No Longer an Ally: The New Anti-Catholicism

Jester Minute · 13-11-2010 2:33am #1

CatholicCulture.org has an excellent article.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=731

It pays for Catholics to be informed.

I'd highly recommend signing up for their free daily email news, and also their bi-weekly news commentary.

http://www.catholicculture.org

Maybe there might be some comment here, especially concerning the Irish situation. It's sad that some here cannot see the writing on the wall.

wolfsbane · 13-11-2010 7:40pm

Jester Minute wrote: »

CatholicCulture.org has an excellent article.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=731

It pays for Catholics to be informed.

I'd highly recommend signing up for their free daily email news, and also their bi-weekly news commentary.

http://www.catholicculture.org

Maybe there might be some comment here, especially concerning the Irish situation. It's sad that some here cannot see the writing on the wall.

The powerful elites in politics and the media are certainly opposed to any religion that cuts across their agenda, especially any that have mass appeal. Atheism is the agenda, as far as I can see.

But Catholicism has only itself to blame for much of the current opposition.
1. It has been in bed with the elites, and was the elite, for a great part of its existence. It can therefore be regarded as a possible competitor for power.

2. Its cover-up of sexual abuse and enabling of the offenders to continue to abuse expose it to just condemnation by atheists and everyone else.

Instead of complaining, if they should return to Biblical practise. Then they would get a hearing by the fair-minded citizen.
_________________________________________________________________
Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

lmaopml · 13-11-2010 9:47pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

The powerful elites in politics and the media are certainly opposed to any religion that cuts across their agenda, especially any that have mass appeal. Atheism is the agenda, as far as I can see.

Why do you think this Wolfsbane?

But Catholicism has only itself to blame for much of the current opposition.
1. It has been in bed with the elites, and was the elite, for a great part of its existence. It can therefore be regarded as a possible competitor for power.

Obviously, because it is the 'original' faith along with the orthodox.

2. Its cover-up of sexual abuse and enabling of the offenders to continue to abuse expose it to just condemnation by atheists and everyone else.

Instead of complaining, if they should return to Biblical practise. Then they would get a hearing by the fair-minded citizen.

Why would you proclaim that we should return to Biblical practise, as a fair minded citizen?
_________________________________________________________________
Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. [/QUOTE]

wolfsbane · 14-11-2010 8:42pm

lmaopml said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The powerful elites in politics and the media are certainly opposed to any religion that cuts across their agenda, especially any that have mass appeal. Atheism is the agenda, as far as I can see.
Why do you think this Wolfsbane?

That atheism is their agenda? Because I read, listen and watch a lot of their output, and it makes it quite clear that religion is for the mentally weak, something to be tolerated (perhaps) until it withers and dies. Any religion that seems likely to prosper or even not wither, is to be ridiculed and slandered.

Quote:
But Catholicism has only itself to blame for much of the current opposition.
1. It has been in bed with the elites, and was the elite, for a great part of its existence. It can therefore be regarded as a possible competitor for power.
Obviously, because it is the 'original' faith along with the orthodox.

The original faith is the one written about in the New Testament - and it evidently is not the power-hungry oppressor of later centuries. The original continued globally as local churches, not as a multinational religious corporation.

Quote:
2. Its cover-up of sexual abuse and enabling of the offenders to continue to abuse expose it to just condemnation by atheists and everyone else.

Instead of complaining, if they should return to Biblical practise. Then they would get a hearing by the fair-minded citizen.
Why would you proclaim that we should return to Biblical practise, as a fair minded citizen?

For those Catholics who truly trust in Christ, the reformation of their Church is the only valid reason they can have to remain in such a corrupt organisation. If they can't reform it, they should leave and meet with their brethren in more Biblical churches.
_________________________________________________________________
Revelation 3:17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. 21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’”

Festus · 15-11-2010 4:54pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

The original faith is the one written about in the New Testament - and it evidently is not the power-hungry oppressor of later centuries. The original continued globally as local churches, not as a multinational religious corporation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

For those Catholics who truly trust in Christ, the reformation of their Church is the only valid reason they can have to remain in such a corrupt organisation. If they can't reform it, they should leave and meet with their brethren in more Biblical churches.

would that be indoctrinated anti-Catholicism ?

wolfsbane · 15-11-2010 7:46pm

Festus wrote: »

would that be indoctrinated anti-Catholicism ?

No, more historical realism and Christian hope.

___________________________________________________________________
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

Jester Minute · 15-11-2010 8:04pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, more historical realism and Christian hope.
___________________________________________________________________
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

Cardinal Newman famously said that to be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant, yet he was not known to be triumphalistic.

More here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/zcardnewmdoc.htm

wolfsbane · 15-11-2010 9:30pm

Jester Minute wrote: »

Cardinal Newman famously said that to be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant, yet he was not known to be triumphalistic.

More here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/zcardnewmdoc.htm

Then Cardinal Hume was tolerating wickedness that Christ would not. Our Lord made plain what happens to any church that departs from Christian doctrine and practice and refuses to repent:
Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent...

16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth...

21 And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. 22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. 23 I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works...

3 Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you...

16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.

The RCC has had over a millennia to repent, but on it goes in its worldly way. Christ has left it long ago, or rather, cast it from him, removed its lampstand.

The people of God are not synonymous with any institution: they are the Church. They meet locally in many different churches; and some still meet in churches that no longer are churches of Christ. Christians are ruled by the apostles' doctrine - the Bible. They seek to follow it, but none do so perfectly. All have to grow in grace and the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Jester Minute · 15-11-2010 9:56pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Then Cardinal Hume was tolerating wickedness that Christ would not. Our Lord made plain what happens to any church that departs from Christian doctrine and practice and refuses to repent:
Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent...

[...]

The RCC has had over a millennia to repent, but on it goes in its worldly way. Christ has left it long ago, or rather, cast it from him, removed its lampstand.

The people of God are not synonymous with any institution: they are the Church. They meet locally in many different churches; and some still meet in churches that no longer are churches of Christ. Christians are ruled by the apostles' doctrine - the Bible. They seek to follow it, but none do so perfectly. All have to grow in grace and the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

I'm not really a big fan of Cardinal Hume.

But regardless of any of the foolishness, sins or omissions of its members, the Catholic Church remains the Church of Jesus Christ and preserves in full the true doctrine of the faith and the means and sacraments of salvation. He promised to stay with His Church until the end of time, founded on the rock of Peter, and He promised to guide it with the Holy Spirit into all truth.

As Vatican II taught:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

However:

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

Only in the Catholic Church can we be assured that our doctrine is true and that we have the full means of salvation at our disposal, including all the sacraments which the Lord desired us to have, knowing our need. The non-Catholic separated children reject the means of grace which Christ established and all of them usually end up condoning sins of one sort or anther. Only by following the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles can we be sure we're on the right track. Our religion is of the Incarnate Word not of the 'Bible alone', and that Word gave us His Deposit of Faith in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Anyway, this is off-topic so I won't go on any more.

These resources develop and explain the points mentioned above:

Tradition:
http://www.chastitysf.com/tradition.htm

Heresy:
http://www.chastitysf.com/protestants.htm

Salvation outside the Church?
http://www.chastitysf.com/q_save.htm

Festus · 15-11-2010 10:04pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Then Cardinal Hume was tolerating wickedness that Christ would not. Our Lord made plain what happens to any church that departs from Christian doctrine and practice and refuses to repent:
Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent...

16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth...

21 And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. 22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. 23 I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works...

3 Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you...

16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.

The RCC has had over a millennia to repent, but on it goes in its worldly way. Christ has left it long ago, or rather, cast it from him, removed its lampstand.

The people of God are not synonymous with any institution: they are the Church. They meet locally in many different churches; and some still meet in churches that no longer are churches of Christ. Christians are ruled by the apostles' doctrine - the Bible. They seek to follow it, but none do so perfectly. All have to grow in grace and the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Indoctrinated or not your words do have tendency to come across as anti-Catholic. You seem to enjoy vomiting the fire and brimstone and delivering judgement upon your brothers and sisters.
Is that Biblical? Or Christian?

Surely as a Christian you are called to evangeize, to teach, to spread words of hope and salvation, are you not?

PDN · 16-11-2010 1:02am

Festus wrote: »

Indoctrinated or not your words do have tendency to come across as anti-Catholic. You seem to enjoy vomiting the fire and brimstone and delivering judgement upon your brothers and sisters.
Is that Biblical? Or Christian?

Surely as a Christian you are called to evangeize, to teach, to spread words of hope and salvation, are you not?

I must say that some posters on this forum have a tendency to label any of us as 'anti-Catholic' that don't throw up our hands in the air and cry, "Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church and the rest of us are miserable heretics".

It's OK for posters here to state their beliefs, be they Catholic Protestant or non-denominational, and to discuss those beliefs when they arise in threads without displaying unreasonable bigotry or antagonism.

Jester Minute · 16-11-2010 1:27am

PDN wrote: »

I must say that some posters on this forum have a tendency to label any of us as 'anti-Catholic' that don't throw up our hands in the air and cry, "Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church and the rest of us are miserable heretics".

It's OK for posters here to state their beliefs, be they Catholic Protestant or non-denominational, and to discuss those beliefs when they arise in threads without displaying unreasonable bigotry or antagonism.

In fairness to the Catholics, you'll rarely find us personally insulting the belief system of a particular believer. We refer to separated children, separated brethren, and dissenters, as opposed to the alternatives of heretics, apostates, or whatever. I think we have changed our tone a little since the Second Vatican Council. Although I wasn't around then so I wouldn't know.

For example, I would never refer to the evil and corrupt Anglican Communion or those 'wretched Methodists!' I wouldn't do that, and yet some posters feel free to label the RCC as a corrupt, power-hungry, evil corporation which has no Christ because He abandoned her long ago...

Catholics are able to point out the errors, omissions, and deficiencies of non-Catholic Christian belief systems in charity and truth.

Festus · 16-11-2010 1:34am

PDN, are you suggesting that wolfsbanes posts are in no way antagonistic or bigoted?

Then Cardinal Hume was tolerating wickedness that Christ would not. Our Lord made plain what happens to any church that departs from Christian doctrine and practice and refuses to repent:

The RCC has had over a millennia to repent, but on it goes in its worldly way. Christ has left it long ago, or rather, cast it from him, removed its lampstand.

The original faith is the one written about in the New Testament - and it evidently is not the power-hungry oppressor of later centuries. The original continued globally as local churches, not as a multinational religious corporation.

perhaps the posts are just reasonable antagonistic bigotry rather than unreasonable and therefore acceptable...

JimiTime · 16-11-2010 1:52am

Jester Minute wrote: »

In fairness to the Catholics, you'll rarely find us personally insulting the belief system of a particular believer.

TBH, the very premise of 'One True Church' is quite the insult. The insinuation alone is insulting. Though tbh, I don't think anyone finds it insulting, as it is realised that this is RC belief.

Using that belief in discussions with non-RC's as if it means something to non-RC's, well THAT is annoying. It has become like a bit of a broken record in the past.:)

JimiTime · 16-11-2010 1:58am

Festus wrote: »

PDN, are you suggesting that wolfsbanes posts are in no way antagonistic or bigoted?

perhaps the posts are just reasonable antagonistic bigotry rather than unreasonable and therefore acceptable...

So it is antagonistic and bigoted of Wolfsbane to utter his belief regarding the RCC. Yet for you to insinuate that you are a member of the One True Church and all it insinuates is ok? C'mon, sometimes you gotta just roll with the punches. Wolfsbane things the RCC is corrupt. You think all not in communion with Rome are lesser etc.

Festus · 16-11-2010 2:02am

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, the very premise of 'One True Church' is quite the insult. The insinuation alone is insulting. Though tbh, I don't think anyone finds it insulting, as it is realised that this is RC belief.

Using that belief in discussions with non-RC's as if it means something to non-RC's, well THAT is annoying. It has become like a bit of a broken record in the past.:)

The thing of it is, it happens to be the truth and the truth won't go away no matter how much the non-RCs as you call them wish it would.

As Catholics it is our duty to present the truth at every opportunity, and broken record or not we will continue to do so as we have done for the past 2000 years (approx.)

Festus · 16-11-2010 2:26am

JimiTime wrote: »

So it is antagonistic and bigoted of Wolfsbane to utter his belief regarding the RCC. Yet for you to insinuate that you are a member of the One True Church and all it insinuates is ok? C'mon, sometimes you gotta just roll with the punches. Wolfsbane things the RCC is corrupt.

The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32) and Christ has only one Bride. To insinuate or to call her corrupt is not a very nice thing to do. It doesn't matter that non-RCs have a different, and to our minds, erroneous concept of the Church. It is insulting to all Christians as it clearly displays a sentiment that is devoid of love.

JimiTime wrote: »

You think all not in communion with Rome are lesser etc.

Are you putting words in my mouth, so to speak? Where have I said non-Catholics are "lesser"

I would suggest that they are in error and do not follow all that Christ taught, or do all the Christ expects. I would suggest that much of their interpretation of the Bible is wrong. But lesser? Are you reading that into my words?

To suggest that I think of other Christians as lesser is to imply that I judge other Christians. That I cannot do. Even so we are well used to being judged by non-Catholics.

I believe your (not you personally but if it applies so be it) understanding of Catholicism is lacking and\or misinformed and believe that if you truely understood Catholicism you would see what we see.

We want you to know the Truth. Its that simple.

JimiTime · 16-11-2010 2:27am

Festus wrote: »

The thing of it is, it happens to be the truth and the truth won't go away no matter how much the non-RCs as you call them wish it would.

As Catholics it is our duty to present the truth at every opportunity, and broken record or not we will continue to do so as we have done for the past 2000 years (approx.)

Again, I have no issue with you believing that and all it insinuates. You are a RC, It is to be expected that you believe that (Though fairly worthless in any conversation you engage in with a non RC. But thats up to you, and up to others to decide to engage with you if you insist on chanting such a mantra inappropriately)
The inconsistency of your position though, is that you accuse Wolfsbane of being bigoted for expressing his opinion, yet basically do the same against all non RC Christians. I personally don't think either position is bigoted btw, but do think your position is clearly inconsistent.

JimiTime · 16-11-2010 2:42am

Festus wrote: »

The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32) and Christ has only one Bride. To insinuate or to call her corrupt is not a very nice thing to do. It doesn't matter that non-RCs have a different, and to our minds, erroneous concept of the Church. It is insulting to all Christians as it clearly displays a sentiment that is devoid of love.

As Wolfsbane was coming from the perspective that you are wrong regarding the above, then he was not insulting the Bride of Christ, but rather an institution that he believes erroneously claims to be so. As for love, if Wolfsbane, as a Christian, truly believes what he says, then his dressing down of the RCC could not be said to be 'devoid of Love'. His comments may come from a place of frustration for bretheren he see's as currently lost. I'm not saying you have to agree with him, but you certainly can'y simply conclude he's just being a bigoted anti-catholic displaying sentiments devoid of love.

Are you putting words in my mouth, so to speak? Where have I said non-Catholics are "lesser"

I would suggest that they are in error and do not follow all that Christ taught, or do all the Christ expects. I would suggest that much of their interpretation of the Bible is wrong. But lesser? Are you reading that into my words?

I meant other Christian 'churches' being lesser rather than the individuals in them. That is Wolfsbanes accusation against the RCC after all.

To suggest that I think of other Christians as lesser is to imply that I judge other Christians. That I cannot do. Even so we are well used to being judged by non-Catholics.

Indeed, there are many folk who take it upon themselves to be judgemental. I hope my clarification above ehh clarifies things:)

I believe your (not you personally but if it applies so be it) understanding of Catholicism is lacking and\or misinformed and believe that if you truely understood Catholicism you would see what we see.

You may be right. At this point in time I can say that I have conversed and reasoned with many RC's, been to RC school, and would think I understand things pretty well. I'm always open to correction though. I can't vouch for the things I don't yet know:)

Jester Minute · 16-11-2010 2:56am

JimiTime wrote: »

You may be right. At this point in time I can say that I have conversed and reasoned with many RC's, been to RC school, and would think I understand things pretty well. I'm always open to correction though. I can't vouch for the things I don't yet know:)

Hmm... You know, I was the same. I was given 14 years of 'Catholic education'. Then I left school and went to university. it was only at university that I learned about what the Catholic Church is, and what She believes. Those things are simply not taught any more in most Catholic schools. It is no lie to say that it was only when I was 20 or so that I learned exactly WHY Christ had to die on the cross. They really aren't teaching the faith any more. It is a disgrace. You leave school with no reason to remain in the Catholic Church, having been deprived knowledge of all that She teaches and offers.

So that's why my floppy little ears prick up when I hear such an utterance as yours.

JimiTime · 16-11-2010 3:05am

Jester Minute wrote: »

Hmm... You know, I was the same. I was given 14 years of 'Catholic education'. Then I left school and went to university. it was only at university that I learned about what the Catholic Church is, and what She believes. Those things are simply not taught any more in most Catholic schools. It is no lie to say that it was only when I was 20 or so that I learned exactly WHY Christ had to die on the cross. They really aren't teaching the faith any more. It is a disgrace. You leave school with no reason to remain in the Catholic Church, having been deprived knowledge of all that She teaches and offers.

So that's why my floppy little ears prick up when I hear such an utterance as yours.

Most of my education on catholic matters was away from school too. However, we did have some decent religion classes in school, though I definitely know where you are coming from.

cheesehead · 16-11-2010 3:11am

First time delving into the religion and spirituality board. I happened to see this topic on Anti-Catholicism. It appears not only is the mainstream media (MSM) no longer an ally, but the spiritual leader of the Israeli Shas party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, doesn't appear to be much of a friend:

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=191782

Festus · 16-11-2010 11:20am

JimiTime wrote: »

The inconsistency of your position though, is that you accuse Wolfsbane of being bigoted for expressing his opinion, yet basically do the same against all non RC Christians.

Care to be a little more expansive and point out exactly where I have been bigoted?
The anti-Catholic sentiment of wolfbanes posts are obvious.

Yet nowhere can I see anti-Protestant, anti-Methodist, anti-nondonominational or anti-non-RC sentiment being expressed. What I can see and what I participate in is challenging and exposing the half-truths and deceptions that are promulgated by non-Catholics.

ISAW · 16-11-2010 11:31am

wolfsbane wrote: »

Then Cardinal Hume was tolerating wickedness that Christ would not.

What has cardinal Hume to do with a point about Cardinal Newman. I think Wolsfbane may in addition to other points, have being also pointing to the notion that Newman became a Catholic after being an Anglican.

The people of God are not synonymous with any institution: they are the Church. They meet locally in many different churches; and some still meet in churches that no longer are churches of Christ. Christians are ruled by the apostles' doctrine - the Bible. They seek to follow it, but none do so perfectly.

so what did the people of God go by when they had no Bible? For the first four to five centuries of the Church when a single edition of the Bible didn't exist? did they go by what the Church leaders imparted to them outside of the Bible? and who was it who put the Bible together? so what are you saying? the Roman church was the "real" church when there was no Bible all the way up yo when they actually put the Latin vulgate together and then they suddenly stopped being the Church after that? Bizzarre.

ISAW · 16-11-2010 11:37am

Jester Minute wrote: »

I'm not really a big fan of Cardinal Hume.

When did "Newman" morph into "Hume"?

Jester Minute · 16-11-2010 12:22pm

ISAW wrote: »

When did "Newman" morph into "Hume"?

He didn't. Cardinal Hume was mentioned with regard to wickedness. Perhaps Wolf could elaborate on what he meant.

I sometimes get mixed up between Cardinal Hume and Cardinal Heenan. Heenan was a conservative and my kind of man, whereas Hume was a bit liberal as far as I can see.

Manach · 16-11-2010 1:16pm

Slight OT, in defence of Cardinal Hume - he was a prelate who had a firm background in educational achievement, was responsible for the now warm Church/Monarchy relationship and was one of the earliest supporters of the Maguire seven.

JimiTime · 18-11-2010 1:14am

Festus wrote: »

Care to be a little more expansive and point out exactly where I have been bigoted?

Let me requote what I said for you:

Quote me:
you accuse Wolfsbane of being bigoted for expressing his opinion, yet basically do the same against all non RC Christians. I personally don't think either position is bigoted btw, but do think your position is clearly inconsistent.

The anti-Catholic sentiment of wolfbanes posts are obvious.

Earlier you distinguished between churches and individual Christians. Wolfsbane's position seems to be against the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church. So if you allow yourself to have such a divide without thinking of yourself as bigoted, then why can't you extend that courtesy to Wolfsbane? There is no denying that he has an issue with the RCC. As an RC yourself, you have no issue with those churches outside of the Catholic communion?

wolfsbane · 19-11-2010 10:04pm

ISAW said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Then Cardinal Hume was tolerating wickedness that Christ would not.
What has cardinal Hume to do with a point about Cardinal Newman.

Absolutely nothing! Just my sleepy mind typing the wrong name.

Apologies for any confusion.

I think Wolsfbane may in addition to other points, have being also pointing to the notion that Newman became a Catholic after being an Anglican.

I was answering Jester's reference to Newman, Cardinal Newman famously said that to be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant, yet he was not known to be triumphalistic.

Quote:
The people of God are not synonymous with any institution: they are the Church. They meet locally in many different churches; and some still meet in churches that no longer are churches of Christ. Christians are ruled by the apostles' doctrine - the Bible. They seek to follow it, but none do so perfectly.
so what did the people of God go by when they had no Bible? For the first four to five centuries of the Church when a single edition of the Bible didn't exist?

What a strange idea! All of the OT existed before Christ was born, and all of the NT was written before the last apostle died. The people of God had access to them all after the apostles died.

Perhaps you refer to the official declaration of the Councils on what was and was not a book of the Bible? That came much later - but it is quite wrong to imagine, say, the Corinthian church of the 1stC.had no copy of Paul's letter to the Romans, or the Jerusalem church had no copy of Revelation.

did they go by what the Church leaders imparted to them outside of the Bible?

Only if they were fools. They should have known not to submit themselves to the doctrines of men. The apostolic word existed in the books of the Bible, and what anyone taught that could not be found there has no authority on their conscience. And anything the leaders taught that was found in the Bible, that they should have obeyed.

and who was it who put the Bible together?

God. The Church/churches recognised what He gave them. No church had authority to add to or take from that.

so what are you saying? the Roman church was the "real" church when there was no Bible all the way up yo when they actually put the Latin vulgate together and then they suddenly stopped being the Church after that? Bizzarre.

There was a Bible, as we saw above. But as to the Roman church, it did not usurp authority over all the churches till centuries after the NT was written. Its claims were gradually submitted to, as the institution took the path of power rather than truth. Many Christians remained in it, for sure. We don't have any unbiased history of those who refused its yoke, but we know they have been there down the years.

You have the responsibility to match the RCC to the Biblical picture of the Church of Christ. I certainly see no resemblance. I know the excuse is often offered that the Church had the authority from Christ to develop into the rich, powerful (not to say, wicked) institution it became - but there is no suggestion in the Bible such a change would happen to the true Church. And every indication that this was just the path false apostles, false prophets, false pastors and false brethren would go:
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
_________________________________________________________________
Mark 7:9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

No Longer an Ally: The New Anti-Catholicism

Comments