Interview with former Catholic Priests and Nuns on why they left

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)

"We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and the rites paid to the dead. But the Church from a very early period took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendor of religious ceremonial."

"Catholics can’t deny that the RCC has incorporated pagan practices into its practices. "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So you think that God does not have the power to transform a thing used by pagans for pagan purposes into a holy thing, used for holy purposes?

CyberBear, do you believe that God has the power to transform a stinking, rotten, evil, filthy, wicked, scummy pagan (say the guy who made those terrible, awful "pagan things") into a God-fearing Christian, completely cleansed and filled with the Holy Spirit, seeking to do God's Holy Will in his newly renovated and refreshed life?

Do you believe that Almighty God has the power to transform formerly dirty, pagan hands which had been used for sinful pagan purposes, into clean, Christian hands, now used only for Holy, Christian purposes for the Glory of God, and for love of neighbor?

If so, do you believe that the Power of God somehow fizzles out, and that He is unable to use the things that the former pagan made for other purposes, and to turn them into things to be used for God's good and holy purposes? Does God's tranforming power fall short of being able to make use of items that were made use of in the past for pagan things?

For example, if the earliest known "books" or "writings" ever written in the world were done by pagans (such as "The Egyptian Book of the Dead"), and used for pagan religious ceremonies (like the burial ceremonies for the dead), is God not able to use those "pagan" tools (books/writings) later on in history as a medium to write, say, the holy, sacred books/writings of the Bible? (And are those Bible "books" somehow rotten because they make use of things (the same tools of books/writings) that were previously first used by pagans, including for pagan forms of worship?) (In other words, do you see the book/writings called "The Bible" as being wrong somehow, because the first time books/writings were used in the history of the world, they were used for pagan purposes?)

And is God not able and powerful enough to take a pagan thing such as the "internet", which is just saturated with sinful, disgustingly putrid pornography, visual and audible pollution, vile atheistic teachings, all sorts of satanic, pro-witchcraft, demonic, communistic, terroristic, and other abominable forms of garbage, and use that same pagan medium (the internet) to reach out and shine the light of truth to pagans all over the world, and to proclaim God's glory, and God's love, and God's mercy, and God's salvation, causing sinners to come to repentence and conversion, and to help them turn from being stinking pagans themselves into becoming Christians filled with the Holy Spirit?

(And, do you see even your own writing here on this thread as being wicked, and evil, and sinful, and horrible, just because you are doing it by using this computer/internet medium initially set up and used for pagan, non-Christian purposes?)

In other words, do you place your own unwarranted limits on Almighty God's power to transform things and their usages, as well as to transform people, and use them all for His Holy purposes? In your eyes, can God totally transform actual pagans, and use them for His Holy purposes and according to His Holy will, but that same omnipotent God is somehow totally powerless and unable to effect that same kind of transformational usage for pagan objects/things/tools (such as books/writings/candles/incense, etc.), and pagan practices (such as forms of "pagan prayer" or "pagan song" remade into sacred Christian music)?

After denigrating those things you call "pagan" type tools and objects (candles, incense, etc.), and as you ponder the thoughts above, please also keep the following Bible texts (and others like them) in your mind. thinking honestly about whether the Bible teaches that God used those very same kinds of things in the past for His holy purposes.

And the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”    Exodus 34:27

"For thou wilt light my candle: the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness."    Psalm 18:28

“You shall make an altar to burn incense upon; of acacia wood shall you make it."    Exodus 30:1

Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.    Matthew 6:9-13

David also commanded the chiefs of the Levites to appoint their brethren as the singers who should play loudly on musical instruments, on harps and lyres and cymbals, to raise sounds of joy.    1 Chronicles 15:16

“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.”

Source:The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.

“And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.”

Source: John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.

“But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church.”

Source: Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).

“And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church.”

Source: Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5.

True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View

“I then said, that the more fully the imputations which were cast upon us were examined, the more unfounded they would turn out to be; so that the great Tradition on which we are persecuted is little short of one vast pretence or fiction.”

“Hence Protestants are obliged to cut their ninth commandment out of their Decalogue. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” must go, must disappear; their position requires the sacrifice.”

“The substance, the force, the edge of their Tradition is slander.”

“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.”

“Taking things as they are, and judging of them by the long run, one may securely say, that the anti-Catholic Tradition could not be kept alive, would die of exhaustion, without a continual supply of fable.”

” The Tradition requires bold painting; its prominent outline, its glaring colouring, needs to be a falsehood.”

“If truth had been sufficient to put down Catholicism, the Reformers would not have had recourse to fiction.”

“Errors indeed creep in by chance, whatever be the point of inquiry or dispute; but I am not accusing Protestants merely of incidental or of attendant error, but I mean that falsehood is the very staple of the views which they have been taught to entertain of us.”

Should I keep going? I think I can easily sum up Cardinal Newman’s quotes above (drawn from just the first two paragraphs of his lecture): Protestants have to lie.

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’” St. Augustine of Hippo (”Sermon 295,” c. 411 A.D.)

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church...’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus....” St. Augustine of Hippo (”Letter 53,” 412 A.D.)

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” St. Augustine of Hippo (”Commentary on John,” c. 416 A.D.)

“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, “Upon this rock I will build my church . . . “ [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . “ (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

In Sermon 147 St. Augustine opens that sermon with: “1. YE remember that the Apostle Peter, the first of all the Apostles.”

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Sermon 97 comes even closer:
3. Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ. And what did He announce to him, when he answered a third time that he loved Christ, and a third time the Lord commended His little sheep to Peter? He announced to him beforehand his suffering. “When thou wast young,” saith He, “thou girdedst thyself, and wentest whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thine hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.” The Evangelist hath explained to us Christ’s meaning. “This spake He,” saith he, “signifying by what death he should glorify God;” that is that he was crucified for Christ; for this is, “Thou shalt stretch forth thine hands.” Where now is that denier? Then after this the Lord Christ said, “Follow Me.” Not in the same sense as before, when he called the disciples. For then too He said, “Follow Me;” but then to instruction, now to a crown. Was he not afraid to be put to death when he denied Christ? He was afraid to suffer that which Christ suffered. But now he must be afraid no more. For he saw Him now Alive in the Flesh, whom he had seen hanging on the Tree. By His Resurrection Christ took away the fear of death; and forasmuch as He had taken away the fear of death, with good reason did He enquire of Peter’s love. Fear had thrice denied, love thrice confessed.

http://www.a2z.org/acts/webster/webster2.htm

here’s a gem:

In James White’s book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, on page 245, he recommends his readers to read ‘The History of the Christian Church’ by Phillip Schaff. Curiously, Schaff affirms what White himself denies:

“Augustine, it is true, unquestionably understood by the church the visible Catholic church, descended from the apostles, especially from Peter; through the succession of bishops; and according to the usage of his time he called the Roman church by the eminence the sedes apostolic [Apostolic Chair]’. (History of the Christian Church, 3:307)

White in his book denies that the Fathers applied Matthew 16 to Peter. He tries to prove that Matthew 16 was understood differently by the Fathers than it is today by the Church. The use of this paragraph from Schaff demonstrates that Augustine did see Matthew 16 as applying to Peter and that Rome was viewed by Augustine as the Apostolic Chair. This is a significant admission.

Steve Ray further comments: “Schaff does continue that he feels that St. Augustine felt like that the bishop of Rome had limited authority. Being aware that Schaff is a non-Catholic and is not going to espouse the Catholic point of view on the papacy though he is more honest in his treatment of the Fathers than most of the current “Protestant Apologists” I know.

I am not trying to explain Schaff’s fuller theology nor to deny it, I am simply making a point that whereas White suggests that his readers refer to four “fine presentations available on the topic” to prove his point against the Church, Schaff actually states that Augustine recognized Rome as the Apostolic Chair because of Peter’s unique calling and passed on through succession.”
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/the_rock.htm

Heart-Rest: So you think that God does not have the power to transform a thing used by pagans for pagan purposes into a holy thing, used for holy purposes?

Actually, Aaron already tried that when he announced that they would feast to the LORD in front of the golden calf. Evidently he thought he could have his cake and eat it, too (emphasis mine):

And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for [as for] this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which [are] in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring [them] unto me. And all the people brake off the golden earrings which [were] in their ears, and brought [them] unto Aaron. And he received [them] at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

And when Aaron saw [it], he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow [is] a feast to the LORD. - Exodus 32:1-5

God was not pleased ... obviously.

I gather that Newman’s accusatory tone towards the faith of the Reformers, with their motivations, and his writing of their disagreements off as “fictions”, “bearing false witness”, “slander”, “fable”, “falsehoods” and your word, “lie”, only demonstrates a furtive and desperate need to rationalize his abandonment of the faith he was raised in. In reality, the Reformation brought to the fore many of the abuses, false doctrines, depravities and wrongs that the Roman Catholic Church allowed to creep in and continue.

No, Protestants don’t “have to lie”. I don’t claim to always be right, but I do not intentionally lie or mislead nor have I seen much evidence of others here you so callously brand as “anti-Catholic Protestants”. I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, as found in the sacred Scriptures speaks for itself and the heart that God has prepared to hear it and receive it certainly will. As a former Roman Catholic, I recognized that what I had been taught was not the true gospel and I realized that not by the persuasions of another person but by the very word of God. Jesus said, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.” (John 10:27-28). I knew I had found the truth and I have never regretted it.

“For the same reason i left out the one before that, and the one before that, etc. etc. Because my point was, nothing more or less, that history is what Rome says it is, which the quote by Manning affirmed.”

And you actually don’t see how Manning’s attestation to the ancientness of the Church undercuts your claim that Manning was saying that the Church’s history is whatever it is as if it were not ancient?

Let’s look at the passage again:

“4. And from this a fourth truth immediately follows,
that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are
primitive. It was the charge of the Reformers that
the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their
pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal
to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a
treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the
Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies
that voice to be Divine. How can we know what
antiquity was except through the Church ?”

Let’s stop here for a second: “How can we know what
antiquity was except through the Church ?” What we know of the history of Christianity we know from the Catholic Church. There essentially is no other history of the earliest ages of the Church.

“No individual,
no number of individuals can go back through
eighteen hundred years to reach the doctrines of antiquity.”

And that’s true. You can’t go back to the first century to reach the first century doctrines as if they exist or existed outside the Church.

“We may say with the woman of Samaria,
‘Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw
with.’ No individual mind now has contact with
the revelation of Pentecost, except through the
Church.”

Again, that has to be true. What the Holy Spirit led the Apostles to know cannot be known outside of the body of the Christ, the Church.

“Historical evidence and biblical criticism
are human after all, and amount at most to no more
than opinion, probability, human judgment, human
tradition.”

True again. What the Church has, and no Protestant can, is the tradition of the Apostles from Christ.

“It is not enough that the fountain of our faith be
Divine, It is necessary that the channel be divinely
constituted and preserved. But in the second chapter
we have seen that the Church contains the fountain
of faith in itself, and is not only the channel
divinely created and sustained, but the very presence
of the spring-head of the water of life, ever fresh
and ever flowing in all ages of the world. I may say
in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It
rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness.”

That last line cannot be separated from what came before it in the passage I posted or else the context will be lost. Manning makes it clear that the Church is ancient, its teachings are the original, the “primitive” teachings of the Apostles. That the Church is the fount of the faith - and he devoted a whole chapter to this and you make no comment on that of course. And, thus, the Church has a supernatural aspect as a teacher and guide - which is entirely scriptural (Ephesians 3:10).

“Its past is present with it, for both are
one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and
modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.
The Church is always primitive and always modern
at one and the same time; and alone can expound
its own mind, as an individual can declare his own
thoughts.”

The Church essentially is timeless - as it must be as the Body of Christ.

‘ For what man knoweth the things of a
man, but the spirit of a man that is in him ? So the
things also that are of Grod no man knoweth, but the
Spirit of Grod.’ l The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the
Church at this hour.”

Only the Church was there, guided by the Holy Spirit, and sent to teach for all ages until the end of the world.

Without those opening and closing sentences, the edit you posted makes no sense and in no way expresses Manning’s clear meaning.

“I gather that Newman’s accusatory tone towards the faith of the Reformers, with their motivations, and his writing of their disagreements off as “fictions”, “bearing false witness”, “slander”, “fable”, “falsehoods” and your word, “lie”, only demonstrates a furtive and desperate need to rationalize his abandonment of the faith he was raised in.”

Nope. He needed no rationalization. He simply decided to follow the truth rather than the Protestant lies.

“In reality, the Reformation brought to the fore many of the abuses, false doctrines, depravities and wrongs that the Roman Catholic Church allowed to creep in and continue.”

Nope. Anything that Catholics did wrong was already known people. In reality many of the wrongful things Catholics did were done even more frequently by Protestants - as attested to by Protestants themselves.

“No, Protestants don’t “have to lie”.”

Yeah, they do. It happens here often enough. That was made obvious.

“I don’t claim to always be right, but I do not intentionally lie or mislead nor have I seen much evidence of others here you so callously brand as “anti-Catholic Protestants”.”

First of all, I have no reason to believe you. Again, I saw it in this very thread. I’m not saying YOU did it this time. Second, it has to be considered that anti-Catholic Protestants commonly push lies which they truly believe in. So, they can say, “I didn’t lie” but they did push forward a lie as if it were true. That happens here at FR every day.

“I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, as found in the sacred Scriptures speaks for itself and the heart that God has prepared to hear it and receive it certainly will.”

I see no evidence that you even know what that gospel is. No Protestant can believe in THE gospel and be a Protestant any longer. The Protestant gospel is a novelty from the 16th century.

“As a former Roman Catholic, I recognized that what I had been taught was not the true gospel and I realized that not by the persuasions of another person but by the very word of God.”

Sorry, I don’t believe you. See, I was persuaded by almighty God that the gospel is as the Church always taught it in Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. I was saved from a life in Protestantism. Deo gratias! And whereas I have met dozens of former Protestant ministers who really knew their former faith and have become Catholic, I have yet to meet a single former Catholic turned Protestant who actually knew the Catholic faith. I just can’t take Protestant testimony about their counterfeit 16th century gospel seriously because it was not taught in Scripture, Tradition or the Church. It’s a novelty.

“Jesus said, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.” (John 10:27-28). I knew I had found the truth and I have never regretted it.”

And God in His infinite mercy might never allow you to regret it, but it is still a cheap, counterfeit fraud from the 16th century that you have come to believe. Christ existed before the 16th century and so did the true gospel. I pray that you one day will learn the truth, but I think your heart is hardened to it.

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.