Posted on 04/05/2015 4:56:11 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
In an article entitled Saint Patrick the Baptist?, Stephen R. Button tries to claim St. Patrick for Evangelical Protestantism... or at least disassociate him from Roman Catholicism. Button is hardly alone: you can find similar attempts by Don Boys and others, some of them dating back several decades.
The argument tends to work like this. From Patrick, we have (in Button's words) only the “84 short paragraphs that make up both his Confession and his 'Letter to Coroticus.'” Baptist authors then mine these texts for any doctrines that Patrick doesn't mention explicitly, and then claim that he must have held the Baptist view.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicdefense.blogspot.it ...
ANd a blessed resurrection day to you too
Nothing says the true meaning of Easter like stirring up a good ol’ Catholic Prot crapfest. Thanks Art!
Geezzzz.... Thanks but no thanks. Not today.
These anti-protestant articles sure bring people together in harmony don’t they?
I read the original article, it never said that. It did say that St. Patrick practiced evangelical Christianity. Protestantism did not start until much after the Catholic Church consolidated christian authority exclusively as its own.(ie... early evangelicals would have had nothing to protest against.)
Seriously, Your church gave Ted Kennedy an annulment after he had several kids?
One reason Christian Constantinople fell to the muslim Turks in 1453 is because the various Christian nations preferred to argue among themselves instead of uniting against a deadly, common enemy. Will history repeat?
I’m humming kumbaya as I type :-)
1) Pederasty over and over with Priests "just moved" and new congregations "just not told". (And the apologists who NEVER condemn it as bad, never admit it happened, and then change the subject in the next post to avoid having to defend it.)
2) The "Children's Crusades".
3) "Call no man Father."
4) Indulgences sold to the rich for profit.
Really, I have MANY good Catholic friends. If we concentrate on our unity, I never bring this stuff up. But every so often on here SOMEBODY wants to stir the pot. As I have said, I'm done here. I am too old to go on the thousand FlameWar responses that this Shameless Troll will evoke. And instead of wasting your time deciding brother from brother...why don't YOU go out and take the effort used to divide us and WITNESS ABOUT JESUS CHRIST'S FORGIVENESS AND GRACE TO SOME LOST PEOPLE. Because at the Great Debriefing, My Lord is going to ask me not how many people I got to walk away from Him by acting like petty bickering pagans, but rather how many of my fellows I showed Christ's love to and convinced them, by my reflecting the light and grace of God's free gift, to accept him. You sad troll.
In the year 110 A.D., not even fifteen years after the book of Revelation was written, while on his way to execution St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”. The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).
Sorry... “dividing” not “deciding”.
You operate from a false belief that Ignatius was speaking for the entire Christian community.
I recall reading something about where two or more are gathered.....
Mormons are all wrong because they're members of an evil religious cult that teaches stupid stuff like you're going to become a god of your own planet and that 2 thousand years of Monotheism is all wrong, and if you don't agree they'll make sure your Mormon family shuns you.
I have no idea whether or not Kennedy got an annulment...but children have nothing to do with the decision....if you have several children, and discover that your wife was still married to someone else, or your estranged adopted sister, or your first cousin by a long lost uncle....the annulment could be granted.....these couples need not become enemies, just realize that their marriage has serious religous problems.....they probably could remain a chaste couple, best friends....whatever.
In the year 110AD Catholicism WAS the entire Christian community....sheesh
Stop right there.
#1 I don't know that Mister Ignatius wrote that for sure and neither do you. Too much time has passed for Catholic history revisionists to put words in his/anybodys mouth. His words ain't Gospel.
#2 The odds are he said no such thing because there was no such thing called the "Catholic Church". it came later. But I know, you'll have trouble with that because of what you have been taught.
#3 Why didn't Jesus mention the Catholic Church by name if He intended it to be the One True Church of choice? The answer is obvious, because He didn't intend that. Jesus was a Jew. The disciples were Jews. The Early Churchs were Jewish.
In the year 110AD Catholicism WAS the entire Christian community....sheesh
Not roman catholicism....no, sir. That edifice came about a bit later....sheesh.
Essentially assumes what you are trying to prove, as well as assuming facts not in evidence.
Explanation: Your whole case rests on Catholicism being a corruption of authentic, original Christianity. Our whole case rests on it being an authentic development of authentic, original Christianity. Baldly asserting one position or another is not actually proving anything.
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.