The Beginning of the Reformation's End?

On a recent evening, about 60 people—ex-Episcopalians, curious Catholics and a smattering of earnest Episcopal priests in clerical collars—gathered downtown for an unusual liturgy: It was Evensong and Benediction, sung according to the Book of Divine Worship, an Anglican Use liturgical book still being prepared in Rome.

Beautiful evensongs are a signature of Protestant Episcopal worship. Benediction, which consists of hymns, canticles or litanies before the consecrated host on the altar, is a Catholic devotion. We were getting a blend of both at St. Mary Mother of God Church, lent for the occasion.

One former Episcopalian present confessed to having to choke back tears as the first plainsong strains of "Humbly I Adore Thee," the Anglican version of a hymn by St. Thomas Aquinas, floated down from the organ in the balcony. A convert to Catholicism, she could not believe she was sitting in a Catholic Church, hearing the words of her Anglican girlhood—and as part of an authorized, Roman Catholic liturgy.

And that was not the only miracle. Although the texts had been carefully vetted in Rome for theological points, the words being sung were written by Thomas Cranmer, King Henry VIII's architect of the English Reformation. "He remembering his mercy hath holpen his servant Israel," the congregation chanted, "as he promised to our forefathers, Abraham and his seed for ever."

The language of this translation of the Magnificat, one of Christianity's two great evening canticles, is unfamiliar to many Episcopalians today, as it comes from earlier versions of their Book of Common Prayer. Yet a number of former Anglicans are eager to carry some of this liturgy with them when they swim the Tiber, as Episcopalians becoming Catholic often call the conversion. "I wonder why the phrase 'and there is no health in us' was omitted from the...................

"And charges of espionage often bring a death sentence today. This is very true that the accusation of heresy is a serious matter. Note, however, that the Holy Inquisition of the Catholic Church only had jusrisdiction over people who are self-described Catholic, and the civil punishment was not imposed by the Church."

Don't obfuscate. You need to face and confess the truth of the matter head-on. For many centuries, an accusation of "heresy" by the Church was a death sentence. That's a fact. My example of Jan Hus was only one of many, indeed thousands, I could have selected. Note again the trial scene here:

So, if the charge of "heresy" was a death sentence, and if on occasion the charge itself was false, then was not the charge an act of murder? I think it was, and was just one of many crimes the Church must atone for.

The Church might begin its atonement (at-one-ment) by being very circumspect about the use of the word "heresy" -- especially relating to those who insist that scripture takes precedence over Church doctrines & traditions, no matter how ancient.

I'd say, a serious and legitimate interpretation of scripture cannot, by any definition, be "heresy." Surely the text itself is rich enough to allow for more than one precise understanding?

No, I do NOT suggest the Catholic Church abandon even one of it's beliefs & traditions. I do suggest the Church acknowledge there may be other legitimate ways of interpreting scripture while still remaining accepted within the apostolic and catholic body of Christ's spiritual Church.

"Your point is invalid, silly in fact for any Christian to even believe in it. Christians do not believe in a “human Church”. The Church is from God. It is not human. It has people IN it, but it is not a human institution."

Now Vlad, the Roman Catholic Church, even today, is entirely "human." Other words for it include "secular" and "mundane," meaning: of this world. And if there is a doubt in your mind about that, you might want to visit the Vatican someday.

And remember, when you are looking at St. Peters, you are also at the same time looking DIRECTLY at the immediate cause of the Protestant Reformation. It was after all, the money raised to build St. Peters which got Martin Luther all excited about the 95 things which he thought were rotten in Rome.

Yes, I agree with you on this much: today's Roman Catholic Church is far more spiritual and less mundanely secular than at any other time since the Council of Nicaea.

But it is still, like every other church, a human institution with a human hierarchy and human created traditions & doctrines all of which are subject to the many manifest weaknesses of the flesh, however willing it's spirit may be.

Any serious Christian wishes the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope well. No serious Christian wants to be called a "heretic" by that obviously human institution.

You wrote:

“Now Vlad, the Roman Catholic Church, even today, is entirely “human.””

The Catholci Church is from God and guided by the Holy Spirit. It is staffed by people, but it is not a human institution.

“Other words for it include “secular” and “mundane,” meaning: of this world.”

It is not secular or mundane. Again, it is from God, guided by the Holy Spirit, and teaches even the angels about God. That is not a secular or mundane thing. it is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ.

“And if there is a doubt in your mind about that, you might want to visit the Vatican someday.”

I have. And nothing there would convince a thinking person that the existence of a physical building means the Church is merely a human institution. Only poor thinkers would conclude that. The same poor thinkers would conclude that people are not spiritual beings or must not have souls, because they have physical bodies. The same poor thinkers would conclude that Jesus could not be God because He was born in a stable, suffered hunger and weariness and died on a cross as any man would.

“And remember, when you are looking at St. Peters, you are also at the same time looking DIRECTLY at the immediate cause of the Protestant Reformation.”

No, you’re not. Heresy was the immediate cause of the Protestant Revolution. Heresy is always the immediate cause of heretical movements.

“It was after all, the money raised to build St. Peters which got Martin Luther all excited about the 95 things which he thought were rotten in Rome.”

No. Martin Luther wasn’t so worried about money being donated to help build St. Peters. What Luther opposed was the sale of indulgences. And he was right to do so. It was a violation of canon law.

“Yes, I agree with you on this much: today’s Roman Catholic Church is far more spiritual and less mundanely secular than at any other time since the Council of Nicaea.”

No. The Church has always been spiritual. It cannot be anything else because the Spirit always guides it no matetr what the age.

“But it is still, like every other church, a human institution with a human hierarchy and human created traditions & doctrines all of which are subject to the many manifest weaknesses of the flesh, however willing it’s spirit may be.”

The Church has never been a human institution. It can never be. It was established by God, is guided by the Holy Spirit and not even the devil can defeat it.

“Any serious Christian wishes the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope well.”

Clearly that is not the case on th epart of many anti-Catholics here at FR.

“No serious Christian wants to be called a “heretic” by that obviously human institution.”

If someone is a heretic, he is a heretic - n omatter who calls him one. The Church is not a human institution.

"The Church has never been a human institution. It can never be. It was established by God, is guided by the Holy Spirit and not even the devil can defeat it."

Sorry pal, but the Roman Church, like any other institution has been fully subject to every weakness of the human flesh, and has at times in the past behaved as wickedly as any human beings can. That's a historical fact which no reasonable person can deny.

In some centuries the Roman Church was so wicked it drove good Christians to protest and oppose it. That the Church would reject such protest-ants and label them "heretics" is a sin committed by the Church, not by its opponents.

Indeed, haven't recent Popes gone out of their way to apologize for at least some of the Church's past misdeeds?

But let's be clear here -- I'm talking about the physical / political organization & structure of the Church, not its spiritual role. Spiritually, all good Christians wish the Roman Church well and do not seriously object to its teachings, with the obvious exception of any claims that the Roman Church ALONE is Christ's body on earth, or exclusively teaches correct interpretations of scripture.

The real enemies of Christ are not various Christian denominations -- the real enemies are atheists who worship materialism and also followers of other religions which teach violence against "infidels."

You wrote:

“Sorry pal, but the Roman Church, like any other institution has been fully subject to every weakness of the human flesh, and has at times in the past behaved as wickedly as any human beings can.”

No. The Catholic Church has never acted wickedly - but some Catholics have. Also, if the Church were “subject to every weakness of the human flesh” it would have disappeared long ago. Or did that not occur to you? The various Anglican groups are just human institutions. Those that will survive will do so by actually becoming part of the Catholic Church. The rest will eventually disappear.

“That’s a historical fact which no reasonable person can deny.”

I just did and reasonably so. The Church has never been wicked. No Bride of Christ could be. Some Catholics have been wicked, however. I do not confuse the perfection of the Body of Christ with the sinful or imprudent actions of frail men.

“In some centuries the Roman Church was so wicked it drove good Christians to protest and oppose it.”

No, actually it didn’t. Good Christians never protested against or opposed the Catholic Church. They opposed the wicked deeds of some men in it or they weren’t good Christians to begin with.

“That the Church would reject such protest-ants and label them “heretics” is a sin committed by the Church, not by its opponents.”

Nope. The Protestants really were heretics. They invented and espoused heretical doctrines even after being rebuked for doing so. The people who do so are properly called heretics.

“Indeed, haven’t recent Popes gone out of their way to apologize for at least some of the Church’s past misdeeds?”

Nope. Not even once. The last three popes, excepting John Paul I who reigned as a pope only a short time, apologized for the actions of men. They never apologized for the Church for they knew the Church did no wrong. Secular news reports never made that distinction and anti-Catholics aren’t known for being anymore careful than the libs in the press.

“But let’s be clear here — I’m talking about the physical / political organization & structure of the Church, not its spiritual role. Spiritually, all good Christians wish the Roman Church well and do not seriously object to its teachings, with the obvious exception of any claims that the Roman Church ALONE is Christ’s body on earth, or exclusively teaches correct interpretations of scripture.”

I think you have no idea of what you’re talking about. There are many people here who apparently think themselves to be good Christians and they despise the Catholic Church in general and specifically the Church of Rome.

The real enemies of Christ are not various Christian denominations — the real enemies are atheists who worship materialism and also followers of other religions which teach violence against “infidels.”

I tried to explain it earlier I hope this answers your question as it is a bit complicated because there were several reasons. But a few reasons come to mind. One is He was to be the Sacrificial Lamb required in the Laws of Moses.

Christ actually did the cleansing ceremony on the Disciples before His death as they gathered for the Last Supper and He explained it to them quite clearly although at that time they did not understand.

Jesus teaches the Disciples on the ritual cleansing in John Ch 13. Baptism without a contrite heart still leaves a person dirty. For the same reason Baptism into any church known to man will not get you into heaven. Eleven of The twelve Disciples were Baptized in The Holy Spirit after Christ resurection or rather they recieved The Holy Spirit at that time. The manifestation of gifts given them came known to man as a whole in ACTS. Different measures of Gifts are given to differnt folks obviously. Christ Baptizes a person in His Blood and sends {HIS MESSENGER} as mentioned in John ch 13 The Holy Spirit to those He calls and they believe in Him for their salvation.

Judas rejected that call. Christ could not cleanse him because of that. It is not rituals of man which saves but the heart of man surrendering his soul to the Lord which allows Christ to Baptize the persons soul. Our bodies will not last beyond this world the cleansing of it brings us nothing but a clean physical body.

Jesus washes the sins from our hearts {souls} which is our eternal being. I every since of the word Christ Baptizes all whom are His but it was not time for that Baptism. His Baptism of man began in John ch 20 after He arose from the tomb.

The Baptism of Christ is a spiritual one the one which brings the rebirth. There is Baptism of John The Baptist and there is Baptism of Christ. Baptism of John is in a church. Baptism in Christ is spiritual and happen the second the persons accepts Christ as Lord and Savior.

Baptism was initiated as part of the ceremonial cleansing of the Laws of Moses but Baptism as in submerging the entire body came long after Moses.

The washing of the feet is not baptism, nor is it intended to be a substitute for it. It is much more a lesson in humility. The role of the meanest servant in a household was that of washing the dust from the master's feet after he walked about during the day. It was the lowest of the low of duties, equal to emptying the chamber pots. Humility, not baptism.

John 13: is not baptism at all. That baptism came at Pentecost. And Judas had his feet washed (or it would have been noted that he was the exception).

His Baptism of man began in John ch 20 after He arose from the tomb.

I see no baptism in John 20.

The Baptism of Christ is a spiritual one the one which brings the rebirth. There is Baptism of John The Baptist and there is Baptism of Christ. Baptism of John is in a church.

I'm not following. What church does John baptize into?

Baptism was initiated as part of the ceremonial cleansing of the Laws of Moses but Baptism as in submerging the entire body came long after Moses.

I'm really not following. You mention spiritual versus (not spiritual)? Yet you talk about full body immersion. If the baptism is spiritual, what need of full body immersion, which is physical?

BroJoeK,

you wrote:

“For many centuries, an accusation of “heresy” by the Church was a death sentence. That’s a fact.”

No, it isn’t. The vast majority of people accused of heresy or even convicted of heresy were never tortured nor ever executed. This is clearly shown in every record ever found in record to every inquisition trial or series of trials. Out of 930 persons tried by inquisitor Bernard Gui 42 were turned over to the secular arm and executed. Three more would have been turned over if they had not died of natural causes. That’s just under 5%. Clearly the facts stand against you. Care to try again?

“My example of Jan Hus was only one of many, indeed thousands, I could have selected. Note again the trial scene here:”

What about it? Václav Brožík was a Czech nationalist who painted several scenes calculated to enflame Czech nationalism. So?

“So, if the charge of “heresy” was a death sentence, and if on occasion the charge itself was false, then was not the charge an act of murder?”

If it was deliberately falsely made, yes. And you know what the penalty was for that? Death. There was an inquisitor in Spain who was discovered to be trumping up charges against people. He was caught, tried, convicted and executed.

“I think it was, and was just one of many crimes the Church must atone for.”

There was no crime on the part of the Church. If someone acted inappropriately, then that person is responsible. The Church, however, did nothing wrong.

“The Church might begin its atonement (at-one-ment) by being very circumspect about the use of the word “heresy” — especially relating to those who insist that scripture takes precedence over Church doctrines & traditions, no matter how ancient.”

The Church is extremely circumspect and careful with the use of the word “heresy”. Sola scriptura is a heresy nonetheless.

“I’d say, a serious and legitimate interpretation of scripture cannot, by any definition, be “heresy.””

The Church taught that long before you came along. Sola scriptura is not a “serious and legitimate interpretation of scripture”.

“Surely the text itself is rich enough to allow for more than one precise understanding?”

On some things, no. On others, yes. In any case, there is nothing in scripture that supports sola scriptura.

“No, I do NOT suggest the Catholic Church abandon even one of it’s beliefs & traditions. I do suggest the Church acknowledge there may be other legitimate ways of interpreting scripture while still remaining accepted within the apostolic and catholic body of Christ’s spiritual Church.”

Sola scriptura is not acceptable and is not practiced by any orthodox Christian.

I see no baptism in John 20.

Of course as no one can see it. What did Christ say in John ch 3? 5Jesus replied, “The truth is, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.£ 6Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives new life from heaven. 7So don’t be surprised at my statement that you£ must be born again. 8Just as you can hear the wind but can’t tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can’t explain how people are born of the Spirit.

Now What did Christ say and DO in chapter 20?

John ch 20 22Then he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

But how can we know this is so?

Matt ch 3 11“I baptize with£ water those who turn from their sins and turn to God. But someone is coming soon who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave.£ He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

A preacher or Preist whichever church Baptizes you with water but Christ Baptizes with The Holy Spirit and the desire to please GOD in the heart meaning THE FIRE. It's not that complicated.

Notice what Christ said to them after He washed their feet? Notice what He said about cleansing? Read from verse 6-11 in John Chapter 13 very carefully. If it were merely a lesson in humility I would agree but it was much more. After He washes their feet the first think He speaks of is Cleansing. What did Jesus tell Peter when Peter did not want Christ to wash his feet and what was Christ reply to him? AFTERWARD then Christ talks about humility. Two lessons actually and the first one flies right by people.

I'm not following. What church does John baptize into?

John the Baptist said he himself Baptized for of sins with water those who turned from their sins. What does he then say of Christ?

I'm really not following. You mention spiritual versus (not spiritual)? Yet you talk about full body immersion. If the baptism is spiritual, what need of full body immersion, which is physical?

One Baptism is Public Profession of Faith an observance of following Christ. It is Baptism into a church. Spiritual Baptism {Being Born Again} comes from Christ through The Holy Spirit. Of course man can not see it and Christ said so to Nicodemus.

The Church Christ mentioned by Jesus is build upon that very rock. It is not of man. It is on a one on one relationship with Jesus Christ with The Holy Spirit leading us all as individuals into all truths. The truth does not come to us from man but from The Word Of GOD revealed to us by The Holy Spirit.

Matt ch 16 v13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14“Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.” 15Then he asked them, “Who do you say I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,£ because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being. 18Now I say to you that you are Peter,£ and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell£ will not conquer it. 19And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you lock on earth will be locked in heaven, and whatever you open on earth will be opened in heaven.

A Divine Revelation sent to Peter. Notice throughout the rest of the NT when Christ wants someone to do something He tells them. He doesn't come to Peter and say send Phillip to go here or there. He tells Phillip. This is the true Church of which the gates of hell can not prevail against it. The truth come to man directly from The Holy Spirit sent to EVERYONE lest man set a snare and deceive. We have ONE Shepherd and we know His voice. He calls us by a name only He knows.

I know you won't likely believe what I am saying but the Bible proves it verse after verse. Paul has visions,Philip has a vision or is led, Peter has visions, as did John and several more. This happened after the cross. That is The Rock. The truth revealed to man as it was revealed to Peter from GOD. Thus the reason Christ said "You are blessed, Simon son of John,£ because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being."

What does the rest mean then/

8Now I say to you that you are Peter,£ and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell£ will not conquer it.

Stone is solid and signified being on a firm foundation. What gave Simon a solid rock foundation? Revelation from GOD.

Read further in The Bible how can man not be deceived by other men? By believing what is told him from The Holy Spirit dwelling in him. The Holy Spirit dwells in all Christ calls His own not just in select church leaders.

I see no baptism in John 20.

Of course as no one can see it.

Are we going to start selecting every verse with water in it and ascribing baptismal qualities to them? John 3 does tell us about being born of water and the spirit, but that does not tie baptism to John 20, any more than it ties to John 4 (the Samaritan women and the well), or the changing of the water into wine at the wedding feast.

You still have not explained your claim that John baptized people into churches and Jesus baptizes people spiritually. I pointed out that Jesus, as far as we know, baptized nobody. When Jesus breathed on the disciples and told them to receive the Holy Spirit, this was a sign of their ordination into the Church. They were now officially clergy and no longer laity. This was apparently not enough, so the Holy Spirit came down on Pentecost and kicked their butts into gear.

The trouble is that that little voice from within may not be the Holy Spirit. Lunatics, madmen, politicians, televangelists and street preachers all claim that. What sets your inner voice apart from, say, David Koresh?

What did John The Baptist say Christ would do and HOW HE would Baptize or does your church deny those passages in The Bible? John said the following 11“I baptize with£ water those who turn from their sins and turn to God. But someone is coming soon who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave.£ He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

John specifies what the Baptism he has done is and specifies what the Baptism By Christ it is not one you can see. Christ said so himself in John Chapter 3.

Churches Baptize people into churches. Personally I see Baptism into a church as wrong. Baptism should be into the name of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit not into the Roman Catholic, Baptist, or any other.

Friend I have never had a CULT LEADER talk to me via the Holy Spirit. That is why the gates of hell can not prevail. It relies not on what any mans says to you as being the truth but TRUTH comes to man by The Holy Spirit via revelation. It relies not on the words of man but The Holy Spirit which Christ promised that would lead us into all truths. A preacher, priest, pope, anyone can be deceived and deceive many. The Holy Spirit dwelling in man deceives no one. Peter, Paul, John, all the Disciples, the eunuch Phillip talked to, Stephen, the man Paul went to see and was told to receive him after his conversion, WHO TOLD THEM? Was it man? Or was it The Holy Spirit? Which was it?

Cult leaders do not speak to persons via the spirit. The Holy Spirit the Divine Revelation by The Holy Spirit to man is The Rock upon Christ has built the church not Peter. Peter could not be deceived as to who Christ was because GOD told him who Christ was. Judas didn't tell him that nor did John. That is why Christ said Blessed are you Simon for The Father has told you this AND IT DID NOT COME FROM MAN AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH. He bypass's the religious leaders freeing man from the spiritual tyranny of the Pharisees {religous leaders} giving man one on One relationship with HIM and 2000 years later today they {spiritual leaders} still have not gotten over it.

"No. The Catholic Church has never acted wickedly - but some Catholics have. Also, if the Church were “subject to every weakness of the human flesh” it would have disappeared long ago. Or did that not occur to you?"

You are making a distinction that is valid, but only up to a point. If I can use an analogy, remember the Muslim US Army Captain who recently shot dozens in Ft. Hood, Texas. Even though he was in uniform, he could not in ANY sense be said to represent the US Army in his crimes. Nor would anyone blame the Army for anything except possibly its previous failure to "connect the dots" and discipline him earlier.

Similarly, priests in America accused of "pedophilia," do not represent the Church, especially since the Church not only disciplined them, but paid untold millions of dollars in legal settlements. So, in my view, the Church has come clean on that, and I don't blame it.

But historically, and we're talking about many centuries, there have been any number of instances which did not involve low level priests or even bishops, but the highest levels of Church hierarchy, and for which no discipline or even regret was ever expressed.

If you want a short summary of some of those offenses, you might want to start here:

Carroll: Constantine's Sword

Carroll is not talking about personal failures or weaknesses, but long-standing Church policies -- policies which were largely changed in the post-war Vatican Council. I'd say it clearly means the current Church acknowledges the old Church was wrong in these matters of policy.

But I'm also sure that Church doctrine, dating all the way back at least to St. Augustine, holds: the validity of the mass itself is not effected by any corruption in the priesthood which performs it. So I'm not saying the Church or mass itself is invalid, only that the hierarchy can be as subject to error as any other human institution.

"I think you have no idea of what you’re talking about. There are many people here who apparently think themselves to be good Christians and they despise the Catholic Church in general and specifically the Church of Rome."

I totally disagree, and challenge you on this point. It's really simple: if you took a survey of Freepers, asking the questions:

Do you wish the Catholic Church and its Pope well? Then 99% of Freepers would say "yes, of course."
Do you agree with the Roman Catholic Church that all non-Catholics are heretics? Then all non-Catholics would say "no, of course not."

And Vlad, let's face it, you are not the sweetest & friendliest of posters -- you're even occasionally (I think unjustly) accused of "trolling".

That's why I think what you call "anti-Catholic" is only the bright mirror image of your own attitude toward non-Catholics, pal. Look inside your own soul for sources of "anti-Catholicism."

You wrote:

“If you want a short summary of some of those offenses, you might want to start here:Carroll: Constantine’s Sword”

No, actually I wouldn’t. See, unlike you I actually know who Carroll is. He is a pro-gay, pro-abort former priest who does everything he can to distort history to use it as a weapon against the Church today. If you want to know Church History and learn it from a man named Carrol start here: http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Christendom-History-Vol/dp/0931888212/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268001063&sr=8-1 When you finish all of the published volumes (5 so far) as I have, let me know. Until then I have no reason whatsoever to take you seriously when it comes to Church history.

“Carroll is not talking about personal failures or weaknesses, but long-standing Church policies — policies which were largely changed in the post-war Vatican Council. I’d say it clearly means the current Church acknowledges the old Church was wrong in these matters of policy.”

No. It MIGHT mean that current leaders think that old leaders made bad policy, but no blame is put on the Church.

“But I’m also sure that Church doctrine, dating all the way back at least to St. Augustine, holds: the validity of the mass itself is not effected by any corruption in the priesthood which performs it. So I’m not saying the Church or mass itself is invalid, only that the hierarchy can be as subject to error as any other human institution.”

People are subject to error. Church doctrine is not.

“I totally disagree, and challenge you on this point. It’s really simple: if you took a survey of Freepers, asking the questions: 1.Do you wish the Catholic Church and its Pope well? Then 99% of Freepers would say “yes, of course.””

Now you’re playing word games. Originally you claimed this:

“Spiritually, all good Christians wish the Roman Church well and do not seriously object to its teachings...”

Note: “all good Christians wish the Roman Church well...”?

Then I said: “There are many people here who apparently think themselves to be good Christians and they despise the Catholic Church in general and specifically the Church of Rome.”

All one has to do is look around here and see that that is the case in the Religion forum. Period.

“And Vlad, let’s face it, you are not the sweetest & friendliest of posters — you’re even occasionally (I think unjustly) accused of “trolling”.”

True. And yet BEFORE I GOT HERE, “many people here who apparently think themselves to be good Christians and they despise the Catholic Church in general and specifically the Church of Rome.”

“That’s why I think what you call “anti-Catholic” is only the bright mirror image of your own attitude toward non-Catholics, pal. Look inside your own soul for sources of “anti-Catholicism.””

No. These people were anti-Catholic bigots long before they ever encountered me or FreeRepublic. And no matter how horribly I may have treated them, that is no reason to lie, post falsehoods, always believe bad info if it makes the Church look bad, misrepresent Church teaching or just plain be ignorant.

"What is that "almost" doing in your post? The Roman Church is one of the apostolic Churches. There are other Apostolic Churches. Some are in union with Rome, some aren't. Even those that aren't, like the Orthodox, are still Catholic in theology."

"Almost none" of those churches, historically or today, submit to the Bishop of Rome. Whether you consider them "catholic" or not is irrelevant. They are not Roman Catholics, never were, never will be. And while some of the ancient apostolic churches' theologies are similar to Roman Catholicism, others are decidedly not.

The point is, they are independent churches, and make their own decisions on questions of church policy and theology.

And what that means is that the ROMAN Church's claims to be the ONLY valid Christian church have been bogus to the max from DAY ONE.

It further means that the Roman Church has never had authority to pass judgement on which other churches may or may not be validly Christian.

So the Roman church's opinions on which other churches (if any) are heresy or apostasy are matters of interest only within the Church itself, and of no concern to the wider public. Let the Church suceed or fail based on the quality of its "product," not on its authority to condemn others as "heretics."

"No. These people were anti-Catholic bigots long before they ever encountered me or FreeRepublic. And no matter how horribly I may have treated them, that is no reason to lie, post falsehoods, always believe bad info if it makes the Church look bad, misrepresent Church teaching or just plain be ignorant."

Do I understand your words correctly? You say it's perfectly OK, fine and dandy, if you treat others "horribly," but it's not OK if they treat you the same way? Come on, pal, give us all a break here.

Posting the historical truth about the Church is not necessarily "anti-Catholic," or "bigoted."

Indeed, I argue that the Protestant Reformation, and the current growth of Evangelical churches is the best thing that ever happened -- and that short of the Second Coming, COULD ever happen TO THE Church at Rome. And the reason is simple: it's competition. Competition makes you sharp, competition makes you strong. Competition forces you to fail if you screw up too badly. The Roman Church today is a better church than it ever would have been without the Reformation.

So Vlad, I want you to get down on your knees and THANK GOD for the Protestant Reformation. It has made your church a vastly better place than it otherwise would have been.

Thank you Jesus.

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.