religion. (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, “Nostra Aetate,” Oct. 28, 1965)

• Dignitatis Humanae: Religious communities have the right not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word. (Declaration on Religious Freedom, “Dignitatis Humanae,” December 12, 1965)

►Past:
• Pope Gregory XVI: It is insanity to believe that liberty of conscience and liberty of worship are the inalienable rights of every citizen. From this stinking fountain of Indifferentism flows the erroneous and absurd opinion, or rather derangement, that liberty of conscience must be asserted and vindicated for everyone. This most pestilential error opens the door to the complete and immoderate liberty of opinions which works such widespread harm both in Church and State. (Pope Gregory XVI, “Mirari Vos,” August 15,1832)

http://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.ca/2011/09/contradictions-in-roman-catholicism.html

Isn't amazing how the politics of the day, that is to say, "the political correctness" of the age dictates to the RCC what the Pope must declare as truth or not. Thus the doctrine of the RCC changes according to the political climate.
In Innocent III's time murder was normative. That was just the common practice for average Catholic.
But in today's political climate, a priest might get away with homosexuality or even pedophilia instead. But it is still wicked.

 

[lakeside]

Wrong again, you haven't yet produced a single Doctrine that a Pope changed. The Catholic Church has been here for two-years thousand years and will be the only Church still here to greet Jesus.

 

[annsni]

Wrong again, you haven't yet produced a single Doctrine that a Pope changed. The Catholic Church has been here for two-years thousand years and will be the only Church still here to greet Jesus.

Christ's church will meet Jesus - not an organized system of religion. SO many in the organized system of the Catholic church will weep and wail when they see the returning Christ.