Featured Renouncing the Catholic faith formally

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.

 

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.

 

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

I trust that is enough.

 

"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.

 

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:

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

You need to do your homework

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

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.

 

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.