Posted on 08/31/2013 3:38:44 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Full interview (roughly one hour) with former Roman Catholic priests Richard Bennett (website: http://www.BEREANBEACON.ORG) & Bartholomew Brewer, Ph.D, author of "Pilgrimage from Rome - A Testimony" (website: http://www.MTC.COM) and former nun Rocio Zwirner give glory to God for their exodus from the Roman Catholic Church & into the glorious grace of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Description from youtube)
When they have no rock to stand on I suppose it gets frustrating. The spirit they listen to lashes out.
WOW, I read Vlads screed and thought to myself, What is he talking about?
Baseless charge. Loyola would be proud.
“And from this a fourth truth immediately follows,
that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are
primitive.”
That’s what you left out of the Manning quote - or actually the person from whom you cut and pasted it from left it out - and it changes the entire sense of the passage. Case closed.
I know you quoted this often on FR. And it was taken out of context at FR before by you.
“Manning claims the Church is its own interpreter of its history, thus in a real sense it has no antiquity...”
What Manning said FIRST is: “And from this a fourth truth immediately follows, that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive.” Thus, you are claiming Manning said there was no antiquity to the Church when he in fact just got done saying the Church’s teachings were primitive. The proper understanding of the passage is only possible if the reader has both of those points. You listed only the latter. Therefore, the passage - as you posted it - is out of context.
And I was right about the Newman quote too.
“WOW, I read Vlads screed and thought to myself, What is he talking about?”
I posted no screed. I think you should read the thread again.
“Baseless charge. Loyola would be proud.”
Protestant anti-Catholics lie. It’s what they do. It’s all they can do.
Protestant anti-Catholics lie. It’s what they do. It’s all they can do.Familiar with the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals, The Donation of Constantine and the Liber Pontificalis? Want to talk about lies?
“Familiar with the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals,”
Yep. more so than you, I am sure.
“The Donation of Constantine”
Yep, again, more so than you, I am sure.
“and the Liber Pontificalis?”
Yep, again more so than you, I am sure.
“Want to talk about lies?”
Sure. Why not? Here’s why I am not worried. Whereas Protestant anti-Catholics can be exposed in this thread, none of the documents you mentioned have anything to do with anyone even alive today. Also, and I would be willing to bet money you don’t know this, but you’re not even citing what you probably think you are citing. Take the Donation of Constantine, for instance. Most historians believe, and with good reason and documentary evidence, that it was written by the Franks trying to prove a political point and not anyone in the papal court.
I suggest you read Johannes Fried, “Donation of Constantine” and “Constitutum Constantini”, (Berlin-New York: de Gruyter, 2007). He explains that the vocabulary shows that the author of the forgery “lacked any intimate knowledge of the Roman Church and had no feeling for Roman sentiments”. So, you were saying?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“Do not make this thread “about” individual Freepers. That is a form of “making it personal.”
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.”
Okay, and you’ll be telling the same thing to bkaycee about post #142, right?
Discuss the message, not the messenger.
I suggest you read Johannes Fried, “Donation of Constantine” and “Constitutum Constantini”, (Berlin-New York: de Gruyter, 2007). He explains that the vocabulary shows that the author of the forgery “lacked any intimate knowledge of the Roman Church and had no feeling for Roman sentiments”. So, you were saying?Not sure anyone knows who the authors were, I was more concerned with the Romanists using forgeries to further themselves.
Did Rome know they were forgeries? Deception or ignorance?
There are many eminent Roman Catholic historians who have testified to that fact as well as to the importance of the forgeries, especially those of Pseudo-Isidore. One such historian is Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger. He was the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic. He makes these important comments:
In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians. The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers...and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokeful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116). http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html
A: Don't tell anyone, but actually they can be married. That's a big secret you see. Any Catholic priest can give up the priesthood to have a wife and family, and since all of them are fairly well educated with college degrees, they'll have no problem picking up a good secular job or starting a family business. Nuns and monks are the same way. They can, at any time, choose to leave their orders to pursue a secular life in holy matrimony. Most of them are highly educated too. Nobody is a prisoner of their religious vocation.
The problem is that the RCC will not let them be married and serve as priests at the same time. Interestingly, Peter was married and at the time that Catholics claim Jesus allegedly instituted the Catholic church and made Peter the first pope.
Scripture also gives the qualifications for elder or deacon, those men who are in leadership positions within the church and that is that the men are to be married men.
Paul says here.....
1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Forbidding marriage is also a sign of false teachers.....
1 Timothy 4:1-5 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
It's also interesting to see the reaction of Catholics towards those who leave the Catholic church, Hell hath no fury like a Catholic spurned.
Typical Roman style, but decreeing it is so will not work here. It does not change the entire sense of the passage for which i invoked it, and you have not shown it did. For as i said, "Manning is indeed essentially claiming that antiquity is what Rome says it is, which is what i invoked it for."
What Manning said FIRST is: “And from this a fourth truth immediately follows, that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive.” Thus, you are claiming Manning said there was no antiquity to the Church when he in fact just got done saying the Church’s teachings were primitive.
Vladimir, it was Manning, not I, who stated "I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness," and anyone should be able to understand that he was not denying the church actually had antiquity, nor did i argue he was, as i understood what he was saying, which is that in a real sense it has no antiquity as it "rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it..."
Therefore, under this premise, he argues that the Reformers cannot be right. And thus his statement supports my statement which i applied it to, that history is what Rome says it is, as she alone is her own interpreter, not that Manning claimed Rome actually has no antiquity.
You are attacking me for making an argument i did make, and as if i was the one lacking discernment and misrepresenting things, and suppose someone may think Manning is denying his church actually has any antiquity. Sorry, but i assume readers use more objective reasoning than you showed in zealously protecting Rome. Nor did i purposely leave out any of Manning's words in order to teach what you attack me for. But i will include more the next time, and am sorry if you misunderstood it. .
Here is a test, based on the below quote i invite any Prot readers (since they are the stupid one according to vladimir) to tell me if they really think Manning is actually saying what vladimir presents me as having him say, that his church has no actual antiquity, rather than that in a real sense it has none as Rome rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness.
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness.
What amazes me is that they want us to get bogged down in about every writing in support of the RCC other than scripture. It’s rather telling. It’s obvious to me at least who they worship. Very seldom can they or do they support what they believe by scripture.
“The problem is that the RCC will not let them be married and serve as priests at the same time.”
False. But you probably knew that, right?
“Forbidding marriage is also a sign of false teachers.....”
Are you claiming the Church FORBIDS marriage?
What I’m trying to figure out here guys is how and why we should care about the “history of the RCC” other than to show that it’s not aligned with what scripture teaches.
“Did Rome know they were forgeries?”
Do you have even a single shred of evidence that they did know the Donation of Constantine was a forgery when the document first showed up? I doubt you do, because no historian has ever found any.
“Deception or ignorance?”
Ignorance. As is clear with the Donation of Constantine, the papal court did not know it was a forgery in the decades and even first centuries after it appeared. Then, because of its great age, it was assumed to be genuine.
“You are attacking me for making an argument i did make,”
So, would you rather someone attack you for an argument you did not make? Sorry, I didn’t attend a government school. You’ll have to explain to me what you’re trying to say because you’re not making any sense.
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.