Ways to reveal false doctrines

[GraceSaves]

New here, but been reading for a long time!

As to what Juan said about applying interpretation...If the Bible alone is your final authority, and everything in the Bible is "clear" and there for "anyone to understand," why would you need to apply heavy interpretation to it? Jesus said that you MUST eat his BODY and BLOOD, but since you fully reject that concept, you have to apply heavy, extra-Biblical interpretation to it. Of course you deny it out of instinct, but no explanation will suffice, because this IS what you do. Furthermore, you say if Catholics can, you can also. However, you reject the Catholic teaching authority only to uplift your own. So, how can you condemn and uplift your own teaching authority and KNOW for a fact that you are correct? Catholics don't change their doctrines, but how many Baptist churches are there that break off from one another because they have different ideas about what is being said?

Also, I'd like to point out that after reading all of these posts, no one has been able to show how a Catholic teaching is "contrary" to Scripture. You've shown how it's not "in the Bible," but this alone does not make it "contrary." When you attempt to show that it is contrary, you give a poor description of the belief/practice, often full of holes. Then a Catholic comes in and corrects you on what they believe, and you just tell them how "lost" they are, and how you really know what Catholics believe, moreseo than Catholics! Of course, many of you then say that you have not read much about it, but don't feel bad about condemning it anyway. Am I the only one who sees who wrong this is?

Lastly, I have yet to see Catholics challenge Baptist doctrine. This is your home playing field, and they aren't challenging you. You make accusations, and they try to defend themselves. That is entirely different.

 

[LaRae]

Hank,

You said:

".....The Baptist movement was born out of the persecutions and slaughters of the Church of Rome against Separatists and Protestants.

Your Roman Catholic "spiritual" forefathers murdered Jews, Muslims and Christians because they would not accept the dogma of the Church of Rome......"

If you are going to play the "inquisition card" then you better represent both sides of it. Also it's apparent you haven't done much study about the Inquisition or you would not of played it in the first place.

LaRae

 

[HankD]

Dear LaRae,

Please read ...



http://www.reformedreader.org/history/wylie/ch13.htm


HankD

 

[GraceSaves]

HankD,

Please read...
http://members.tripod.com/~frjoe/inquisition.htm

and

http://members.tripod.com/~frjoe/bigot7.htm

[ March 15, 2002, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

[HankD]

Here is another...

http://www.reformation.org/bart.html



HankD

 

[GraceSaves]

Did you read my links, Hank?

 

[HankD]

Dear GraceSaves,

It is not unusual for the victimizer to turn the blame back to the victim.

the inhumanity of the RCC (The Holy Roman Empire) for the 900+ year reign of terror upon the world is documented even by the RCC.

If anyone needs proof look in your library, encyclopedia, web under the following:

"The holy crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Latin Inquisition, Waldenses, Saint Bartholomew Day Massacre"

This will keep you busy for quite a while. Check for yourselves, both sides, then decide.

HankD

[ March 15, 2002, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[HankD]

Here is a list of scholarly works concerning the Waldenses, their persecutions and slaughters and a sonnet by Milton in their honor.

Beattie, William M. D. The Waldenses. or Protestant Valleys of Piedmot and Dauphiny. London, 1836.

Gilly, Stephen M. M.A. Narrative of an Excursion, to the Mountains of Piedmont, and Researches among the Vaudois or Waldenses, London, 1826

McCabe, James D. Cross and Crown, or The Sufferings and Triumphs of the Heroic Men and Women Who Were Persecuted for the Religion of Jesus Christ. Cincinnati, 1881.

Muston, Alexis, M. D. The Israel of the Alps: A Complete History of the Waldenses of Piedmont and Their Colonies. 2 Vols. London, 1866
Waldenses research list.

Pierre Allix, Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Piedmont, published in Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1821, reprinted in USA in 1989 by Church History Research & Archives, P.O. Box 38, Dayton Ohio, 45449.

History and Theology of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, by Dr. George S. Faber.
The Waldenses: Sketches of the Evangelical Christians of the Mountains of Piedmont, by A. W. Mitchell.
History of the Waldenses, J. A. Wylie. .
The Waldenses, or Protestant Valleys of Piedmont and Dauphiny, by William Beattie, 1836.

The Bibliografia Valdese, containing 3,500 titles, available from Societa di Studi Valdesi, Via Roberto D'Azeglio 2, 10066 Torre Pellice, Italy.
Claudiana Editrice, Via Principe Tommaso 1, 10125 Torino, Italy, has published a catalog of 500 titles in different languages on the Waldensians. 1991.

Comba, Waldenses of Italy.
History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont, Sir Samuel Morland, 1658.
Excursion to the Mountains of Piemont, by William S. Gilly.
History of the Vaudois Church, by Antoine Monastier.
Histoire generale des eglises evangeliques de Piemont ou vaudoises (in French), by Jean Leger, 1669 (1980 Italian reprint, in the French language.) (two volumes in one).
The Glorious Recovery by the Vaudois of Their Valleys, by Henri Arnaud, 1690.

On the Late Massacre in Piedmont

John Milton, Sonnet XVIII

This sonnet written in 1655 and published in 1673 was
inspired by an episode during the bloody religious wars in
seventeenth century Europe. On April 24th, 1655, the Duke
of Savoy, Charles Emmanule II, sent an expedition against
the Waldensians, a Protestant faith that had spread in many
villages on the Alps (and countries in Europe). Over 1,7000
people were massacred. Not even prisoners were spared.
Milton, as Foreign Secretary, wrote an official protest on
behalf of Cromwell's Government and sent letters to the
other Protestant countries so that the protest should be as
widely known as possible.


Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones
Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold,
Even them who kept thy truth so pure of old
When all our fathers worshipped stocks and stones,
Forget not; in thy book record their groans
Who were thy sheep, and in their ancient fold
Slain by the bloody Piemontese that rolled
Mother with infant down the rocks. Their moans
The vales redoubled to the hills, and they
To heaven. Their martyred blood and ashes sow
O'er all the Italian fields, where still doth sway
The triple tyrant, that from these may grow
A hundredfold, who, having learnt thy way,
Early may fly the Babylonian woe.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by HankD:
History and Theology of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, by Dr. George S. Faber.
The Waldenses: Sketches of the Evangelical Christians of the Mountains of Piedmont, by A. W. Mitchell.
History of the Waldenses, J. A. Wylie. .
The Waldenses, or Protestant Valleys of Piedmont and Dauphiny, by William Beattie, 1836.

Since you are using the Albigenses as a defense, lets look at what they believed:

They called themselves "Catharii," (Pure), found sexual relations repugnant and rejected marriage as abominable.

They professed to be practicing primitive Christianity itself.*

They held for a two-fold principle of creation, one good and the other, evil.

Matter was evil and the spirit was good.
All existence was in conflict between these two principles.

Since all matter was evil, they denied the incarnation (that Christ assumed a human body).
Regarding Christ as the highest angel, they denied both his humanity and divinity.
They denied that he could endure injury; thus, there was no Crucifixion or Resurrection.
The entire narration of his Passion and Death was brushed aside as illusion.

They denied the "real presence" in the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass.*

Although sinless, the Virgin Mary had a celestial body like Christ, and only appeared to be a woman.

Dr. O'Brien writes: "They professed hatred and contempt for the Church, branding her the Scarlet Woman of the Apocalypse, 'drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus'; the pope was Antichrist. The sacraments were childish impostures and transubstantiation was a mad blasphemy. Particularly vehement were those heretics in their denunciation of all forms of symbolism and of the veneration of relics and especially of the Cross" (O'Brien, p. 18).*
Usurpation of Church structure and sacraments: "They had bishops as rulers and their members were divided into the 'perfected,' the 'consoled' and the 'believers.' The believers were obliged to prostrate themselves before the perfected and to venerate them in an obsequious manner. They made one sacrament out of baptism, confirmation, penance and the Eucharist, which they called the consolamentum. Those who died without receiving the consolamentum would pass either to eternal punishment or into the body of an animal; since the latter might be the dwelling-place of a human soul, they refused under all circumstances to take animal life" (O'Brien, p. 18).

Usurpation of the rights of the state: "The putting to death of a human being, for any crime whatsoever, was considered wrong; and according to the Summa Contra Hereticos, 'all the Catharan sects taught that the public prosecution of crime was unjust and no one had the right to administer justice'" (O'Brien, p. 18).

As an attack upon society's most basic component, the family, they contended that sex was evil at its core. Procreation was condemned as a Satanic enterprise wherein the pregnant female was possessed by a demon. If she died while pregnant or giving birth, she was eternally damned.

Marriage was dismissed as a perpetually sinful state, worse than fornication, adultery, incest, and sodomy. The reasoning here was that married couples felt no shame or remorse. Also, there was the possibility of progeny. Abortion was reckoned as something to be highly recommended.

The last sacrament or consolamentum could only be given those who renounced sexual relations; indeed, afterwards there were severe penalties of fasting for a man who merely touched a woman.

The Albigensians repudiated the oath of fealty which represented the bonding foundation of feudal society and refused all taxes.

Critically ill members were given the consolamentum and then urged to make their salvation certain by the endura, no less than suicide. Often it translated into murder. If they agreed, they were asked if they were a martyr or a confessor. Martyrs were suffocated with a pillow while confessors died of thirst and starvation. The so-called Perfect would often hang around to make sure the person was made to die, and it should be mentioned that opportunists sometimes exploited these situations for profit. Toward the middle of the thirteenth century, they cruelly subjected small children to the endura.

 

[GraceSaves]

What Catholic have you met that is pro-Inquisition? You act is if this is something that brings pride to Catholics, as you use it as a tactile weapon against them. When Catholics bring up Protestants killing Catholics, I've seen it said that they're just "avoiding the subject at hand." That doesn't work.

Protestants Have Killed Many More Catholics!

Calvin sought to persecute heretics (particularly Roman Catholics) so as to keep Protestant believers in the lands divided by the Reformation faithful to his new teachings. He viciously persecuted the Spaniard, Michael Servetus, having him burnt alive on October 27, 1553. As early as 1545, Calvin had written, "If he [Servetus] comes to Geneva, I will never allow him to depart alive." He kept his promise.

Melancthon, one of the more mild reformers and the editor for Luther's many works and teachings, would write to Bullinger, "I am astonished that some persons denounce the severity that was so justly used in that case."

Theodore of Beza wrote: "What crime can be greater or more heinous than heresy, which sets at nought the word of God and all ecclesiastic discipline? Christian magistrates, do your duty to God [speaking in Calvin's Geneva of 1554], who has put the sword into your hands for the honor of His majesty; strike valiantly these monsters in the guise of men." He went on to characterize those who demanded freedom of conscience "worse than the tyranny of the pope. It is better to have a tyrant, no matter how cruel he may be, than to let everyone do as he pleases."

Martin Luther also fanned the flames of intolerance, "Whoever teaches otherwise than I teach, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell."

King Henry VIII of England, who took upon himself the role of grand royal inquisitor, took the lives of some 72,000 Catholics, many who were cruelly tortured.

Queen Elizabeth, proved herself the former's daughter by putting to death more people in one year than the Inquisition had done in 331 years!

Yes, there is more than enough blame to go around. Maybe it is time for respect and dialogue and if need be, the charitable anathema, instead of mockery and half-truths?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Jesus said that you MUST eat his BODY and BLOOD, but since you fully reject that concept, you have to apply heavy, extra-Biblical interpretation to it. Of course you deny it out of instinct, but no explanation will suffice, because this IS what you do.

Jesus did not say this as you believe it since it is painfully obvious that not one disciple in the immediate presence of Jesus ate his body or drank his blood. Not one did - not in John 6, not at the Last Supper, not at any place during his life. Why not? Becuase they understood Christ as we understand Christ, rather than as you understand him. Furthermore, Paul called it a memorial. You have contradicted Scripture when you say it is anything but a memorial.

However, you reject the Catholic teaching authority only to uplift your own.

It is not our own authority that we are lifting up. Scripture has the authority. Nowhere did Christ give the RCC any authority. The authority he gave was to the true church, those who by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone have come to salvation in him.

Catholics don't change their doctrines,

Actually they have. They have changed their doctrine on indulgences. They have changed their doctrine on salvation being available outside the church. They have changed numerous doctrines through the years.

Also, I'd like to point out that after reading all of these posts, no one has been able to show how a Catholic teaching is "contrary" to Scripture.

It has been shown a number of times. You have not recognized it becuase you do not accept the authority of Scripture but rather the authority of the church who has told you what to think about Scripture.

Lastly, I have yet to see Catholics challenge Baptist doctrine. This is your home playing field, and they aren't challenging you. You make accusations, and they try to defend themselves. That is entirely different.

You just challenged it above -- concerning the nature of communion. You just challenged it above concerning the authority of Scripture. You try to play the innocent game apparently hoping that no one will read your posts critically to see where you have contradicted your own professed method of argumentation. If you think Baptists beliefs have not been challenged in this forum then you have not read much. Outside of the two times that I have pointed out above, the Baptist belief on baptism has been challenged; the Baptist belief on the nature of the papal office has been challenged; the Baptist belief on the sufficiency and permanence of Christ's one time offering has been challenged; the Baptist belief on prayer has been challenged -- and these are just off the top of my head without even thinking through the many threads that populate this section of the forum. Baptist beliefs have been challenged.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Jesus did not say this as you believe it since it is painfully obvious that not one disciple in the immediate presence of Jesus ate his body or drank his blood. Not one did - not in John 6, not at the Last Supper, not at any place during his life. Why not? Becuase they understood Christ as we understand Christ, rather than as you understand him. Furthermore, Paul called it a memorial. You have contradicted Scripture when you say it is anything but a memorial.

You say this without providing any evidence. How can you say that the disciples did not eat and drink of His body? Where does it say that they DID NOT? If they did not say that they DID NOT, on what authority do you have it to say they didn't? You have not one. You believe it without basing it on anything in Scripture. Furthermore, Catholics do it as as memorial also. We do not disrespect that we are to do it "in memory of Him." But because it is a memorial, that holds no bearing on whether or not it could be MORE than that.

It is not our own authority that we are lifting up. Scripture has the authority. Nowhere did Christ give the RCC any authority. The authority he gave was to the true church, those who by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone have come to salvation in him.

If Scripture has everything you need, then why apply interpretation to it? The Scriptures wouldn't need interpretation, and any reader could pick it up and make sense of it. No, instead, when someone comes up concerning the Lord's Supper, to you, you will tell them HOW TO INTERPRATE IT AS YOU SEE IT. They will not be deciding for themselves, but rather taking on your belief of it.

Actually they have. They have changed their doctrine on indulgences. They have changed their doctrine on salvation being available outside the church. They have changed numerous doctrines through the years.

These were not infallible doctrines. The Catholic Church is organic, and dogmas do not change. Methods of practice (indulgences), etc, cna change.

It has been shown a number of times. You have not recognized it becuase you do not accept the authority of Scripture but rather the authority of the church who has told you what to think about Scripture.

And yet you believe what you believe based on the Baptist Church's interpretation of Scripture. If someday you find something you don't like in those interpretations, you would change church's to find one that believes like you do. Scripture cannot be the final authority because it requires interpretation to understand, and no one interprates it the same.

You just challenged it above -- concerning the nature of communion. You just challenged it above concerning the authority of Scripture. You try to play the innocent game apparently hoping that no one will read your posts critically to see where you have contradicted your own professed method of argumentation. If you think Baptists beliefs have not been challenged in this forum then you have not read much. Outside of the two times that I have pointed out above, the Baptist belief on baptism has been challenged; the Baptist belief on the nature of the papal office has been challenged; the Baptist belief on the sufficiency and permanence of Christ's one time offering has been challenged; the Baptist belief on prayer has been challenged -- and these are just off the top of my head without even thinking through the many threads that populate this section of the forum. Baptist beliefs have been challenged.

Who does the condemning of beliefs in these threads? Is it the Catholics that condemn Baptist baptisms, or the Baptists who condemn Catholic baptisms? Who condemns the others practices, and who has to counteract and defend themselves against them?

Last I checked, Catholics accept Baptist baptisms. Last I checked, although you are not in full communion like Catholics are, we do not denounce your Communion because Christ isn't present in it, you are also not damaging it.

Show me where the Catholics condemn the Baptists, and then you have a case for yourself.

[ March 15, 2002, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Jesus did not say this as you believe it since it is painfully obvious that not one disciple in the immediate presence of Jesus ate his body or drank his blood. Not one did - not in John 6, not at the Last Supper, not at any place during his life. Why not? Becuase they understood Christ as we understand Christ, rather than as you understand him. Furthermore, Paul called it a memorial. You have contradicted Scripture when you say it is anything but a memorial.

You say this without providing any evidence. How can you say that the disciples did not eat and drink of His body? Where does it say that they DID NOT? If they did not say that they DID NOT, on what authority do you have it to say they didn't? You have not one. You believe it without basing it on anything in Scripture. Furthermore, Catholics do it as as memorial also. We do not disrespect that we are to do it "in memory of Him." But because it is a memorial, that holds no bearing on whether or not it could be MORE than that.

It is not our own authority that we are lifting up. Scripture has the authority. Nowhere did Christ give the RCC any authority. The authority he gave was to the true church, those who by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone have come to salvation in him.

If Scripture has everything you need, then why apply interpretation to it? The Scriptures wouldn't need interpretation, and any reader could pick it up and make sense of it. No, instead, when someone comes up concerning the Lord's Supper, to you, you will tell them HOW TO INTERPRATE IT AS YOU SEE IT. They will not be deciding for themselves, but rather taking on your belief of it.

Actually they have. They have changed their doctrine on indulgences. They have changed their doctrine on salvation being available outside the church. They have changed numerous doctrines through the years.

These were not infallible doctrines. The Catholic Church is organic, and dogmas do not change. Methods of practice (indulgences), etc, cna change.

It has been shown a number of times. You have not recognized it becuase you do not accept the authority of Scripture but rather the authority of the church who has told you what to think about Scripture.

And yet you believe what you believe based on the Baptist Church's interpretation of Scripture. If someday you find something you don't like in those interpretations, you would change church's to find one that believes like you do. Scripture cannot be the final authority because it requires interpretation to understand, and no one interprates it the same.

You just challenged it above -- concerning the nature of communion. You just challenged it above concerning the authority of Scripture. You try to play the innocent game apparently hoping that no one will read your posts critically to see where you have contradicted your own professed method of argumentation. If you think Baptists beliefs have not been challenged in this forum then you have not read much. Outside of the two times that I have pointed out above, the Baptist belief on baptism has been challenged; the Baptist belief on the nature of the papal office has been challenged; the Baptist belief on the sufficiency and permanence of Christ's one time offering has been challenged; the Baptist belief on prayer has been challenged -- and these are just off the top of my head without even thinking through the many threads that populate this section of the forum. Baptist beliefs have been challenged.

Who advocates these threads? Is it the Catholics that condemn Baptist baptisms, or the Baptists who condemn Catholic baptisms? Who condemns the others practices, and who has to counteract and defend themselves against them?

Last I checked, Catholics accept Baptist baptisms. Last I checked, although you are not in full communion like Catholics are, we do not denounce your Communion because Christ isn't present in it, you are also not damaging it.

Show me where the Catholics condemn the Baptists, and then you have a case for yourself.</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Juan Diego]

Originally posted by HankD:
Dear LaRae,

Please read ...

HankD

More melodrama and conjecture from The Black Legend, but little in the way of accurate research, documentation, or objective writing as in, "Gleams of lurid light," from the quotes below.

Here's some choice quotes from the article.

That mother was sprung of a race which has ever been noted for its dissimulation, its cruelty, and its bigoted devotion to Rome.

In short, there is reason to believe that it was not the facile spirit of the House of Savoy, but the astute spirit of the Medici, prompted by the Vatican, that enacted those scenes of carnage that we are now to record.

The marquis undertook the task with the utmost goodwill [Muston, p. 130]. A bigot and a soldier, he could think of only one way of converting the Vaudois. It was now that the storm burst.

Anything more inhuman and barbarous under the circumstances than this edict it would not be easy to imagine.

Dismay, horror, agony, woe in a moment overspread the Valleys of Lucerna and Angrogna. Though Pandemonium had sent forth its fiends to riot in crime and revel in blood, they could not have outdone the soldiers of the Propaganda.

Gleams of lurid light burst out through the dark smoke that was rolling through the vales, for a priest and monk accompanied each party of soldiers, to set fire to the houses as soon as the inmates had been dispatched.

The soldiers were not content with the quick dispatch of the sword, they invented new and hitherto unheard-of modes of torture and death. No man at this day dare write in plain words all the disgusting and horrible deeds of these men; their wickedness can never be all known, because it never can be all told.

There come vile, abominable, and monstrous deeds, utterly and overwhelmingly disgusting, horrible and fiendish, which we dare not transcribe.

No general account, however awful, can convey so correct an idea of the horrors of this persecution as would the history of individual cases; but this we are precluded from giving.

Check out also the above in italics. He just cannot make up enough so he says such things as "...which we dare not transcribe." and
"...because it never can be all told."

Hank, you best do a little better research than this. This is material from a dime novel. The real clincher that describes the credibility of this piece is where Cromwell (a known evil man) is portrayed as some kind of a hero.

Peace,
Juan Diego

 

[HankD]

Dear GraceSaves,

RE: What the Albigenses believe, etc…

I don't agree with many of the Albigenses beliefs, however, you have proven my point.
The Church of Rome killed whomever they pleased if they would not yield to their dogma.
I never said anything about the content of the belief of the victim.
In fact I used non-Christians examples as well (Jews Muslims)

You and others talk about the "times being different" then (Holy Roman Empire).

What business did the so-called Church of Jesus Christ have in attempting to rule over the secular world?

When did Jesus ever tell his disciples to disembowel someone because of a difference in doctrine?

RE: Protestants
I am not a Protestant. I am a Separatist. I identify as a Separatist because they shed no blood except in defense of themselves such as the Waldenses. The Protestant Church of England persecuted baptistic believers as well the RCC.

Can you find me one local Baptist Church that has gone on a campaign of bloodshed to kill the innocent because they hold a different belief about the nature of the Communion Ordinance (for instance)?

Let me also say this: I sincerely believe that some/many grassroots Catholics are saved because they are trusting Christ alone. They go through the motions of their religion because of their misplaced loyalty and sincerity of belief in their leadership. On the other hand the gospel is hidden to most Catholics under the baggage of the sacramental works system.

I have also stated that I have difficulties identifying the Pope as The Antichrist. However, many popes have shed the blood (or allowed it to be shed) of the innocent.

In any event I say and write these things in the hope that you take another look at the history your Church.

And I do hope that you have been saved by grace.

HankD

 

[GraceSaves]

Point well spoken, Hank.

I just dont' want you to think that the Protestant Churches, in history, have been any better. Under a cruel leader, any religious "order" can go sour. That doesn't mean that the religion is sour. Please don't confuse them. Catholics today do not feel the same way that SOME Catholics then felt. It is not a Catholic doctrine to kill everyone.

 

[Juan Diego]

Hank,
Just what does all this prove?

For example:

" The conservative estimates of modern scholars -- such as Peters, Thomas, Cantor, and Pernoud-- who have specialized in the history of the Inquisitions, places the actual number of those executed at well below 10,000 over the entire six-century off-and-on existence of all the Inquisitions combined. This pales in comparison to the over 130,000 "witch" executions --mostly by burning-- in Protestant England and Germany during the 16th and 17th century alone."

And

"In countries like Italy and Spain, where the Catholic Church and its Inquisition reigned virtually unquestioned, witch hunting was uncommon. The worst panics took place in areas like Switzerland and Germany, where rival Christians sects fought to impose their religious views on each other."

"rival Christian sects" means Protestant.

Why do you think that all the people were fleeing to America looking for religious freedom? They weren't fleeing the Catholics.

Now, does any of this prove anything except that Christians are bloodthirsty and intolerant and continue fighting and killing? It is just all more hatred. Do you have to keep it up? Does it really prove anything? Does it prove your doctrines or does it justify them?

Mike

 

[Juan Diego]

Originally posted by HankD:
RE: Protestants
I am not a Protestant. I am a Separatist. I identify as a Separatist because they shed no blood except in defense of themselves such as the Waldenses. The Protestant Church of England persecuted baptistic believers as well the RCC.

Can you find me one local Baptist Church that has gone on a campaign of bloodshed to kill the innocent because they hold a different belief about the nature of the Communion Ordinance (for instance)?

Hank,
I come from a small town in the south. I knew all the Protestants. The Baptists there have never claimed not to be Protestant. This is some new twist. We also had the KKK. Now who do you think ran the KKK? The biggest Protestant church in town--The First Baptist Church. Don't tell me that the Baptists are merely separatists and that they never shed blood.

Now that we got that straight.

God bless you,
Juan Diego

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
They called themselves "Catharii," (Pure), found sexual relations repugnant and rejected marriage as abominable.

Lie.

They professed to be practicing primitive Christianity itself.

True, as do I.

They held for a two-fold principle of creation, one good and the other, evil.

Lie.

Matter was evil and the spirit was good.

Lie.

All existence was in conflict between these two principles.

Lie.

Since all matter was evil, they denied the incarnation (that Christ assumed a human body).

Lie.

Regarding Christ as the highest angel, they denied both his humanity and divinity.

Lie.

They denied that he could endure injury; thus, there was no Crucifixion or Resurrection.

Lie.

The entire narration of his Passion and Death was brushed aside as illusion.

Lie.

They denied the "real presence" in the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass.

They sure did! Just as every true Christian does. The idea that the elements of the Lord's supper is the actual blood and body of Christ is blasphemy and the Mass is a blasphemous parody of the Crucifixion!

Although sinless, the Virgin Mary had a celestial body like Christ, and only appeared to be a woman.

Lie.

Dr. O'Brien writes: "They professed hatred and contempt for the Church, branding her the Scarlet Woman of the Apocalypse, 'drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus'; the pope was Antichrist. The sacraments were childish impostures and transubstantiation was a mad blasphemy.

All true, they believed that and they were right.

Particularly vehement were those heretics in their denunciation of all forms of symbolism and of the veneration of relics and especially of the Cross" (O'Brien, p. 18).

Equally true and again, they were correct. They called to so called "relics" junk! It is! Superstitious junk!

Usurpation of Church structure and sacraments: "They had bishops as rulers and their members were divided into the 'perfected,' the 'consoled' and the 'believers.' The believers were obliged to prostrate themselves before the perfected and to venerate them in an obsequious manner. They made one sacrament out of baptism, confirmation, penance and the Eucharist, which they called the consolamentum. Those who died without receiving the consolamentum would pass either to eternal punishment or into the body of an animal; since the latter might be the dwelling-place of a human soul, they refused under all circumstances to take animal life" (O'Brien, p. 18).

Lie.

I have skipped the rest of the lies as all of this can easily be shown to be a lie by simply reading their own writings, which were suppressed and burned by the RCC. However, much to the chagrin of the revisionist historians of the RCC, some of their writings survived! And those writings prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Catholics lied about them then and are lying about them now!

 

[GraceSaves]

It's so easy to call something a lie without documenting it. Thanks, Tom.