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.
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?
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.
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?
Note the name of the blog - “Shameless Popery”
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.
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.
Ummm, Baptists, theologically descendent from the most radical wing of the Reformation, hardly represent all Protestants.
Miss-titled: Should of been 6 Early Christian Controversies that Baptists Can’t Explain.
As an Anglican (one of the 4 original Protestant streams—theologically a bit like a cross between Calvinists and Lutherans) I have no issue with the first 5 things— As to 6, the Donatists proving the Roman Papacy, the 400s are kinda late....
I’m always amused when Roman Catholic apologists speak of “Protestant” as they always seem to choose the most backwoods, independent fringe (usually baptist) groups they can find.
But sometimes it seems like the factions and fractions Christ warned about and Paul worked to resist somehow today ironically measure their relative validity based on what proportion of the veil which Christ rent now hangs in their doorway.
Christians, you are free.
Neither man nor traditions of men define your relationship with God.
Pray about it, join the one to which you feel led and never stop studying and critically analyzing your faith and your choice in earthly shepherds. Most of them do good works. Just don't think any one can save more of your soul than the next faction or anything so veil-ish as that.
We are men. Imperfect all. Till the second coming we will not all agree. Strive to not judge the factions you did not choose. Respectfully correct, lobby, teach, debate, even chastise. But always remember to shake the dust off, if led so, and move on rather than try to do something you can't do - judge.
Christ rent the existing denominations, He did not create any. That is kinda the main point about Christian freedom. Not that you are free do behave badly or anything, but you are free from earthly religions defining the status of your salvation or putting a velvet rope around God and a simple human holding the clipboard.
You are with Jesus, you are in.
Religion is religion, for better or worse. Faith is faith. Don't insult your Savior by giving the former control over the latter.
The price is paid and the veil is rent, any effort to spread that word is time well spent.
Get straight with the Bible - then try to bash other religions.
Wrong:
There is absolutely no mention of any liturgical calendars in the life of the NT church, a conspicuous absence, while censuring the binding liturgical calendars of their past faith.
"Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years." "I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." (Galatians 4:10-11)
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: " "Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17)
The later accretions of extraScriptural traditions by men does not establish what is right, as wholly inspired Scripture does. Why follow men, however pious, with their varied opinions, who were yet developing their theology, as if they were apostles when they progressively supported extraScriptural and unScriptural traditions of men ?
In addition, the Easter Dating Controversy actually testifies to the fact that the pope was not looked to and followed as the supreme head who was to be obeyed even in such a relatively inconsequential thing as the date if Easter.
Around 195, Pope Victor I, attempted to excommunicate the Quartodecimans, turning the divergence of practice into a full-blown ecclesiastical controversy. According to Eusebius, synods were convened and letters were exchanged, but in the end, having overstepped his mark, Victor, the Bishop of Rome, was rebuked and had to back down.
Eusebius of Caesarea (Church History, V, xxiv) notes:
Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_controversy
Lactantius recounts: “At this the demons were chased away, and the holy rites interrupted.” What we don't hear: Christians siding with the pagans in denouncing Catholics for using the Sign of the Cross, or claiming that it's a pagan ritual dating to the time of Constantine
Lactantius may passing on a fable, but you are almost right: I hardly hear that and do not teach that. By itself as an option it is not unBiblical except as being a requirement which Catholicism makes it, which is wrong. As it IDs one as a Cath, then Prots would naturally avoid it.
What we don't hear: Either side rejecting fasting, the Eucharist, or the sacrificial nature of the Mass.
They have eyes but they see not. Bringing up competition btwn two groups holding to a common error does not establish what the NT church taught. But Scripture does, and why we do not see is the Cath Eucharist as being the Lord's Supper.
For while this “sacrament” is taught as being "the source and summit of the Christian life" (CCC 1324) “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) and around which all else in Catholicism essentially revolves, with the offering of which being the primary function of her clergy;
Yet rather than the practice of this principal and prevalent practice being manifest as such in the life and epistles of the NT church, it is only manifestly described in one epistle (outside of Jude 1:12 referring to a “feast of charity”), in 1Co. 10 and 11.
And which do not teach transubstantiation, though RCs extrapolated it from that, but in context refers to the body showing that they are His body, which proclaims His death by unselfishly taking part in that caring communal meal done in remembrance of His death, not by eating His flesh.
Nor is the Lord's Supper anywhere shown or said to be a sacrifice for sins, nor are any NT pastors ever shown offering it in the life of the church or even dispensing bread. or even being called "priests" versus presbuteros, as instead instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2)
And which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9) More : The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or real flesh and blood?
(Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses
Donatism on the Sacraments...What we don't hear: that the Sacraments are just symbols, or that the Sacraments are unnecessary for salvation.
Bringing up competition btwn two aberrant groups does not establish what the NT church taught.
Dealing with this requires defining what a sacrament is. If understood as an action which brings a blessing, then evangelicals can affirm sacraments, as in, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." (Revelation 1:3)
If meant that God must act because a ritual is performed, ex opere operato, by the act itself, so that even an atheist baptizing a properly disposed soul effects regeneration if he "intends to do what they church does," then that is false, though God will bless any obedience, and apart from Rome's false gospel, it would count as a valid baptism if the person was a true convert.
Peter said God purified the hearts of souls by faith, before baptism, that being part of salvation by grace, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-10) and in telling souls to be baptized and they would receive forgiveness and the Spirit, (Acts 2:38) then he was telling them to believe, as baptism requires and expresses faith, confessing Christ via moving one's body just as one confesses the Lord with the mouth.
What we don't see: Christians siding with the Catholics on the Incarnation, and with the Gnostics against the Eucharist.
Again, bringing up competition btwn two aberrant groups does not establish what the NT church taught. But Scripture does, and again, what we don't see is the Cath interpretation of the gospel accounts of the Lord's supper in the life of the church, which interprets the gospels.
All of this points strongly to the Catholic claim. Unlike Baptists or other Evangelical Protestants, we see Catholics in every age. And that's exactly what we should expect to see from orthodox Christianity. Wrong: Actually the RCC is
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/deformation_of_new_testament_church.html#The in the NT church;
For the NT church manifestly did not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, as is her separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests ," offering up "real" human flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, and literally consuming this to obtain spiritual life, around which act all else revolves, and looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), and a separate class of believers distinctively titled "saints," and praying to created beings in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things.
Read Mark 9:38-41 to know what the Boss thought about this divisive crap. And on Easter!
Uh...
Why should we?
.
Patrick was definitely not a Roman Catholic!
In fact the roman thugs had a price on his head for a long time.
They finally catholicised him posthumously in an attempt to placate the irish.
Patrick was a descendant of the real followers of the Way that had migrated north more than a century before the catholic cult was formed by Constantine.
.