Replies

A sub-rebellion of the original rebellion? I fail to see how that is any better. I might even be willing to concede that modern day Catholics (particularly in the western world) are more liberal than their evangelical counterparts.

Which means exactly what? Nothing. It’s the theological equivalent of, “my Dad can beat up your Dad.” We’re talking about Truth here. The Truth about the evil of birth control which has been taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning. And as Catholics, our sin is the greater one for disobeying for we have been given the fullness of Truth.

And what of the basic truths and moral views of protestantism? Sola scriptura? The abdication of the true Scriptures in favor of those adulterated versions that came later? Resulting in confusion within the Body of Christ. A horribly detestable state if there ever was one.

Sola fide? Resulting in the rejection of Christ’s sacraments and the sanctifying grace it imparts as expressed in scripture and preserved by the Church? Treating them with derision by denying the miracle of the Eucharist and calling it “magic”?

Coupled all this with the protestant-inspired radical individualism and what have you got? The current moral state of western civilization. This is the end result of that rebellion. Sure it’s generated some ancillary benefits (if you can call them that) such as the United States, the Constitution, etc. but as we see that today that doesn’t count for much.

What we are seeing today is the the end result of the protestant rebellion. And when it fades away along with its multitude of scriptural and theological error the only thing left standing will be the Roman Catholic Church. Which is why there really is no such thing as the betters of classical protestantism.

A sub-rebellion of the original rebellion? I fail to see how that is any better.

No: two means of assurance of Truth - which is correct? One is based upon evidential warrant, the other is based upon the premise of assured veracity. In other words, being like a Berean in heart and method, or like Keating: "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

The former is harder to obtain widespread unity versus the latter, which is why cults effectively operate under Rome's model (and which surpass Rome in degree of unity), but the quality is inferior to that of the former.

. I might even be willing to concede that modern day Catholics (particularly in the western world) are more liberal than their evangelical counterparts.

You had best do so, since that is the fact.

Which means exactly what? Nothing. It’s the theological equivalent of, “my Dad can beat up your Dad.”

Rather, if your boast is that Wheaties makes your dad superior, and your dad eats them, then being beaten by his Cheerios eating competition, then it means something. You argument is that Protestantism results in liberalism, while in fact RCs are more liberal than those who are closest to being true historical Protestants.

We’re talking about Truth here. The Truth about the evil of birth control which has been taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning. And

Which is about the only thing RCs can invoke in which they are more conservative in (and which Prots used to hold to), although not by much in practice, and Rome's actual effectual teaching is that you are a member regardless.

And as Catholics, our sin is the greater one for disobeying for we have been given the fullness of Truth.

The greater sin is the presuming she has the fullness of Truth, based upon her infallible self proclamation.

And what of the basic truths and moral views of protestantism? Sola scriptura?

Since holding Scripture as the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims (and which provides for the church and writings being recognized as Scripture) is what is abundantly evidenced as being Scriptural, and those who hold to the classic Protestant position of Scripture with its basically literal hermeneutic are more conservative and unified in basic moral views than RCs, then it is your basis for Truth that is in error.

The abdication of the true Scriptures in favor of those adulterated versions that came later?

Lacking details who knows what that refers to, but even having poor translations is better than hindering Biblical literacy as was the practice of Rome, while for decades teaching liberal revisionism by her approved notes - which was one thing modern evangelism rose up to counter.

What official unadulterated version has and does your church use in Mass???

Resulting in confusion within the Body of Christ. A horribly detestable state if there ever was one.

Resorting to this comparison is spurious since you cannot compare one church with a multitude which includes those who deny core tenets of historical Prot. faith. A valid comparison is between those who hold to Scripture being the supreme authority as the wholly inspired literal word of God, versus those who hold the church to that supreme authority, presuming a level of assured veracity that warrants implicit submission.

This comparison is to be avoided by RCs, as division and sects are also clearly manifest under sola ecclesia, and while they characterize their opposition as completely disunited due to SS, it is amazing that those who most hold to SS are counted as the greatest threat by both liberals and Rome (in the West at least), due to a shared affirmation and contention for core Truths.

Sola fide? Resulting in the rejection of Christ’s sacraments and the sanctifying grace it imparts as expressed in scripture and preserved by the Church?

That is simply and manifestly more propaganda. If the "sanctifying grace" claimed to be dispensed via Rome's rituals was regulated as food then it would have been fined for false advertising. I have been there, as a devoutly raised RC, and who later remained for 6 years after being manifestly born again thru true personal repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save me by His sinless shed blood (and served as as CCD teacher and Lector), then i know the manifest difference btwn institutionalized religion - which Rome basically is - and true conversion.

Treating them with derision by denying the miracle of the Eucharist and calling it “magic”?

It is actually a form of endocannibalism, and the idea that spiritual and eternal life is gained by physically eating anything, let alone human flesh, is not at all Scriptural and is absurd. Ignoring the abundant use of figurative language in Scripture, esp. as regards eating and drinking, then to be consistent, Catholics should hold that water turned into the blood of men in the OT, since David clearly stated it was blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17) And which has been dealt with often here in the past .

Coupled all this with the protestant-inspired radical individualism and what have you got?

A certain country began like that, while repeating your mantra may help you ignore the vast diversity in Catholicism, and the unity resulting from holding Scripture as expressed before, but it will not make either go away.

The fact is that RCs are enjoined to provide cultic submission to a limited number of truths, yet they can and do disagree on how many there are, while being allowed some dissent on the rest, relative to their magisterial level, which is open to some interpretation, as is the meaning to some degree on every level of teaching.

Which is in addition to the great liberty RCs have in interpreting Scripture to support Rome with the parameters of RCs teaching, which often results in egregious extrapolation in attempts to support traditions of men.

This variance extends even to clergy, and thus the unity of Rome is largely on paper, and that of having the same ritual and mostly perfunctory professions of it.

In addition are the contrasts btwn what Rome said in the past and those of the present. Both of which result in interpretive views.

This does not excuse the unnecessary divisions among those who do hold to Scripture as supreme, but Christianity began due to division, and in dissent from those who were the magisterium. And its unity was made possible by the level of manifest Divine attestation and holiness of the apostles, which corporately is not seen today, and is in vast contrast to that of Rome.

But it is those are like the Bereans that would examine truth claims by the established word of Truth, the Scriptures, and so follow a Peter or a Paul - contrary to Rome, with its critical and other contrasts with rhe NT church!