Interview with former Catholic Priests and Nuns on why they left

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIt43tFTmLc ^ | Larry Wessels

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Full interview (roughly one hour) with former Roman Catholic priests Richard Bennett (website: http://www.BEREANBEACON.ORG) & Bartholomew Brewer, Ph.D, author of "Pilgrimage from Rome - A Testimony" (website: http://www.MTC.COM) and former nun Rocio Zwirner give glory to God for their exodus from the Roman Catholic Church & into the glorious grace of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Description from youtube)

[vladimir998]

"He knew history and knew the Papacy did not exist for many hundreds of years." I think he would disagree with you. Dollinger: Let us now approach somewhat nearer to the institution of the Papacy, which is comparable with no other; and let us cast a glance at its history. Like to all living things, like to the Church itself of which it is the crown and the corner-stone, the Papacy has passed through an historical development full of the most manifold and surprising vicissitudes. But in this its history is the law which lies at the foundation of the Church—the law of continual development—of a growth from within outwards. The Papacy had to pass through all the changes and circumstances of the Church, and to enter with it into every process of construction. Its birth begins with two mighty, significant, and far extending words of the Lord. He to whom these words were addressed, realised them in his own person and actions, and planted the institution of the infant Church in the central point—at Rome. There it silently grew, occulta relut arbor aevo; and in the oldest time it only showed itself forth on peculiar occasions; but the outlines of the power and the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman Bishops were ever constantly becoming more evident, and more prominent. The Popes were, even in the time of the Roman Emperor.-, the guardians of the whole Church, exhorting and warning in all directions, disposing and judging, "binding and loosing." Complaints were not seldom expressed of the use which, in particular cases, Rome had made of its power. Resistance was offered, because the Pope was supposed to have been deceived; an appeal was preferred to him, when it was believed he had been better informed; but there was no refusal to obey his commands. In general, his interference in Church affairs was less necessary; and the reins of Church discipline needed less to be drawn tightly, so long as the general Church, with few exceptions, was found within the limits of the Roman Empire, when it was so firmly kept together by the strong bands of the civil order, that there could neither be occasion nor prospect of success to any reaction on the part of various nationalities, which, on the whole, were broken and kept down by Roman domination. Out of the chaos of the great Northern migrations, and the ruins of the Roman Empire, there gradually arose a new order of states, whose central point was the Papal See. Therefrom inevitably resulted a position not only new, but very different from the former. The new Christian Empire of the West was created and upheld by the Pope. The Pope became constantly more and more (by the state of affairs, with the will of the princes and of the people, and through the power of public opinion) the Chief Moderator at the head of the European commonwealth—and, as such, he had to proclaim and defend the Christian law of nations, to settle international disputes, to mediate between princes and people, and to make peace between belligerent states. The Curia became a great spiritual and temporal tribunal. In short, the whole of Western Christendom, formed, in a certain sense, a kingdom, at whose head stood the Pope and the Emperor—the former, however, with continually increasing and far preponderating authority. The efforts of the Hohenstaufen Emperors to subject Italy, and with Italy also the Papal See, led to a prolonged conflict, from which both powers, the imperial and the papal, come forth weakened and wounded; for ever since then the position of the Papacy, in its political relations, has been more difficult and unfavourable. The Papacy saw itself compelled to lean more and more upon France, and, when the aspiring plans of Boniface VIII. were frustrated, it naturally passed into French hands, and upon French soil; and a resistance on the part of other nations was then inevitable; its high position over peoples and princes could no longer be successfully maintained. The authority of the Papal See sank still lower through the Franco-Italian schism. Then followed the reformatory efforts of the Councils, in the fifteenth century, which were mainly directed against the oppression of the Curia; and, subsequently, the Popes became entangled in the devious path of Italian politics. The former social-political, universal power led, when it was attempted to be realised, to troubles and disputes, and then it went utterly to wreck in the storms of the age of the Reformation. From that time forth the whole of Europe assumed a new form. Powerful and internally united political bodies, each having a special interest, and pursuing a fixed policy of its own, came into the foreground, and a new system of "a balance of power" was formed amidst severe struggles. The Papal See could no longer be the regulator of a European Commonwealth, and the centre of a general polity. It could not be so, amid the confusion of merely political interests, and changes of Catholic and Protestant states—sometimes in alliance, and sometimes hostilely opposed to each other. The popes withdrew themselves more and more to their purely ecclesiastical domain. They could stand in no other relation to the new principles (the Territorial system, and such like), which had found their way, through Protestantism, into the laws of European states and peoples. Thus has the matter stood to the present time. On ecclesiastical grounds the Papal See is, at present, as strong and powerful as ever, and as free in its action as it ever had been. Dangers and perplexities await it in temporal affairs—in the position of Italy, and in the possession of the States of the Church. What is now, and in point of fact, the actual function and vocation of the Papacy, and why is the whole existence of the Church at this time, and in future, so inseparably bound up with the existence of the papal authority, and with its free exercise? The Catholic Church is a most opulent, and, at the same time, a most multifarious organism. Its mission is nothing less than to be the teacher and moulder of all nations; and however much it may find itself hampered in this task; however limited may be the sphere of action allowed to it, by this or that government, its task always remains the same, and the Church requires and possesses an abundance of power to attain its purpose: it has a great number of various institutions, all directed to the same end; and with these it is continually creating new. All these powers, these institutions, these spiritual communities, stand in need of a supreme guidance, with a firm and strong hand, in order that they may work harmoniously together; that they may not degenerate, and may not lose sight of their destination; that they may not suicidally turn their capabilities, one against the other, or against the unity and welfare of the Church. It is only an ecclesiastical primacy can fulfil this mission—it is the Papacy alone that is in a position to keep every member in its own sphere, and to pacify every disturbance that may Besides this, there is another task, just as difficult as it is important, which it lies upon the Papal See to fulfil. It is the duty, namely, of the Pope to represent and to defend the rights of individual Churches against the domination of states and monarchs; to watch that the Church be not altered in its character, nor crippled in its power, by becoming interwoven with the State. For this purpose, with the voice and action of the church immediately concerned, the intervention of the Supreme Church authority becomes indispensable; since this stands above and outside of the conflicts, which may possibly arise between any one church and the state; and it solely is capable, in its high and inaccessible position, and in possession of the richest experiences, won in centuries of ecclesiastical government, to specify accurately the claims of both parties, and to serve as a stay and support to the weaker—to the one which otherwise must inevitably succumb before the manifold means of compulsion and seduction which lie at the command of modern states. It is, moreover, a beautiful, sublime, but certainly difficult mission of the Papal See—a mission only to be fulfilled by the strength of an enlightened wisdom and a comprehensive knowledge of mankind—and that is, to be just to the claims of individual nations in the Church; to comprehend their necessities, and restrain their desires within the limits required by the unity of the Church. End paste. So, Dollinger clearly believed in the papacy as being brought into existence by the words of Christ. He just believed it developed over time after that. Dollinger, The church and the churches: or, The papacy and the temporal power : an historical and political review, 1862, 41-43.

[vladimir998]

“magisterium”

When you can spell the word, get back to me. Then maybe we can talk about ignorance. LOL!

[vladimir998]

"Please cite your source for this "quote" of Cardinal Newman that you have used several times now. I'd like to see the whole context for it." Are you helpless? Did you even attempt to look? Sheesh! Here's one example: You also recollect how an impostor, called Teodore, declaimed such shocking things, and wrote such indecent pamphlets against us, that they cannot have been intended for any other purpose than to afford merriment to the haunts of profligacy and vice; yet he was followed for a time, was admitted into Protestant places of {176} worship, and honoured as a truth-telling oracle, till at length he was plainly detected to be what every one from the first would have seen he really was, were it usual to do the same common justice to Catholics which every Protestant considers his due;—for falsehood is the basis of the Protestant Tradition. http://www.newmanreader.org/works/england/lecture4.html

[vladimir998]

“Oh, so now not ALL Protestants lie?”

I said Protestants lie - especially Protestant anti-Catholics. That doesn’t mean they lie about everything nor does it mean they lie all the time. Learn to read.

“If they happen to agree with you, they are okay fine?”

Nope. They’re not even okay then.

[boatbums]

Thank you for your comments regarding “The Rock”. I think it is unavoidable that the Almighty God, Jehovah, is the ONLY solid rock upon which our life, faith, hope and everything else is built upon. Abraham and Peter are just “chips off the old block (rock)”. Man can NEVER be the solid and immovable foundation for our faith. Only God fits that bill. Thanks again for your encouragements and gentle methods and reminders.

[vladimir998]

“Man can NEVER be the solid and immovable foundation for our faith.”

Matthew 19:26; Philippians 4:13

[boatbums]

Don't you find it curious how some Catholics so easily teeter between disdain and appreciation for the SAME person depending on the subject matter? One moment Luther is a devil and the next he is admired. Dollinger is panned one minute and the next time quoted positively. Am I alone in wishing they would make up their collective minds and be consistent?

[metmom]

Protestations that you’re all in lockstep here at FR doesn’t actually help your case.

And yet Catholics expect that to help THEIR case. They certainly are critical enough of not being in lockstep agreement when it's non-Catholics who disagree.

Classic Catholic double standard.

[metmom]

Why don’t you contact one of the scholars I listed and find out what they think about sola scriptura. You might be surprised.

No. I'm not doing your work for you. You posted and made that claim. YOU provide the evidence that they are or no one is obligated to accept your word on it. Your say so is not solid evidence.

[metmom]

Oh, so now not ALL Protestants lie? If they happen to agree with you, they are okay fine?

Yes. Don't you know. It's part of the Luther Derangement Syndrome.

He's either pariah or hero, depending on whether it can be used to bolster the Catholic church or not.

[metmom]

Am I alone in wishing they would make up their collective minds and be consistent?

Hardly.

[Hacksaw]

But the difference is that I have enjoyed the long weekend and from what I have seen in my own opinion you have still been obsessed with Catholics. If you have left, just leave, eh? You think I keep calling my ex wife to complain every day? Not worth it. Just make the break and be a happier person.

[vladimir998]

“And yet Catholics expect that to help THEIR case.”

We never claimed to be in lockstep. You have failed yet again.

“They certainly are critical enough of not being in lockstep agreement when it’s non-Catholics who disagree.”

No. I posted quotes showing Protestants who do not agree with the Protestants in this thread. Yet both groups of Protestants express belief in sola scriptura.

“Classic Catholic double standard.”

Nope. Just classic Protestant epic failure.

[metmom]

vlad: “We never claimed to be in lockstep. You have failed yet again.”

*************************************************************

Your church demands it.

Lots of anathemas for those who don’t toe the line.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

Concerning original sin
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION (anathemas)
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

DECREE ON THE SACRAMENTS (anathemas)

DECREE CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (anathemas)
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENTS OF PENANCE AND EXTREME UNCTION (anathemas)
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct14.html

DOCTRINE ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. (anathemas)
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html

ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY.(anathemas)
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct24.html

Check your church laws that were established at Trent.

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

A couple more laws that you might want to consider:

Canon 19. If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema.

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 27. If anyone says that there is no mortal sin except that of unbelief, or that grace once received is not lost through any other sin however grievous and enormous except by that of unbelief, let him be anathema.

[vladimir998]

“Your say so is not solid evidence.”

Actually it is your burden to prove otherwise since Protestants believe in sola scriptura and all the quotes I posted are from Protestants. It’s your sect, so knock yourself out.

[metmom]

You do realize, don’t you, that post 52, the one to which this response of yours is responding to, is not mine?

It has no connection to what you are saying.

Your response is senseless.

[metmom]

Not my sect. I don’t belong to any church or denomination.

You made the claim. You back it up otherwise I will relegate it to the trash heap where it belongs.

[vladimir998]

“Your church demands it.”

Whether it does or doesn’t, it was claimed here by a Protestant that no Protestant at FR believes what the Bible actually teaches - that Peter is the Rock - a truth that some Protestant scholars to recognize. So, apparently you’re all automatons here all believing in the same thing and yet you’re out of touch with a part of Protestant scholarship. Thus, one of you admitted your group has no divergent view on the topic and is also ignorant and not in touch with Protestant scholarship. Ignorance all around on the Protestant side.

[vladimir998]

“Not my sect. I don’t belong to any church or denomination.”

You’re a Protestant. That’s your sect.

“You made the claim.”

Nope. It is a fact that they are Protestants. Protestants commonly believe in sola scriptura. The burden to prove otherwise is entirely yours.

“You back it up otherwise I will relegate it to the trash heap where it belongs.”

You’re going to relegate everything any Catholic posts to the “trash heap” anyway. I seriously doubt you give a darn in any case.

[Alamo-Girl]

So very true, dear sister in Christ! Thank you for sharing your insights!