Why The RCC Is A Cult

[Walter]

Lakeside, There were little known Christian apostolic churches prior to the Protestant Reformation that were outside the Catholic church and not descendants of. You can research them online. I posted from a book regarding this below (if you do not have the time to read all the below at least read the portions I highlighted in black) Thanks and God bless you Lakeside!-

"The Paulicians, Paterines, and Waldenses."


The Waldenses were Catholic to the core!!! lol Plenty of proof that they believed in the eucharist and baptism the same as Catholics do. Donatists venerated relics and believed baptism was a means of grace and regeneration. That doesn't sound Baptist to me. If we went back in time and asked one of these heretical groups where the Baptist church meets, they would have no idea what we were talking about. And here is one of YOUR OWN about your precious 'baptist successionism'.

James Edward McGoldrick, professor of history for Cedarville College in Ohio, a Baptist himself and expert especially in Protestant Reformation history wrote Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (The American Theological Library Association and The Scarecrow Press, 1994). McGoldrick examines many groups claimed as "early Baptists" (or early Evangelicals who are "baptistic") such as the Montanists, Novatians, Paulicians, Bogomils, Albigenses, Waldenses and other groups and individuals.

"Although no reputable Church historians have ever affirmed the belief that Baptists can trace their lineage through medieval and ancient sects ultimately to the New Testament, that point of view enjoys a large following nevertheless. It appears that scholars aware of this claim have deemed it unworthy of their attention, which may account for the persistence and popularity of Baptist successionism as a doctrine as well as an interpretation of church history. Aside from occasional articles and booklets that reject this teaching, no one has published a refutation in a systematic, documented format. The present work is an effort to supply this need so that Baptists may have a thorough analysis of successionism, together with a reliable account of their origins as a Protestant religious body." (McGoldrick, preface page iv)

"It is the purpose of this book to show that, although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers." (ibid, page 2)

 

[Walter]

A little more about the Waldenses. 'In a statement of faith submitted to the bishop of Albano, Peter Waldo affirmed his belief in transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and infant baptism. And another BAPTIST historian, the famed historian A.H. Newman drew the only conclusion warranted by the evidence.

"Waldo and his early followers had more in common with...Roman Catholicism than with any evangelical party. His views of life and doctrine were scarcely in advance of many earnest Catholics of the time."

Your own historians even recognize that these groups were not early Baptists, but you HAVE to hitch your wagons to them in order to show that your sort of 'true believers' always existed. BTW, ask Bob Ryan who these early groups were and I bet he will tell you they were all early SDA's!

Here is my source: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num3.htm

 

[BrotherJoseph]

A little more about the Waldenses. 'In a statement of faith submitted to the bishop of Albano, Peter Waldo affirmed his belief in transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and infant baptism. And another BAPTIST historian, the famed historian A.H. Newman drew the only conclusion warranted by the evidence.

"Waldo and his early followers had more in common with...Roman Catholicism than with any evangelical party. His views of life and doctrine were scarcely in advance of many earnest Catholics of the time."

Your own historians even recognize that these groups were not early Baptists, but you HAVE to hitch your wagons to them in order to show that your sort of 'true believers' always existed. BTW, ask Bob Ryan who these early groups were and I bet he will tell you they were all early SDA's!

Here is my source: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num3.htm

Your source says one, mine says another (see mine below). I am a Baptist, you are a Catholic, thus we will never agree on this and I am done. However, note the portion I have highlighted, put in italics, and underlined below is from a Catholic source and if you read the whole post of information t there are numerous writers cited. By the way I am a Primitive Baptist, thus I highly doubt your source was one of my "own historians".

The Paulicians, Paterines, and Waldenses."

The Paulicians arose about the middle of the seventh century and continued till the eleventh century, when they amalgamated with the Waldenses and other kindred sects (Benedict p. 51). The Paterines arose about the tenth century in Italy. They spread extensively in that kingdom, also in Poland, Bohemia and France, and were finally absorbed, in the thirteenth century, in the great body of the Waldenses. Mr. T. R. Burnett, a Campbellite editor and debater, said, "The Baptists have connection with the apostles through their line of succession. which extends back three hundred and fifty years, where it connects with the Waldensian line, and that reaches to the apostolic day."--Christian Messenger, Dec. 8, 1886. Three hundred and fifty years carries the Baptists back to 1536, and there the Primitive Baptists, Brunett says, connect with the Waldensian line, and that line connects them with the "apostolic day." The Catholics accused the Waldenses of being two-seeders, of believing that God was the author of sin. that man is like a log or a stone, and that, according to their views of predestination, "It is of little consequence whether we do good or evil," and "that we reject repentance and confession of sins," and "that the church was once actually lost." Now read their answer to the above charges: "We do therefore reject all the above articles falsely imputed to us, as heretical; we condemn and detest them; and from the very heart denounce an anathema against those who teach them."--Peyran's History of the Waldenses, pp. 467, 468. Lindanus, who was a Catholic. said that Calvin inherited the doctrine of the Waldenses. Mezeray said of the Waldenses, "They held nearly the same opinions as those who are now called Calvinists." Gualtier, a Catholic monk. said that the principles of the Waldenses and those of the Calvinists coincided with each other. Pope Plus II declared the doctrine taught by Calvin to be the same as that of the Waldenses. (Jones, p. 297.)
(From book Baptists In All Ages: Chapter III Written by J.S. Newman)

Baptists In All Ages: Chapter II

The Montanists and Novatians of the third century.

[NOTE: In this chapter Elder Newman discusses the Montanists and Novatians of the third century, also the Donatists of the fourth century. According to Roman Catholic records, the Novatians were condemned by the General Council of Nice. The Donatists were condemned by the Catholics at Rome in 313. and at Arles in 314.--Catholic Religion Defined, page 534.] Jesus the Son of God said. "Ye shall know them by their fruits." --Matt. vii. 16. Remember that the charges that were pronounced against these Baptists were made by the dominant party. The two main charges made against the different groups of Baptists were that they were two-seeders or Manichaeans and they "rebaptized the members that came over to them." These things were told on all the different sections of those whom we claim as our religious ancestors. which is sufficient to prove that these different groups of Baptists all believed fundamentally the same things. As they all had the same origin and all believed, the same doctrine and adhered to the same practice, it follows to a demonstration that they were the same people, though frequently known and called by different names. Montanus did not originate the people called by his name. He protested against the corruption that had in various ways, at different times and places and by different designing men found its way into some of the local churches of Jesus Christ. Montanism first appeared at Phrygia, which at that time comprised the greater part of Asia Minor, about the middle of the second century. At this time there was no fundamental and no noticeable departure from New Testament doctrine. Some of the city churches had allowed new things in practice to enter in among them. which was a source of annoyance to such men as Montanus and Tertullian. "Let it be remembered that the 'theological' chairs of the German universities have been the greatest strongholds of infidelity in the nineteenth century. The chief opposition to the Alexandrian school and to Gnosticism and to the substitution of philosophy for Christianity was, in the second century, made by those called the Montanists, of whom Tertullian became, in the third century, the ablest writer. *** They sought to emphasize the great importance of the spirituality and purity of the church, and especially the absolute indispensability of the Holy Ghost and the dispensableness of human philosophy. 'Tertullian calls the Greek philosophers the patriarchs of all heresies, and scornfully asks, What has the academy to do with the church?' "--Hassell, p. 367.

It is a fact well known by all historians that Montanus, Tertullian and Donatus were all members of the same church at Carthage in north Africa. The corruption that had from time to time found it way into this church seemed to be more than a match for Montanus: and Tertullian, and they withdrew from the majority represented by Cyprian, who had introduced a modified form of Catholicism into this church. Cyprian was teaching this church the heresy known as church salvation and baptismal regeneration, while Montanus and Tertullian "denied that baptism was the channel of grace."--Armitage p. 177. Schaff says, "Montanism was not originally a departure from the faith, but a morbid overestimating of the practice of morality at the early church."--Vol. 1, p. 302. Montanus, Donatus and Tertullian were together at Carthage. Donatus went to Rome and joined Novatian and it is a fact that Novatian did not require Donatus to be baptized again. Novatian recognized the work of Montanus, Tertullian and Donatus, but rejected the work of Cyprian at Carthage and those allied with them, as well as the work of Cornelius of Rome and those who stood with him. Hassell, p. 67, says,, "Novatian was a prudent advocate of the faith generally embraced in the church." He believed in predestination as held to by the Primitive Baptists of our day. He held to a regenerate church membership and reimmersed all who came to them from the dominant or Catholic party. They were called Anabaptists by those denominated the Catholic party.

The Donatists, like the Novatians, insisted on the purity of the church and declared that the church at Carthage (meaning the dominant party had fallen from the dignity of a true church and deprived herself of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Their enemies said, "Hence they pronounced the sacred rites and institutions void of all virtue and efficacy among those Christians who were not precisely of their sentiments, and not only rebaptized those who came over to their party from other churches, but even with respect to those who had been ordained ministers of the gospel, they observed the severe custom, either of depriving them of their office, or obliging them to be ordained a second time."--Mosheim, part 2, Chap. 5, Sec. 8. The above expresses the objection the Catholics had to the Donatists and exactly what is still held against their descendants, and in this we see an exact likeness of the Primitive Baptists of our day. "The Donatists maintained that the church should cast out from its body those who were known by open and manifest sins to be unworthy members."--Neander, Vol. 2, p. 203. "They refused infant baptism."--Long.

The Paulicians are another sect everywhere spoken against through which we trace the church, and when we begin to study their history about the first objection to them is they were Manichaeans and "rebaptized" all that came to them from the Catholics. These same charges were made against Tertullian, Montanus, Novatian and Donatus, which proves that these different groups of the same people known by different names were Calvinistic in their theology. (From book Baptists In All Ages: Chapter III Written by J.S. Newman)

 

[DHK]

A little more about the Waldenses. 'In a statement of faith submitted to the bishop of Albano, Peter Waldo affirmed his belief in transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and infant baptism. And another BAPTIST historian, the famed historian A.H. Newman drew the only conclusion warranted by the evidence.

"Waldo and his early followers had more in common with...Roman Catholicism than with any evangelical party. His views of life and doctrine were scarcely in advance of many earnest Catholics of the time."

Your own historians even recognize that these groups were not early Baptists, but you HAVE to hitch your wagons to them in order to show that your sort of 'true believers' always existed. BTW, ask Bob Ryan who these early groups were and I bet he will tell you they were all early SDA's!

Here is my source: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num3.htm

This is an example of how Christianity spread in the early centuries:

AT first there was unity in fundamental doctrines and practices. Step by step some of the churches turned aside from the old paths and sought out many inventions. Discipline became lax and persons of influence were permitted to follow a course of life which would not have been tolerated under the old discipline. The times had changed and some of the churches changed with the times. There were those who had itching ears and they sought after novelties. The dogma of baptismal regeneration was early accepted by many, and men sought to have their sins washed away in water rather than in the blood of Christ. Ministers became ambitious for power and trampled upon the independence of the churches. The churches conformed to the customs of the world and the pleasures of society.

There were, however, churches which remained uncorrupted, and there were faithful men who raised their voices against the departure from apostolic practice. An account will be given of some of the early reformers who offered their protest and called the people back to the simplicity of the gospel.

The first protest in the way of separation from the growing corruptions of the times was the movement of the Montanist churches. This Montanus, the leader, was a Phrygian, who arose about the year A. D. 156. The most distinguished advocate of Montanism was Tertullian who espoused and defended their views. They held that science and art, all worldly education or gay form of life, should be avoided, because such things belonged to paganism. The crown of life was martyrdom. Religious life they held to be austere. Against a mortal sin the church should defend itself by rightly excluding him who committed it, for the holiness of the church was simply the holiness of the members. With such principles they could not fail to come in conflict with the popular Christianity of the day. The substance of the contentions of these churches was for a life of the Spirit. It was not a new form of Christianity; it was a recovery of the old, the primitive church set over against the obvious corruptions of the current Christianity. The old church demanded purity; the new church had struck a bargain with the world, and had arranged itself comfortably with it, and they would, therefore, break with it (Moeller, Montanism in Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, III.1562).

From J.T. Christian in "A History of the Baptists", chapter III.

True biblical Christianity always operated outside of what was called "The Church," and remained pure to the doctrines of Christ.

 

[lakeside]

DHK, I know enough about early Christian history to know that your author is wrong on all counts. 1st., the Catholic Church could admit the existence of other groups of Christians which had survived from the first century if any still existed, but none do. All of the heretical groups that split off in the first century died out. Anyone who claims that there was a line of doctrinally Protestant people going back through history to Jesus doesn't know Church history.

2nd.,, while some groups, such as the Baptists, sometimes make this claim, they claim descent from heretical groups such as the Montanists (a false-prophecy movement that said the New Jerusalem would descend in Phrygia, on Montanus's home town), the Donatists (who said sacraments are efficacious only if they are administered by someone in a state of grace), and the Albigensians (who said there are two gods, a good god who loves us and an evil god who made the world). There is simply no way that these groups were Baptists under a different name.

Also incorrect is the notion, seriously offered by some Baptists, that the Baptists are descended from John the Baptist--otherwise, why else would they sport his title?

(This argument is analogous to the one given by ministers of the Protestant denomination that calls itself the Church of Christ. They say theirs must be the original Church because the name of the Church founded by Christ could be nothing other than "the Church of Christ." Naturally enough, this argument has not found favor with people who do not belong to that denomination.)

The Baptists are a late offshoot of the English Reformation. Their denomination was started in 1609 by a British man named John Smyth, who was living in Holland at the time. He and his congregation of expatriate Englishmen began the first Baptist church, which later relocated to England, which is why all the early Baptist confessions were drawn up in that country.

Incidentally, the original Baptists practiced baptism by pouring (affusion) instead of dunking (immersion), although most of them today vigorously deny the validity of baptism by pouring. The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, finding no one qualified to baptize him, decided to baptize himself in 1639.

 

[OldRegular]

The heretics and ignorant dragged Jesus through the mud, now those same people are dragging His Church through the mud.

The the puppet masters {the papacy, the teaching magisterium, and priests} and compliant puppets have converted many Churches of Jesus Christ into the largest cult in existence, Roman Catholicism! And I will not call it a Christian Cult because it is the spawn of Satan!

But, Thank God, he has always has His faithful Churches here on earth, some living in peril because of the unholy union of Roman Catholicism and the residues of the Roman Empire.

 

[BobRyan]

DHK, I know enough about early Christian history to know that your author is wrong on all counts. 1st., the Catholic Church could admit the existence of other groups of Christians which had survived from the first century if any still existed, but none do. .

Crimes against humanity in the form of the murder of over 50 million saints during the dark ages - is not as good an argument in favor of RCC-only-ism as one might have at first supposed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

A little more about the Waldenses. 'In a statement of faith submitted to the bishop of Albano,

How is it that the perpetrators of the crimes against the Waldenses are to be the "trusted source" vouching for Waldensian doctrine and Christianity.

What logic is that??

Let us review "LATERAN IV" and the call for the "EXTERMINATION of heretics" and of jews as well as the infamous "Doctrine of Discovery" to find what the RCC says about itself. I care more for what it admits about itself - than what it accuses its victims of doing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[OldRegular]

How is it that the perpetrators of the crimes against the Waldenses are to be the "trusted source" vouching for Waldensian doctrine and Christianity.

What logic is that??

That is the logic of the cult called Roman Catholicism!

 

[lakeside]

BobRyan&Old Regular your knowledge of the Inquisition is twisted. In case you're not aware of it the Inquisition was intended not to convert people, but to find people who were outwardly claiming to be Christian but secretly practiced another religion, such as people who had become Christian outwardly, but who were still secretly practicing anti-Messianic Judaism, Islam, or Albigensianism, this last being a religion claiming that there are two gods, one good and one evil. The inquisition was thus an attempt to protect the purity of the Christian community.
Being over zealous along with the morbid death practices taken were used by both religious and civil courts including the Protestants.
In all fairness this also must be mentioned here and that is the Protestant peasant wars along with the Protestant counter-inquisition that killed Catholics. Thousands of Catholics were killed in England alone after the Reformation struck there.
The same thing was true in Ireland back then and again in recent years came the ''Troubles" along with the American West and other areas where the Protestants ventured after the Catholic missionaries had to quell the indigenous pagans.
Protestant John Calvin, for instance, was known for burning people at the stake.
In addition, Protestants were the big witch-burners. Witch burning never caught on in Catholic countries. When the Spanish Inquisition examined the cases of reported witches, it almost invariably concluded that the charges were false and the accused were not guilty. But tens of thousands of supposed witches were burned at the stake, hanged, or drowned in Protestant countries, including the American colonies.

 

[Walter]

The the puppet masters {the papacy, the teaching magisterium, and priests} and compliant puppets have converted many Churches of Jesus Christ into the largest cult in existence, Roman Catholicism! And I will not call it a Christian Cult because it is the spawn of Satan!

But, Thank God, he has always has His faithful Churches here on earth, some living in peril because of the unholy union of Roman Catholicism and the residues of the Roman Empire.

All right! We know you have a seething hatred for Catholics. That is quite apparent. Put your fangs back in!

BTW. here is a little more about the Donatists that you so want to call 'Early Baptists'. 'Because of their highly sacramental view of baptism and ordination, the Donatists insisted that the sacraments were only valid if the authority and intention of the priest was God-given. They came to the proud conclusion that all the run-of-the-mill ‘catholic’ priests, with themselves as exceptions, were unclean. Therefore, whatever the cleanliness of the baptismal candidate, his baptism must be pronounced invalid if the priest was not a Donatist. Baptism was solely centred around the spiritual qualification and status of the priest. This, of course, is exactly the view propagated in the Council of Trent and was one of the many novelties denounced at the Reformation. From time to time, we find such sacramental, intolerant views amongst modern Baptists. As I am writing these words, the Southern Baptists are campaigning for a re-baptism of members who have not gone through a Southern Baptist Baptismal ceremony. So also then, the Donatists set themselves up as a rival church with a rival priesthood who insisted that all their members must be ‘cleansed’ by re-baptism'.

The FACT is, Ol' Reg, that the Donatists were in NO way early Baptists and were HIGHLY sacramental which, of course, y'all have no part in. Your claims that they were early Baptists are a joke.

An evangelical site, oh by the way! http://evangelica.de/articles/the-donatists-and-their-relation-to-church-and-state/

 

[OldRegular]

All right! We know you have a seething hatred for Catholics. That is quite apparent. Put your fangs back in!

Actually that is a false statement. Saying I hate catholics is stupid, like saying I hate everyone, given that catholic simply means

1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.

2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.

I don't hate any of the Roman Catholics I know. My family doctor is a Roman Catholic and a very fine man and I believe a true "born again" Christian. Of course that is the only kind there is.

Strange isn't it that because I point out the many heretical practices of Roman Catholicism you insist I hate those who are deluded by this Cult. One of the faults of the Roman Catholics is, as the definition says, they are broad minded. They will adopt any false teaching to propagate the Cult. I am simply trying to show them the truth. I haven't said you hate Baptists or Protestants though the Cult you defend slaughtered dissidents from Rome by the hundreds of thousands.

BTW. here is a little more about the Donatists that you so want to call 'Early Baptists'. 'Because of their highly sacramental view of baptism and ordination, the Donatists insisted that the sacraments were only valid if the authority and intention of the priest was God-given. They came to the proud conclusion that all the run-of-the-mill ‘catholic’ priests, with themselves as exceptions, were unclean. Therefore, whatever the cleanliness of the baptismal candidate, his baptism must be pronounced invalid if the priest was not a Donatist. Baptism was solely centred around the spiritual qualification and status of the priest. This, of course, is exactly the view propagated in the Council of Trent and was one of the many novelties denounced at the Reformation. From time to time, we find such sacramental, intolerant views amongst modern Baptists. As I am writing these words, the Southern Baptists are campaigning for a re-baptism of members who have not gone through a Southern Baptist Baptismal ceremony. So also then, the Donatists set themselves up as a rival church with a rival priesthood who insisted that all their members must be ‘cleansed’ by re-baptism'.

The FACT is, Ol' Reg, that the Donatists were in NO way early Baptists and were HIGHLY sacramental which, of course, y'all have no part in. Your claims that they were early Baptists are a joke.

An evangelical site, oh by the way! http://evangelica.de/articles/the-donatists-and-their-relation-to-church-and-state/

I don't believe I have mentioned any particular group of dissidents but I may have. I have no doubt that your knowledge of all those who throughout history remained true to Jesus Christ and in opposition to the Cult of Roman Catholicism is impeccable!

 

[DHK]

DHK, I know enough about early Christian history to know that your author is wrong on all counts. 1st., the Catholic Church could admit the existence of other groups of Christians which had survived from the first century if any still existed, but none do. All of the heretical groups that split off in the first century died out. Anyone who claims that there was a line of doctrinally Protestant people going back through history to Jesus doesn't know Church history.

Your own Catholic historians disagree with you.

Cardinal Hosius, a member of the Council of Trent, A. D. 1560, in a statement often quoted, says:

If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptist since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more generally punished or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and even offered themselves to the most cruel sorts of punishment than these people.

That Cardinal Hosius dated the history of the Baptists back twelve hundred years, i.e. 360, is manifest, for in yet another place the Cardinal says:

The Anabaptists are a pernicious sect of which kind the Waldensian brethren seem to have been although some of them lately, as they testify in their apology, declare that they will no longer re-baptize, as was their former custom; nevertheless, it is certain that many of them retain their custom, and have united with the Anabaptists (Hosius, Works of the Heresatics of our Times, Bk. I. 431. Ed. 1584).

From any standpoint that this Roman Catholic testimony is viewed it is of great importance. The Roman Catholics were in active opposition to the Baptists, through the Inquisition they had been dealing with them for some centuries, they had every avenue of information, they had spared no means to inform themselves, and, consequently, were accurately conversant with the facts. These powerful testimonies to the antiquity of the Baptists are peculiarly weighty. The Baptists were no novelty to the Roman Catholics of the Reformation period.

http://www.pbministries.org/History/John T. Christian/vol1/history_07.htm

Cardinal Hosius dates the Waldenses right back to the time of the Apostles.

 

[DHK]

This thread has reached 30 pages and needs to be closed.