THE PROTESTANT’S DILEMMA BY DEVIN ROSE: A REVIEW

Just a writer, who refuses to typecast his blog by giving it a title ^ | March 18, 2014 | Scott Eric Alt

[daniel1212]

I engaged in an exchange with Scott, the author of the review you posted, but he closed comments after two rounds (it was getting lengthy) and after his last response, and then shortly deleted the entire exchange.

So i responded at length on my own blog here and told him in case he or anyone wants to comment.

[.45 Long Colt]

Thank you for the ping. I won’t have a chance to read it until late tonight or tomorrow, but I’m anxious to check it out.

[boatbums]

And, God forbid if you DARE say something without a link!!!

[redleghunter]

They have demonstrated time and again by their spite and lack of humility that they have not been grafted in.

Don't want to be a killjoy here but you should review some of your posts Sir. Is it humble to point out someone else's lack of humility...oops am I guilty too?

[redleghunter]

I think that He meant that whatever the Catholic Church declares to be in error on Earth, will be considered in error in Heaven....They have the power to bind, declare truth, and to loose, declare error.....Protestantism is in error.

Was it error or correct practice when St. Teresa was dismembered and parts sent to various churches as relics?

[redleghunter]

Thanks. Some “light” reading ahead:)

[metmom]

I think that He meant that whatever the Catholic Church declares to be in error on Earth, will be considered in error in Heaven....They have the power to bind, declare truth, and to loose, declare error.....

Interesting. That puts even God subservient to the Catholic church.

[xone]

not because an infallible office possessed a gift of being infallible whenever it spoke according to its infallibly-defined criteria/formula.

You can't be writing that each time, LOL. It is as painful to read as the logic behind it. Well done.

[Elsie]

oops am I guilty too?

Would I dare to JUDGE you?

I am guilty...

...of going halfway nuts trying to figger out WHICH of these to follow!!!

---

Proverbs 26:4-5

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

[Elsie]

You can't be writing that each time, LOL. It is as painful to read as the logic behind it. Well done.

Similarly, Billie Mays said...

Where can we find an 'OFFICIAL MORMON' teaching website??

Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are considered unofficial by said officials.

 

At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially.

 

This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness.

 

Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial.

 

This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used on FR by haters and bigots cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site elsewhere.

 

Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially.

I hope this clear things up for the lurkers out there.

The haters tend to make things complicated and confusing when it is all really quite crystal clear.

--Ejonesie22

[daniel1212]

You can't be writing that each time, LOL. It is as painful to read as the logic behind it. Well done.

But it was only once! Well, in those exact words. Besides, I was not speaking "from the chair," in my official capacity as Poster of the Internet, and using my supreme authority at its maximum power. Neither was the proof reader, who likely looks like her was missing sometimes.

[daniel1212]

Luther attacked the corruption and immorality within the church. If that is attacking the authority of the Church, then the gates of hell are not prevailing against the church. The Catholic church then is the gates of hell.

And it was not as if the contemporary moral condition of the Roman church and Rome itself offered warrant for its claims, and cried out for reformation (not very popular a subject, but you hear about slander about Luther being a fornicator):

At the time of the Reformation, the Catholic historian Paul Johnson described the existing social situation among the clergy: “Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.” (History of Christianity, pgs 269-270)

Cardinal Bellarmine: "Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,

In the summer of 1536, Pope Paul III appointed Cardinals Contarini and Cafara and a commission to study church Reform. The report of this commission, the Consilium de emendanda ecclesiae, was completed in March 1537. The final paragraphs deal with the corruptions of Renaissance Rome itself:

“the swarm of sordid and ignorant priests in the city, the harlots who are followed around by clerics and by the noble members of the cardinals’ households …” “The immediate effects of the Consilium fell far below the hopes of its authors and its very frankness hampered its public use. … the more noticeably pious prelates [note: this the “noticeably pious” clergy] had no longer to tolerate the open cynicism of the Medicean period, and when moral lapses by clerics came to light, pains were now taken to hush them up as matters of grievous scandal.” — A.G. Dickens, “The Counter Reformation,” pp. 100,102)

In the same candid spirit is the following statement of de Mézeray, the historiographer of France: [Abrege’ Chronol. VIII. 691, seqq. a Paris, 1681.] “As the heads of the Church paid no regard to the maintenance of discipline, the vices and excesses of the ecclesiastics grew up to the highest pitch, and were so public and universally exposed as to excite against them the hatred and contempt of the people. We cannot repeat without a blush the usury, the avarice, the gluttony, the universal dissoluteness of the priests of this period, the licence and debauchery of the monks, the pride and extravagance of the prelates, and the shameful indolence, ignorance and superstition pervading the whole body .

.... These were not, I confess, new scandals: I should rather say that the barbarism and ignorance of preceding centuries, in some sort, concealed such vices; but,, on the subsequent revival of the light of learning, the spots which I have pointed out became more manifest, and as the unlearned who were corrupt could not endure the light through the pain which it caused to their eyes, so neither did the learned spare them, turning them to ridicule and delighting to expose their turpitude and to decry their superstitions.”

Bossuet* in the opening statements of his “Histoire des Variations,” admits the frightful corruptions of the Church for centuries before the Reformation; and he has been followed in our own times by Frederic von Schlegel [Philosophy of History, 400, 401, 410, Engl. Transl. 1847.] and Möhler. [Symbolik, II. 31, 32, Engl. Transl.] While all of them are most anxious to prove that the Lutheran movement was revolutionary and subversive of the ancient faith, they are constrained to admit the universality of the abuses, which, in the language of Schlegel, “lay deep, and were ulcerated in their very roots.” — Charles Hardwick A History of the Articles of Religion; http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Oldies/Thirty-Nine/hardwick39.htm

Going back further also helps provide context for the Reformation. Hear Joseph Lortz, a German Roman Catholic theologian. He's best known for his work on Martin Luther and the Reformation. In his book The Reformation: A Problem for Today (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1964),

The significance of the break-up of medieval unity in the thirteenth century, but even more during the Avignon period, is evident in the most distinctive historical consequence of the Avignon Papacy: the Great Western Schism. The real meaning of this event may not be immediately apparent. It can be somewhat superficially described as a period when there were two popes, each with his own Curia, one residing in Rome, the other in Avignon

The real significance of the Western Schism rests in the fact that for decades there was an almost universal uncertainty about where the true pope and the true Church were to be found. For several decades, both popes had excommunicated each other and his followers; thus all Christendom found itself under sentence of excommunication by at least one of the contenders. Both popes referred to their rival claimant as the Antichrist, and to the Masses celebrated by them as idolatry. It seemed impossible to do anything about this scandalous situation, despite sharp protests from all sides, and despite the radical impossibility of having two valid popes at the same time. Time and time again, the petty selfishness of the contenders blocked any solution...

When Luther asserted that the pope of Rome was not the true successor of Saint Peter and that the Church could do without the Papacy, in his mind and in their essence these were new doctrines, but the distinctive element in them was not new and thus they struck a sympathetic resonance in the minds of many. Long before the Reformation itself, the unity of the Christian Church in the West had been severely undermined — "The Reformation: A Problem for Today” (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1964), “The Causes of the Reformation," pp. 35-37; . http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/roman-catholic-scholar-look-at-causes.html

Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, Cardinal Ratzinger observed, "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. — Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/

The Western Schism was thus at an end, after nearly forty years of disastrous life; one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, "a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm

Going back further:

Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon, “Rome and its story” The sixth century found Rome sunk too low by war and pestilence for many churches to be built; but at this time took place the transformation of ancient buildings into Christian shrines. Instead of despising the relics of paganism, the Roman priesthood prudently gathered to themselves all that could be adopted from the old world. Gregorovius remarks that the Christian religion had grown up side by side with the empire, which this new power was ready to replace when the Emperor withdrew to the East.

The Bishop of Rome assumed the position of Ponlifex Maximus, priest and temporal ruler in one, and the workings of this so-called spiritual kingdom, with bishops as senators, and priests as leaders of the army, followed on much the same lines as the empire. The analogy was more complete when monasteries were founded and provinces were won and governed by the Church. p. 176

And further:

Consider the election of Pope Damasus 1, who is officially a Roman Catholic Church "saint." On Pope Liberius's death September 24 A.D. 366, violent disorders broke out over the choice of a successor. A group who had remained consistently loyal to Liberius immediately elected his deacon Ursinus in the Julian basilica and had him consecrated Bishop, but the rival faction of Felix's adherence elected Damasus, who did not hesitate to consolidate his claim by hiring a gang of thugs, storming the Julian Basilica in carrying out a three-day massacre of the Ursinians.

On Sunday, October 1 his partisans seized the Lateran Basilica, and he was there consecrated. He then sought the help of the city prefect (the first occasion of a Pope in enlisting the civil power against his adversaries), and he promptly expelled Ursinus and his followers from Rome. Mob violence continued until October 26, when Damasus's men attacked the Liberian Basilica, where the Ursinians had sought refuge; the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. Damasus was now secure on his throne; but the bishops of Italy were shocked by the reports they received, and his moral authority was weakened for several years....

Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope.... This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. -Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32,34; http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Dictionary-Popes-J-Kelly/dp/0192139649/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=#reader_0192139649

[daniel1212]

At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially.

It is not always easy to find out what a RC means by "official" teaching either.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“I think that He meant that whatever the Catholic Church declares to be in error on Earth, will be considered in error in Heaven....They have the power to bind, declare truth, and to loose, declare error.....
“Interesting. That puts even God subservient to the Catholic church.

... And not what the text says in Greek.

[metmom]

I’m sure it is not. The context does not even support that.

But thank you.

I know you are a scholar in the Greek.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“But thank you. I know you are a scholar in the Greek.”

Thanks, but I don’t claim to be a scholar. I learned New Testament Greek, as though through fire. I’m not a natural grammar and language person. Still, it was worthwhile and rewarding. Today, there are so many excellent tools, as you know, everyone can examine a passage in Greek.

[metmom]

And Catholics slam Luther for *breaking his vows* and getting married?

At least he was MARRIED.

The rest of the Catholic priests simply broke their vows of celibacy and fornicated.

[Gamecock]

Let's not forget about the nuns.

Nun who gave birth in Italy 'unaware of pregnancy'

Interestingly she named her son Francis, after the Pope.

[daniel1212]

Interesting. That puts even God subservient to the Catholic church.

Well, as you have seen already i am sure, this is what is said,

“With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it. " Such is," says St. Maximus of Turin, " this judiciary power ascribed to Peter that its decision carries with it the decision of God." 2 The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it. .” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2 (whose writings were declared free from anything meriting censure by Pope Gregory XVL (1839) in the bull of his canonization). http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt

When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.

Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of mana not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ. (O'Brien, The Faith of Millions, 255-256 ;

[metmom]

When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.

That is a lie from the pit of hell with no Scriptural substantiation for it.

Jesus was never a victim. HE gave His life. Nobody took it from Him.

The priest has no such power. What delusions of grandeur.