Posted on 04/25/2015 10:33:08 AM PDT by RnMomof7
I'm going to transcribe an article that Jerry Walls wrote when he was a grad student at Notre Dame:
Because he is the poster child for protestants .... and protestants were the ones who made the poster.
If he does not reflect what you believe then why dont you reject him?
The main issue is that he is the foundation of the Reformation. As a false brother, consumed by hatred for the least of Jesus' brethren to his dying day, he would demonstrate his fruit was evil and his revolt was not of God. He left legacies of vulgarity, hatred and violence are in his own words. His legacy includes the Peasants' Revolt, the persecution of the Anabaptists, the Thirty Years' War and the eventual the Holocaust based on his Seven Point Plan. The Germans claimed him as their inspiration for what they did to the Jews.
Some vociferously defend him. This is logical because he is foundational to Protestantism's faith and doctrine. Otherwise they could disown him. Instead, he is far too important and must remains the iconic source of inspiration, and even pride, for some of Protestantism. Another facet is that to admit he was wrong is to allow the Catholics were right, and for some sects that possibility must not be allowed under any circumstances.
An amorphous source, out of which Rome channels doctrine, even "remembering" fables which lacks early testimony.
Ratzinger writes (emp. mine),
Ratzinger writes (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. Tradition was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Marys bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
This argument is compelling if you understand tradition strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [or actual ancient reliable records]
But if you conceive of tradition as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent remembering (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [meaning the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word. [invisibly but per Rome's say so, via amorphous oral tradition]- J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59.
>>>>>> His legacy includes the Peasants’ Revolt, the persecution of the Anabaptists, the Thirty Years’ War and the eventual the Holocaust based on his Seven Point Plan. The Germans claimed him as their inspiration for what they did to the Jews.<<<<<<
St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre happened in 1572. Though that massacre included “Roman Catholic mob violence,” this isn’t what I find interesting. Rather, it’s the following from Alister McGrath:
Protestantisms prejudices against Catholicism were reinforced by the bizarre reaction of the papacy to the massacre in France. Gregory XIIIs celebration of the massacre was as jubilant as it was undiplomatic: the bells of Rome rang out to mark a public day of thanksgiving, the guns of the Castel Sant Angelo were fired in salute, and a special commemorative medal was struck to honor the occasion. Gregory even commissioned Giorgio Vasari to paint a mural depicting the massacre. Such tactless actions could not fail to produce a reaction of total distaste and disgust, and the ‘anti-popery’ that subsequently spread throughout Protestant regions of Europe remained a persistent element of Protestant self-definition until very recently. [McGrath, Alister. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea (p. 131). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
Now, here’s a little background on Gregory XIII, compliments of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Most remember him as the pope that strove to reform the Roman church. That included “trying to depose the queen by force of arms.” And also:
His youth was not stainless. While still at Bologna, a son, named Giacomo, was born to him of an unmarried woman. Even after entering the clerical state he was worldly-minded and fond of display. But from the time he became pope he followed in the footsteps of his holy predecessor, and was thoroughly imbued with the consciousness of the great responsibility connected with his exalted position.
Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopedia attempts to defend Gregory over the 1572 massacre, arguing “...he was probably not acquainted with the circumstances of the Parisian horrors.” Why sure... that’s why he had this painting commissioned (shown above). The author of the link previously cited claims the painting still hangs on wall inside the Vatican (I’m not sure whether that’s true or not). Probably the most interesting stretch from the Catholic Encyclopedia is that “But even if Gregory XIII was aware of all the circumstances of the massacre (which has never been proven), it must be borne in mind that he did not rejoice at the bloodshed, but at the suppression of a political and religious rebellion.”
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-peasants-revolt-vsthe-st.html
OPPPPSSSSSSSSS...remember pointing a finger at someone...4 are pointing back to Rome..
I suppose we could have a Mormon RM, or a Jewish RM, as long as he faithfully adhered to the site owner's restrictions regarding Mormonism, etc.
What if he wants an unbiased RM who faithfully applies one standard to all behavior with no respect of persons (albeit we must allow Mormonism itself is not a protected religion on FR per the site owner's decision) ?
Should he, a Mormon(I presume by your post) be held to the same standard, as you, and you as him, or should there be different standards of behavior (not of content) based on one's religion ?
In Catholicism today there appears to be one and only one hard and fast rule: it is taboo and "un-Catholic" to accept the literal facticity of the Biblical narratives; especially Genesis, Daniel, Jonah, and Esther. Acceptance of higher Biblical criticism is a de facto defining point in determining that one is truly Catholic.
The fact that higher criticism was invented by Protestants is utterly lost on Catholics and Orthodox today.
I suppose we could have a Mormon RM, or a Jewish RM, as long as he faithfully adhered to the site owner's restrictions regarding Mormonism, etc.
What if he wants an unbiased RM who faithfully applies one standard to all behavior with no respect of persons (albeit we must allow Mormonism itself is not a protected religion on FR per the site owner's decision) ?
Should he, a Mormon(I presume by your post) be held to the same standard, as you, and you as him, or should there be different standards of behavior (not of content) based on one's religion ?
Plus, anyone who has been Baptized --- anywhere, by anyone--- has entered the Catholic Church, as long as water and the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 were used. So there's untold hordes of Christians out there, of various denominational flavors, who are regarded (by us) as "certainly, but imperfectly, Catholic." That's you, buddy. :o) In any case, God's action is not limited to, or by, the Sacraments. As the axiom has it, "We are bound by the Sacraments; but God is not bound by the Sacraments." He can do as He pleases.
Wow. There is enough there to get you in trouble with the local FR Inquisition! Such as have asserted such statements as all those statements about Prots now being born again and part of the body of Christ, are misleading
And
thanking God the Spanish Inquisition was up to the job,
that Protestantism is belief in ones self, and
absolutely alien to Christianity, and that,
Protestants are mostly biblically illiterate,
intellectually dishonest,
evil fruit, who
dont have the Holy Spirit, and
are not part of the Body of Christ, and
who have no foundation for their understanding of Christianity, and
will not be saved unless they becomes a member of the Catholic Church, and
are by inclination vandals who should be purged from the face of the earth,
But that Catholics never put down or challenge beliefs from protestants, and that,
there never has been a bit of anti-protestant bigotry on FR,
and that they have never seen a Catholic teaching proven false.
However, you have V2 on your side, but what is important is that we are on God's side, which is my prayer for you and all. And may your many infirmities work toward that and growth therein, but that you be made whole as well. 1Jn. 3:2
There was never a "priest" in the Cath sense in the NT church, but i do believe God can have regard to intercessory prayer, including having mercy on those chastened for sin, and thus healed, and in which pastors are to the primary recourse, though Ja. 5 also includes the fervent prayers of holy believers in general, and which signifies repentant submission if it was an issue.
The obvious problem is all the faith communities, denominations, sects, and cults are historically illegitimate, which is precisely Islam's assertion, predating the Reformation by almost a millennia. Yet still the holy Catholuc apostolic church endures, confessing the Messiah, and the Jewish people endure, awaiting the Messiah, both groups hated by the world.
Not only more than a pope is in supposing to speak infallibly, or that you are in rejecting (maybe) certain teachings of papal bulls and encyclicals.
So which human is responsible for arbiting whose divine inspiration was more right than the other?
Since this was not the case it does not apply. But is your argument than an infallible magisterium is essential to correctly discern what is of God versus what is not, which the historical stewards of Scripture are, and thus dissent from them cannot be justified?
But
"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)
Such is the eternal failure of protestantism - you all get to choose what part of Luther you like and what part you reject.... and what parts of Scrpture mean what....and whether you are pre- or post- or whatever millenial you are.
And so (follow your logic) souls cannot correctly discern what is of God, and your alternative is perpetual ensured magisterial veracity, and thus your answer to my question above is yes?
The ultimate mission of Christians isn’t political victory, though, but sharing the Gospel and making disciples of Jesus Christ. And on that, the Roman Catholic Church isn’t a partner. It holds many unchristian beliefs. Ultimately, those beliefs are actually contributing to the destruction of cultural and political Christianity (I come from an 80% Catholic city in the Northeast and it’s been “post-Christian” for decades), and means the Catholic Church won’t be able to defend biblical morality because it’s built on the wrong foundation. Should we abandon preaching sound doctrine for political cooperation then? No, that’s not the answer, and Christians will not be silent because the Holy Spirit compels us to speak God’s Word. You mention liberals, homosexual activists and Muslims. Those in the U.S. heavily tend to vote Democrat, but it doesn’t mean they’re laying down their differences. Evangelicals can and absolutely should cooperate with Catholics without being quiet about the many errant beliefs of the Catholic Church. That is spiritual health.
And Rome has made good use of forgeries (Donation of Constantine ; Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals , etc.)
You were the one bragging about how much more catholics give than protestants. Guess you just blew it for all catholics.
Man, you gotta love that catholic logic.
A simple question was asked if you tithe to substantiate your claim of catholics giving more than Christians.....not that I asked how much.....rather that if you tithe do you do so off the gross or the net.
When you come to this kind of forum you best be prepared to be able to back up your statement.
You know what they say on the playground....put up, or hush up.
AD Majoram Dei Gloriam
The Roman Catholic Church is very different from the church of 1900+ years ago. Over time, due to human unfaithfulness, it evolved into something else. The original Church apparently chose, by inspirtation of the Holy Spirit, not to preserve knowledge of a lot of things, including, for example, much about the lives of the original apostles and Jesus’s known family, including His brothers and Mary, His mother. If God had intended it, He could have made sure that knowledge was preserved, including preserving a “royal line” of Christians coming from Jesus’ relatives, as it’s likely some reproduced. We could have the same with the original twelve disciples. But we don’t have that. Just on the matter of Mary and Jesus’ brothers, it’s an inescapable conclusion that the Church consciously and deliberately opposed preserving knowledge of their lives here on earth, including after Jesus’ resurrection, and the reason for that is that Jesus alone is God and everyone was wholly devoted to Him alone. That is clear in the New Testament from the first to the last. But there is still a human tendency to get into such things, and while it was opposed in the original church, it crept back in over time, over many centuries.
Who do the protestants tithe to when they ‘church themselves’ at home?
AMDG
Logic escapes you I think. Argument ad hominem your strong point Frau Blue?
Logic escapes you I think. Argument ad hominem your strong point Frau Blue?
The Catholic view (Doctrinally) is that it should be between one man and one woman, married to each another, with no foreign objects involved. Perverted? I think not.
"Who the heck spends time thinking about stuff like this?"
When people mess with natural, normal marital relations, it has be pointed out as wrong. Or should we just ignore everything and say it's all good?
"What is wrong with Catholicism that it leads such places in the mind?"
What is wrong with people, who invent ways to pervert natural law? Again, as long as people sin, they must be admonished.
Really mom, a very sad attempt indeed.
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.