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 ...
Did anyone on this thread post on the thread originated by a Protestant poster a few hours ago, a thread that called the Catholic Eucharist “idolatry” and “demonic”, to say that such an offensive post was inappropriate on Easter? Anyone? Buehller?
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.
The early church, as founded at Pentecost:
1) No pope or papacy
2) No worship of Mary or praying to departed believers
3) No office of cardinal, primate, archbishop
4) No indulgences or penance
5 Salvation comes about through faith....not works
6) No special clergy...that is no priest
7) Bishops and elders could be married
8) Salvation is secure
The burden of proof is upon the roman catholic church to show just how it has remained true to the early church at Pentecost.
You left out the requirement that all priests be celibate.
I guess #7 covers that mostly.
Note the name of the blog - “Shameless Popery”
No, but give me a link. I might want to weigh in on that one.
A little redundant?
But I'm a bad guy here for using "popery" and "papist."
You’re not the only one. I’ve been guilty of that myself.
Shame on you, Bob! :)
I guess we can know use that term without fear of being accused of being meanies.
I read the 6 things and there are discussions here on those items. However, the final paragraphs question whether someone can pick up a Bible, read it, study it, and come to their own conclusions about what it says.
How many people throughout the world still don’t have the Bible in their own language and what was available to the general public (if they could read) during the examples given?
Only someone who had ulterior motives would not translate scripture into common language and teach someone to read.
The final paragraphs are to push the reader into thinking that if each Age of Believers didn't get every fine point 100% correct every time that we should just give up and beg the Catholics to give us their interpretation. Balderdash. The Truth of Salvation is simple enough for a child to grasp and yet keeps scholars still searching as deep as they want to go. There is no argument that God granted Catholics an exclusive franchise on The Gospel. It is free to those that thirst. Free of pageantry, statues, repetitive prayers, prayers to dead people (including Mary), rituals or any other practice not outlined in Scripture or points anywhere except to Jesus and His Sacrifice.
I don`t know how it could possibly make any difference who was what, it is all in the Bible and if it is not there it is not worth arguing about any way.
And any one can get it right or wrong regardless of what their name is or was.
Just read the Bible.
Yes matter of fact they did before you posted. If you can’t read and comprehend said reading then you might need a refresher course in reading comprehension. Since you failed to read up until your post, I won’t mention who that person was or what was said. Sometimes things are best left to be found out by themselves. You will learn better that way.
“Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”.
Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
The common language of Christians at the time of the examples given was Koine Greek. Both the Old Testament (in the Septuagint translation) and the New Testament (that was the language it was written in) were available.
Only someone who had ulterior motives would not translate scripture into common language and teach someone to read.
Prior to the invention of the printing press in the 15th century manuscript Bibles were too expensive for general distribution. The common way the faithful had access to Scripture was not by private reading but through the public proclamation in the liturgy. There is a reason that the theory of sola scriptura did not arise until inexpensive Bibles could be produced in the 16th century.
More to the point, where is the evidence that there were any Christians at the time of these disputes who advanced the later Protestant views? As the disputes themselves show, there were no lack of those who were ready to dispute the views of Catholics. Yet none in these disputes whom we would today call Protestants.
Major fail. Jesus did not write a single word in the Bible. Rather what he did was establish a church headed by the Apostles. These apostles, using the authority given to them by Jesus himself, then gathered to themselves others whom they invested with the offices of bishops, presbyters and deacons. (Read the New Testament if you doubt me.) It would be this church that would guarantee which books are, and are not, part of the Bible.
“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. “
The last time the Catholics got organized and visited Constantinople was the 4th Crusade in 1204. They sacked and devastated the home of the Christian church there.
They were not only guilty of neglect, but of outright invasion.
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.