Posted on 12/29/2010 11:41:03 AM PST by markomalley
This is a re-post of a previous blog but it warrants repeating. From time to time I get non-Catholics who read the blog and invite me to read their blogs in the hopes I will decide to convert. They believe they are being obedient to "preach the gospel in season and out." The presupposition with some of these individuals is that Catholicism is a false religion or a "false gospel" . The fact that a person would believe Catholicism is false clearly indicates that they have never studied what Catholicism is all about from a Catholic perspective. It is easy to draw a caricature of what Catholicism is based on myths, lies, distortions. After all, this has been going on for the past 500 years and the purveyors of falsehood have had an abundant amount of time to perfect their attacks.
What I can tell you is that when a person begins to read what the Church actually says about itself and its doctrines, the scales often fall from their eyes and the Holy Spirit brings them Home. I was one of those.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this): "Constantine must have been the real source of the Catholic Church's teachings because after his reign the Church grew tremendously, and before his reign it wasn't as well-known" (Ignores the simple fact that Constantine merely stopped the persecution of Christians with the Edict of Milan and allowed Christianity to spread. It also ignores the writings of the Church Fathers who lived before Constantine -- and who were Catholic.)
Straw man: "You guys worship statues, and that's evil. Therefore, your religion is Satanic." (Ignores that fact that we don't worship statues)
(comes From FISHEATERS WEBSITE)
**But I don’t think that’s the barrier for most. I think it’s lack of understanding.**
Wise words, my FRiend. You have our prayers as your journey across the Tiber.
I had no idea this was on Fisheaters. Good job!
You wrote:
“Selling indulgences was the cause of the Reformation and it most certainly is well documented.”
That’s false on both counts.
1) The Protestant Revolution was not caused by the selling of indulgences nor could it be. There’s no cause and effect there at all.
2) There is no documentation WHATSOEVER that shows the Catholci Church ever approved of the sale of indulgences. Thus, if anyone was doing it, it was against the law. Those are the facts.
“The following is just a small sample from a Lutheran website, but a quick google will show the Catholic church was fully aware and compliant in this:
John Tetzel, a friar of the Dominican order, was getting souls out of purgatory in a different fashion.”
Notice, it says TETZEL. What he did was on his head. If he exceeded his authority and preached novel doctrines, which he apparently did, he, and he alone, is guilty. The Catholic Church is innocent.
“The indulgences he sold bore the coat of arms of his holiness, the pope himself.”
That TETZEL sold. Exactly my point. Also, if you look closer into the actual sources and not some Lutheran website - which could be based on exactly nothing as far as you know or show - you’ll see there is reason to believe he did not even sell indulgences to begin with.
“The coin paid to Tetzel bought a plenary indulgence—full forgiveness and release from all penalties for sin.”
TETZEL, not the Church.
“As a salesman, Tetzel excelled.”
TETZEL, not the Church.
“He peddled pardons to people for sins they had committed.”
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
“He peddled pardons for sins they were going to commit.”
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
“He offered his indulgences as payment for penalties to the living and the dead: “As soon as the coin in the coffer clinks, the soul from purgatory springs!””
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
Are you beginning to see the pattern of your error here yet?
“So powerful were his indulgences, Tetzel thundered, that they could even remove the stain of sin from one who had violated the virgin Mary.”
TETZEL, not the Church.
“Tetzel boasted that he had saved more people with his indulgences than the apostle Peter did with his preaching.”
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
“Tetzel was brash and crude—and he hauled in money for his indulgences hand over fist.”
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
You have shown that I was absolutely 100% correct from the very start. Even your hapless Lutheran webpage shows that Tetzel was at fault. TETZEL, not the Church.
***Does this or does it not mean the Catholic Church was the original Christian church?***
Certainly doesn’t mean it didn’t wander off into heresy, nor does it?
Is God sovereign?
Did He found a church?
Did He promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church?
Did He promise the Holy Ghost to guide His church in all things?
Would He allow His sheep to be without a shepherd for 1500 years? If He would, why not 1800 until He sent Joseph Smith?
Were His sovereign powers sufficient to prevent His entire church from "wandering off into heresy"?
***Is God sovereign?***
Yup, though Catholics and reformed folk differ on what that means.
***Did He found a church?***
Of Course He did, and it ain’t in Rome. It is Jesus Christ.
***Did He promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church?**
Yup. And in spite of the heresy found in Rome His church is thriving among Baptists, PCA, URCNA, LCMS and countless other Bible preaching churches.
***Did He promise the Holy Ghost to guide His church in all things?***
Yup. And a certain church HQ’ed in Rome has derailed.
***Would He allow His sheep to be without a shepherd for 1500 years? If He would, why not 1800 until He sent Joseph Smith?***
He didn’t, he gave us the Holy Spirit.
***Were His sovereign powers sufficient to prevent His entire church from “wandering off into heresy”?***
Yes, but we also see in Revelation that he has/will remove the golden lampstand from churches that stray. So evidently he allows churches (ie Rome) to leave the fold for reasons we are not privy too.
The Truth about Mary and Scripture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA
Holy is His Name by John Michael Talbot. He has a beautiful voice, this is based on Mary in Luke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TEL_7TS5FE&feature=related
But worse than indulgences was the following official statement of the RCC (Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 12)
"If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in God's mercy, which remits sin for Christ's sake, or that it is this trust alone which justifies us, let him be damned."
But Protestant churches that decide to adopt the green agenda as equal to anything else in the Faith, joined in the New Age spiritualist redefinitions of Christ and Christianity, and pronounced homosexuals are just fine and not sinners for their sexual behavior, haven't left the fold they're just misunderstanding a few little things?
Attacking Catholics is always an interesting thing to watch. The more Protestants fragment, the more they attack Catholics. Sooner or later, it's going to become obvious that going after the Catholic crowd was a huge diversion just as screaming "whore of Babylon" at Rome while the real heart of Babylon grew the faith of the moon god by the sword has always been a huge diversion. Divide and conquer never worked better than when Luther decided he didn't want to help reform the Church but wanted to make a new religion instead.
Did you ever ask yourself why you hate Catholicism so much?
He lost all his credibility right there.....
That is such a liberal smear tactic, claiming that someone who disagrees with you is a hater.
If he wished to present an intelligent argument or apologetics, he needs to drop the rhetoric.
Otherwise, it's just a propaganda piece.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my Catholic Apologetics and the Defense of the Faith ping list:
Please ping me to Catholic threads where I can help defend our common faith!
When Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses it was written in Latin because the debate was intended for a learned audience of clergy and professors. They were soon translated into German, however, and quickly spread across Germany.
His intention was to reform the RCC, not to form a new church.
As to your point on attacking Protestant churches, I believe anything with “ELCA” in the title will have a slew of posters damning this “church” also.
I probably will not get any adversity by saying the ELCA is definitely NOT a Christian church anymore.
God Bless
Whatever you my think his intentions were, his actions set in motion fragmentation that inhibited the spread of Christianity and insured more of those born into Christian countries would be damned since there were thousands of "Christs" to pick from. Naturally, only the spirit could tell them whether theirs was the right one or not and the majority of those alternative "Christs" didn't dictate major behavioral changes since everything revolved around how the individual interpreted scriptures anyway.
Whether you think he was right or wrong theologically, it's a fact that he did the wrong thing by leaving rather than reforming.
The Catholic Church is Pro-Word AND Pro-Tradition, and Pro-Magisterium. The Bible was given to the world by the Holy Spirit, through the Catholic Church. Nothing in Catholicism contradicts the Bible, AND nothing in the Bible contradicts the Catholic Church. You don’t have to like or agree with it, mind you, but that is a true statement.
Just as a by-the-way, did you read the original article? The intention of the article is fairly obviously for his non-Catholic readers, by way of responding to a number of comments he’s had. No “victim mentality” needed. If you, as a writer on a subject, receive a fair amount of mail, or email, or comments, similar to one another, regardless of the subject at hand, would you not wish to try to clarify, or expound on the subject, or, using whatever euphemism seems to best fit, comment in return?
Let’s say, by way of example, that, on a forum elsewhere, I continually speak my mind on a given subject. Doesn’t matter what the subject is. It could be my love of Les Pauls. Or whatever. And I get a lot of flack about that. Or a number of comments that seem to indicate some general misunderstandings about why I care so greatly about Les Pauls. My response to that with my speaking in return doesn’t mean that I’ve adopted a victim mentality. It means that I am exercising my free speech, one human being to others that visit my spot on the web. It also doesn’t meet standard lib-type requirements, since, the subject is politics, and it isn’t in this case. The author of this piece explains his point of view within it, in response to either emails or comments from readers. And, just curious here, specifically how are you now going to prove, to me, here and now, that the Catholic Church is, as you tried to put it, “anti-Word?” Use documented, historical facts.
Martin Luther was a man, a sinner. I do not hold him in awe, but I do believe God used him as a tool to bring his pure Word back into worship.
Martin Luther did not “stay and fight” because the RCC ex-communicated him from the church for not retracting his statements of the 95 Theses. M. Luther said he would fully retract if he were proven wrong in the Bible, the RCC refused debate. The Emperor Charles declared him an outlaw whom anyone could kill after 20 days.
He clearly had no chance to “stay and fight” The RCC and the German Govt. made sure of this.
It's great to see that I wasn't the only one who stopped reading as soon as the "I'm a victim, everybody is picking on me" stuff got thrown out.
It's great to see that I wasn't the only one who stopped reading as soon as the "I'm a victim, everybody is picking on me" stuff got thrown out.
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.