Posted on 01/24/2015 8:33:46 AM PST by RnMomof7
Mary is in Heaven, sorting thru BILLIONS of prayers to make SURE that proper Catholic ones go straight to her Son; Jesus.
“A wise person would realize that a few badly behaved people don’t represent an entire group.”
Your characterization misses the point. A wise person would realize that the few “badly behaved [anti-Catholics here]” WHO WERE FORCED TO ADMIT THEY WERE LYING are in fact representative of the rest of the same group but the rest have not been forced to admit they were lying. That’s the point. The behavior is widespread, perhaps even universal, among Protestant anti-Catholics. Only a few have been cornered and forced to admit it.
I have known that literally DOZENS of anti-Catholics here have lied, or deliberately misrepresented the Catholic Church, the Catholic faith, Catholics, they’ve spread falsehoods, clearly false interpretations, etc. The board rules not only don’t allow you to call a specific person a liar - EVEN WHEN HE HAS ADMITTED HE LIED AND SAYS SO IN ONE OF HIS OWN POSTS - but are used in such a way to prevent anyone from even exposing the liar. We’ve talked about this sort of thing before.
I have yet to run across a single Catholic who was spreading false ideas about the Protestant faith who must have known it was false. I’ve never seen it. I have seen Catholics make mistakes about what Protestants believe - after all it’s understandable that Catholics would not necessarily be experts in the myriad of heretical beliefs that make up Protestantism. For some reason, however, Protestant anti-Catholics INSIST they know Catholicism better than those who embrace it and live it. Even after endless corrections they will post the same old, already refuted canards.
“How often do Catholic anti-Protestants trot out the “Luther card””
Many Protestants have admitted that Luther started the Protestant Revolt. Why shouldn’t we mention that fact? Protestantism never existed before Luther. That is a historical fact. It’s undeniable.
“...here and say stuff like “Luther removed books from the Bible” when solid evidence is shown that no such thing happened?”
Sorry, but Catholic Bibles - the only Bible Luther knew - had the Deutercanonical books. Luther removed them. How can you deny that? How can you deny that Luther said things about the Epistle of James such as it was not of Apostolic authorship?
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/09/luthers-outrageous-assertions-about.html
“How many times is Luther trotted out as if he were the Pope and founder of the Reformation and Protestantism...”
Boatbums...he WAS the founder of the “Reformation and Protestantism”. HE WAS. There’s no way around that fact.
You say, “Look how easily Catholics brush off the sordid history of their many depraved Popes - and these are guys y’all insist are vicars of Christ, His representatives on earth.”
There have been over 260 popes and NONE OF THEM ARE FOUNDERS OF OUR FAITH. Christ is. That’s one difference between my faith and yours. My faith was founded by and on Christ. Yours was founded by Luther. It’s undeniable. There were no Protestants before Luther. They didn’t exist. So, tell me all about the bad popes. They were bad. And? So? Yes, it’s deplorable that they were sinners - and we are sinners too. Yes, it is deplorable that they were hypocritical - then again so is every sinner (including you and me). Yet NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM founded my Church or my faith. Not one of them. Luther founded Protestantism. It’s just that simple.
“For someone who claims to be the champion of honest FR apologetic discourse, I don’t think I have ever seen you stand up to your peers when such dishonesty goes on. Why is that?”
Because it’s not dishonest to say that Luther is an inherent problem for Protestants. This is so well known, so well recognized, and so devastating and upsetting to Protestant anti-Catholics here, that I have been officially banned from mentioning where Luther invented Protestantism on this website - and I have the private messages from the powers that be to prove it. So don’t even think about telling me about being a “champion of honest FR apologetic discourse”.
God makes the impossible possible.
Rome makes the unwritten seem plausible (to those who do not know what IS written.)
“Rome makes the unwritten seem plausible (to those who do not know what IS written.)”
You take what is written and make it say something that is not. And your fellow Protestants here avoid talking about it so as not to split the ever present anti-Catholic group at FR.
#1 You do realize, doncha, that "abortion" is merely the means used to describe infanticide.
It's an umbrella word that has described all kinds of ways to murder an infant: early induction to bring about an intentional "miscarriage"; suction aspirator to slice & dice; etc. etc.
It's like saying I need to find the specific word "firearms" in the Bible to talk against murder-by-firearm. It's like saying I need to find the word "bomb" in the Bible if I wanted to use the Bible to speak against terrorists.
#2 "Abortion" -- as I said -- is a word used to describe infant-killing. Come on Vladimir, find us the words fraticide (sibling-killing), matricide (mother-killing), or patricide (father-killing) in the Bible.
Find us the word uxorcide ("wife-killing") in the Bible.
And, since these words aren't there, by logical extension of your lamest argument, whatever you are using to reference abortion applies to these types of family murders as well.
Totally asenine!
Sorry. This doesn't pass the straight-face test, and impugns your own credibility.
ALL: Take a look for yourself @ post #79.
Mark17 says: “I have been a Protestant since 1970, and this is the first time I have EVER heard this" & Vladimir responds to this SAME subject thusly:
Really? I used google for about 20 seconds and found these:
Six links down, he mentions "Mormons." But again under the same umbrella of "these"...because he doesn't list Mormons last...the very next link is about Protestants as well.
If "Mormons" was meant to be distinct, why not list them last?
And why list them at all if the subject is only Protestants?
Yep, I believe both Kingdom Hall and Mormonism to be false religious cults as well. They are both pretty tough to reach. Ole Joe Smith really WAS a teller of tall tales, and Charles T Russell? He was another severely confused dude.
“Totally asenine!”
Thanks for showing that sola scriptura doesn’t work. That was the point. You did a great job showing that sola scriptura is unworkable and completely open to subjective interpretation. Thanks.
“If “Mormons” was meant to be distinct, why not list them last?”
They were. They were listed as the last non-Catholic reference. The only one after that was a convert to the Catholic faith. I started with 5 or so Protestant quotes (I could have listed many more of course). Then listed 1 Mormon quote (I could have listed hundreds for Mormons). And then I listed one convert’s comments as a final point. Also, I should point out I searched for them in that order: Protestant, pseudo-Christian/pseudo-Christian (i.e. Mormon) to show this is a sick trait Protestants share with pseudo-Christians and then topped it off with once convert’s discussion of his own experience to show how to overcome the stupidity that Protestants and pseudo-Christians show in this regard.
“Sorry. This doesn’t pass the straight-face test,”
Of course it passes the straight-face test and there’s no test in the first place. The evidence that some Protestants hold this view is undeniable so, of course, someone has to quibble about the fact that I included a quote from a Mormon source WHICH I ACTUALLY LABELED AS “MORMON”. Oh, the horrors!
“and impugns your own credibility.”
Not in the least. Since what I posted was irrefutable in proving my point, my credibility - logically - can’t suffer in the least. The very fact that someone would ignore all that was posted and focus on a LABELLED Mormon quote as if that were the issue is telling in itself. It tells us: he has no argument.
And if you had seen the thread(s) in question, would it have made any difference? I think not. Just admit it, vlad, the integrity of Genesis 1-11 (and other portions of the Hebrew Bible) is simply of very small importance to Catholics. The "important" dogmas are all elsewhere. Even the few Catholics who still uphold Biblical inerrancy don't consider it an essential dogma. Even the most right wing traditionalists don't have it on their radar screen of concerns. It simply doesn't matter to Catholics--not even the ones who dissent on the topic. "Thus saith the L-rd" means very little when one holds a synergistic G-d/man origin of the Bible. After all . . . those silly primitive men who were constantly saying that didn't understand how loving and liberal G-d really is (as we do today).
I read a lot (just in the last month I purchased 11 books - and I’m trying to cut back in 2015 - and two of those are study Bibles that are going to take me a while to get through).
And every single one of them is higher critical . . . right?
If a man who attacks the Catholic faith repeatedly, essentially claiming his invented sect must be better because Protestantism’s interpretation of the Bible is better and purer, shows himself to be dishonest even after GETTING CAUGHT - and only the Protestant anti-Catholics are doing this here - that says a lot about not only them, but their sect and Protestantism.
When I first started getting involved in things online I assumed that anti-Catholics were anti-Catholic out of ignorance. And yes that was sometimes true. But there are also some anti-Catholics who are just plain dishonest. I have yet to come across Catholics doing online apologetics who are dishonest. They might exist, but I certainly have not run into them here at FR. Only the anti-Catholics seem to have this problem with honesty. Why is that?
What is dishonest is the bizarre claim that "J*sus died for our sins" when it's all up to us. I'm no longer a Protestant and believe that Protestantism is also wrong, but they at least have a certain internal consistency. G-d (in the Bible) established a liturgical, statutory religion in order to show that no one can perfectly observe a liturgical, statutory religion. This was to prepare man for a purely passive salvation via an antinomian "loophole" (the vicarious eternal damnation of a divine scapegoat). Now this is ridiculous for many reasons (one of which is that no one person is even capable of observing "all the commandments" whey many of them apply to only certain classes of people), but there is a certain logic to it.
Catholicism/Orthodoxy on the other hand claim that G-d established the liturgical/statutory religion of the Bible to prepare mankind for a superior liturgical/statutory post-Biblical religion. This is even more ridiculous than the claims of Protestantism. G-d prepared mankind for the post-Biblical chrstian religion by giving the Torah to the Jews, who in order to be true to that Torah must of necessity reject chrstianity and all its claims? In other words, the people given the "lesson" didn't learn it, and the people who "learned" it never had the lesson! Is that anyway to "teach" anyone?
And J*sus wasn't vicariously eternally damned in anyone's place. Rather his death "re-opened the door" that Adam (who allegedly never actually existed) had "closed." What in the sam hill does that even mean? Catholics/Orthodox can thank J*sus for what . . . "making salvation possible" and then putting all the burden on them? Forcing them to spend a lifetime treading a tightrope over the flaming pits of hell to get through the door that J*sus has so generously "opened?" That being the case . . . just shut the door! Things were better off before it was "re-opened!"
As a Protestant I always wondered if J*sus was our "redeemer" why anyone would feel it necessary to perform any human action to "access" the "graces." We've had a Catholic on this thread asking Judaeo-Protestants if they believe J*sus died at all, and if so why are they observing Biblical commandments. Well right back at you, buddy! If you believe J*sus died why must you get baptized, engage in sacraments, attend mass, observe "holy days," do anything???? And yes, I know that Catholics/Orthodox often invoke the Biblical ceremonials to justify their own. But if the Biblical ceremonials were abolished, how much the more so any post-Biblical ceremonials!
Unfortunately, boatbums, these are not arguments for Protestantism . . . an unhistorical late comer with absolutely no roots in the chrstian past. This hypocritical "J*sus ultimately died to end your religion and start ours" understanding is the orthodox (small "o") historical one. It is held not only by the Roman Catholic Church but by every single one of the ancient churches still in existence--many of which were never under the Constantine who allegedly "introduced" all these "perversions." The Coptic, Greek, Syrian, Maronite, Armenian, Assyrian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Indian churches (the latter alleged founded by Thomas the apostle and with no contact with Latin or Byzantine chrstianity until the end of the sixteenth century) had this exact same ceremonial, calendar, sacraments, and theology. Protestantism is completely in vain. Historical chrstianity is illogical.
The one thing that everyone agrees on is that Judaism was the One True Religion--once--but that it has since been replaced. But what has replaced it? People have been arguing for two millenia and it's still not resolved!
I don't know about any Protestant "dishonesty." I know of the fact that Protestants are trapped trying to "restore" a "pure" religion that never existed in the first place. And all because historical non-Protestant chrstianity was dishonest enough to make the claim that "J*sus died for our sins."
trinity
catholic
pope
eucharist
sacraments
annulment
assumption
immaculate conception
mass
purgatory
magisterium
infallible
confirmation
crucifix
rosary
mortal sin
venial sin
perpetual virginity
apostolic succession
indulgences
hyperdulia
catechism
real presence
transubstantiation
liturgy
free will
holy water
monstrance
sacred tradition
apostolic succession
Benefactress
Mediatrix
Queen of Heaven
Mother of God
beatific vision
Actually sola Scriptura works just fine.
It’s the distortion of it that people use to try to discredit it that doesn’t work.
What it really is, is way different from what Catholics would like it to be so they could think they could disprove it and thus support the only alternative they have.
Sorry, but watching Brain Games has heightened my ability to notice misdirection when it is shown to me.
THEME all you want; it CANNOT change the very plain words on the page.
While Rome takes something UNWRITTEN and makes a really big fuss over it.
Sell your wares somewhere else.
Catholicism has been teaching error from day one.
1. Get thee behind me Satan.
2. I opposed Cephas to his face because he was condemned.
3. Seven catholic churches in Asia...
Rome does a great job showing that NULL scriptura IS workable and completely fools millions of people.
“Then show us where the following words that Catholicism adheres to is found anywhere in Scripture.”
I don’t believe in sola scriptura. You do.
“Actually sola Scriptura works just fine.”
Clearly not - or else you would be able to point the verse that says Matthew wrote an inspired book. Can you?
“Sell your wares somewhere else.”
I struck a nerve again. And will continue to do so. Protestants will continue to coddle things they believe to be erroneous or even heretical - like ‘soul sleep - to keep the anti-Catholic clique together.
“Catholicism has been teaching error from day one.”
Nope - we taught no heresy on Pentecost in Jerusalem. Your sects have taught heresy from the beginning, however. Protestants even said it about one another: hence Luther couldn’t agree with Calvin.
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.