Posted on 11/07/2013 10:07:49 PM PST by RBStealth
The Reformation isnt over. But Protestantism is, or should be.
When I studied at Cambridge, I discovered that English Evangelicals define themselves over against the Church of England. Whatever the C of E is, they aint. What Im calling Protestantism does the same with Roman Catholicism. Protestantism is a negative theology; a Protestant is a not-Catholic. Whatever Catholics say or do, the Protestant does and says as close to the opposite as he can.
Mainline churches are nearly bereft of Protestants. If you want to spot one these days, your best bet is to visit the local Baptist or Bible church, though you can find plenty of Protestants among conservative Presbyterians too.
Protestantism ought to give way to Reformational catholicism. Like a Protestant, a Reformational catholic rejects papal claims, refuses to venerate the Host, and doesnt pray to Mary or the saints; he insists that salvation is a sheer gift of God received by faith and confesses that all tradition must be judged by Scripture, the Spirits voice in the conversation that is the Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
Got a chapter and verse for that?
I will guarantee you that more protestants converted to Catholicism during the time of JP2 than Catholics converting to protestants.
No practicing Catholic, who truly believes Christ is present in the Eucharist, would leave Christ to be a protestant.
And the truth of the matter about Billy Graham is he loved Catholics and had a great relationship with Catholics and all the Pope’s he personally knew.
The Bible-thumpers, i.e., pentacostals in particular, despise Billy Graham because of his relationship to Catholics and his refusing to call them anything but fellow Christians.
OUCH!!!
I will guarantee you that more protestants converted to Catholicism during the time of JP2 than Catholics converting to protestants.
No practicing Catholic, who truly believes Christ is present in the Eucharist, would leave Christ to be a protestant.
And the truth of the matter about Billy Graham is he loved Catholics and had a great relationship with Catholics and all the Pope’s he personally knew.
The Bible-thumpers, i.e., pentacostals in particular, despise Billy Graham because of his relationship to Catholics and his refusing to call them anything but fellow Christians.
Try reading the Bible for a change, starting with
“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”.
I will take the words over Christ himself and the early Church fathers any day of the week over any protestant “theologian”, who went not around for the first 1,500 years after Christ was born. End of story.
Well it's settled then...LOL...
Schaff wrote what he wrote, and he gave his evidence. I’ll let anyone who reads it decide if he was making things up.
http://www.bible.ca/history/fathers/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Schaff
The Catholic Church actively opposed vernacular translations, and it expressly said why:
” Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing.”
“And in Acts 10:28-29 we clearly see Peter bringing the gospel to Gentiles. Read your Bible.”
I have. Peter opened the door to the Gentiles, but:
“And as far as the leaders of the conference were concerned (I neither know nor care what their exact position was: God is not impressed with a mans office), they had nothing to add to my Gospel. In fact they recognised that the Gospel for the uncircumcised was as much my commission as the Gospel for the circumcised was Peters. For the God who had done such great work in Peters ministry for the Jews was plainly doing the same in my ministry for the Gentiles. When, therefore, James, Peter and John (who were the recognised pillars of the church there) saw how God had given me his grace, they held out to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, in full agreement that our mission was to the Gentiles and theirs to the Jews.”
I will take the words over Christ himself and the early Church fathers any day of the week over any protestant theologian, who went not around for the first 1,500 years after Christ was born. End of story.
Sorry, that's what bible believers do...That's why we know the church wasn't built upon Peter...Jesus didn't say whay you claim he said...So you are not believing Jesus at all...
YOU are Peter, and upon THIS rock...
It DOES NOT say, YOU are Peter and upon YOU...
Nor, does it say THIS is Peter and upon HIM...
It DOES say that You are Petros, and upon this PETRA...
So again, sorry, your perverted understanding of language layout and perversion of Greek translation only means you are wrong, and deceptive...
Apparently it works for catechism believers and its sheep but it has no affect upon bible believers...
That accusation is akin to homosexuals defining those who oppose them as being "homophobic." The reality is that because of holding Scripture as the standard for Truth, with doctrines being in dependance upon Scriptural substantiation, then it is results in being opposed to many things in Roman Catholicism.
And most of the anti-Catholic posts we see here on FR is due to the incessant advertizing and promotion of Roman Catholicism, which holds itself as the elite and only one True Church. And a fools mouth call for strokes, (Prv. 18:6) so these call for reproof.
“They don’t show up in the bible..”
Actually they do. Only Protestants and pseudo-Christians like Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that fact.
“Schaff wrote what he wrote, and he gave his evidence. Ill let anyone who reads it decide if he was making things up.”
But you’ll call Scott Hahn a liar? The hypocrisy is astounding.
“The Catholic Church actively opposed vernacular translations, and it expressly said why:”
And the quote you posted says nothing about opposing vernacular translations. The quote, in fact, takes it for granted that Catholic authors will make such translations into the vernacular. When will Protestant anti-Catholics learn to read and think?
“...holding Scripture as the standard for Truth...results in being opposed to many things in Roman Catholicism.”
“...Roman Catholicism...holds itself as the elite and only one True Church.”
So would you say that that which defines an “elite and only one True Church” is its “holding scripture as the standard for truth”?
Yeah. I don’t see how that definition has ever caused sectarian splits at all. Ever. O.o
“He did establish the Catholic Church.”
He established the “catholic” church. There’s a difference.
“When will Protestant anti-Catholics learn to read and think?”
I am content to let Roman Catholics practice their faith in Christ as they feel led to do so. Roman Catholics should respond in kind.
Paul dealt with sectarianism in his first letter to the Corinthians (chapters 1-4). It might serve everyone here well to re-read his words.
“And the quote you posted says nothing about opposing vernacular translations...When will Protestant anti-Catholics learn to read and think?”
Hmmm...
How dangerous it is to allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular to unlearned people and those not piously or humbly disposed...Considering the nature of men, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular must in the present be regarded therefore as dangerous and pernicious...
“Hmmm...”
Again, the passage you quoted said exactly NOTHING about
opposing vernacular translations.
If you want a modern analogy: Requiring drivers to get licenses before they can drive does not mean you oppose the production of cars. Those are two entirely different things. When will Protestant anti-Catholics learn to read and think?
“He established the catholic church. Theres a difference.”
Nope. They’re one in the same.
“Roman Catholics should respond in kind.”
You don’t get to dictate what Catholics should do. I don’t get to dictate what you do. God will reward us both as we deserve.
“Paul dealt with sectarianism in his first letter to the Corinthians (chapters 1-4).”
And yet Protestants forms new sects every few days.
“It might serve everyone here well to re-read his words.”
Everyone? I’m not in a sect. There’s value in reading those chapters, but I am not violating them since I am not in a sect.
I get some like "you should know better." Another little secret not yet revealed...My mother grew up in a tiny village in Ireland during the Great Depression times and through WWII. Her grandfather was considered a "radical" because he owned his own Catholic Bible. And he would read from the Bible to family and friends. My mother was disappointed that they did not teach from the Bible in school.
My mother kept up that tradition with her children of reading the Bible aloud just about every night to all of us. What Irish Catholic rebels and Bible thumpers we were:)
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.