Divine Mercy Chaplet for Protestants?

[canadyjd]

You do need to be careful what you call satanic, you are in a small human founded and divided section of late Christianity that has no connection with any of the ancient Apostolic churches theology on this or the vast majority of Christian theology today.
Christianity is far bigger than you even suspect. Accusing the largest and most ancient Church that determined the Bible itself of being satanic, is very imprudent to say the least. The chances of you being wrong is very high, and the gravity of your accusations carry enormous consequences if wrong.

Luther and Calvin reformed nothing, they rebelled against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith founded by Christ.

What they founded was dry, desupernaturalised and legalistic theology, which has degraded into every wind of doctrine today.

Jesus desires His image venerated because of who it represents, Him and His Mercy.

Your entire statement is built upon the lies of the RCC influenced by Satan.

Let’s review. God’s word tells us not to worship idols. God’s Word tells us not to create an image representing God.

You stated above that the “image” of Jesus was a vessel of mercy. If you “venerate” the image, you will receive mercy from God.

That is a lie straight from the mouth of Satan Himself.

The only “Apostolic Authority” is found in scripture, not the errors of RCC teachings.

There is no evidence Peter ever went to Rome, much less become the first “Pope”. That is total made up RCC lies.

Peter wasn’t even the lead Apostle in Jerusalem, James, the Lord Jesus’s half brother (son of Joseph and Mary along with at least 5 other children) was the lead elder at Jerusalem.

The early Apostolic Church collected the writings associated with the Apostles by the end of the first century. They became the “canon”, or measuring rod by which all other documents would be judged as authentic or not. The RCC, as you are describing it, was not even in existence at that time.

The RCC came into existence after the death of Constantine in the 4th century when the Bishop of Rome forged a will claiming Constantine gave him power over the Roman Army.

This began the reign of brutality and terror that is the legacy of the RCC. Forced conversion. Burning at the stake if you dared challenge the false Pope who set himself up as the mouthpiece of Christ.

All of the added teachings are there to keep the masses in line. Only priests can give you grace and forgive your sin only Priests can permit you to marry. Every aspect of your life is controlled through Rome.

Where scripture tells us we are a priesthood of believers and there is only one high priest, Jesus, the RCC set up a hierarchy of priests to dispense their version of “Grace”.

Where scripture tells us we only have one Father in heaven, and Jesus specifically warns us not to call any man “father” in the earth, the RCC has a hierarchy of false “fathers”

Blinded by the lies of the RCC, the entirety of which is built upon deception and lies straight out of the mouth of Satan.

peace to you

 

[Cathode]

If you would spend half as much tie defending scripture as you do defending you man made theology you would realize the errors that have been brought into the RCC. You need to trust the God of scripture not the RCC version tat you bow down to.

The Bible came from the Catholic Church, it was the Catholic Church that canonised it, and preserved the scriptures from the Apostles, no baptist did that.

It was never yours to privately interpret.

 

[canadyjd]

The Bible came from the Catholic Church, it was the Catholic Church that canonised it, and preserved the scriptures from the Apostles, no baptist did that.

It was never yours to privately interpret.

The Bible came from God. It is God’s Word. The RCC had no hand in forming it and has only changed it to gain power over the masses.

peace to you

 

[Cathode]

The Bible came from God. It is God’s Word.

Fell from a cloud you say. It was the Catholic Church which told the world what is the word of God in the first place.

The RCC had no hand in forming it and has only changed it to gain power over the masses.

False. Any historian will tell you.

 

[Silverhair]

The Bible came from the Catholic Church, it was the Catholic Church that canonised it, and preserved the scriptures from the Apostles, no baptist did that.

It was never yours to privately interpret.

Just another false teaching of the RCC.

 

[canadyjd]

Fell from a cloud you say. It was the Catholic Church which told the world what is the word of God in the first place.

False. Any historian will tell you.

Your ignorance of history is to be expected since your mind is polluted with Catholic propaganda. The RCC, as you believe it, did not exist when scripture was determined

I will repeat myself from an earlier post which you obviously didn’t read.

What we have as our Bible, the 66 books, were collected by the Apostolic church by the end of the first century. Church leaders realized that, despite the common belief that Jesus would return before that generation passed, it became evident He may not.

As all of the Apostles were martyred, the churches began to copy and collect all known writings considered inspired… that is… that had a connection to one of the Apostles. The OT had long since been determined as to what was inspired and what was Apocryphal.

These collected documents became the “Canon”, which simply means a measuring rod by which all documents would be compared to determine if they were consistent with what was known to be inspired.

Most of the documents were written in Kone Greek, the common language, the OT in Hebrew.

The Catholic priest Jerome translated the Kone Greek into Latin about 400 AD, and the RCC conducted its services in Latin almost exclusively until recently.

When the first “Pope” forged a will from Emperor Constantine in the 4th century, He attempted to use the power of the Roman army to force all Christian churches to be under his rule.

The Churches in the East, Constantinople (now Istanbul Turkey) told the false Pope to go pound sand and formed their own church.. The Eastern Orthodox Church.

The churches in the East kept there services in the Greek.

When the Muslims invaded Constantinople, the Priests there took their Greek manuscripts and fled West. As they shared the Greek text with RCc priests, the RCC priests realized that Jerome had made several errors in his translation and that many things taught in the RCC were contrary to God’s Word.

These priests included Martyn Luther and John Calvin and others, promptly attempted to reform the obvious errors of the RCC

The rest is history, as they say.

peace to you

 

[Cathode]

Your ignorance of history is to be expected since your mind is polluted with Catholic propaganda. The RCC, as you believe it, did not exist when scripture was determined

I will repeat myself from an earlier post which you obviously didn’t read.

What we have as our Bible, the 66 books, were collected by the Apostolic church by the end of the first century. Church leaders realized that, despite the common belief that Jesus would return before that generation passed, it became evident He may not.

As all of the Apostles were martyred, the churches began to copy and collect all known writings considered inspired… that is… that had a connection to one of the Apostles. The OT had long since been determined as to what was inspired and what was Apocryphal.

These collected documents became the “Canon”, which simply means a measuring rod by which all documents would be compared to determine if they were consistent with what was known to be inspired.

Most of the documents were written in Kone Greek, the common language, the OT in Hebrew.

The Catholic priest Jerome translated the Kone Greek into Latin about 400 AD, and the RCC conducted its services in Latin almost exclusively until recently.

When the first “Pope” forged a will from Emperor Constantine in the 4th century, He attempted to use the power of the Roman army to force all Christian churches to be under his rule.

The Churches in the East, Constantinople (now Istanbul Turkey) told the false Pope to go pound sand and formed their own church.. The Eastern Orthodox Church.

The churches in the East kept there services in the Greek.

When the Muslims invaded Constantinople, the Priests there took their Greek manuscripts and fled West. As they shared the Greek text with RCc priests, the RCC priests realized that Jerome had made several errors in his translation and that many things taught in the RCC were contrary to God’s Word.

These priests included Martyn Luther and John Calvin and others, promptly attempted to reform the obvious errors of the RCC

The rest is history, as they say.

peace to you

No. As L J Boudreaux points out.

“The Christian Bible were enumerated and approved by various councils, synods, and popes of the Catholic Church, beginning with the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. Presided over by Pope Damasus I, the Council of Rome first promulgated what we came to know as the canon of the Christian Bible in a document called The Decree of the Council of Rome on the Canon of Scripture. The second part of this decree, which gives a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old and the New Testament, is referred to as the “Damasine List.” Just more than a decade later in 393 A.D. a council of bishops, including St. Augustine of Hippo, affirmed the same canon of Scripture at the Synod of Hippo. The Synod of Carthage (397 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (419 A.D.)”

All 73 books of the Bible remained, even in Protestant bibles till the early 1800s when Protestants removed some of them altogether.

The first complete official Bible was canonised by the Council of Rome and decreed by Pope Damasus, and settled it for the whole world.

No Baptists or Protestants had anything to do with preserving the scriptures from the Apostles or canonising the Bible. Only Catholics, the Bible is the Catholic Church’s book entirely.

 

[canadyjd]

No. As L J Boudreaux points out.

“The Christian Bible were enumerated and approved by various councils, synods, and popes of the Catholic Church, beginning with the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. Presided over by Pope Damasus I, the Council of Rome first promulgated what we came to know as the canon of the Christian Bible in a document called The Decree of the Council of Rome on the Canon of Scripture. The second part of this decree, which gives a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old and the New Testament, is referred to as the “Damasine List.” Just more than a decade later in 393 A.D. a council of bishops, including St. Augustine of Hippo, affirmed the same canon of Scripture at the Synod of Hippo. The Synod of Carthage (397 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (419 A.D.)”

All 73 books of the Bible remained, even in Protestant bibles till the early 1800s when Protestants removed some of them altogether.

The first complete official Bible was canonised by the Council of Rome and decreed by Pope Damasus, and settled it for the whole world.

No Baptists or Protestants had anything to do with preserving the scriptures from the Apostles or canonising the Bible. Only Catholics, the Bible is the Catholic Church’s book entirely.

No, you are not paying attention. The documents were collected by the end of the first century. They established the “canon” that was used in the various councils to determine questions of doctrines, not the canon itself.

The extra books in the Catholic Bible were considered non inspired Apocrypha until the reformation occurred and the reformers focused on “scripture alone” as their foundation for doctrine.

The RCC held a counter reformation and there declared the Apocrypha books to be scripture because they supported their doctrine, such as purgatory.

So all this nonsense you are spewing about the Apostolic legacy found in the RCC is not supported by the facts of church history.

As is the case throughout RCC history, various Popes are willing to change doctrine for political or secular reasoning.

Just look at your Popes recent statement that priest can bless same s:c couples to see the truth of that statement.

You are wrong. History proves you are wrong but, more importantly, the 66 books of scripture proves you are wrong.

peace to you

 

[Cathode]

No, you are not paying attention. The documents were collected by the end of the first century. They established the “canon” that was used in the various councils to determine questions of doctrines, not the canon itself.

There was no canon, the scriptures were Catholic Liturgy preserved by Catholic Tradition.

“For the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order–to the Corinthians afirst…there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world…Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

“In his [Origen] first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.’ And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.” Origen, Commentary on Matthew, fragment in Eusebius Church History, 6:25,3 (A.D. 244).

The Authority that determined the Canon of Scripture is Catholic Tradition, not from the book’s themselves.
It was the lineage of who handed the books down in Catholic Tradition.
There is no Apostolic scripture which lists which books belong in the Bible, the Bible Canon is entirely Catholic Tradition.

The extra books in the Catholic Bible were considered non inspired Apocrypha until the reformation occurred and the reformers focused on “scripture alone” as their foundation for doctrine.

No.
The 73 Book 382 Canonical decree of Pope Damasus is confirmed by the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.
This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).

So all the ancient councils of the Catholic Church confirmed the same 73 book Canon, up to the time of Luther and Councils after Luther till today.

Luther removed books from his Bible, the 7 deuterocanonicals, and Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

Arrogant behaviour off his own authority. He rejected Hebrews because it referred to 2 Maccabees 7. James because it explicitly said “ not by faith alone “.
And other Catholic doctrinal references he wanted to erase from scripture, like praying for the dead and Purgatory.

He butchered his scripture to suit his new heretical teachings. He was no champion of Scripture, he was an arrogant vandal and spiritual mass murderer.
The more I read about Luther and Calvin the more ungodly and detestable their characters seem to be.

Do I need to quote these guys, or do you know what I’m referring to. You follow these guys doctrines as inspired?

The RCC held a counter reformation and there declared the Apocrypha books to be scripture because they supported their doctrine, such as purgatory.

Trent just reaffirmed the same 73 vulgate of 382 AD and every Council in between for over 1000 years before Luther.
And the Church Fathers already believed in Purgatory, I can quote them at length.

You are wrong. History proves you are wrong but, more importantly, the 66 books of scripture proves you are wrong.

No, the first act of Protestantism was to butcher the scriptures, then subject what was left to their fallible human opinions, spawning every wind of doctrine.

 

[Silverhair]

There was no canon, the scriptures were Catholic Liturgy preserved by Catholic Tradition.

“For the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order–to the Corinthians afirst…there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world…Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

“In his [Origen] first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.’ And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.” Origen, Commentary on Matthew, fragment in Eusebius Church History, 6:25,3 (A.D. 244).

The Authority that determined the Canon of Scripture is Catholic Tradition, not from the book’s themselves.
It was the lineage of who handed the books down in Catholic Tradition.
There is no Apostolic scripture which lists which books belong in the Bible, the Bible Canon is entirely Catholic Tradition.



No.
The 73 Book 382 Canonical decree of Pope Damasus is confirmed by the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.
This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).

So all the ancient councils of the Catholic Church confirmed the same 73 book Canon, up to the time of Luther and Councils after Luther till today.

Luther removed books from his Bible, the 7 deuterocanonicals, and Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

Arrogant behaviour off his own authority. He rejected Hebrews because it referred to 2 Maccabees 7. James because it explicitly said “ not by faith alone “.
And other Catholic doctrinal references he wanted to erase from scripture, like praying for the dead and Purgatory.

He butchered his scripture to suit his new heretical teachings. He was no champion of Scripture, he was an arrogant vandal and spiritual mass murderer.
The more I read about Luther and Calvin the more ungodly and detestable their characters seem to be.

Do I need to quote these guys, or do you know what I’m referring to. You follow these guys doctrines as inspired?



Trent just reaffirmed the same 73 vulgate of 382 AD and every Council in between for over 1000 years before Luther.
And the Church Fathers already believed in Purgatory, I can quote them at length.



No, the first act of Protestantism was to butcher the scriptures, then subject what was left to their fallible human opinions, spawning every wind of doctrine.

So we have RCC councils affirming RCC teachings. Sounds a bit circular to me. And just as useful for proving your false assertions

 

[Cathode]

So we have RCC councils affirming RCC teachings. Sounds a bit circular to me. And just as useful for proving your false assertions

The alternative is the authority of Luther’s arrogance, and reject the combined councils of ancient churches and all their bishops.
Not a wise trade off.

In those times, if you were Christian you were Catholic.

Protestants use the early Catholic councils to confirm the authority of the New Testament, yet reject those same councils authority to confirm the Old Testament.

The highest earthly authority in Protestantism is not councils or scripture, but each man’s conflicted opinion of scripture.

Each declares himself an oracle, Sola Ego is the first and central Sola.

 

[rsr]

This thread was opened under a doubtful reading of the custom of this board, which is to allow Latin Rite folks to defend their faith from attack or explain their faith, not to proselytize. It has since become a flame war that convinces no one. It is therefore closed.