Replies

## Baptism by immersion is the norm among all Eastern Christians. ###

That only means a coincidence with The Apostles’ doctrine, not a proof of obedience to it. Which of the seven baptisms of the new testament are you talking about, if any (not counting mikvah cleansing)? (”Norm” and “Eastern” bear no weight or essence here, though “nominal” might accompany “Christians.”)

## As a Melkite Catholic, ###

(Query (sideissue): Melkite? Is that Benedictine? or is this representing as “Melchisidekian” priesthood?)

### I can say with confidence that we baptize both infants and adults by immersion. ###

But neither Jesus, his disciple-apostles, nor (I think) the first-generation of patristics did. Your claim is an argument for having departed from NT doctrine, not an argument for compliance. Any confidence in the value of water baptism as effecting salvation of infants (or adults) is misplaced.

### The Western Church save for the Church of Milan discarded baptism by immersion for some reason in the 13th century. But it has made a comeback in some Roman Catholic parishes as an option. ###

It is not the discarding of the baptism of believers that marks corruption of doctrine of Christ and His Apostles; it is the innovation of “baptism” of infants (far, far earlier) that initiated one phase of apostasy that increased in its prevalence. Perhaps the tendency to drown infants by total immersion was contraindicated.

### Don’t cite the Bible because the problem is with how you interpret it. ###

Wrong. The Bible _is_ the authority is what I am citing, not a personal interpretation. Attention to hermeneutics will give you a better view, perhaps improve your slant.

### The issue goes far beyond baptism by immersion though. ###

Well, this is quite correct — even most of today’s baptists are prone to immediately water-baptise converts who have not really become disciples, and thus wind up with people who are convinced that they are “saved” but fail in displaying the behavior brought about by (1) discipled from unbelief to repentance, to (2) regeneration of God that is (3) followed by spiritual maturation brought about by (4) continued faithful discipling (for ever). But God does the saving (through reliance on the transaction completed at the Mercy Seat in Heaven, paid for with the uncorruptible blood of Jesus Christ). We only do the water baptizing afterward.

### Your interpretation of the Bible with regard to the sacraments and what baptism means is revisionist. ###

### There is more continuity between the Catholic and Orthodox episcopate of today and the apostles because of unbroken apostolic succession than there is between a Baptist congregation and the apostles. ###

That is an extreme and unproveable presumption, which is easily rejected by an obvious disparate comparison of Catholic or Orthodox dogma opposing unassailable Biblical doctrine. Apostolic succession is a myth not supported by Scripture, and is only a figment of very active political manipulation. There is no continuity. The line of Apostleship (the Twelve having seen The Christ personally, discipled by Him alone, and ordained by Him face to face as Apostles — the eleven plus Paul), ended with the death of the beloved John at about 100 AD, which was also the closure of the progressive revelation of Holy Scripture. My understanding is that God’s special ordained servants now only include evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Offices in the local church also include qualified elders and appointed deacons (as defined in the pastoral missives).

### There are fundamental differences even among Baptists about what we Catholics would call core dogmatic issues such as predestination, free-will, etc. Every time Baptists open their mouths to pontificate about scripture, it is subjective. ###

With “every time Baptists” you are in the ad-hominem mode. And you seem to insist that factual reproof is subjective, when it is not (= “don’t confuse me with facts!”). No thanks.

### That’s why Catholics and Orthodox appeal to tradition, so we know how to properly interpret scripture as it has been interpreted at all times, in all places, by all. ###

Error cannot stand the competition with The Truth.

********

Let me suggest that the line you have been taking always hits the “glass ceiling” that the rabbis, Jesuits, Calvinists, philosophers, and the like traditionalists and logicians never seem to be able to supersede. What God directs is to “... lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways, acknowledge him, and he will direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.” It is only by obedience to the explicit direction of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures (not one’s own reasonings) to the spiritually regenerated man that God can be pleased.

To the natural man who _cannot_ understand this, it is foolishness. So this is only presented in a factual sense, not in striving or rivalry as a contest. Take it, or leave it (kerusso).

Find me a place, any place in the Holy Bible that his disciples are commanded by God to immerse infants, especially when repentance/salvation/regeneration is presumed to have already occurred as God’s clear prerequisite to the ordinance of immersion as a measure of obedience to a command. That will be the only worthwhile point from which we can depart on a profitable rational or spiritual discussion.

Until then ...

I'd say your premise starts with a logical fallacy. That of the argument from silence. It's the same sort of fallacy gay apologists make by trying to say homosexuality is permissible because the gospels are silent on the issue. We know that Jesus says in Matthew 19:14 "but Jesus said, g“Let the little children hcome to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” In Acts 16:32-33 the possibility of infant baptism is raised by the baptism of everyone in a particular household. And there isn't anything saying that only adults were baptized. "32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them zthe same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he awas baptized at once, he and all his family." And the Didache, which was a 1st century catechism written for converts around the same time as the canonical scriptures says the following about baptism: Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before." And St. Irenaeus of Lyon, author of the Against the Heresies, testifies. He was two generations removed from the apostle John, and his spiritual master St. Polycarp was evangelized by St. John the Apostle personally. "4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, Colossians 1:18 the Prince of life, Acts 3:15 existing before all, and going before all." You say that infant baptism initiated apostasy, but aren't you saying that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church contrary to Matthew 16:19? If you want to identify with the Gnostics (the Paulicians, Albigensians be my guest because by doing so you are making my point about Baptists being a heterodox sect that has some sort of claim to hidden knowledge about the Bible.

I'd say your premise starts with a logical fallacy. That of the argument from silence. It's the same sort of fallacy gay apologists make by trying to say homosexuality is permissible because the gospels are silent on the issue.

We know that Jesus says in Matthew 19:14 "but Jesus said, g“Let the little children hcome to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

In Acts 16:32-33 the possibility of infant baptism is raised by the baptism of everyone in a particular household. And there isn't anything saying that only adults were baptized.

"32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them zthe same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he awas baptized at once, he and all his family."

And the Didache, which was a 1st century catechism written for converts around the same time as the canonical scriptures says the following about baptism:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

And St. Irenaeus of Lyon, author of the Against the Heresies, testifies. He was two generations removed from the apostle John, and his spiritual master St. Polycarp was evangelized by St. John the Apostle personally.

"4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, Colossians 1:18 the Prince of life, Acts 3:15 existing before all, and going before all."

You say that infant baptism initiated apostasy, but aren't you saying that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church contrary to Matthew 16:19?

If you want to identify with the Gnostics (the Paulicians, Albigensians be my guest because by doing so you are making my point about Baptists being a heterodox sect that has some sort of claim to hidden knowledge about the Bible.

No, that is incorrect. I am clearly stating the command of The Christ without the revision which you presuppose. Please do not call what I stated in the note as my doctrine. It is the gospel of at least Levi and John and Paul. The one you propose is later, is deviant, and is a consequence of “Christianity” being adopted as the state religion, with an unregenerated emperor as its authority and decision-maker, and “infant baptism” being the significance of automatic citizenship by nativity and as a co-religionist imposed. >>As I already pointed out, infant baptism predated St. Constantine's acceptance of Christianity by some 300 years. Christianity didn't even become the state religion of the empire until Emperor Theodosius about 100 years later.

And contrary to the mythology surrounding St. Constantine's adoption of Christianity, it wasn't received well. Those who wanted to be true to Christ rather than imperial politics fled to start the monastic movement, which placed holiness and devotion to Christ over being accepted.

The monks in Byzantium became a headache for the Eastern Roman emperors for the next 1,000 years because they frequently revolted against his control.

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America has an interesting article to this effect:

The establishment of Christianity as a legal religion of the roman Empire by Constantine the Great, with the edict of Milan (313), led to a new decline in the ethical life of Christians. In reaction to this decline, many refused to accept any compromises and fled the world to become monastics. Monasticism thrived, especially in Egypt, with two important monastic centers, one in the desert of Nitria, by the Western Bank of the Nile, with Abba Ammoun (d. 356) as its founder, and one in the desert of Skete, south of Nitria, with Saint Makarios of Egypt (d. ca. Egypt 330) as its founder. These monks were anchorites, following the monastic ideal of St. Anthony. They lived by themselves, gathering together for common worship on Saturdays and Sundays only." http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7103

Baptist Christianity has very little in common with how the Early Christians worshiped or believed. All early Christians continued the Jewish practice of liturgical worship. In fact the Greek text of Acts uses the word leitourgia (liturgy) several times. http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/liturgical_worship_in_the_new_testament

On that note, Lutherans and Episcopalians have more in common with early Christians than Baptists do.

Baptism is NOT just a symbol, and I challenge you to provide a verse from scripture or from the ancient writers fo the Church that it was.

John Calvin was the first person to my knowledge who denied that God uses baptism as a physical means of conferring the Holy Spirit.

Apostolic succession is a myth not supported by Scripture, and is only a figment of very active political manipulation. There is no continuity. >>What do you call when the apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas?

Apostolic succession was the norm that the early Christians used to distinguish themselves from the Gnostic heretics who claimed apostolic authority. St. Clement of Rome, who St. Paul mentions in Phillipians 4:3 testifies around 80 A.D. in Chapter 42:Verses 1-3 that: ""Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." And St. Irenaeus of Lyons writes the following against the Gnostic heretics a century later around 189 A.D.: "It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about".(Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2). "Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4). "Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1). "[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession(Baptists?), and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2). "The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8). The line of Apostleship (the Twelve having seen The Christ personally, discipled by Him alone, and ordained by Him face to face as Apostles — the eleven plus Paul), ended with the death of the beloved John at about 100 AD, which was also the closure of the progressive revelation of Holy Scripture. >>Catholics and Orthodox likewise believe this. Pope St. Pius X writes in his Oath Against Modernism in 1907: "..., I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously." My understanding is that God’s special ordained servants now only include evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Offices in the local church also include qualified elders and appointed deacons (as defined in the pastoral missives). >>The only ministries mention explicitly in scripture are bishops (episkopoi), presbyters (presbyterium), and deacons (diakonoi). The early Church later instituted the ministries of subdeacon, lector, etc. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches alone have maintained these ministries in unbroken succession for over 2,000 years.

And the Anglicans, and some Lutherans, have retained these ministries at least materially.

Apostolic succession is a myth not supported by Scripture, and is only a figment of very active political manipulation. There is no continuity. >>What do you call when the apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas?

Apostolic succession was the norm that the early Christians used to distinguish themselves from the Gnostic heretics who claimed apostolic authority.
,
St. Clement of Rome, who St. Paul mentions in Phillipians 4:3 testifies around 80 A.D. in Chapter 42:Verses 1-3 that: ""Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."

And St. Irenaeus of Lyons writes the following against the Gnostic heretics a century later around 189 A.D.: "It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about".(Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).
"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession(Baptists?), and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).

The line of Apostleship (the Twelve having seen The Christ personally, discipled by Him alone, and ordained by Him face to face as Apostles — the eleven plus Paul), ended with the death of the beloved John at about 100 AD, which was also the closure of the progressive revelation of Holy Scripture.

>>Catholics and Orthodox likewise believe this. Pope St. Pius X writes in his Oath Against Modernism in 1907: "..., I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously."

My understanding is that God’s special ordained servants now only include evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Offices in the local church also include qualified elders and appointed deacons (as defined in the pastoral missives).

>>The only ministries mention explicitly in scripture are bishops (episkopoi), presbyters (presbyterium), and deacons (diakonoi). The early Church later instituted the ministries of subdeacon, lector, etc. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches alone have maintained these ministries in unbroken succession for over 2,000 years.

And the Anglicans, and some Lutherans, have retained these ministries at least materially.

Wrong again. By such traditions one descends into the error of the scribes and Pharisees — “Why do ye also transgress the commandments of God by your traditions?” “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions.” That is why the Donatists, the Paulicians, the Albigensians, the Waldensians, the Anabaptists, the Baptists, the brethren out of Plymouth, kept appearing, rejected statist apostasy, were claimed to be heretics, and were persecuted and murdered (and their unadulterated Scriptures burned) by the traditionalists, when they only wished to adhere to the commandments of Christ uncorrupted.

You miss the point of Jesus's talk about the Pharisees. I might add that today's Jews are the descendants of the Pharisees. The Pharisees made observance of all 600+ Levitical commandments over the law of grace.

Orthodox Jews still do this today.

I might add that the Catholic Church applies these warnings against those who place cultural practices before the gospel, including bragging about the numbers of rosaries, fastings, etc. that people do.

The Church condemns anything that is done out of spiritual pride rather than in a spirit of humble service to our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Bible never says that everything that Jesus did or said is contained in Scripture. In fact, the Bible speaks to the contrary.

In John 20:30 attests: "30 uNow Jesus did many other signs vin the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;" And John 21:25 attests: "25 Now qthere are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that rthe world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Hence the Catholic/Orthodox veneration of extra-scriptural accounts of the lives of Jesus and Mary, and the apostles inasmuch as they do not contradict canonical scripture.

Then we find in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν. "15 So then, brothers, dstand firm and hold to ethe traditions that you were taught by us, either fby our spoken word or by four letter."

And in 2 Thessalonians 3:5: Παραγγέλλομεν δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, στέλλεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ ἀτάκτως περιπατοῦντος καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρελάβοσαν παρ' ἡμῶν. "6 Now we command you, brothers, sin the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, tthat you keep away from any ubrother vwho is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." The Greek uses the word "paradosis", which means as follows according to a Protestant New Testament Greek lexicon: Paradosis giving up, giving over the act of giving up the surrender of cities a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence."

I challenge you to show how your sect's practices stack up against what we know from outside of scripture about how early Christians believed and worshiped. How are you so sure that you stack up against 2 Thessalonians 3:6?

From what I have been able to see since just before I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism 20 years ago, Protestants don't conform with the verse.