Posted on 04/20/2015 1:46:59 PM PDT by NYer
Yes; we've ALL seen how effective your tactics are; too.
Conjuring up the dead, as Saul with the Witch of Endor, is forbidden.
G2G: you are confused...
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
And now here it seemed to myself that you had been engaging in "projecting" antisemitism onto "protestants" while failing to recognize what there was of that commonly enough among [Roman] Catholics!
Just wowza' man. The pointing finger has multiple friends curled back pointing towards it's master.
This line of argument reminds me of the proverbial man who said he never beats his wife, and if she dares to say otherwise he will really beat her bloody.
Oh; I'm sorry. A lot of what popes say or do fails to meet many of our FR Catholic's exacting standards.
** Trying to blame Catholicism for Protestant antisemitism is unpersuasive. **
Ducking and avoiding historical facts is, shall we say, typical of the FRoman Catholics.
Care to address the Bulls provided?
"we" ?
Do you mean like the founder of Protestantism being an unrepentant and vicious antisemite whose Seven Step Program Against the Jews led directly to the Holocaust ?
Care to address the Bulls provided?
Perusing your list, and assuming it is accurate, I see a very mixed bag, so to speak, with Gregory I in 598 CE saying of the Jews "they should in no way suffer a violation of their rights" to Sixtus IV in 1482, after first prohibiting the Inquisition in Spain against the Jews, then folding under pressure (Moslems at war and Catholics needed Spain's army to stop Moslems) and authorizing it.
Like I said earlier, Luther’s Roman Catholics roots were showing.
And he certainly didn’t persecute Jews, like the Papists of his day did.
No, I acknowledge no such thing. We may as well throw out the rest of what you claim I am acknowledging while we're at it, too.
"American" styled Protestant ethic was most chiefly the ethic that a nation was formed under who's laws precluded persecution based upon religion.
It is not mere coincidence that Jews have flourished in the United States.
Still desperate to make the charges of antisemitism stick on "Protestants", while excusing the past offenses prescribed and allowed under Roman Catholicism, eh?
Where's the Protestant Father Coughlin? The KKK maybe? Those latter are less "Protestant" than Coughlin was always a Catholic being as the latter were not formally part of mainstream "Protestant" Churches and were in fact much opposed by a majority. Coughlin, in comparison, kept his official RCC collar regardless if some portion of RCC hierarchy were opposed to (by degree or extent?) some of Coughlin's rhetoric.
Meanwhile, in past history Catholics have at times, with the support of their church --- beat their wives Jews bloody and to death. .
There's not much of that in comparison among American, or else English Protestants.
In Germany, although on highest levels both the Lutheran Church and the RCC were both co-opted by the Nazis, men such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer did more with less (if compared to RC popes) in the end being murdered by the Nazis for his opposition to Nazism.
Yes, I'll grant you the KKK is in the domain of Protestantism, and I notice the similarity where its objects of hatred were both the Catholics and the Jews; odd that. As for Caughlin, well, he kept his collar but lost his show and his audience. There is a judgment, which point Protestantism often muddles, saying, in essence, works do not matter.
I read a mixing of metaphors, so to speak. The argument of American Protestantism is rather exceptional, and not the experience in other Protestant majority nations, whereas the argument again admits that Catholics span two thousand years, in most of those the only historically viable and visible Christianity.
To not mix, one would compare them in their generations, and see, in the Holocaust that, Protestant America closed its doors to the Jews so they could not escape, German Protestants disproportionally supported the Nazi party, while other Protestants, German or not, saved some Jews by hiding them, and Catholics hid Jews in religious buildings as well as private homes probably doing the most. Some Catholics and Protestants did good works, while others did bad works. The theological difference is, whereas Catholicism requires a state of grace evidenced by works, much of Protestantism rests on but a profession.
Actually, it is fully outside of Protestant confessions, and has long been condemned by majority of the same.
Though most members of the KKK saw themselves as holding to American values and Christian morality, virtually every Christian denomination officially denounced the Ku Klux Klan.
As for Caughlin, well, he kept his collar but lost his show and his audience.
Coughlin did not lose his show due to anyone from within hierarchy the RCC having taken it away from him.
He most certainly did persecute the Jews. It seems to me logical you would defend the vulgar and vicious antisemite, sonce he is foundational to the Reformation.
Comparing Protestants to the KKK is the same as playing the Nazi card.
Time to invoke Godwin’s Law and declare victory.
You were the one who mixed in bloody wife beatings.
Whereas my foot.
I'm not the one who is effectively blaming Jesus for what Roman Catholics have in past centuries done (and done wickedly) in His name.
Protestant America is not spelled "Roosevelt". Besides, how can you have forgotten Coughlin so quickly? That was his heyday -- when he blamed the Joo-os for communism (like the Nazis did also) etc.
The profession on which Protestant theology rests has place for "works", for one being called By God to good works and to perform those same, albeit not including consideration for those as making one worthy of salvation itself.
Is there anything which you get --->right? I'm tiring of needing to correct your each and every statement while battling also your assumptions as to what I confess to for those statements of your own which I do not bother with...
So far here, your statements to myself have been twisted distortions, omissions, wholesale blame-shifting one after another, apparently coming from *thick* biases comparable to Christian Identity/Stormfront ways of thinking, just Romish/Romanism flavored, instead.
Time to invoke Godwins Law and declare victory.
You how they like (when they are not bashing us) to effectively say that every Christian is "a Catholic", and anyone who has faith in the God of Abraham is thus under themselves and their "pope" yadda-yadda-yadda?
Am I reading something from Luther here ?
God doesn’t always expect us to succeed, He expects us to try. It’s Him we choose to please.
The Council of Jamnia was in a way similar to the Council of Trent. Both were set up by an organized religion in a time of intense crisis to deal with the situation at hand. It is Biblical Studies 101 to understand that the Council of J was in fact designed to understandably re-set the state of Judaism after tremendous upheaval - not just the destruction of the Temple, but of the large numbers of Christian conversations. Indeed, the Council specifically rejected Christian writings as Biblical, as of course at the time many Jews were also believers of Our Lord - seems such a thing today would be absurd, but not so in 90 A.D. Finally, all evidence points to the Septuagint being the largest translation effort in Biblical history (and I’d say even to this day). I doubt they messed up and included Macabees. The Council rejected it, which is their business, but the idea that they were simply “codifying what was in existence” is not true and if it were the council wouldn’t merit a footnote in history.
Back to Trent - of course many of the doctrines in Trent were in direct response to the Protestant growth - for example, not be understated, the inclusion of the “Confiteor” and the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar - all emphasized to counter the idea of Faith alone etc.
God bless,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.