The War Erupting and Expanding Within Catholicism.

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
yes, His truth does matter. It doesn't matter to catholics, they believe what the RCC teaches is His truth. It isn't.


If you don't know those answers, that explains why you don't know His truth.

His truth
is found in His word - scripture. It is taught by men chosen by Him specifically to do that and inspired by the Holy Spirit.


We know when He changes our heart and we believe Him, not men.


on and on goes you...


catholics treat God's word as irrelevant and unimportant. so challenge your own presuppositions.
In other words---you don't know.

Thanks. Why can't you just say that?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I don't recall anyone ever saying they did. The numerous sects or denominations in the former Romans Empire are initially the product of war, the kind where people kill and are killed for years on end. They are not a product of a let's agree to disagree mentality or a doctrine isn't important stance.

The historical Protestants, those at the Diet of Speyer, agreed and still agree, at least formally. There was even a formal peace in which the Evangelical Church was formally recognized as an expression of the one Christian faith.

Trent back peddled on that by the Papal choice to lump all possible beliefs that were not expressed according to the peculiar Papal manner and then anathematizing those beliefs. That decision led to the redefinition by some of Protestant in a catch all manner.

See above.

At the end of the day what matters is that Jesus is the Savior of all men and His propitiation is set forth to be received through faith rather than a theology test or some other man centered work.

Everyone has historically agreed that God's word is a lamp unto our feet. The Lord knows it is as surely as He knows who are His.
Another one who doesn't know.

Thanks.
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
yes, His truth does matter. It doesn't matter to catholics, they believe what the RCC teaches is His truth. It isn't.

If you don't know those answers, that explains why you don't know His truth.

His truth
is found in His word - scripture. It is taught by men chosen by Him specifically to do that and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

We know when He changes our heart and we believe Him, not men.
on and on goes you...

catholics treat God's word as irrelevant and unimportant. so challenge your own presuppositions.
In other words---you don't know.

Thanks. Why can't you just say that?
that you don't understand or like my reply doesn't mean I don't know. It means you don't know.

I'm not responding to all of your catholic distractions, and you still lump all prots together.
 

balshan

Well-known member
And you keep failing to understand the point Catholics are making about the need for an authoritative church.

An infallible Church cannot impose unity and Catholics never maintained that it could. An infallible Church takes away the JUSTIFICATION for disunity.

So for example--the Nuns on the Bus can run around and dissent from Church teaching; there is no justification for that. In Protestantism there is no mechanism for the definitive settling of disputes. There is always justification for dissent.
No I don' fail to understand at all, I just don't agree with an institution that wallows in sin, does not show empathy or compassion for its victims having any authority at all other than its true founder, the father of lies. You don't understand what the point I am making. If you make a claim then your institution should walk the walk. But no it has very foul smelling fruits of the flesh and this tells us the point is one big fat false claim.

By the way your arrogance at making we don't understand your posts is no surprise.

Your institution is not and never was infallible in any form. If it was it would not have false doctrines or wallow in sin or ignore scriptures it doesn't like.

All denominations have a way of settling disputes. You are making another false claim saying they do not have the mechanism for settling disputes. There are true believers and they are not in disputes. Jesus is the way and the one we follow. We do not follow man.
 

balshan

Well-known member
that you don't understand or like my reply doesn't mean I don't know. It means you don't know.

I'm not responding to all of your catholic distractions, and you still lump all prots together.
Well it seems they miss the point we are making. If His truth mattered to the RCC they would not ignore His words, they would not add to His words or change the meaning of His words.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I reviewed the post to which I replied and can't make heads or tails of your latest post in light of my response. Is it possible for you to be more specific, or is your latest post just a feeble attempt at posturing?
You did not address any of the points I raised--nor did the other posters. They responded to my question with words----but didn't address the point.

Because of this, I must assume you do not know, nor do they--but just do not want to admit that.
 

mica

Well-known member
You did not address any of the points I raised--nor did the other posters. They responded to my question with words----but didn't address the point.

Because of this, I must assume you do not know, nor do they--but just do not want to admit that.
why not? catholics assume most everything they believe in catholicism. They're taught to assume this, that and whatever else they're told is true by the RCC.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Of course "His Truth" matters.

We both agree on that.

But---where is "His Truth" found? Who is teaching "HIs Truth?" How do we know? When Protestant sects have no unity or no agreement on exact what "His Truth" is, what is His Truth?

Did the Baptists get it right? Which sect? How about the Lutherans? If the Lutherans, which sect? Maybe they both got it wrong and the Presbyterians got it right. But if the Presbyterians have it right, which sect of Presbyterian? Then again, maybe none of them know what they are talking about and the Mennonites got it right. Or does the Assemblies of God have it right? On and one it goes.

Again, I can understand why you would want to treat these questions as irrelevant or unimportant. If you actually took them seriously, you might have to challenge your presuppositions.
So let us go to post 9 which is as you say an opinion piece which you finish with:

Now we get to my point: the problem with those on the far right--at least from the perspective of Pope Francis is that they are creating division. It isn't enough for them to live and let live. In other words--they do not see their brand or style of Catholicism as a simple matter of taste. They do not see it as though--"Hey, you know, we like the Old Mass and the old trappings of Catholicism. Thus, we like to go to churches where these things are offered. But we get that not everyone is into this. That is fine. To each his or her own." No; they see their brand of Catholicism as the true expression of Catholicism and they see anyone who does not share their tastes as morally inferior----almost on a par with the likes of Joe Biden. This is why Pope Francis has reacted in the way he did.

Now, I think Pope Francis has over-reacted and created a bigger problem. However, I am just trying to explain why, from my perspective, Pope Francis did as he did.


You have told us nothing new. Your institution is divided nothing new. It has been divided throughout the centuries and that is why people have left have throughout the centuries. It has no way to solve disputes, name calling is nothing new among those who are in dispute either. This time it is between pre Vat 11 and post Vat 11. Neither is getting to the real problem that is causing the divisions that is your false claims and teachings.

1Thess521 in post 11 replied and summed it up very well.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Your next response was to me post 14. We understand completely and you didn't respond to my comment after than to make out I am incapable of understanding. Let us see we understand and your institution has no authority at all because it is not the true church. It has a false leader and doctrines and I responded to your post in mine post 25. I cannot be bothered going through every one of your posts after that. But we understand your institution which claims to be so united is in total discord and has no way to solve its disputes.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Your next response was to me post 14. We understand completely and you didn't respond to my comment after than to make out I am incapable of understanding. Let us see we understand and your institution has no authority at all because it is not the true church. It has a false leader and doctrines and I responded to your post
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
You did not address any of the points I raised--nor did the other posters. They responded to my question with words----but didn't address the point.

Because of this, I must assume you do not know, nor do they--but just do not want to admit that.
I pointed out that your categories don't reflect reality. There is no actual catch all category of Protestants. And that the actual historical Protestants haven't t changed confessionally, not only that but we are literally an open book regarding doctrines in dispute in the sixteenth century. That book is readable and searchable at bookofconcord.org. Any Roman Catholic familiar with actual church history will recognize the Augsburg Confession as a catholic and ecumenical document. This was tacitly acknowledged when it was formally recognized in the Roman Empire. All of this demonstrates that Scripture alone as Lord and master over all other writings on earth works quite well.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
I would only point out that lifesitenews is not an official Catholic Church organization and is in fact an especially sensationalism-seeking source. This is the sort of thing they live for. So take their opinion on the state of the Church with several million grains of salt.

As far as divisions in the Church go, there has always been impassioned debate and discord, going all the way back to the argument between Peter and Paul over the need to observe Jewish law. It is not especially different today. With the hindsight of history we can see the debate between Peter and Paul as having been peacefully resolved. But it probably did not look that way to the people of the time.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I agree with you. It is one thing to disagree with the accrued errors of the Roman Catholic church and it is another to disagree with those who seek to stamp out anything that isn't a particular form of man worship.
Well put.
The basic theme of the article is a world wide phenomena that affects all people who are not outright devil worshippers. It is a hatred that is fueling the attempted destruction of Christian culture regardless of how well or poorly that culture represents the faith.
Yes, they'll condemn the Christian for not measuring up to Christianity's standards, and then condemn the standard itself. G.K. Chesterton noted this as well.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
why not? catholics assume most everything they believe in catholicism. They're taught to assume this, that and whatever else they're told is true by the RCC.
So you're admitting that this is acceptable because Catholics make assumptions? This is either a faulty argument, or you're violating the rules of this forum by agreeing to Catholic assumptions.
 

balshan

Well-known member
I would only point out that lifesitenews is not an official Catholic Church organization and is in fact an especially sensationalism-seeking source. This is the sort of thing they live for. So take their opinion on the state of the Church with several million grains of salt.

As far as divisions in the Church go, there has always been impassioned debate and discord, going all the way back to the argument between Peter and Paul over the need to observe Jewish law. It is not especially different today. With the hindsight of history we can see the debate between Peter and Paul as having been peacefully resolved. But it probably did not look that way to the people of the time.
But that doesn't make it incorrect in total. I mean we have seen the disputes here between RC sects. It is happening in a small dioceses in Huon Valley:
Jack Driessen has been going to Mass in Tasmania's Huon Valley for the past 66 years.

He said the Catholic parish had been his "home", but he had started to go elsewhere for spiritual nourishment.

"[I'm] very well put out really … I can't cope with the teaching of the present moment — it's like going back two or three generations," Mr Driessen said.

A division between more mainstream Catholics, like Mr Driessen, and younger Catholics who support a return to more old-fashioned teachings has emerged in the parish.

 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I pointed out that your categories don't reflect reality. There is no actual catch all category of Protestants.

Correct; if by this you mean that there is no unified mechanism that can speak for Protestants or Protestantism. This is exactly my point: Protestants are not one in Faith. Each sect does its own thing--and disagrees with the other sect. Each sect thinks they preach the Biblical truth of the Gospel and disagrees with the other sects.

So I would say that my categories do indeed reflect reality. If my "categories" do not reflect reality, what would have to happen in your mind for them to reflect reality?
And that the actual historical Protestants haven't t changed confessionally, not only that but we are literally an open book regarding doctrines in dispute in the sixteenth century. That book is readable and searchable at bookofconcord.org. Any Roman Catholic familiar with actual church history will recognize the Augsburg Confession as a catholic and ecumenical document. This was tacitly acknowledged when it was formally recognized in the Roman Empire. All of this demonstrates that Scripture alone as Lord and master over all other writings on earth works quite well.

Let me clarify: it isn't the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that Catholics have a problem with. When you read the statements of the Church and theologians----it isn't the idea that the Bible is the Rule of Faith they are criticizing.

When it comes to Sola Scriptura, based on my reading, what the RCC is actually condemning is the following:

1) That only Scripture is infallible

2) Private Judgement

3) That the Scriptures alone pass on the Gospel

What the RCC can agree with is:

1) That only Scripture is that which is Theopneustos

2) Scripture is the Norm of norms without norm.

3) That the Scriptures are a unique expression of the authority of God. Hence, we agree that there is nothing else like the Scriptures in all of creation. Thus, when Protestants demand that Catholics "produce another God Breathed rule of Faith and that refutes Sola Scriptura" the Protestant is misunderstanding the Catholic position. We are not claiming there is another God Breathed Rule of Faith and never have we claimed that.

4) That dogmas should have Scriptural indications. Note that when Catholics and Protestants disagree on something like the IC for example---the disagreement is on how to interpret certain passages----not whether Scripture should have indications of the doctrine. When you look at the debates on this site, Catholics do provide Scriptural indications for their doctrines. Protestants just disagree with the interpretation Catholics are using or giving the passages which is why they disagree that Scripture teaches the doctrine.

Given this, the question isn't "Should Scripture reflect doctrines or dogmas taught by the Church?" The question is "Why is some Protestant scholar, or Protestant individual, or Protestant preacher any better than Rome when it comes to teaching authority?" Saying "Well, because, Rome does not teach what is biblical, they do" is no answer; it is just question begging.
 
Top