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]

“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.”

You’re posting this in the wrong thread. Clearly if I wasted my time looking for more proof of Protestant anti-Catholics believing daft things it would be pointless if you can’t even get the thread right.

[ealgeone]

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.

boniface said all must be subject to the pope.

guess you're special.

[BlueDragon]

What you said "stands" in regards to the OT right flat on it's face. If you call that standing, then stand up chuck and count the grains of sand there at the end of the nearest nose...

In regards to anything you have to say in regards to Luther and NT texts;
First -- let us settle the initial point which you assert as for OT.

The bunny trail routine (wherein one needs to go to considerable effort to show that your arguments by way of assertion are not effectual for establishing what it is which you initially, and flatly claimed to the truth of some matter) is not something I'm willing to play along with, right at the moment.

[ealgeone]

And neither will answer the question as to who they’re subject to. The pope or Christ.

[ealgeone]

I guess reading and understanding aren’t your strong suits. Been fun playing.

[CynicalBear]

>>And neither will answer the question as to who they’re subject to. The pope or Christ.<<

You noticed the too ey? Rather telling.

[vladimir998]

“boniface said all must be subject to the pope.”

In baseball? No, in faith and morals - and that means “ordinary magisterium or extraordinarily defined”.

“guess you’re special.”

I know what I’m talking about. That’s not special. It’s just another day.

[vladimir998]

“I guess reading and understanding aren’t your strong suits. Been fun playing.”

That’s an incredible statement in light of what you posted about something no one ever wrote here.

[vladimir998]

Luther said James was not of apostolic authorship.

Go ahead and explain that away. Can you?

[vladimir998]

“I posted NO falsehoods”

You said that Catholics denied the verses you posted and said that Jesus and the Apostles were liars.

That’s a falsehood. There’s no way out of that for you.

Which brings us right back to this:

“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.”

(John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)

[BlueDragon]

First things first.

Go ahead and try to explain "away" your own initial error (which I did address) .

And then, I'll possibly ignore it, for truths of that matter which you did not properly assess cannot be undone now, hundreds of years later.

Did you know that a reigning bishop of Rome put his own seals of approval on the Complutensian Polyglot?

Nothing hinders

Let it be printed

[vladimir998]

“First things first. Go ahead and try to explain “away” your own initial error (which I did address) .”

I made no error. I have nothing to explain away. I was right then and am right now.

“And then, I’ll possibly ignore it, for truths of that matter which you did not properly assess cannot be undone now, hundreds of years later.”

Not of “Apostolic authorship”. Wear it with heretical pride.

“Did you know that a reigning bishop of Rome put his own seals of approval on the Complutensian Polyglot?”

Did you know it doesn’t matter? Ximenas was not the founder of your sect or any sect for that matter.

[BlueDragon]

[boatbums]

You said that Catholics denied the verses you posted and said that Jesus and the Apostles were liars. That’s a falsehood. There’s no way out of that for you. Which brings us right back to this: “To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)

Do you actually think no one is wise to your game playing on these threads? Perhaps you should go back and re-read the comments I made. Maybe then you will come to understand the actual statement. You can start here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3250639/posts?page=103#103

Curiously, what I said was actually much milder than the blatant anti-Protestant bigotry your man Newman blathers on about.

Don't imagine I have forgotten your avoidance of answering the real question posed to you 200+ posts back. I'll not play your silly game.

[xone]

Luther said James was not of apostolic authorship. Go ahead and explain that away. Can you?

Just following the church fathers again:

Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John, ....

Eusebius

[editor-surveyor]

No,Yeshua never spoke aramaic.

Your fictional presentations are amusing, but nonsensical.
.

[Pelham]

“No,Yeshua never spoke aramaic. Your fictional presentations are amusing, but nonsensical.”

Aramaic was the common language of the eastern Mediterranean since the time of the Assyrian and the Babylonian conquests and remained so until the Arab conquests of the 7th century AD. There was some Greek and Latin among elites but the common language remained Aramaic.

Syriac Christianity dates back to the 1st century AD along the eastern Med and that church still uses Aramaic in its liturgy. It also incorporates rabbinic Judaism into its culture giving a clue to its ancient history.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Hebrew was the language of Judea.

.

[Pelham]

“Hebrew was the language of Judea.”

Interesting. As well as irrelevant.

Because Jesus lived in Galilee rather than Judea and in Galilee aramaic was the common tongue.

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/08/17/7-differences-between-galilee-and-judea-in-the-time-of-jesus/

“Linguistically Galileans spoke a distinctive form of Aramaic whose slovenly consonants (they dropped their aitches!) were the butt of Judean humor.”

[Pelham]

and there’s this:

“all of Roman Judea in the first century A.D. was a place of tremendous linguistic diversity. Centuries of political and religious change had resulted in the establishment of a culture in which Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin were written, read, and especially spoken by a multilingual group. This included governors and subjects, scholars and laymen, missionaries and proselytes, buyers and sellers, clients and kings. The rock of Masada, having yielded from its rubble Latin, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts, exemplifies the societal internexus of New Testament Palestine.”

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6420

and there is a lengthy section arguing for multilingual practice at the following site:

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm

“The Language of Jesus”

“In the time of Christ, three languages figured prominently in the lives of the people of Judaea — the common language of Aramaic, the language of Hebrew, used in the synagogues, and the Greek language — which was commonly spoken and understood throughout the Roman Empire.

“Some Aramaic words and expressions are preserved in the Gospels, such as Talitha cum, which means, “Little girl, get up!” (Mark 5:41). Also, Abba (”Father”; Mark 14:36; Gal.4:6; Rom.8:15); Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani (”My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”; Mark 15:34); Cephas (”Peter”; John 1:42); Mammon (”Wealth”; Matt.6:24, RSV); Raca (”Fool”; Matt.5:22, RSV). In fact, we can be specific and say that Jesus spoke a Galilean version of “western Aramaic,” which differed from that which was spoken in Jerusalem (Matt.26:73; compare Acts 2:7).

Jesus could also read and speak Hebrew. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls has proved that Hebrew was used quite extensively in certain circles, especially for religious purposes. Jesus stood up and read the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue of Nazareth (Luke 4:16-20), showing He could also read and speak Hebrew. Some Hebrew words are also preserved in the gospels, such as, Ephphatha (”Be opened”; Mark 7:34); Amen (”Amen”: Matt.5:26; Mark 14:30, RSV).....