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

[Partisan Gunslinger]

The KJV was most highly influenced by the politics of England at the time.

Uh...no. It was highly influenced by God.

[ealgeone]

Sometimes I think anti-Catholics have little or no conscience. After all, how else can someone say the quoted comment above and yet have just said the following completely fallacious comment below as well:

“Christ didn’t start Christianity....wow....that’s revealing.”

It is instructional that you continue to refer to yourself as catholic....not Christian.

But let's clear this matter up on my statement above just so the record is clear.

From post 197:

you: We have Christ and the Holy Spirit.

me: Hate to break this news to you but all Christians have Christ and the Holy Spirit. So get off your high horse.

From post #201:

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

me: Christ didn't start Christianity....wow....that's revealing.

From post 249

me:“Christ didn’t start Christianity....wow....that’s revealing.”

you: You believe Christ didn’t start Christianity? It must be you because I said nothing of the sort. Mind you, I would not be surprised to see an anti-Catholic yet again resort to less than honest comments about what a Catholic would say.

This above statement by you is an obvious attempt to twist what I was stating in response to you. So there is falsehood number one against you.

Then you posted this falsehood in post 254:

I never once implied, EVER OR ANYWHERE, that those not in the Church cannot be Christian. The catechism makes no such claim and neither do I. I have made this clear numerous times. None of that will stop an anti-Catholic from saying otherwise, however.

from post 201 you: Hate to break it to you but Christ only founded one Church, and it isn’t your sect.

Sure sounds like you making that implication to me....and anyone else who can read. So there is falsehood number two against you.

But you also deny the words of your pope boniface (1302) Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Doesn't matter what your catechism says because of what boniface has said above. And as a catholic you HAVE to obey the pope. You have no choice. Welcome to the collective.

So now you've committed a third falsehood by denying what catholicism teaches. Maybe you have your own little sect of catholicism which allows for your own interpretation of things?

Dude, you best run to your priest!

Anyone with an eighth grade reading level will understand the flow of the conversation. You stated Christ founded only one church and that my "sect" wasn't it.

Your implication is the "church" you're referring to is the roman catholic church and that all others are "sects". Your meaning is clear. If you are not a member of the rcc, then you are not a Christian...or more likely in your view a catholic as catholicism sure seems to trump Christianity in the mind of the catholic.

As a Christian who most assuredly is not a member of the roman catholic church, that is an insulting and inaccurate statement made by you.

That is why I said “Christ didn’t start Christianity....wow....that’s revealing.”

If you're understanding the flow of the conversation I am accusing you of denying that Christ started Christianity...not the other way around.

It has been my observation that catholics seem to place more emphasis on being a member of the rcc, rather than following Christ.

Rarely does a catholic refer to themselves as a Christian. Ya'll usually identify as catholic. That has been my experience with other catholics I've encountered over the years.

I identify as a Christian....a follower of Christ. I am a member of a church, but that isn't what saves me anymore than being a member of a golf course makes me a great golfer.

So I ask you....who do you follow? Christ or the pope? There is a difference.

[BlueDragon]

Did he or did he not do the following two things:

1) Remove the Deutercanonicals from the canon by his own fiat.

He did not.

There was no such thing as "Deuterocanonicals" (for that word had not yet been invented) when what Luther did do -- which was to move certain writings long recognized by the Church (at least those who bothered to read), following Jerome's prologues concerning the writings in question to be regarded as less than fully canonical, to an Appendix.

As late as the production for the Complutensian Polyglot, Latin bibles then in circulation still carried the admonitions of Jerome against viewing those writings as equal to all the rest of OT (as did the Polyglot itself, carrying forward to that day the prologues which indicated those writings as not part of OT canon proper).

Cardinal Catejan wrote during this same era that the so-called deuterocanonicals were not themselves indiscriminately 'canonical'.

AND -- the voting at Council of Trent for full, indiscriminate inclusion for what at that time became known by the 'deutero' moniker (second, even "secondary" as second rank possibly, in the minds of a few of those who voted for inclusion at Trent) was still less than fully unanimous, even with the chosen, possibly misleading, let's-have-it-both-ways moniker (needing to bury the previous term "Apocrypha", which Jerome himself used when referring to those particular writings).

Being that the voting was less than unanimous, then all those whom voted against full and indiscriminate inclusion were just as "heretical" as was Luther himself on this issue, or else just as much themselves, "removing" books from canon, only not themselves altering order of placement within bound codex (while providing translation accessible for the many, which none of these others that I know of, themselves undertook as task).

So as usual for Roman Catholics on this forum, you are more wrong than you are right.

Being only a "little bit" correct simply doesn't cut it.

Your words here (as is typical for RC apologetics rhetoric) are as highly misleading as they are entirely polemical.

I fought the law but the law won

[FourtySeven]

Vladimir isn’t the one doing the twisting of words, you are. He said,

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

From that, I have no idea where you got,

“Christ didn’t start Christianity....wow....that’s revealing.”

The former sentence in quotes does NOT say what the latter claims! It just doesn’t!

Pot, meet kettle!

[FourtySeven]

In fact this,

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

Actually says the OPPOSITE of

“Christ didn’t start Christianity....wow....that’s revealing.”

LOL, it’s no wonder your conclusions about the Catholic Church are so messed up if (and it appears you do) you think the “Christianity” Christ established contains more than one Faith, as your quote clearly implies!

How anyone can believe Christ came to establish one Church means he didn’t come to establish Christianity is beyond me. But go ahead. Twist that one away, yer killing me here with this comedy!

[ealgeone]

LOL, it’s no wonder your conclusions about the Catholic Church are so messed up if (and it appears you do) you think the “Christianity” Christ established contains more than one Faith, as your quote clearly implies!

If you've honestly followed the conversation, vlad is implying, that outside of the roman catholic church no one is saved. That is rcc teaching.

Christians, that is followers of Christ, disagree with this. One does not have to be a member of a church to be saved.

For example. A soldier on the battlefield is mortally wounded and a buddy shares the Gospel with him and he believes in Christ just as Paul told the jailer in Acts 16:31. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved....". He never told him to join the roman catholic church.

So my question to you is this: Is the soldier saved? Does he have eternal life?

[ealgeone]

Vladimir isn’t the one doing the twisting of words, you are. He said,

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

From that, I have no idea where you got,

“Christ didn’t start Christianity....wow....that’s revealing.”

The former sentence in quotes does NOT say what the latter claims! It just doesn’t!

Afraid it does. I never said, nor claimed Christ didn't start Christianity. It's a response to vlad's implication that if you are not a member of the rcc, you're in a "sect"...in other words not a Christian.

So, as a Christian, that is a follower of Christ, that's why it would be surprising to me that vlad would be implying I am not a Christian because I am not a member of the roman catholic church. Hence the reason for the statement. It's called illustraing the absurd with the absurd. If you listen to Rush, you'll understand.

You are aware there wasn't a roman catholic church in the Bible....right? No papacy, no cardinals, no worship of Mary, etc. There was a church full of people who followed Christ....(not a pope), but it wasn't the rcc.

Have fun in that kettle.

btw....are you subject to the roman pontiff? or Christ?

There is a difference you know.

[FourtySeven]

Being in a “sect” doesn’t necessarily mean you aren’t Christian. That’s just a fact I’m sure Vladimir is aware of, that you should be too. There are Christian “sects” in other words. Again that’s just a fact.

I have no desire to answer the remaining questions you pose. By doing so (by not answering them) I neither deny or confirm anything. Find another to bite that bait.

And yeah, get that precious last word in too, if you despirately need it (I guess we’ll see if you do).

[ealgeone]

Being in a “sect” doesn’t necessarily mean you aren’t Christian. That’s just a fact I’m sure Vladimir is aware of, that you should be too. There are Christian “sects” in other words. Again that’s just a fact.

I have no desire to answer the remaining questions you pose. By doing so (by not answering them) I neither deny or confirm anything. Find another to bite that bait.

I see how you play. You're like the drive-by media. You come in, make an allegation, and then when questioned on what you really believe, you run away.

By not answering you're answering. Hope you can understand that.

[boatbums]

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.

[ealgeone]

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.

Catholics don't like to answer real world questions.

They do like to make accusations though.

[boatbums]

Well done. Wish I could say it will settle the matter, but we know it probably won’t. Some peoples’ heads would explode if it ever dawned on them that they are being lied to by the very authority they have been mandated to obey in all things pertaining to “faith” and “morals”.

[boatbums]

Accusations are the specialties of a few here. Answering the questions their accusations engender...well, that's another story.

[vladimir998]

“The Maccabee revolt ejected all Helenist, and Aramaic soiling of Judea, and restored the altar, and the teaching of Moses.”

No. The Maccabees ejected all the Hellenists - briefly. They themselves became Hellenists after awhile. Hence all the Greek names among the Hasmoneans. There was a great use of Aramaic in ancient Israel. Jesus spoke it.

[vladimir998]

“yeah, right. your pope sure did and by de-facto you have to agree with him.”

Actually, no. I don’t have to agree with anything he says that isn’t part of the ordinary magisterium or extraordinarily defined. Once again, we see that an anti-Catholic attacks what he doesn’t even understand.

[vladimir998]

You post a number of comments and yet none of them - not a single one - actually shows I ever said or implied that “Christ didn’t start Christianity”.

So, once again, we’re back to this:

“If you would have some direct downright proof that Catholicism is what Protestants make it to be, something which will come up to the mark, you must lie... To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)

[vladimir998]

What I said still stands: Luther cut books from the canon. He denied they were of apostolic authorship.

[vladimir998]

“Pot, meet kettle!”

And it’s worse than that. It’s simply dishonest to make a claim like he did. He is literally creating something out of thin air.

Newman was right:

“If you would have some direct downright proof that Catholicism is what Protestants make it to be, something which will come up to the mark, you must lie... To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)

[vladimir998]

“You come in, make an allegation, and then when questioned on what you really believe, you run away.”

YOU made the allegation that I said something I never even remotely implied.

[CynicalBear]

>>It’s simply dishonest to make a claim like he did. He is literally creating something out of thin air.<<

I'm sure you would then want to show Thread and post # where someone stated that to know that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew is part of Sola Scriptura right. Surely you didn't "create something out of thin air" did you.