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

[Iscool]

The doctrine Catholic Church does not “abide” or allow or whatever you want to call it

The doctrine may not allow it but your popes and cardinals do...So that renders the 'doctrine' meaningless...

[boatbums]

Don’t bother me with someone who calls themselves a Catholic that does not abide by the teachings of the faith and I will not mention the names of the faiths that allow all the above wickedness and immorality and openly promotes it. But here’s a clue for you. They’re all protestant.

Then don't bother me with someone who calls himself a born again Christian who doesn't abide by the teachings of the Christian faith as spelled out in the Bible. This was the actual post I commented on from Ebb tide:

---

Ebb tide: Those “Catholics” are protestants, not unlike Luther and Calvin. I hope you welcome them with open arms.

Boatbums: That's funny...they don't know that. They call themselves Catholics and STILL attend Catholic Mass. Neither Calvin nor Luther would accept them with open arms. Biblical Christian beliefs and principles don't change. Those who want to be faithful and obedient children of God follow HIS guidelines, not man's.

If you're going to horn in on a dialog, at least try to stay on topic. FYI...there have ALWAYS been false teachers, heretics and Christians-in-name-only no matter what church they identify with. What sets them apart is not only what they say but, more importantly, what they DO.

[Elsie]

Bad popes centuries ago don’t worry me much.

Luther sure does!

[Elsie]

Bad popes centuries ago don’t worry me much.

I'll assume that you just LOVE your new one!

[Elsie]

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

All seven in Asia, mentioned by John, were Catholic, according to Rome.

Really good examples they were!

[Elsie]

a "depraved ... custodian of monkeys,"

No; I'll just HAVE to pass on THIS line!!!

[boatbums]

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

Oh, I'm sure it stands in your own mind and will continue to stand....it doesn't make it true, though. You continue to avoid addressing the point. That hasn't changed, either.

[boatbums]

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

[vladimir998]

“Luther sure does!”

No, but a heretic who sowed to seeds for Christendom ending heresy, schism, multiple wars and massacres and strife that would lead to two world wars is a bigger issue than any pope way back when. Luther, after all, is your sect’s spiritual father.

[vladimir998]

“I’ll assume that you just LOVE your new one!”

No, actually I rarely think about him. I have told Catholics to stop fussing over his foibles and faults. He’ll be dead in a few years and replaced. That’s how it always goes.

[vladimir998]

“All seven in Asia, mentioned by John, were Catholic, according to Rome. Really good examples they were!”

All Christians were Catholic in the beginning. Later, heresies like Protestantism showed up.

[vladimir998]

“Oh, I’m sure it stands in your own mind and will continue to stand....it doesn’t make it true, though.”

No, it is true. If you really believed it wasn’t, you would be posting evidence that it isn’t. You’re not even going to try are you?

“You continue to avoid addressing the point.”

The point was the falsehood you posted. Here it is again: 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...Catholics disagree with Protestant heretical opinions - not verses from scripture.

“That hasn’t changed, either.”

Again, what I just reposted above IS THE POINT. You said something that is a clear falsehood. You will not back it up will you? Exactly.

[dartuser]

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.

You are leading yourself to the point. The translators agree with you that the LXX differs from the TR in many places ... but they went on to say that the apostles quoted from the LXX, the church fathers quoted from it ... they treated the LXX as the very word of God ... even though it differs with Hebrew texts. Read what they wrote ... its very enlightening.

And that's the point ...

That first conjecture, that the LXX is not the word of God ... should be seriously reconsidered. Men far greater in these languages than you and I have weighed in on this.

[editor-surveyor]

The apostles never saw the LXX, their writings were of Yeshua’s words, which were exact quotes of the Hebrew texts, not the LXX.

The LXX was injected when their original writings were translated into Greek. the translators used the Rabbis’ LXX instead of translating the actual words. This is something that Wescott and Hort discovered when they were doing their false Greek NT around 1850. Wescott’s son revealed their devious letters after his father died. Gail Riplinger went through the letters when researching her first book.

.

[editor-surveyor]

In Hebrew.

The disciples didn’t write in Aramaic, they hardly could read in Hebrew. They were fishermen, except Matthew, who Yeshua chose later, was a learned man in the ancient scriptures, just as Paul was.

[xone]

, multiple wars and massacres and strife that would lead to two world wars

Yes, I remember the Pax Catholica....more made up history.

[vladimir998]

“The disciples didn’t write in Aramaic,”

Don’t assume that. John used Aramaic in his gospel: 19:13, 17 - and don’t make the mistake the Apostles just used place names in Aramaic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus#Aramaic_phrases_in_the_Greek_New_Testament

“they hardly could read in Hebrew.”

Again, that’s your assumption.

“They were fishermen,”

That does not mean they were illiterate. That’s an assumption.

“except Matthew, who Yeshua chose later, was a learned man in the ancient scriptures, just as Paul was.”

Actually, they all knew the scriptures whether illiterate or not. Cultures where illiteracy is high can sometimes be more intensively trained in stories and their allegorical and symbolic significance than many “literate” cultures. Such was the case in the Middle Ages when people often knew the Bible well even if they couldn’t read.

[vladimir998]

“Yes, I remember the Pax Catholica....more made up history.”

Not made up history. Almost all people, and all monarchs and all the soldiers shared the same faith. There was a binding tie there. Yes, there were plenty of wars, but they were often quickly healed - because of that commonality of faith. Today the only thing “uniting” Europe is socialism. There is, of course, a relationship between Protestantism and socialism (at least the materialism that influenced it).

[boatbums]

No, it is true. If you really believed it wasn’t, you would be posting evidence that it isn’t. You’re not even going to try are you?

You must have a lot of time on your hands to keep up this charade of a discussion. It appears that you will use any and every opportunity to trash Freeper Christians who aren't Roman Catholic, most times sidestepping the actual questions in order to heap more of your nonsensical challenges. A legend in your own mind!

What do you think I've been doing? How much more evidence do you need to prove that your religion decided no one could be saved outside of being a Roman Catholic in submission to the Pope of Rome then weasel-worded the old stuff to conclude, "Well, some people could get to heaven if they don't know about us and are "good"."? Do you understand the idea that people can in essence call Scripture a lie when they presume to be in authority OVER God's word and contradict what God says is the truth? I already posted many passages that conclude no one outside of small children and the mentally deficient can be saved who don't believe in the Savior God provided.

You want examples of specific posters outright calling Scripture a lie, much like the many bogus challenges you toss out to find certain words in order to believe the concept in Scripture is true. Wild goose chases are your specialty! But, just like the ECF's defense of the Trinity - though the exact word "trinity" isn't in the Bible - we can find the teaching clear and unambiguous by reading the revelation God has provided to us.

The term sola Scriptura - which you assert is heresy - is a good example. You demand to find the term in Scripture - though you know good and well it isn't - but you ignore the dozens of verses that teach the sufficiency, the authority and the necessity of Scripture to know truth from error - the REAL definition of the term. We have numerous examples of Jesus using Scripture as His authority in combating the devil, in debating the religious leaders and in confirming His mission, purpose and place in this world. Scripture is good enough for Jesus but it's not for you?

How quick you are to accuse others of "falsehood", yet you don't ever seem to notice when fellow Catholics are blatant about it. You unbelievably even continue to assert that Luther removed books from "his" Bible - in the face of solid evidence that he did NOT - even when a copy of Luther's German translation of the Bible contains all the books you claim he left out, translated into German. Explain to me how that isn't falsehood? You can't back it up, can you? EXACTLY!

I posted NO falsehoods. You have YET to address the actual question of the contradiction between Roman Catholic proclamations and what Scripture clearly states. Until you actually do that, keep playing your little gotcha games with yourself. I have better things to do.

[xone]

a relationship between Protestantism and socialism (at least the materialism that influenced it).

As opposed to a much stronger relationship between Catholicism and socialism, espoused by the leader of Catholicism.