(ex) Cardinal Ratzinger is the new pope

C4K,

"Rome says to be saved I must do it through her, or maybe she will cover my hide because of my baptism.

I say that we are saved through personal faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross to justify me and cleanse me of sin."

You are Both wrong. We are Saved By Grace Alone! End of discussion. (not trying to be rude but I am trying to make a dynamic point)

We are not saved by our Faith because that would be a "work." We are not saved by any "works." We are saved by God's Grace in HIM all things come.

God gives us the Faith to accept HIS grace. Follow everything to their logical end and everything is giving by God.

 

Not going to argue the Calvinism issue with you here - we have a whole forum for that.

 

SouthernBoy wrote,

You are confusing works of the Law with obeying Christ. Those who are hypercritical of the Roman Catholic Church and her Popes frequently suffer from the same confusion.

 

"Neither the Turks nor the Islamic empire EVER occupied ALL of the territory of Pagan Rome."
"
So?

"the fact that the Roman Christians sacked Constantinople on the way back from the Crusades"
"
So ?

 

I always did think you had a certain penchant for not letting the inconvenient "Details of history" get in the way of one of your stories.

What a great example!

You claim that the sacked Byzantine empire is "of equal or greater" power than the Catholic Church - EVEN after admitting that it was sacked twice "simply as a jesture" BY the crusaders.

And as for ISLAM being the 4th empire or the thing to COME from the 4th empire OR being of equal impact on Christianity as Papal Rome or ...

Your penchant for obfuscation is noteworthy.

I applaud your consistency.

 

They are not wrong.

 

"You claim that the sacked Byzantine empire is "of equal or greater" power than the Catholic Church"
"
By the time the crusaders sacked Constinople the Byzantine Empire had declined into insignificance, but that wasn't the case during the first 6 or so centuries of it's existance. during that period the Wersterners were the internally divided barbarians, while they were the great civilization.

"And as for ISLAM being the 4th empire"
"
Islam conquered the turf of those first 2 empires surprisingly swiftly and also took over something like 75% of the Pagan Roman Empire.


"or the thing to COME from the 4th empire"
"
If the Byzantines and the Persians hadn't weakened eachother tremendously with a huge pointless war right before the rise of Islam. It might never have gotten out of Arabia.

"OR being of equal impact on Christianity as Papal Rome or ..."
"
Islam basically wrecked Christianity in the near-,and middle-east, and basically blocked it's spread to the far-East, that was more than half of the christian presence on earth at the time. Missionary activity outside of Europe almost ceased for a 1000 years because of Islam.

 

Christianity suffered in the east - not in the west. IT dominated the territorry of the former Pagan Roman empire - and is the successor to it EVEN to the point of ruling from Rome.

 

BobRyan,

"Christianity suffered in the east - not in the west."

That is not true. The west was almost conquered by Islam twice. Once in Spain and the second time as early as 1571 when the Muslims where at the gates of Venice. Thank God for the Miracle of Lepanto if you believe in it (note this is a RCC link: http://www.tldm.org/News6/Lepanto.htm ).

You might also note Islam almost conquered Christian Russia. It wasn’t until the Battle of Kazan in the 16th century led by Tsar Ivan IV that victory was finally one. That is why today Russian Orthodox Churches have the cross over the inverted crescent moon as symbol of the triumph of Christianity over Islam. This is something I think all Christian Churches should do today.

Here is a picture:
http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/images/aaron2crosses.jpg

So, the east and west suffered greatly under Islam.

 

The Christians took over what is Istnabull and called it "Constantinople" in the 4th century.. Papal Rome continued to grow in power until it reaches the zenith of its power in the 12th and 13th centuries.

It is clear that Papal Rome follows Pagan Rome and that Islam never held control of the former Roman Empire.

Today it is popular in some 3rd world countries and in the ME.

Clearly - the 4th empire is Pagan Rome and the great power that grows out of it - EXCEEDING Pagan Rome -- is Papal Rome.

Historians agree.

 

BobRyan,

So, are you still saying the West did not suffer as a result of Islam?

 

No - I am saying that the Rise of Papal Rome out of Pagan Rome is well documented AND that Papal Rome is the only world Power rising out of Pagan Rome to EXCEED the scope range, power, domination and duration of Pagan Rome.

(Obviously if they caught a cold or the flu - then they sufferred - but it does not eliminate the historic fact of their rise from Pagan Rome and the extent of the power they held by comparison to Pagan Rome)

 

Bob
"The Christians took over what is Istnabull and called it "Constantinople" in the 4th century."
"
It was already part of pagan Rome under the name Byzantium for 4+ centuries at that time. It got it's namechange and became the capital of the complete Roman Empire in 330.
Interestingly enough the official new name of Byzantium was Nova Roma.
In 395 the Eastern and Western empire split. In 476 the Western empire collapses.

"Islam never held control of the former Roman Empire."
"
The Roman Empire included Egypt, the rest of northern Africa, turkye, Spain, Greece all of which have been in Islamic hands.

What did Papal Rome directly control in your imagination?

 

To try and get this back on topic, I actually thought Ratsfinger's first sermon at his inauguration was pretty good - lots of stuff about the need to come to Christ and how new life can only be found in Him. Not a lot to disagree with there so far...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

mioque,

Your history is correct. Bob has no historical or Biblical evidence for his claim.