The Absurdity of Separated Brethren

Beggars All ^ | February 11, 2009 | "carrie"

[RnMomof7]

The Absurdity of Separated Brethren

Before Protestants were "separated brethren"...

Q. Does the Lord make use of apostate Catholics, such as Martin Luther, Calvin, John Knox, Henry VIII., King of England, to reform the manners of the people?

A. The thought is absurd. The lives of those men were evil, and it is only the devil that makes use of them to pervert the people still more. The Lord makes use of His saints, such as a St. Francis of Assisium, a St. Dominick, a St. Ignatius, a St. Alphonsus, to convert the people and reform their evil manners by explaining to them the truths of faith, the commandments, and the necessity of receiving the sacraments with proper dispositions, and by setting them in their own lives the loftiest example of faith, purity, and all Christian virtues.

Q. Are there any other reasons to show that heretics, or Protestants who die out of the Roman Catholic Church, are not saved?

A. There are several. They cannot be saved, because

1. They have no divine faith.

2. They make a liar of Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, and of the Apostles.

3. They have no faith in Christ.

4. They fell away from the true Church of Christ.

5. They are too proud to submit to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.

6. They cannot perform any good works whereby they can obtain heaven.

7. They do not receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

8. They die in their sins.

9. They ridicule and blaspheme the Mother of God and His saints.

10. They slander the spouse of Jesus Christ —:the Catholic Church.

Q. What is the act of faith of a Protestant?

A. O my God, I believe nothing except what my own private judgment tells me to believe; therefore I believe that I can interpret Thy written word—the Holy Scriptures —as I choose. I believe that the Pope is anti-Christ; that any man can be saved, provided he is an honest man; I believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation; that good works, and works of penance, and the confession of sins are not necessary, etc.

Q. Have Protestants any faith in Christ?

A. They never had.

Q. Why not?

A. Because there never lived such a Christ as they imagine and believe in.

Q. In what kind of a Christ do they believe?

A. In such a one of whom they can make a liar, with impunity, whose doctrine they can interpret as they please, and who does not care about what a man believes, provided he be an honest man before the public.

Q. Will such a faith in such a Christ save Protestants?

A. No sensible man will assert such an absurdity.

Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine
For the Family and More Advanced Students in Catholic Schools (1875)
(pgs 70, 91-93, 97-98; with imprimatur)

\e="author "name">Carrie at

4:33 PM

[vladimir998]

“So get off your high horse.”

Hate to break it to you but Christ only founded one Church, and it isn’t your sect.

[vladimir998]

“Not a member of YOUR elitist prideful church, vlad.”

You’re part of an elitist, prideful sect.

“Am part of HIS Church with only Lord Jesus Christ as the Head...and NOT the church that says Peter was its first pope.”

No, you’re just part of a sect: man-made, invent just a matter of years ago.

“The RCC is one of MANY church organizations; getting used to the idea?”

I have no idea what Royal Crown Cola has to do with this. But I never did expect members of heretical Protestant sects like yourself to make sense.

[vladimir998]

“The oracles of God were committed to Israel.”

Yet Luke was not Jewish. There’s no mandate to write in Hebrew. If that were the case, then no Aramaic would have been used let alone Greek.

“The destruction of the gospel of the kingdom was clearly committed to Constantine, and he took his commission from Satan seriously. He also failed to obliterate the gospel of Matthew; it survived his mission.”

There was no “commission” to destroy the “gospel of the kingdom”. Seriously, now you’re just straying into twilight-world conspiracy nonsense.

“The traces of his crimes also survived in the Greek versions of the gospels and epistles, in the form of clumsy cultural and translational errors that are scattered throughout them, to be found by those reading for understanding rather than to support churchianity.”

No. Since the NT Greek mss are the only ones we have that date back to earliest times there is nothing to compare them to to conclude there were “clumsy cultural and translational errors that are scattered throughout them”. And the LXX was written more than 400 years before Constantine.

[Lee N. Field]

Do you believe all of the NT books were written in Hebrew?

Re this, I heard someone make a point that I thought was good: when folks invoke hypothetical Hebrew originals, they're trying to argue for something that they can't get the text we have to support.

For me, it's a marker (like unto the usual rants about Constantine and the Nicene Council) that indicates I should keep an eye out for "quirkiness".

The two books I’ve read on the possibility of Hebrew gospels are:

Eusebius in his time wrote that Matthew had or might have had a Hebrew original. That's it.

[dartuser]

So the freemasons that translated the KJV impress you as authorities?

No, the translation that they produced demonstrates their skill ... and the skill of those who did it before them.

What? You believe that only the original autographs are the word of God?

That would put you in the position of not having the word of God at all today.

Perhaps you should clarify your position so I understand what you are trying to argue ...

What is the Bible, which mss do you consider authoritative? In the OT ... in the NT?

[Resettozero]

You’re part of an elitist, prideful sect. No, you’re just part of a sect: man-made, invent just a matter of years ago. But I never did expect members of heretical Protestant sects like yourself to make sense.

What sect is that? I've told you multiple times I'm not a member of a "Protestant sect".

Pavlov again. Just totally rings the bell every single time.

[Iscool]

Some Prots condone queer marriage, female priests, female bishops, aborton; some don’t. How do y’all square that?

They are getting ready to cross the Tiber to join with the Catholic bishops who condone queer marriage, female priests, female bishops and abortion...

[vladimir998]

“Eusebius in his time wrote that Matthew had or might have had a Hebrew original. That’s it.”

Yeah, there is no solid irrefutable proof.

[vladimir998]

“What sect is that? I’ve told you multiple times I’m not a member of a “Protestant sect”.”

I know what you’ve said, but I don’t see any logical reason to trust either your word or your understanding.

“Pavlov again. Just totally rings the bell every single time.”

Stop coming when I ring the bell then. I just do it to see you drool on the carpet.

[editor-surveyor]

The translation they produced is in solid agreement with the masoretic texts, and far from agreement with the LXX, so I wonder what you mean.

Reading from the JPS Tanakh rarely differs with the KJV.

.

[Resettozero]

I know what you’ve said, but I don’t see any logical reason to trust either your word or your understanding.

Well, I trust that you sincerely believe the defense of the RCC's claims you post repeatedly and I think I have a pretty good handle on your understanding of Who Lord Jesus Christ is. And I believe you are sincere in your defense of YOUR preferred church over all other groups of Christian worshippers of God.

BTW, faith in Christ alone isn't necessarily logical to every person.

At least I know where you stand on religion and that's a good thing to keep in mind.

[editor-surveyor]

Eusebius quoted Papius in stating clearly that Matthew wrote the first gospel, in their native language, and that the translators did the best they could.

Matthew was the only literate disciple, being a Cohen.

There are presently 28 separate copies of that gospel located that all agree with each other, but differ from all of the Greek translations.

.

[boatbums]

What I said still stands: And yet not a single Catholic here has ever denied any of the verses you posted nor ever once claimed that Jesus or the Apostles were liars about anything. And I would find it hard to believe you don’t know that fact either. So I have no idea who these “Catholic anti-Protestants” you refer to are since no Catholic here has ever done what you just asserted. Catholics disagree with Protestant heretical opinions - not verses from scripture.

Let's go back to the post where THIS particular train of thought began, shall we:

---

Protestant anti-Catholics, being not well educated about things Christian, often make anachronistic mistakes. A Catechism from 1875, for instance, should naturally be interpreted by what came before it:

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:

It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin. https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm

64 posted on Sunday, January 25, 2015 10:06:17 PM by vladimir998

---

So, not only did you once again presume disagreement with what Catholicism teaches means a poster is a "Protestant anti-Catholic", you assume it was done in ignorance of what Catholicism teaches. Rnmomof7 is quite familiar with RC teaching. The topic was Catholicism's dogma of outside of the Roman Catholic church no one can be saved, which has since been "reformulated positively" (how's that for weasel words?) to exempt those who Catholicism excuses as invincibly ignorant. It applies to those who, they claim, CAN be saved outside of the RCC if they don't know any better and if they live according the "dictates of their own consciences" - in essence saying if they are "good people" in their own eyes.

My contention was and remains that Scripture gives no such "out" to anyone capable of recognizing their sinful human state and need of a Savior. God said he has made Himself known through His creation so that no man has any cop-out for not knowing He exists. He placed within each of us an innate knowledge of His invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20).

In order for your church to state such things as dogma, many Scriptures to the contrary have to be ignored or denied - presuming the writer to either be wrong or lying. I don't see how you can get around that. Non-Catholic Freepers disagree with Catholic heretical opinions and doctrines because God's word disagrees. It doesn't make us anti-Catholic, just anti-Catholicism. There are plenty of Catholic anti-Protestants here and they don't care to hide it. I find it hard to believe you don't know that fact either.

You toss the "Protestant anti-Catholic" label around quite a bit here. You have also asserted anyone who is a Christian but not a Catholic is by default a Protestant - no matter how many times others have rejected that catch-all name. It seems only fair that the same reasoning you use to decide who fits be turned back at you and that's where we find Catholic anti-Protestants. If you don't see any that exist here could it be perhaps because your mirror is smudged?

[vladimir998]

What I said still stands - and will continue to stand.

Not a single Catholic here has ever denied any of the verses you posted nor ever once claimed that Jesus or the Apostles were liars about anything. And I would find it hard to believe you don’t know that fact either. So I have no idea who these “Catholic anti-Protestants” you refer to are since no Catholic here has ever done what you just asserted. Catholics disagree with Protestant heretical opinions - not verses from scripture.

You were wrong. That’s not going to change.

[vladimir998]

“At least I know where you stand on religion and that’s a good thing to keep in mind.”

Most likely you’re wrong. You almost always are.

[Iscool]

So you’re claiming that 300 times someone deliberately mistranslated the Bible?

You mean those same people that came up with what are called the Deutercomicals and put them in the LXX??? Naw...What motive could they possibly have for doing such a thing???

[Resettozero]

Most likely you’re wrong. You almost always are.

Maybe I am wrong about whatever you mean.

Goodbye, vlad.

-30-

R2z

[vladimir998]

“Eusebius quoted Papius in stating clearly that Matthew wrote the first gospel, in their native language, and that the translators did the best they could.”

I’ve read two books on the subject, remember?

“Matthew was the only literate disciple, being a Cohen.”

That the Apostles were illiterate is an assumption. http://masonemerson.freeyellow.com/christianwitnessescom/id356.html

There are presently 28 separate copies of that gospel located that all agree with each other, but differ from all of the Greek translations.

“There are presently 28 separate copies of that gospel located that all agree with each other, but differ from all of the Greek translations.”

I have no idea what you’re referring to. In Hebrew? In Aramaic?

[boatbums]

Let's not forget:

The Papacy From 896 to 1048 AD

Even the Vatican's apologists acknowledge that the Papacy passed through a dark age from 896 to 1048; they describe the Papacy of the 900s as a"pornocracy," due to its domination by the Theophylacts, a corrupt family of Roman nobles. The Papal misdeeds of this era include: [2]

Boniface VI (896): Died after about 15 days in office — the second shortest Papal term of office in history. He was elected despite having been defrocked twice (once from the sub-diaconate, and once from the priesthood, and without being canonically reinstated to orders) by Pope John VIII for immorality. [3]

Stephen VI (896-897): Exhumed the corpse of Pope Formosus (891-896), tried the body for offenses against canon law in the"Cadaver Synod," and had the former Pope's body mutilated (the three fingers used for blessing were chopped off) and the remains tossed into the Tiber. This outraged the population to the point of insurrection. Stephen was deposed and strangled — and then buried in St. Peter's.

Sergius III (904-911): Jailed and strangled his predecessor Leo V (903), as well as the antipope Christopher who had overthrown Leo. Sergius reaffirmed the "Cadaver Synod"verdict against Pope Formosus, and bore an illegitimate son with the Theophylact noblewoman Marozia; the boy later became Pope John XI.

John X (914-928): In order to gain the release of the French King (Charles the Simple) from his imprisonment by Count Heribert of Aquitaine, John confirmed the election of the Count's five-year-old son as Archbishop of Rheims.

John XII (955-964): Elected at age 18, deposed for"perfidy and treason"in 963, overthrew his successor after a few months, and"died at age twenty-eight — of a stroke suffered while in the bed of a married woman."[4] A traditionalist historian says," The Lateran Palace was called a brothel in his day, thanks to his diverse taste in lovers — both in terms of gender and number."[5] John"did not hesitate to consecrate as bishop a ten-year-old boy as token of his affection, or to give sacred vessels to prostitutes."[6]

John XIX (1024-1032): Won election through bribery.

Benedict IX (1032-1045): According to a traditionalist historian, "his personal life was so disgusting (filled as it was with mistresses and rumors of incest and sodomy) that one of the city's factions was able to rally support against him and drive Benedict out of Rome."[7] After he fought his way back to power, he soon"accepted a bribe to abdicate in favor of his godfather, the arch priest John Gratian. [8]

Gregory VI (1045-1046): John Gratian was deposed for having bought election to the Papacy.

The Papacy From 1455 to 1555 AD

The Papacy of 1455-1555 likewise earned infamy for its immorality.[9] As is obvious, various Papal decisions (those that apologists describe as "disciplinary acts") led directly to Protestant revolts in Germany and England. During this period, ancient paganism became respectable in the Vatican; Curial writing referred to"God the Father as 'Jupiter Optimus Maximus,' to the Virgin Mary as 'Diana,' to the Apostles as 'legates,' and to the bishops as 'proconsuls.'"[10]

Callistus III (1455-1458): Made two nephews cardinals, and made a third nephew the commander of the Papal army. One of these nephews, Rodrigo Borgia, was made cardinal-deacon at age 25, and became vice-chancellor of the Holy See at age 26. This posting — and the immense wealth that the young cardinal was able to gain from it — paved the way for Rodrigo's election as Pope Alexander VI in 1492.

Pius II (1458-1464): "known throughout Italy and beyond as a connoisseur, an historian, and the author of erotic plays and tales."[11] Pius II made two nephews cardinals; one of these — who got his red hat at age 21 — reigned for a month as Pius III (1503).

Paul II (1464-1471): According to a liberal historian, he was"among the worst of the Renaissance popes: a vain, intellectually shallow, ostentatious playboy." [12]

Sixtus IV (1471-1484): Named six nephews to the College of Cardinals; one of these would later become Pope Julius II. Sixtus' coronation tiara cost 100,000 ducats — and this was just the beginning of his extravagances. He"connived at the Pazzi conspiracy to murder Lorenzo and Giuliano de' Medici at High Mass at the Duomo in Florence."[13] Giuliano died, but Lorenzo survived, and Florence rose against the Pope's allies. In response," the pope placed Florence under interdict, and a two years' war with the city began."[14]

Innocent VIII (1484-1492): Won election by bribery, and created a plethora of unnecessary new posts in the Curia, auctioning them to the highest bidder to raise money. In 1489, he struck a deal with the Turkish Sultan. The Pope detained the Sultan Bayezit's fugitive (and rival) brother in Rome, and the Sultan gave the Pope an initial payment"almost equal to the total annual revenue of the papal state," [15] plus an annual fee of 45,000 gold ducats, plus the relic of the Holy Lance, which supposedly pierced the side of Christ on the Cross. Innocent VIII made Giovanni Medici a cardinal at age 13; the young man was later elected as Pope Leo X.

Alexander VI (1492-1503): The father of "at least nine illegitimate children," [16] he won his election by"generous bribes and promises of lucrative appointments and benefices," and soon made clear that"the consuming passions of his pontificate would be gold, women, and the interests of his family. He named his son Cesare, at age eighteen, a cardinal, along with the brother of the current papal mistress. He also arranged several marriages for his daughter Lucrezia and often left her in charge of the papacy, as virtual regent, when he was away from Rome."[17] The aforementioned papal mistress was Giulia Farnese, wife of Orsino Orsini; Romans referred to her sarcastically as"the bride of Christ."[18]

Julius II (1503-1513): The nephew of Sixtus IV, and made cardinal by him at age 18. While a cardinal, he sired three daughters. With the aid of"substantial bribes and promises of ecclesiastical preferments," he won unanimous election to the Papacy in a one-day conclave.[19] Julius donned silver armor and led his armies across Italy to expand the Papal States. He gave Henry VIII, the King of England, a dispensation to marry his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon. (The dispensation soon backfired. When Henry sought an annulment from his marriage to Catherine, Pope Clement VII refused. This led to the Anglican schism of 1534.) Julius laid the cornerstone of the new Basilica of St. Peter in 1506 — but made the fateful decision to cover the construction costs by selling indulgences. In the bull Cumtam divino, he also declared Papal elections invalid if gained through simony — an ironic ruling, given the circumstances of his own election.

Ironically ,the sainted Pope Pius X reversed this decree. In the 1904 decree Vacante Sede Apostolica, Pius condemned simony, but held that this would not invalidate a Papal election. His successors did the same. John Paul II ruled in 1996 that"If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged."[20]

Leo X (1513-1521): Upon his election, he said," God has given us the papacy; now let us enjoy it."[21] He continued the sale of indulgences to finance construction of St. Peter's. It was the marketing of this"spiritual benefit"by the Dominican preacher John Tetzel that caused Luther to post the"95 Theses"on the cathedral door at Wittenberg in 1517, starting the Reformation. King Henry VIII publicly opposed Luther and wrote In Defense of the Seven Sacraments; as a reward for this book, Leo gave the English King the title of"Defender of the Faith"— a title that the English royalty have continued using ever since, despite their schism from Rome. One of Leo's cardinals was his nephew, Giulio de' Medici, who was later elected as Clement VII (1523-1534).

Paul III (1534-1549): While serving as a cardinal, he had kept a mistress, by whom he had four children. Upon his election, the first two cardinals he chose were his teenage grandsons. Paul"was an ardent believer in astrology, timing consistories, audiences, even the issue of bulls, according to the most auspicious arrangement of the stars."[22]

Julius III (1550-1555): "created a scandal because of his infatuation with a fifteen-year-old boy whom he picked up in the streets of Parma, had his brother adopt, and then made a cardinal and head of the Secretariat of State."[23] Another biographer describes this youth, Fabiano (who took the name of Innocenzo del Monte), as a"depraved ... custodian of monkeys," [24] and a Roman satirist of the time described Fabiano as an"empty and feminine boy."[25] Fabiano fell from grace after Julius III died. Pius IV jailed Fabiano for killing two people at a banquet, and exiled him after his release from prison; then, Pius V removed Fabiano's red hat. (http://adishakti.org/_/papacy_in_historical_perspective_the_seldom_told_history.htm)

Is it any wonder why there HAD to be a Reformation???

[ebb tide]

Those “Catholic” bishops you described are called “protestants”. Please give them a hearty welcome.