“And if anyone says anything that points out that the overall character of those whom Rome counts as members is liberal, then it and anything that impugns upon the character of Rome is disallowed”
The Catholic Church has been preaching against abortion for the last 2000 years.
Rather than being refreshingly candid and acknowledging the general spiritual declension, which is also true within Protestantism, you simply illustrate my point and simply begin to example the default reaction of devotees to a supreme elitist church against anything that impugns upon its overall character today.
As said, the Roman Catholic apologist seeks to converts souls to a particular (brand name) Church, and what it used to be is one thing, and what it is today can be another. Certainly (i presume) if i invoked Rome's past official sanction of things like torture of its theological enemies and alleged aberrant members then you would relegate that to the past, but here you want to selectively invoke the record of Rome from the past only in opposing evils to negate anything against it at issue now.
As for abortions, certainly many ancients stated unqualified condemnations of abortion, and in time two church synods in the 4th century condemned it, though their specified penalties was only on abortions that were combined with some form of sexual crime, and had inconsistency as to when life began and therefore abortion was prohibited, and as regards what the penalties should be. St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Innocent III, and Pope Gregory XIV are said to have believed that a fetus does not have a soul until "quickening," or when the fetus begins to kick and move, and some (not Aquinas) did not treat early abortion as murder, while others opposed abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
As for the Catholic Church standing alone when Roe v. Wade said it was OK to murder unborn children, it is commendable that it did stand, but as for standing alone on this, Protestantism is not one entity, while it would take time to consider a matter and reach a consensus in which evangelicals are strongly oppose to it, more so than Catholics on ground level wher it effectually matters most. And as with the apostles, it is to seek to persuade men the manifestation of the truth. And using that means holy Evangelicals such as the most beloved Bible commentator Matthew Henry (Ex. 21:22) arose Scriptural teaching both in support of life in the womb and against that which would produce miscarriage.
And of this class of evangelicals arose also strong opposition to slavery which Rome was inconsistent and in which most Protestant churches also went along with. Yet slavery was not a monolithic institution, and regulated forms of it were sanctioned in Scripture as part of culturally applied laws.
Episcopalian are the aboslute worst.
They are indeed; oftentimes close to Catholics on moral views and in faith commitment, and historically have been the closest to Rome in doctrine. Having little commitment to Scripture consistent with the classic Protestant (basically) literal tradition (versus basically reducing it to allegory and moral incoherence, and not stressing its authority and obedience to it), they look to leadership and other sources which have forsaken the assured word of God as their supreme authority, and thus increasingly conform to the society in which are found. Roman Catholic scholarship itself now largely liberal (and hindered literacy of it among the laity in the past), as can be seen in your official Bible for America, while Catholics that are Biblical literalists (11.8%) hold more conservative political views than the Catholic population in general does.
They take no official stance on murdering the unborn. Same way with letting homosexuals being “ordained” as clergy.
They are an institutionalized church, having more form than substance, ritual over relationship. An easy trap we can to fall into, especially without persecution. But again, Catholics substantially support abortion, as what Rome has historically said and what Rome effectually conveys due to her treatment of liberal Catholics can often be two different things, and the faith that she much fosters in her compassion and power is that as long you die in her arms then she will get you through.
The liberals that whine about the teachings of the Catholic Church as being outdated are wasting their time.
The SSPX and sedevacantists point to Vatican Two as affirming liberalism, and not without substance. (http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html)
The Holy Bible is Catholic document, complied by the Church, which existed before the written word. I find it odd that the protestants that love to put down the Catholic Church never out down document that Catholics started in the first place.
You are in error in fact and logic. Besides the fact the Scriptures are not the supreme authority for Rome, as Rome herself has presumed in this supreme position (Sola Ecclesia versus Sola Scriptura), rather the church existing before the written word (a statement that is indicative of the marginalization of Scripture), most of the Divine writings were established as Scripture before there ever was a church in Rome, as shown by the abundance of references to the Scriptures by the Lord and his apostles as the authenticity of Christ and the church was established upon conformity to the Scriptures as being the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims — which is abundantly evidenced — and the manner of attestation it records and sanctions being given to truth and to men of God. It was upon this basis that the additional writings of Scripture were added.
And which Writings were established as Scripture without a particular perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, even though Rome “infallibly” claims it uniquely is assured infallibility — “infallibly” declaring that it is infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly defined scope and subject-based formula — and that this is necessary to establish Scripture and preserve truth.
And while conciliar decrees can be helpful, do not make or essentially establish Scripture as being from God. Rather, like true men of God, Scripture was essentially established as being so based upon its heavenly qualities and and the supernatural effects given to it. And despite the misinformation of Roman Catholic apologists, the fact is that the Roman Catholic church did not have an infallible, indisputable canon of Scripture until the year that Luther died — over 1600 years after the last book was written. Nor was he without Catholic support in doubting or rejecting the plenary inspiration of certain books (Nor does Protestantism exactly follow his canon of Divinely inspired Scripture.)
In addition, while the claim of Rome's authenticity is based upon formal descent and assured perpetuation, the church actually began in dissent from those who claimed veracity upon this basis. And who thus challenged the authority of Christ and born from believing in him without their affirmation. (Mark 11:27-28; John 7:46-48) And instead, the church of the living God depended and depends upon the aforementioned Scriptural support for the authority of its teachings, Scripture being the only supreme transcendent material source which has been established as being wholly inspired of God and thus assuredly infallible. (2Tim. 3:16; 2Pt. 1:20,21) The issue is not whether Rome can speak some infallible truths (that “there is a Creator “would be a basic one), but that it does not have assured infallibility, and that veracity in doctrinal matters depends upon the weight of evidence for Scriptural warrant.
Moreover, even if the claim was accepted that the Catholic church of today is essentially the same as that of the first century that gave us the New Testament Scriptures, that would not render her the assuredly infallible interpreters of it, anymore than it made the Jews so who gave us the bulk of Scripture. In reality, consistent with the argument of Rome that formal decent and promises of perpetuation render her the assuredly infallible authority, then there would be no church as it would have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses (Mt. 23:2) with Israel being the entity which Scripture affirms were the instruments and stewards of divine revelation. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4)
And while we who hold the Scriptures to be supreme contend for the common truths we both agree on, based upon their scriptural warrant, we likewise contend against those who deny them as well as the errors of both Judaism and in Catholicism based upon the same manner of examining truth.
Furthermore, the Roman Catholic church of today with its clerical celibacy and praying to departed saints etc. and claim to assured, perpetual formulaic infallibility, is not the New Testament church of the first century, and she competes with the Orthodox Church — among others who operate under the sola ecclesia — as the rightful claimant to the title of one true church, with each having different cannons of Scripture and interpretations of tradition and Scripture history.
However, "the kingdom of God is not in word [self-proclamation], but in power," (1 Corinthians 4:20-21) And the authenticity of the church of the living and true God is evidenced in the effects of its preaching of the gospel of grace which effects manifest regeneration, in contrast to its institutionalized counterpart.
I don’t know where to begin. The anti-Catholic syndrome is live and well is all I can say. When you get a chance you might want to check out these two popular Catholic apologists. Both used to be fire and brimestone Protestants. But they finally realised the truth and fullness of the Christian faith is in the Catholic Church.
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
~John Henry Cardinal Newman, famous Protestant convert
to Catholicism
Tim Staples
Tim Staples was your typical enthusiastic Protestant, on fire for his faith—until he met the “wrong” Marine: a Catholic man who was both willing and able to defend his faith.
How did Tim Staples, an extremely anti-Catholic man, get started on the path to Rome?
What happened to cause the little boy who wanted to be a preacher just like Billy Graham to grow up and become a well-known Catholic apologetics speaker instead?
How did the man Tim set out to “save” end up saving him?
How can a Protestant Bible school be the place where the gift of Catholic faith is forged? Let Tim tell you his story . . .
How could a man who was bound and determined to prove the Catholic Church wrong ever be persuaded otherwise?
Why was Tim defending the Catholic Church during his time at Jimmy Swaggart Bible College? Find out how this school expedited the process of Tim becoming Catholic!
Why did Tim feel so alone on the cusp of becoming a Catholic? The heart-breaking decision Tim had to make while on the verge of conversion
Listen to Tim Staples as he tells you the incredible story of his conversion—it’s a story you won’t soon forget.
http://www.aquinasandmore.com/catholic-gifts/jimmy-swaggart-made-me-catholic/sku/7555