Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[Iscool]

So you are suggesting that Protestant churches are satanic in origin???

And what if you’re wrong??? Suppose the Holy Spirit is leading people to the Protestant churches...That would make you guilty of blaspheme of the Holy Spirit...

You could be in a heap of trouble...

[Iscool]

is that what God wants, a "me church?"

Now you're gettin' it...Lots of you folks 'go' to a church...

I AM the church...

[kawaii]

So you are suggesting that Protestant churches are satanic in origin???

They are and we were warned such wolves would steal away the faithful.

And what if you’re wrong??? Suppose the Holy Spirit is leading people to the Protestant churches...That would make you guilty of blaspheme of the Holy Spirit...

For the protestants to be correct the councils would have to be wrong which means the whole unified church which was united fully in doctrine would have to have been unguided by the Holy Spirit the Comforter who Christ promised would keep the church on the strait and narrow.

[xzins]

I think the bible teaches in Job that God is in control even of Satan.

[P-Marlowe]

i’m more inclined to suggest that Martin Luther broke his vow at the temptation of Satan...

You must be one of those few remaining Catholics who actually believes there is a Satan.

[Claud]

As determined by what they wrote. After all, we do have their writings.

Yes, and don't neglect the fact that we *also* have the writings of people that knew the Apostles personally and were appointed by the Apostles to lead the Church when they passed to their reward.

Polycarp sat and learned at the very feet of St. John. Clement of Rome knew Peter personally and was said to have "the teaching of the Apostles still ringing in his ears."

Would you agree that these folks--though certainly not infallible as the Apostles were--are irreplaceable, critical witnesses to what the Apostolic doctrine actually was?

[Claud]

For the protestants to be correct the councils would have to be wrong which means the whole unified church which was united fully in doctrine would have to have been unguided by the Holy Spirit the Comforter who Christ promised would keep the church on the strait and narrow.

Very, very well said!

[kawaii]

I’m not a Catholic!

[xzins]

I have read them. They are in total agreement with Protestants.

[P-Marlowe]

I’m not a Catholic!

Then you must be a Protestant.

[kawaii]

Scripture tells us that Satan will be allowed a time of dominion and it also tells us to hold fast to the Traditions we’ve been taught.

[xzins]

you mean Roman Catholic, don’t you?

[Frumanchu]

you've got it backwards mate. protestants have always accused the Catholics and Orthodox of not being true churches on account of practices (like the Eucharist and beleif that it's really the Body and Blood of Christ, like Confession, like icons, etc) if i had a dollar for every time some protestant zealot accused the Apostolic churches of idolotry I could afford to debunk it with a documentary and pay to air it.

Congratulations. You missed the point completely.

[kawaii]

Not according to the dictionary:

Protestant definition

n.
1. A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.
2. A member of a Western Christian church adhering to the theologies of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli.
3. One of the German princes and cities that supported the doctrines of Luther and protested against the decision of the second Diet of Speyer (1529) to enforce the Edict of Worms (1521) and deny toleration to Lutherans.

[kawaii]

in as much as marlowes article talks only abou Roman Catholics?

[Frumanchu]

Whereas protestants appeal to which authority? the authority of law school flunkies to reinterpret for themselves?

For someone so intent on ridiculing Protestantism, you sure do have a horrible working knowledge of it.

Oh, and given the historical information that's been presented about some past popes, you might want to think twice about trying to argue against Protestantism by means of slandering the Reformers. It really does cheapen your argument even more.

[Frumanchu]

i’m more inclined to suggest that Martin Luther broke his vow at the temptation of Satan...

That's because you're more interested in slander and insult than rational discussion. So far the only thing that has been consistently demonstrated in your posts is a complete lack of knowledge of historical Protestantism and a preference for rapid-fire insults.

Do you have any intention of carrying on meaningful dialog here, or should we expect more of the same?

[kawaii]

considering as all the weird-bad Popes were well after the Latins broke off from the Apostolic church I’d advise you take up casting aspersions on their character with a latin who might care.

the reformers btw is a silly word. they didn’t reform anything they went off in a huff and created their own churches.

[Frumanchu]

For the protestants to be correct the councils would have to be wrong which means the whole unified church which was united fully in doctrine would have to have been unguided by the Holy Spirit the Comforter who Christ promised would keep the church on the strait and narrow.

Which councils would those be?

[kawaii]

Do you have any intention of carrying on meaningful dialog here, or should we expect more of the same?

Well if you're interested in renouncing protestant heresies perhaps... interestingly 'cant we all discuss this calmly' folks never seem to show up when accusations of idolotry are being levied, or nonsense words like 'the magisterum'.