Still waiting for an answer

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Astralis:
DHK,

Yes, your response is usually the first response from Protestants. But upon closer inspection on how the Church works, you will notice that we also defined the Trinity, and also defined canon in the Third Century once and for all. Are we to say these beliefs didn't exist before then? Of course not.

Unfortunately, you missed the point of what DHK was saying.

What the catholic church says: One must believe in what we say to be saved (otherwise you will be outside the church, hence, not saved...I believe the term is anathema (sp?)). By extension, one must believe in the AOM to be a saved catholic. Well, if the AOM was not declared until 1950 (infallibly), then what of the other years. If it was not infallibly declared, one MUST be free to either believe it or disregard it (just as you are free to believe in evolution right now or not...the church has made no official infallible position on this issue right now). So, before 1950, one could be a saved catholic who DID NOT believe in the AOM, but as of 1950, that very same person would be a heretic and would no longer be saved. As a matter of fact, they could be kicked out of the church! Imagine that. I could be a bible believing, Jesus loving/praying/knowing he saves me and I will follow him to the end so the earth and beyond Christian, but because I don't believe in the AOM the CC says I am neither saved nor welcome in their church! HA! Gotta love it.

This, in a nutshell, is why the catholic church is not 'The Church'.

I can already see some arguments you might try to use, so I will address them before you ask (to save time).

What about the trinity . The church legally defined the trinity. It can, and was, recognized in scripture and people did believe it. You are, once again, erroneously giving WAY too much credit to the CC.

What about the bible, the CC gave you your official red letter bible! Hey, thanks for officially declaring what was already well known. What does that prove? Not much of anything. Hey...I officially declare that the New York Yankees are a good baseball team. WOW! Insight!

In Christ,
jason

 

[Astralis]

Let's just say my interpretation of the Scripture is far closer to the truth than the Catholic Church's private interpretation. I, BTW, don't claim to have a private interpretation, unlike the Catholic Church, so that is either a misunderstanding, ignorance, or deliberate slander. You can choose which one, and then inform me.

DHK,

If your interpretation isn't your own private interpretation, then whose is it? Your pastor's? Your denomination? If that is so, how do you know your denomination's interpretation is correct out of the thousands of other denominations? Did someone tell you infallibly that your interpretation that you got from somewhere is correct? If they all can have their own interpretation, why can't the Catholic Church?

[ August 23, 2002, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

 

[Astralis]

What about the bible, the CC gave you your official red letter bible! Hey, thanks for officially declaring what was already well known. What does that prove? Not much of anything. Hey...I officially declare that the New York Yankees are a good baseball team. WOW! Insight!

Jason,

A study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the book of Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?

You may say, "We know by examining the contents of the books. Some books—like 1 Corinthians and Revelation—obviously belong. Others—like Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians—obviously don’t."

But is it really so obvious? Tell me, what is so obvious in Philemon to indicate that it is inspired? And what is so obviously unorthodox in The Shepherd or the Didache or Clement’s letter or any of the other first- and second-century Christian writings? You’ve never even seen the autographs (originals) of the 27 books in the New Testament. Nobody today has. The earliest copies of those books we possess are centuries newer than the originals. Like it or not, you have to take the say-so of the Catholic Church that in fact those copies are accurate, as well as her decision that those 27 books are the inspired canonical New Testament Scriptures. You do accept her testimony as trustworthy, or else your Protestant Bible would not have those 27 books.

 

[Astralis]

DHK,

I posed your statements about the Catholic Church on my message board. The members are mixed so the responses are from Catholics and Protestants:

Topic author: Theophilus
Replied on: 08/22/2002 14:56:03
Message:

quote:

We know that the Catholic Church is not the correct interpretation because the gates of Hell have prevailed, and it has allowed all sorts of Hellish doctrines into its organization, not even worthy enough to be called a church.

Prove from Scripture the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church.

We know that it is not, because it persecuted those who did have the correct interpretation of the Word of God and called them heretics.

And Protestants in England, Germany, France, and Northern Ireland didn't.

We know that it is not, because it hated the Word of God with such a great intensity that it gathered every copy of the Word of God it could find and burned it (during Tyndale's time).

So false that it's hilarious. The Church and her monasteries are the only reasons we still have a Bible.

We know that it is not, because it has paganized Christianity, and Christianized paganism.

Nothing says that we cannot or should not appropriate what is good in a pagan religion. Was Paul wrong to tell the Greeks in Athens that the unknown god they worshipped was God? By this person's stilted understanding, this could be interpreted as making our God a pagan god!

We know that it is not, because contrary to popular Catholic belief, the Catholic Church (like the condemned Pharisees) have taken away the "keys" from their people, so that they also are condemned.

A bold accusation with no proof. And, the idea of a Fundamentalist accusing Catholics of being like the Pharisees is funny, since Pharisees were known for their inflexible holding to Scripture, obeying letter rather than spirit--something that is more common among Fundamentalists than Catholics.

We know that it is not, because they do not preach the truth of the gospel as the Apostles preached it (remember there was no "Mass" in the New Testament).

It's in Acts (called the breaking of the bread). Of course, we've also talked about the fact that the Trinity is not in the New Testament, nor were Altar Calls or other Protestant worship practices.

Maybe you ought to repent and get ought of an apostate religion.

Maybe they ought to let God be the ultimate arbiter of this. Paul in Romans talks about not having Jews condemn Gentiles or vice versa, but to leave the judgment ultimately to God.

Maybe they should use "out" when they mean "ought."

Maybe they should spend more time coming to grips with their schism than telling us what to do.

Topic author: alcovey
Replied on: 08/22/2002 13:50:58
Message:

That one gave me a good laugh...thanks for the humor!

Id quod me non interimit confirmat!
Allen

Topic author: alcovey
Replied on: 08/22/2002 15:52:45
Message:

quote:
Don't even waste your time - that is why it was so funny to me, it's so absurd. It reminded me of a Chick Comic called "Sabatoge?" where the mean, evil Jesuits corrupted the pure (KJV) Word of God - I started to get offended, but ended up laughing out loud. Just let these guys go, they will shoot themselves in the foot every time.

Topic author: albanach
Replied on: 08/23/2002 04:35:55
Message:

Allen, you are right. Taken together, these accusations are ridiculous and most people can see this. However, they look so absurd largely because they are all lumped together here. Very few Fundamentalist Protestants actually come across this strong. However, many I have met do hold one or more of these assumptions, so a critical examination of them is valuable. Most can be refuted by sheer logic, with not need for recourse to Scriptural passages or Council documents, etc.

quote:

We know that the Catholic Church is not the correct interpretation because the gates of Hell have prevailed, and it has allowed all sorts of Hellish doctrines into its organization, not even worthy enough to be called a church.

This entire argument rests on the assumption that the person is able to tell what are "hellish" (by which I assume they mean false) doctrines. This is the same as saying, "I think the Catholic Church is false because I think she is wrong." This is an argument entirely lacking in logic. Critical thinking would require us to assume at first that the Catholic Church could either be right or wrong and to then come to our conclusion. This argument begins with a conclusion, and through a logical fallacy uses the conclusion to prove itself!

Take the word "Catholic" out of the above and insert the name of your favourite Protestant denomination and you get the same thing.

quote:

We know that it is not, because it persecuted those who did have the correct interpretation of the Word of God and called them heretics.

This is a good one. It illustrates a trend I notice among ulta anti-Catholic Protestants who want to sympathetically identify with anyone who has ever stood outside the Catholic Church. They identify with any and all past heretical groups with absolutely no regard to what those groups actually taught and believed -- very often contradicting each other and contradicting modern Protestantism.

But this argument carries no more weight that the first, because like the first, it relies upon the person's own ability to determine the true and false interpretation of the Word of God.

And as Theophilus pointed out, Catholics do not have a monopoly on persecuting heretics. Within the first generation of Protestantism, it had split into no fewer than four major sects, who persecuted each other just as feircely as they did Catholics. And take a look at Catholic treatment in England under Queen Elizabeth and King James.

quote:

We know that it is not, because it hated the Word of God with such a great intensity that it gathered every copy of the Word of God it could find and burned it (during Tyndale's time).

This can be disproven with good history. Tyndale's Bible was false and corrupt, and if people wanted to burn it (individual people, not the "Church") then that's their right. But the Church definitely did not burn every Bible it could find. This is the same period that the Catholic Church produced its most famous English translation of the Scriptures, the Douay-Rheims version. And what of all those translations in other languages that the Church was mass-producing with the new printing technology?

And, like Theophilus has already pointed out, if it were not for the devout efforts of the Catholic Church for the 1500 years prior to printing, we would know nothing of the Bible today. Martin Luther himself admitted to that. A good read of Henry Graham's _Where We Got the Bible_ would put an end to this argument.

quote:

We know that it is not, because it has paganized Christianity, and Christianized paganism.

Of course, this would mean that Protestant Churches are in trouble, too, now wouldn't it? Some of the big "myths" about pagan influences on Christianity include the celebration of Christmas and Easter. I can't think of a Protestant sect that doesn't celebrate these.

By the way, take a look at my article on the supposed "pagan origins" of Easter, to see how weak this argument really is.
http://albanach.org/apologetics/easter.html

quote:

We know that it is not, because contrary to popular Catholic belief, the Catholic Church (like the condemned Pharisees) have taken away the "keys" from their people, so that they also are condemned.

I don't really understand this, especially in light of all the discussion we have been having on keys in Matthew and Isaiah. When were all "the people" given keys? According to Matthew 16:19, they were given to Peter alone, not even to the other disciples.

I noticed this same error on Jerry Falwell's page, and treated it in my response to him, which you can read at:
http://albanach.org/apologetics/falwell.html

quote:

We know that it is not, because they do not preach the truth of the gospel as the Apostles preached it (remember there was no "Mass" in the New Testament).

Like the first two arguments, this one presupposes the person's own ability to discern the truth. We are asked to beleive that Joe Schmo Bible-thumper knows the Apostolic truth better than the Apostolic Church, the Catholic Church, and are given no reason to accept his judgement other than his own self-assurance.

Regarding "no Mass in the New Testament." I'd encourage him to read both _The Lamb's Supper_ by Scott Hahn and _The Mass of the Early Christians_ by Mike Aquilina and Joseph C. Linck.

The Lamb's Supper:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385496591/albanach

The Mass of the Early Christians:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879739428/albanach

Pax Christi,
Matt

[ August 23, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Astralis:

A study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the book of Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?

How do I handle that? It is called faith in God. God can use anybody. I personally believe him when he says he will preserve his word. So, I take it on faith that the bible we have now is the bible we should have (in terms of the books). It has nothing to do with the CC.

You’ve never even seen the autographs (originals) of the 27 books in the New Testament. Nobody today has. The earliest copies of those books we possess are centuries newer than the originals. Like it or not, you have to take the say-so of the Catholic Church that in fact those copies are accurate, as well as her decision that those 27 books are the inspired canonical New Testament Scriptures. You do accept her testimony as trustworthy, or else your Protestant Bible would not have those 27 books.

No, I do not accept the CC's testimony as trustworthy, I trust God's using sinners throughout history to provide knowledge for us. I do not trust the CC with preserving the bible either. I believe God did it.

This is all beside the point though....the original point was the internal inconsitencies in the CC. That point, I would like to remind you, has yet gone unaddressed. If you do not feel it is important to address it, do not be suprised when intelligent and logical Christians will not subscribe to the CC's doctrine.

In Christ,
jason

 

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Astralis:


A study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled.
.

Remember the Catholic church did not first determine the NT cannon, it was the Eastern Orthodox church which came up with the list of twenty-seven books first. The consensus by the Eastern church was decided in 367, and the twenty-seven books were included in Athanasius’ Easter letter from Alexandria. 27 years before Hippo. The Roan Church accepted a canon that did not include the book of Hebrews, but eventually followed the East in including all 27 books. In other words, Rome made their decision from the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Originally posted by Astralis:

But is it really so obvious? Tell me, what is so obvious in Philemon to indicate that it is inspired?
.

Paul written it an he was an apostle. Peter declares Paul's writings scripture. It's in the Bible.

Originally posted by Astralis:

you have to take the say-so of the Catholic Church that in fact those copies are accurate, as well as her decision that those 27 books are the inspired canonical New Testament Scriptures. You do accept her testimony as trustworthy, or else your Protestant Bible would not have those 27 books.

Jesus said in Matt 23:35 from blood of Abel (Genesis) to Zach (Chronicles) and then the NT. I believe Christ is speaking about the canon. From genesis to Chronicles. That would exclude the Deutros or as Jerome called it 'Apocrypha'.

Also the Council of Carthage in AD 419 says “canonical Scriptures..two books of Paraleipomena..two books of Esdras..”

As you can see the Council of Carthage was using the LXX. Why else would they use the word ‘papaleipomena’(Greek for Chronicles). Apparently the Vulgate wasn’t being used very much at this time. (History can prove that.) Since the LXX was being used then Esdras I was the Apocryphal book I Esdras or to the Vulgate III Esdras, which the RCC doesn’t consider canonical.

Ooops was the infallible Pope wrong?

Actually the RCC didn't have an 'infallible decision' on the canon until Trent. 1546(?).

 

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Astralis:

You’ve never even seen the autographs (originals) of the 27 books in the New Testament. Nobody today has.

I believe the reason for that is so we don't worship the Paper and ink it was written on.
(2nd commandment)

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by Nimrod:
Jesus said in Matt 23:35 from blood of Abel (Genesis) to Zach (Chronicles) and then the NT. I believe Christ is speaking about the canon. From genesis to Chronicles. That would exclude the Deutros or as Jerome called it 'Apocrypha'.

Here's a couple more details about that, the OT books originally had a different order and the books which are 1st and 2nd, where originally single books and so 1st and 2nd Chronicles were a single book and that book of Chronicles was the last book in the Canon of the Palestinian Jews.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Astralis:

If your interpretation isn't your own private interpretation, then whose is it? Your pastor's? Your denomination? If that is so, how do you know your denomination's interpretation is correct out of the thousands of other denominations? Did someone tell you infallibly that your interpretation that you got from somewhere is correct? If they all can have their own interpretation, why can't the Catholic Church?

You really don't understand this concept do you?
2Pet.1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
I do not have a "private interpretation," on the Scriptures as the Catholic Church does. I do not claim infallibility. I have been wrong in the past, and could be wrong in the future. Others are free to believe and disagree with me as they wish. This is not the case with Catholic Church. Believe or be killed was the mantra during the time of the Inquisition. Tyndaly died more for his beleifs than he did for his bible. He produced a superior Bible than the Catholics had, and put it into the hands of the common person. For that he was burned at the stake. Your Catholic friends like to revise history according to their own liking. It was from Tyndale's work that the KJV came from. Tyndale did not believe in the "private interpretation" of the Catholic Church either. He died because of it.
DHK

 

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Astralis:


But is it really so obvious? Tell me, what is so obvious in Philemon to indicate that it is inspired?.

How we know what is Scriptuer in the NT.

Apostle Paul quotes Luke Gospel as Scripture. Apostle Peter says Pauls writings are Scripture.
Matthew is an Apostle. Mark is associated with Apostle Peter. John is an Apostle. This leaves us with Hebrews(not really knowing for sure who wrote it.) We consider it Paul's writting or someone close to Paul. James(Jesus brother) is an Apostle. Jude(Jesus brother) quotes Peter. Jude is associated with James.

Summary: THe NT was written by apostles or written by people who had close relationships with the Apostles. For example LUKE. Luke traveled with Paul.

All other writers had no Apostle to approve the writings. Clement was well after the apostles.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Astralis:

We know that the Catholic Church is not the correct interpretation because the gates of Hell have prevailed, and it has allowed all sorts of Hellish doctrines into its organization, not even worthy enough to be called a church.

Prove from Scripture the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church.

The gates of Hell have prevailed in that the Catholic Church has not kept itself pure (as if it ever was in the first place). The rise of Montanism, the Waldenses, and so many others, as well as the entire Reformation, was all in objection to the "Church," the Roman Catholic Church, in specific and all of its corruptions. Christ's church is not corrupted. The other denominations do not make the claims that the Catholic Church does, that the word church in Mat. 16:18 refers to them. Some cults do. I suppose that would put the Catholic Church among the cults, instead of Christianity.

We know that it is not, because it persecuted those who did have the correct interpretation of the Word of God and called them heretics.

And Protestants in England, Germany, France, and Northern Ireland didn't.

I never said they did. Many of them did. Most of them would never admit to being the one and only true church as the Catholics do. They don't claim infallibility like the Catholics do. Persecution is wrong, and no one did it better than the Catholics.
BTW, all of the above mentioned groups persecuted the Baptists.

We know that it is not, because it hated the Word of God with such a great intensity that it gathered every copy of the Word of God it could find and burned it (during Tyndale's time).

So false that it's hilarious. The Church and her monasteries are the only reasons we still have a Bible.

Is it that hilarious? The Dark Ages were a direct result of the Catholic Church keeping the common person in ignorance (especially of the Word of God). The Word of God was kept in monasteries, where the common person could not reach it, and in a language which the common person could not read it. Protectors of the Word of God indeed. When one of the early manuscripts was found, they also found monks burning some of the other manuscripts. They burned Tyndales' Bibles because they didn't want the Bible in the hands of the commmon person. Here is a quote from Tyndale. When he returned to Gloucester in 1522, he said to one of the religious leaders there:

"If God spare my lyfe, ere many yeares I wyl cause a boye that dryveth the plough shall know more of the scripture than thou doest." Though he was burned at the stake for his work by the RCC, he did as he promised, and helped to pull Europe out of ignorance, largely caused by the RCC.

We know that it is not, because it has paganized Christianity, and Christianized paganism.

Nothing says that we cannot or should not appropriate what is good in a pagan religion. Was Paul wrong to tell the Greeks in Athens that the unknown god they worshipped was God? By this person's stilted understanding, this could be interpreted as making our God a pagan god!

Your friend here is in favor of paganism! This is what Constantine did when he became Emperor; take many of the pagan practices of the day and incorporate them into the church to make it more attractive to pagans. Here is what the Bible says in case you did not know: 2Cor.6:14-18:

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

But the Catholic Church has never understood or obeyed these verses.
DHK

 

[SPH]

Originally posted by Ps104_33:

CAN YOU NAME ONE ORAL, EXTRABIBLICAL TRADITION, DEMONSTRABLY TRACED TO THE APOSTOLIC AGE, WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR THE FAITH AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.

See Hebrews 6:2 - what were the "instruction about baptisms and laying-on of hands"?

 

[Astralis]

Christ's church is not corrupted.

Correct. But, people are.

The Apostles weren't perfect either - Peter had lots of issues to deal with. And Judas...

Were the Apostles worthy to be Apostles?? They sinned! Jesus chose sinners to spread the gospel - that's a novel idea.

If the Catholic Church is not His Church because it's full of sinners then I'd love to meet your congregation. I must admit, I've never met anyone who has never sinned so it will be a relief to meet your pastor.

At least in the Catholic Church we're able to find tares among the wheat (Mt. 13:24-30; also Mt. 13:47-52).

[ August 28, 2002, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
First mention of Mary's end is from Epiphinius in 377AD:

But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

No mention of an Assumption into Heaven.

In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject.
The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis.

I think the fact that you use, as authority, an author who so obviously believes in Mary's Immaculate Conception ("the holy Virgin"), and even questions whether she even died at all, as a SOURCE TO DISPROVE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, is both disrepectful and outlandish.

 

[GraceSaves]

With all thats been in the news lately concernig the Roman Catholic Church you calling protestants NUT CASES?

I forgot that Protestants have not had their share of sexual deviants.

The above makes no sense whatsoever THe Church was founded on Jesus Christ, not Peter. But lets not go there, ok?

No, lets. Because you are right. The Church was indeed founded by Jesus Christ, which Catholics firmly accept as truth. Peter, on the other hand, was the FOUNDATION on which Christ, the FOUNDER, built his church.

Could you please name some of these traditions that Protestants believe

Many protestants believe that baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Astralis:

How do you know that the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation is correct?

It isn't! It is not the correct interpretation.
We know that it is not the correct interpretation because the gates of Hell have prevailed, and it has allowed all sorts of Hellish doctrines into its organization, not even worthy enough to be called a church.
We know that it is not, because it persecuted those who did have the correct interpretation of the Word of God and called them heretics.
We know that it is not, because it hated the Word of God with such a great intensity that it gathered every copy of the Word of God it could find and burned it (during Tyndale's time).
We know that it is not, because it has paganized Christianity, and Christianized paganism.
We know that it is not, because contrary to popular Catholic belief, the Catholic Church (like the condemned Pharisees) have taken away the "keys" from their people, so that they also are condemned.
We know that it is not, because they do not preach the truth of the gospel as the Apostles preached it (remember there was no "Mass" in the New Testament).

No, the Catholic Church does not have the correct interpretation. It never did.
DHK</font>

I have to admire your spirit. Too bad it's so negative and hate filled.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Astralis:

Have we? Teaching has always been correct. Human discipline hasn't. Let's look at what Jesus said. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

T h e "C r i m e s" o f W i l l i a m T y n d a l e . . .
First: He maintains that faith alone justifies.
Second: He maintains that to believe in the forgiveness of sins and to embrace the mercy offered in the Gospel, is enough for salvation.
Third: He avers that human traditions cannot bind the conscience, except where their neglect might occasion scandal.
Fourth: He denies the freedom of the will.
Fifth: He denies that there is any purgatory.
Sixth: He affirms that neither the Virgin nor the Saints pray for us in their own person.
Seventh: He asserts that neither the Virgin nor the Saints should be invoked by us.

In England alone, more than 1,000 people were burned between 1400 and 1557 for the sake of the Gospel. Tyndale?s books and tracts (or "pestilent glosses" as his enemies referred to them) were smuggled into England wrapped in bales of wool or cloth, or sacks of flour by fellow "Lollards".

This is the way the Catholic Church has preserved their idea of "truth," while condemning others for preaching what is the Truth. This is the Catholic's idea of "wolves in sheep's clothing."
DHK</font>

You deny free will? Also, since when is the Catholic Church officially responsible for the actions of the English? Bad Catholics does not equal Bad Catholicism.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:

Also, since when is the Catholic Church officially responsible for the actions of the English? Bad Catholics does not equal Bad Catholicism.

Would you also like me to delineate for you some of the atrocities of the Catholic Church in Spain, Portugal, other European countries, Canada, India, Pakistan, South America, the Philippines, etc.?

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:

Also, since when is the Catholic Church officially responsible for the actions of the English? Bad Catholics does not equal Bad Catholicism.

Would you also like me to delineate for you some of the atrocities of the Catholic Church in Spain, Portugal, other European countries, Canada, India, Pakistan, South America, the Philippines, etc.?</font>

DHK,

So your method of answering my question is by asking me another question? That's called begging the question, and it means you want to avoid my question by throwing irrelevant other situations, which, I might add, you only mentioned but did not back up.

Let's go back to my question. Please tell me the name of the pope, bishop, or other actual church leader who not only sanctioned put pushed for the burning of this man. One or two non-bias sources (encylopedia, etc) would be most helpful in backing your claims up.

I'm not stupid, as you so presume. Did attrocities happen? Of course they did. I'm asking, though, was it "Catholics" who did this, or "the Catholic Church." You equate the two, when that is absurd.

Of course, I'll also ask the question (which you will dodge) of why, if the Catholic Church is so excellent at changing our written/oral history, why you have a closet full of examples of how evil the church is. No, you see, what you do is use history as an authority if it's against the Catholic Church, but if it's FOR the Catholic Church, it's unreliable. Not only does this make your arguments inadmissable, but it shows that you're interest here is not to shed light on people on the dark, but shove your own darkness and bitterness against a church that you left on others who don't share your twisted view on God's Holy Church.

Again, I'm all for open discussion, but you're crossing logic barriers that can't be crossed. Either a Catholic burned him at the stake, or the CATHOLIC CHURCH burned him. Provide me with answers. Either the CATHOLIC CHURCH changes history to make themselves look better, or they don't. And if they did, why did they leave such a mess for you to toy with, and then seek forgiveness for it? Good questions I can't wait to see you avoid.

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
So your method of answering my question is by asking me another question? That's called begging the question, and it means you want to avoid my question by throwing irrelevant other situations, which, I might add, you only mentioned but did not back up.

Let's go back to my question. Please tell me the name of the pope, bishop, or other actual church leader who not only sanctioned put pushed for the burning of this man. One or two non-bias sources (encylopedia, etc) would be most helpful in backing your claims up.

I'm not stupid, as you so presume. Did attrocities happen? Of course they did. I'm asking, though, was it "Catholics" who did this, or "the Catholic Church." You equate the two, when that is absurd.

Of course, I'll also ask the question (which you will dodge) of why, if the Catholic Church is so excellent at changing our written/oral history, why you have a closet full of examples of how evil the church is. No, you see, what you do is use history as an authority if it's against the Catholic Church, but if it's FOR the Catholic Church, it's unreliable. Not only does this make your arguments inadmissable, but it shows that you're interest here is not to shed light on people on the dark, but shove your own darkness and bitterness against a church that you left on others who don't share your twisted view on God's Holy Church.

Again, I'm all for open discussion, but you're crossing logic barriers that can't be crossed. Either a Catholic burned him at the stake, or the CATHOLIC CHURCH burned him. Provide me with answers. Either the CATHOLIC CHURCH changes history to make themselves look better, or they don't. And if they did, why did they leave such a mess for you to toy with, and then seek forgiveness for it? Good questions I can't wait to see you avoid.

The leaders of the Catholic church had no problem with him being burned as they did not want the laity to have access to the scriptures. When the majesterium was not directly involved in the attrocities they were indirectly involved simply because they did nothing to prevent it nor did they discipline those who were directly involved.