Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > Cathoholic > My Blog |
|
Constantine did not start Catholic Church. When I think of many of the silly things some people believe about the Catholic Church, one of the most absurd claims is that Constantine himself started up the religion I am currently following. Now, lets be fair here , I know Protestantism has a habit of lying to their own congregations about how the Catholic Church came about, I respect this propaganda because they need their membership to believe it to keep their congregations going and their paychecks steady. So I can be a realist in that sense. However, the facts are these, Constantine didn't just wake up one morning, and say he is going to start a Catholic religion and everyone is going to follow it and be Catholic. Sorry , thats not what happened. Lets use a little common sense today shall we my friends? #1 If it were true Constantine DID in fact start the Catholic religion, that religion still would have had to exist in some form prior to Constantine requiring it to be the state religion. These things wouldn't just happen overnight as some poorly informed Protestants think they did. #2 The early Church fathers wrote about the Catholic Church over 100 years before Constantine himself was even in power. In fact, their were already Catholic Popes (some of them were martyred) before the Emperor was even the Emperor. #3 Constantine converted to the Catholic faith, he never started the whole damn thing, all he did was stop the execution of Christians that was taken place at the time, making it safe for them to worship in the open. The man certainly didn't come up with the idea (although I know many Protestants on BC here wish he did) Saying Constantine started the Catholic Church, sounds as stupid to me, as someone saying Captain Jack Sparrow was the first President of the United States. It sounds nice, but it's not even true in the slighest. I hope my Protestants brothers and sisters find this educational, and this helps further disprove one lie that I know many Protestants believe about Catholicism, I'm just setting the record straight. Also. The following early Church Fathers listed were all Catholics, and all existed before the time of Constantine. The Apostle John was actually still alive at the same time as a Catholic Pope. I'll get into more detail at a later date when I have more time. Here is a few names of the early Church Fathers who were Catholics, and existed before Constantine. (I know right, how did these Constantine sayers miss this??) St. Ignatius of Antioch who lived around 50-107AD St. Polycarp of Smyrma who lived around 69-165AD Pope St. Clement I of Rome who lived around 60-99AD I think that given the fact Pope Clement was alive about 200 yrs before Constantine already disproves the ignorant notion that Catholicsm was started up by some Roman Emperor. Now go and tell your friends the next time they say Constantine made the Catholic religion, what you learned today! God bless! |
|||
5/2/2008 5:17 am |
Hi guy, Please talk to a couple of your more mature Catholic elders here on BC. This is not the route to take. First of all, you can't post an attitudinal hip-hop pic and then refer to others as kids! Secondly, you shouldn't misconstrue what is said in the slightest or it will weaken your argument. I doubt anyone said point blank that Constantine started the RCC. Then again, I could be wrong. The church evolved into what it is. Constantine catapulted and syncretized the development of the catholic/universal/all-encompassing early church. In the early references catholic did NOT mean Catholic. But I'm sure you must realize this. And at that time there was no primacy of Rome. In fact Constantinople clearly held primacy at one point. Constantine paid for the First Council of Nicea, paid for the arbiteratio and collation of several copies ofthe Bible andset forth funding for large basilicas where corporate worship could now beheld for various home churches. As per the Propaganda; this comes from a Catholic site dailycatholic THE LETTER OF THE SYNOD IN NICAEA TO THE EGYPTIANS The bishops assembled at Nicaea... Since the grace of God and the most pious emperor Constantine have called us together from different provinces and cities... First of all the affair of the impiety and lawlessness of Arius and his followers was discussed in the presence of the most pious emperor Constantine... Say what you will, God didn't send the demand to assemble, the emperor did. YOU have to try to ignore the provoking postings of one guy on here who enjoys nothing more than causing controversy. You have to understand that one person is from the SDA church, and they are indoctrinated to believe that the RCC is tantamount to allegiance with the Anti-Christ. When primarily one person goes way overboard in pointing out flaws, you can't jump in the face of every other person on here who is not Catholic. That would simply be foolish! Please talk to a couple of the other Catholics on the site. Your post will do nothing but provoke others. Secondly, before you react to this, please read it twice. I'm sorry there exists people who have nothing better to do than bash your church. But most folks on here essentially ignore it. If you decide it is not in the best interest to leave your post up, don't worry about my comments getting deleted. No problem. Blessings!
| ||
5/2/2008 6:12 am |
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAD NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN TO KNOCK THE SO-CALLED PROTESTANT CHURCHES. Go ahead and read this, if you arent too afraid to face the truth. ------------------------------ ROME'S CHALLENGE : Why do Protestants keep Sunday? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Roman catholic church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday. A number of years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should observe Saturday. This is a reprint of those articles. February 24, 1893, the General Conference of Seventh day Adventists adopted certain resolutions appealing to the government and people of the United States from the decision of the Supreme Court declaring this to be a Christian nation, and from the action of Congress in legislating upon the subject of religion, and the remonstrating against the principle and all the consequences of the same. In March, 1893, the International Religious Liberty Association printed these resolutions in a tract entitled Appeal and Remonstrance. On receipt of one of these, the editor of the Catholic Mirror of Baltimore, Maryland, published a series of four editorials, which appeared in that paper September 2, 9, 16, and 23, 1893. The Catholic Mirror was the official organ of Cardinal Gibbons and the Papacy in the United States. These articles, therefore, although not written by the Cardinal's own hand, appeared under his official sanction, and as the expression of the Papacy on this subject, are the open challenge of the Papacy to Protestantism, and the demand of the Papacy that Protestants shall render to the Papacy an account of why they keep Sunday and also of how they keep it. The following matter (excepting the footnotes, the editor's note in brackets beginning on page 25 and ending on page 27, and the two Appendixes) is a verbatim reprint of these editorials, including the title on page 2. THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH [Sunday worship] The Genuine Offspring of the Union of the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church His Spouse. The claims of Protestantism to Any Part Therein Proved to Be Groundless, Self-Contradictory, and Suicidal. (From the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 2, 1893.) Our attention has been called to the above subject in the past week by the receipt of a brochure of twenty-one pages published by the International Religious Liberty Association entitled, "Appeal and Remonstrance." embodying resolutions adopted by the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists (Feb. 24, 1893). The resolutions criticize and censure, with much acerbity, the action of the United States Congress, and of the Supreme Court, for invading the rights of the people by closing the World's Fair on Sunday. The Adventists are the only body of Christians with the Bible as their teacher, who can find no warrant in its pages for the change of day from the seventh to the first. Hence their appellation, "Seventh-day Adventists". Their cardinal principle consists in setting apart Saturday for the exclusive worship of God, in conformity with the positive command of God Himself, repeatedly reiterated in the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments, literally obeyed by the children of Israel for thousands of years to this day and endorsed by the teaching and practice of the Son of God whilst on earth. Per contra, the Protestants of the world, the Adventists excepted, with the same Bible as their cherished and sole infallible teacher, by their practice, since their appearance in the sixteenth century, with the time honored practice of the Jewish people before their eyes have rejected the day named for His worship by God and assumed in apparent contradiction of His command, a day for His worship never once referred to for that purpose, in the pages of that Sacred Volume. What Protestant pulpit does not ring almost every Sunday with loud and impassioned invectives against Sabbath violation? Who can forget the fanatical clamor of the Protestant ministers throughout the length and breadth of the land against opening the gates of the World's Fair on Sunday? The thousands of petitions, signed by millions, to save the Lord's Day from desecration? Surely, such general and widespread excitement and noisy remonstrance could not have existed without the strongest grounds for such animated protests. And when quarters were assigned at the World's Fair to the various sects of Protestantism for the exhibition of articles, who can forget the emphatic expression of virtuous and conscientious indignation exhibited by our Presbyterian brethren, as soon as they learned of the decision of the Supreme Court not to interfere in the Sunday opening? The newspapers informed us that they flatly refused to utilize the space accorded them, or open their boxes, demanding the right to withdraw the articles, in rigid adherence to their principles, and thus decline all contact with the sacrilegious and Sabbath-breaking Exhibition. Doubtless, our Calvinistic brethren deserved and shared the sympathy of all the other sects, who, however, lost the opportunity of posing as martyrs in vindication of the Sabbath observance. They thus became "a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men," although their Protestant brethren, who failed to share the monopoly, were uncharitably and enviously disposed to attribute their steadfast adherence to religious principle, to Pharisaical pride and dogged obstinacy. Our purpose in throwing off this article, is to shed such light on this all important question (for were the Sabbath question to be removed from the Protestant pulpit, the sects would feel lost, and the preachers be deprived of their "Cheshire cheese".) that our readers may be able to comprehend the question in all its bearings, and thus reach a clear conviction. The Christian world is, morally speaking, united on the question and practice of worshipping God on the first day of the week. The Israelites, scattered all over the earth, keep the last day of the week sacred to the worship of the Deity. In this particular, the Seventh-day Adventists (a sect of Christians numerically few) have also selected the same day. Israelites and Adventists both appeal to the Bible for the divine command, persistently obliging the strict observance of Saturday. The Israelite respects the authority of the Old Testament only, but the Adventist, who is a Christian, accepts the New Testament on the same ground as the Old: viz..an inspired record also. He finds that the Bible, his teacher, is consistent in both parts, that the Redeemer, during His mortal life, never kept any other day than Saturday. The gospels plainly evince to him this fact; whilst, in the pages of the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, not the vestige of an act canceling the Saturday arrangement can be found. The Adventists, therefore, in common with the Israelites, derive their belief from the Old Testament, which position is confirmed by the New Testament, endorsing fully by the life and practice of the Redeemer and His apostles the teaching of the Sacred Word for nearly a century of the Christian era. Numerically considered, the Seventh-day Adventists form an insignificant portion of the Protestant population of the earth, but, as the question is not one of numbers, but of truth, fact, and right, a strict sense of justice forbids the condemnation of this little sect without a calm and unbiased investigation: this is none of our funeral. The Protestant world has been, from its infancy, in the sixteenth century, in thorough accord with the Catholic Church, in keeping "holy," not Saturday, but Sunday. The discussion of the grounds that led to this unanimity of sentiment and practice for over 300 years must help toward placing Protestantism on a solid basis in this particular, should the arguments in favor of its position overcome those furnished by the Israelites and Adventists, the Bible, the sole recognized teacher of both litigants, being the umpire and witness. If, however, on the other hand, the latter furnish arguments, incontrovertible by the great mass of Protestants, both classes of litigants, appealing to their common teacher, the Bible, the great body of Protestants so far from clamoring, as they do with vigorous pertinacity for the strict keeping of Sunday, have no other recourse left than the admission that they have been teaching and practicing what is Scripturally false for over three centuries, by adopting the teaching and practice of the what they have always pretended to believe an apostate church, contrary to every warrant and teaching of sacred Scripture. To add to the intensity of this Scriptural and unpardonable blunder, it involves one of the most positive and emphatic commands of God to His servant, man: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." No Protestant living today has ever yet obeyed that command preferring to follow the apostate church referred to than his teacher, the Bible which from Genesis to Revelation, teaches no other doctrine, should the Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists be correct. Both sides appeal to the Bible as their "infallible" teacher. Let the Bible decide whether Saturday or Sunday be the day enjoined by God. One of the two bodies must be wrong, and , whereas a false position on this all-important question involves terrible penalties, threatened by God Himself, against the transgressor of this "perpetual covenant," we shall enter on the discussion of the merits of the arguments wielded by both sides. Neither is the discussion of this paramount subject above the capacity of ordinary minds, nor does it involve extraordinary study. It resolves itself into a few plain questions easy of solution: 1st. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy? 2nd. Has the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command? 3rd. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? and if not, why not? To the above three questions, we pledge ourselves to furnish as many intelligent answers, which cannot fail to vindicate the truth and uphold the deformity of error. (From the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 9, 1893) "But faith, fanatic faith, once wedded fast To some dear falsehood, hugs it to the last" Moore Conformably to our promise in our last issue, we proceed to unmask one of the most flagrant errors and most unpardonable inconsistencies of the Biblical rule of faith. Lest, however, we be misunderstood, we deem it necessary to premise that Protestantism recognizes no rule of faith, no teacher, save the "infallible Bible." As the Catholic yields his judgment in spiritual matters implicitly, and with unreserved confidence, to the voice of his church, so, too, the Protestant recognizes no teacher but the Bible. All his spirituality is derived from its teachings. It is to him the voice of God addressing him through his sole inspired teacher. It embodies his religion, his faith, and his practice. The language of Chillingworth, "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants," is only one form of the same idea multifariously convertible into other forms, such as "the book of God," "the Charter of Our Salvation," "the Oracle of Our Christian Faith," "God's Text-Book to the race of Mankind," etc.,etc. It is, then, an incontrovertible fact that the Bible alone is the teacher of Protestant Christianity Assuming this fact, we will now proceed to discuss the merits of the question involved in our last issue. Recognizing what is undeniable, the fact of a direct contradiction between the teaching and practice of Protestant Christianity --the Seventh-day Adventists excepted--on the one hand, and that of the Jewish people on the other, both observing different days of the week for the worship of God, we will proceed to take the testimony of the only available witness in the premises: viz., the testimony of the teacher common to both claimants, the Bible. The first expression with which we come in contact in the Sacred Word, is found in Genesis 2:2: "And on the seventh day He [God] rested from all His work which He had made." The next reference to this matter is to be found in Exodus 20, where God commanded the seventh day to be kept, because He had Himself rested from the work of creation on that day: and the sacred text informs us that for that reason He desired it kept, in the following words: "Wherefore, the Lord blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." Again, we read in chapter 31, verse 15: "Six days you shall do work: in the seventh day is the Sabbath, the rest holy to the Lord:" sixteenth verse: "It is an everlasting covenant," "and a perpetual sign," "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and in the seventh He ceased from work." In the Old Testament, reference is made on hundred and twenty-six times to the Sabbath, and all these texts conspire harmoniously in voicing the will of God commanding the seventh day to be kept, because God Himself first kept it, making it obligatory on all as "a perpetual covenant." Nor can we imagine any one foolhardy enough to question the identity of Saturday with the Sabbath or seventh day, seeing that the people of Israel have been keeping the Saturday from the giving of the law, A.M. 2514 to AD 1893, a period of 3383 years. with the example of the Israelites before our eyes today, there is no historical fact better established than that referred to: viz., that the chosen people of God, the guardians of the Old Testament, the living representatives of the only divine religion hitherto, had for a period of 1490 years anterior to Christianity, preserved by weekly practice the living tradition of the correct interpretation of the special day of the week, Saturday, to be kept "holy to the Lord," which tradition they have extended by their practice to an additional period of 1893 years more, thus covering the full extent of the Christian dispensation. We deem it necessary to be perfectly clear on this point, for reasons that will appear more fully hereafter. The Bible--Old Testament--confirmed by the living tradition of a weekly practice for 3383 years by the chosen people of God, teaches then, with absolute certainty, that God had, Himself, named the day to be "kept holy to Him,"--that the day was Saturday, and that any violation of that command was punishable with death. "Keep you My Sabbath, for it is holy unto you: he that shall profane it shall be put to death: he that shall do any work in it, his soul shall perish in the midst of his people." Ex.31:14. It is impossible to realize a more severe penalty than that so solemnly uttered by God Himself in the above text, on all who violate a command referred to no less than one hundred and twenty-six times in the old law. The ten commandments of the Old Testament are formally impressed on the memory of the child of the Biblical Christian as soon as possible, but there is not one of the ten made more emphatically familiar, both in Sunday school and pulpit, than that of keeping "holy" the Sabbath day. Having secured with absolute certainty the will of God as regards the day to be kept holy, from His Sacred word, because he rested on that day, which day is confirmed to us by the practice of His chosen people for thousands of years, we are naturally induced to inquire when and where God changed the day for His worship; for it is patent to the world that a change of day has taken place, and inasmuch as no indication of such change can be found within the pages of the Old Testament, nor in the practice of the Jewish people who continue for nearly nineteen centuries of Christianity obeying the written command, we must look to the exponent of the Christian dispensation: viz., the New Testament, for the command of God canceling the old Sabbath, Saturday. We now approach a period covering little short of nineteen centuries, and proceed to investigate whether the supplemental divine teacher--the New Testament--contains a decree canceling the mandate of the old law, and, at the same time, substituting a day for the divinely instituted Sabbath of the old law. Viz. Saturday; for, inasmuch as Saturday was the day kept and ordered to be kept by God. Divine authority alone, under the form of a canceling decree, could abolish the Saturday covenant, and another divine mandate, appointing by name another day to be kept "holy," other than Saturday, is equally necessary to satisfy the conscience of the Christian believer. The Bible being the only teacher recognized by the Biblical Christian, the Old Testament failing to point out a change of day and yet another day than Saturday being kept "holy" by the Biblical world, it is surely incumbent on the reformed Christian to point out in the pages of the New Testament, the new divine decree repealing that of Saturday and substituting that of Sunday, kept by Biblicals since the dawn of the Reformation. Examining the New Testament from cover to cover, critically, we find the Sabbath referred to sixty-one times. We find, too, that the Saviour invariably selected the Sabbath (Saturday) to teach in the synagogues and work miracles. The four Gospels refer to the Sabbath (Saturday) fifty-one times. In one instance the Redeemer refers to Himself as "the Lord of the Sabbath," as mentioned by Matthew and Luke, but during the whole record of His life, whilst invariably keeping and utilizing the day (Saturday). He never once hinted at a desire to change it. His apostles and personal friends afford to us a striking instance of their scrupulous observance of it after His death, and, whilst His body was yet in the tomb, Luke (23:56) informs us: "And they returned and prepared spices and ointments and rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment." "But on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came, bringing the spices they had prepared Good Friday evening, because the Sabbath drew near." Verse 54. This action on the part of the personal friends of the Saviour, proves beyond contradiction that after His death they kept "holy" the Saturday and regarded the Sunday as any other day of the week. Can anything, therefore, be more conclusive than that the apostles and the holy women never knew any Sabbath but Saturday, up to the day of Christ's death? We now approach the investigation of this interesting question for the next thirty years, as narrated by the evangelist, St. Luke, in his Acts of the Apostles. Surely some vestige of the canceling act can be discovered in the practice of the apostles during that protracted period. But alas! We are once more doomed to disappointment. Nine times do we find the Sabbath referred to in the Acts, but it is the Saturday (the Old Sabbath). Should our readers desire the proof, we refer them to chapter and verse in each instance. Acts 13:14, 27, 42, 44. Once more, Acts 15: 21; again, Acts 16: 13; 17:2; 18:4. "And he (Paul) reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Thus the Sabbath (Saturday) from Genesis to Revelation!!! Thus, it is impossible to find in the New Testament the slightest interference by the Saviour or His apostles with the original Sabbath, but on the contrary, an entire acquiescence in the original arrangement; nay, a plenary endorsement by Him, whilst living: and an unvaried, active participation in the keeping of that day and no other by the apostles for thirty years after His death, as the Acts of the Apostles has abundantly testified to us. Hence the conclusion is inevitable: viz,. that of those who follow the Bible as their guide, the Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists have the exclusive weight of evidence on their side, whilst the Biblical Protestant has not a word in self-defense for his substitution of Sunday for Saturday. More anon. [From the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 16, 1893.] When his satanic majesty, who was "a murderer from the beginning." "and the father of lies," undertook to open the eyes of our first mother, Eve, by stimulating her ambition, "You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" his action was but the first of many plausible and successful efforts employed later, in the seduction of millions of her children. Like Eve, they learn too late. Alas! the value of the inducements held out to allure her weak children from allegiance to God. Nor does the subject matter of this discussion form an exception to the usual tactics of his sable majesty. Over three centuries since, he plausibly represented to a large number of discontented and ambitious Christians the bright prospect of the successful inauguration of a "new departure," by the abandonment of the Church instituted by the Son of God, as their teacher, and the assumption of a new teacher--the Bible alone--as their newly fledged oracle. The sagacity of the evil one foresaw but the brilliant success of this maneuver. Nor did the result fall short of his most sanguine expectations. A bold and adventurous spirit was alone needed to head the expedition. Him his satanic majesty soon found in the apostate monk, Luther, who himself repeatedly testifies to the close familiarity that existed between his master and himself, in his "Table Talk," and other works published in 1558, at Wittenberg, under the inspection of Melancthon. His colloquies with Satan on various occasions, are testified to by Luther himself--a witness worthy of all credibility. What the agency of the serpent tended so effectually to achieve in the garden, the agency of Luther achieved in the Christian world. "Give them a pilot to their wandering fleet, Bold in his art, and tutored to deceit: Whose hand adventurous shall their helm misguide To hostile shores, or'whelm them in the tide." As the end proposed to himself by the evil one in his raid on the church of Christ was the destruction of Christianity, we are now engaged in sifting the means adopted by him to insure his success therein. So far, they have been found to be misleading, self-contradictory, and fallacious. We will now proceed with the further investigation of this imposture. Having proved to a demonstration that the Redeemer, in no instance, had, during the period of His life, deviated from the faithful observance of the Sabbath (Saturday), referred to by the four evangelists fifty-one times, although He had designated Himself "Lord of the Sabbath," He never having once, by command or practice hinted at a desire on His part to change the day by the substitution of another and having called special attention to the conduct of the apostles and the holy women, the very evening of His death, securing beforehand spices and ointments to e used in embalming His body the morning after the Sabbath (Saturday) as St. Luke so clearly informs us (Luke 24:1), thereby placing beyond peradventure, the divine action and will of the son of God during life by keeping the Sabbath steadfastly; and having called attention to the action of His living representatives after His death, as proved by St. Luke, having also placed before our readers the indisputable fact that the apostles for the following thirty years (Acts) never deviated from the practice of their divine Master in this particular, as St. Luke , Acts 18:1) assures us: "And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogues every Sabbath (Saturday, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." The Gentile converts were, as we see from the text, equally instructed with the Jews, to keep the Saturday, having been converted to Christianity on that day, "the Jews and the Greeks" collectively. Having also called attention to the texts of the Acts bearing on the exclusive use of the Sabbath by the Jews and Christians for thirty years after the death of the Saviour as the only day of the week observed by Christ and His apostles, which period exhausts the inspired record, we now proceed to supplement our proofs that the Sabbath (Saturday) enjoyed this exclusive privilege, by calling attention to every instance wherein the sacred record refers to the first day of the week. The first reference to Sunday after the resurrection of Christ is to be found in St. Luke's gospel, chapter 24, verses 33-40, and St. John 20:19. The above texts themselves refer to the sole motive of this gathering on the part of the apostles. It took place on the day of the resurrection (Easter Sunday), not for the purpose of inaugurating "the new departure" from the old Sabbath (Saturday) by keeping "holy" the new day, for there is not a hint given of prayer, exhortation, or the reading of the Scriptures, but it indicates the utter demoralization of the apostles by informing mankind that they were huddled together in that room in Jerusalem "for fear of the Jews", as St. John, quoted above, plainly informs us. The second reference to Sunday is to be found in St. John's Gospel, 20th chapter, 26th to 29th verses: "And after eight days, the disciples were again within, and Thomas with them." The resurrected Redeemer availed Himself of this meeting of all the apostles to confound the incredulity of Thomas, who had been absent from the gathering on Easter Sunday evening. This would have furnished a golden opportunity to the Redeemer to change the day in the presence of all His apostles, but we state the simple fact that, on this occasion, as on Easter day, not q word is said of prayer, praise, or reading of the Scriptures. The third instance on record, wherein the apostles were assembled on Sunday, is to be found in Acts 2:1; "The apostles were all of one accord in one place." (Feast of Pentecost--Sunday) Now, will this text afford to our Biblical Christian brethren a vestige of hope that Sunday substitutes, at length, Saturday? For when we inform them that the Jews had been keeping this Sunday for 1500 years and have been keeping it for eighteen centuries after the establishment of Christianity, at the same time keeping the weekly Sabbath, there is not to be found either consolation or comfort in this text. Pentecost is the fiftieth day after the Passover, which was called the Sabbath of weeks consisting of seven times seven days and the day after the completion of the seventh weekly Sabbath day, was the chief day of the entire festival, necessarily Sunday. What Israelite would not pity the cause that would seek to discover the origin of the keeping of the first day of the week in his festival of Pentecost, that has been kept by him yearly for over 3,000 years? Who but the Biblical Christians, driven to the wall for a pretext to excuse his sacrilegious desecration of the Sabbath, always kept by Christ and His apostles would have resorted to the Jewish festival of Pentecost for his act of rebellion against his God and his teacher, the Bible. Once more, the Biblical apologists for the change of day call our attention to the Acts, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7; "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread." etc. To all appearances the above text should furnish some consolation to our disgruntled Biblical friends, but being a Marplot, we cannot allow them even this crumb of comfort. We reply by the axiom: "Quod probat nimis, probat nihil"--"What proves too much, proves nothing." Let us call attention to the same, Acts 2:46; "And they, continuing daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house," etc. Who does not see at a glance that the text produced to prove the exclusive prerogative of Sunday, vanishes into thin air--an ignis fatuus--when placed in juxtaposition with the 46th verse of the same chapter? What the Biblical Christian claims by this text for Sunday alone the same authority, St. Luke, informs us was common to every day of the week; "and they, continuing daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house." One text more presents itself, apparently leaning toward a substitution of Sunday for Saturday. It is taken from St. Paul, I Cor. 16:1,2; "Now concerning the collection for the saints." "On the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store," etc. Presuming that the request of St. Paul had been strictly attended to, let us call attention to what had been done each Saturday during the Saviour's life and continued for thirty years after, as the book of Acts informs us. The followers of the Master met "every Sabbath" to hear the word of God; the scriptures were read "every Sabbath day." "And Paul, as his manner was to reason in the synagogue every Sabbath, interposing the name of the Lord Jesus," etc. Acts 18:4. What more absurd conclusion than to infer that reading of the Scriptures, prayer, exhortation and preaching, which formed the routine duties of every Saturday, as has been abundantly proved, were overslaughed by a request to take up a collection on another day of the week? In order to appreciate fully the value of this text now under consideration, it is only needful to recall the action of the apostles and holy women on Good Friday before sundown. They bought the spices and ointments after He was taken down from the cross; they suspended all action until the Sabbath "holy to the Lord" had pass, and then took steps on Sunday morning to complete the process of embalming the sacred body of Jesus. Why, may we ask, did they not proceed to complete the work of embalming on Saturday?--Because they knew well that the embalming of the sacred body of their Master would interfere with the strict observance of the Sabbath, the keeping of which was paramount; and until it can be shown that the Sabbath day immediately preceding the Sunday of our text had not been kept (which would be false, inasmuch as every Sabbath had been kept), the request of St. Paul to make the collection on Sunday remains to be classified with the work of the embalming of Christ's body, which could not be effected on the Sabbath, and was consequently deferred to the next convenient day: viz. Sunday, or the first day of the week. Having disposed of every text to be found in the New Testament referring to the Sabbath (Saturday), and to the first day of the week (Sunday); and having shown conclusively from these texts, that, so far, not a shadow of pretext can be found in the Sacred Volume for the Biblical substitution of Sunday for Saturday; it only remains for us to investigate the meaning of the expressions "Lord's Day," and "day of the Lord," to be found in the New Testament, which we propose to do in our next article, and conclude with apposite remarks on the incongruities of a system of religion which we shall have proved to be indefensible, self-contradictory, and suicidal. ******************* [From the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 23, 1893.] "Halting on crutches of unequal size. One leg by truth supported, one by lies, Thus sidle to the goal with awkward pace, Secure of nothing but to lose the race." In the present article we propose to investigate carefully a new (and the last) class of proof assumed to convince the biblical Christian that God had substituted Sunday for Saturday for His worship in the new law, and that the divine will is to be found recorded by the Holy Ghost in apostolic writings. We are informed that this radical change has found expression, over and over again, in a series of texts in which the expression, "the day of the Lord," or "the Lord's day," is to be found. The class of texts in the New Testament, under the title "Sabbath," numbering sixty-one in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles; and the second class, in which "the first day of the week," or Sunday, having been critically examined (the latter class numbering nine [eight]); and having been found not to afford the slightest clue to a change of will on the part of God as to His day of worship by man, we now proceed to examine the third and last class of texts relied on to save the Biblical system from the arraignment of seeking to palm off on the world, in the name of God a decree for which there is not the slightest warrant or authority from their teacher, the Bible. The first text of this class is to be found in the Acts of the Apostles 2:20: "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord shall come." How many Sundays have rolled by since that prophecy was spoken? So much for that effort to pervert the meaning of the sacred text from the judgment day to Sunday! The second text of this class is to be found in I Cor. 1:8; "Who shall also confirm you unto the end. That you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." What simpleton does not see that the apostle here plainly indicates the day of judgment? The next text of this class that presents itself is to be found in the same Epistle, chapter 5:5; "To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." The uous Corinthian was, of course, saved on the Sunday next following!! How pitiable such a makeshift as this! The fourth text, 2 Cor. 1:13,14; "And I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end, even as ye also are ours in the day of our Lord Jesus." Sunday, or the day of judgment, which? The fifth text is from St. Paul to the Philippians, chapter 1, verse 6: "Being confident of this very thing, that He who hath begun a good work in you, will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ." The good people of Philippi, in attaining perfection on the following Sunday, could afford to laugh at our modern rapid transit! We beg leave to submit our sixth of the class; viz. Philippians, first chapter, tenth verse: "That he may be sincere without offense unto the day of Christ." That day was next Sunday, forsooth! not so long to wait after all. The seventh text, 2 Peter 3:10; "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night." The application of this text to Sunday passes the bounds of absurdity. The eighth text, 2 Peter 3:12; "Waiting for and hastening unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire, shall be dissolved." etc. This day of the Lord is the same referred to in the previous text, the application of both of which to Sunday next would have left the Christian world sleepless the next Saturday night. We have presented to our readers eight of the nine texts relied on to bolster up by text of Scripture the sacrilegious effort to palm off the "Lord's day" for Sunday, and with what result? Each furnishes prima facie evidence of the last day, referring to it directly, absolutely, and unequivocally. The ninth text wherein we meet the expression "the Lord's day," is the last to be found in the apostolic writings. The Apocalypse, or Revelation, chapter 1:10, furnishes it in the following words of St. John: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day;" but it will afford no more comfort to our Biblical friends than its predecessors of the same series. Has St. John used the expression previously in his Gospel or Epistles?--Emphatically, No. Has he had occasion to refer to Sunday hitherto?--Yes, twice. How did he designate Sunday on these occasions? Easter Sunday was called by him (John 20:1) "The first day of the week." Again, chapter twenty, nineteenth verse: "Now when it was late that same day, being the first day of the week." Evidently, although inspired, both in his gospel and Epistles, he called Sunday "the first day of the week." On what grounds then, can it be assumed that he dropped that designation? Was he more inspired when he wrote the apocalypse, or did he adopt a new title for Sunday because it was now in vogue? A reply to these questions would be supererogatory especially to the latter, seeing that the same expression had been used eight times already by St. Luke, St. Paul, and St. Peter, all under divine inspiration and surely the Holy spirit would not inspire St. John to call Sunday the Lord's day whilst He inspired St. Luke, Paul, and Peter, collectively, to entitle the day of judgment "the Lord's day." Dialecticians reckon amongst the infallible motives of certitude, the moral motive of analogy or induction, by which we are enabled to conclude with certainty from the known to the unknown being absolutely certain of the meaning of an expression uttered eight times, we conclude that the same expression can have only the same meaning when uttered the ninth time, especially when we know that on the nine occasions the expressions were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Nor are the strongest intrinsic grounds wanting to prove that this like its sister texts, contains the same meaning, St. John (Rev. 1:10) says: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day;" but he furnishes us the key to this expression, chapter four, first and second verses; "After this I looked and behold a door was opened in heaven." A voice said to him; "Come up hither, and I will show you the things which must be hereafter," Let us ascend in spirit with John. Whither?--through that "door in heaven," to heaven. a And what shall we see?--"The things that must be hereafter," Chapter four, first verse. He ascended in spirit to heaven. He was ordered to write, in full, his vision of what is to take place antecedent to and concomitantly with, "the Lord's day," or the day of judgment; the expression "Lords day" being confined in Scripture to the day of judgment, exclusively. We have studiously and accurately collected from the New Testament every available proof that could be adduced in favor of a law canceling the Sabbath day of the old law, or one substituting another day for the Christian dispensation. We have been careful to make the above distinction, lest it might be advanced that the third (in the Catholic enumeration the Sabbath commandment is the third of the commandments) commandment was abrogated under the new law. Any such plea has been overruled by the action of the Methodist Episcopal bishops in their pastoral 1874, and quoted by the New Your Herald of the same date, of the following tenor; "The Sabbath instituted in the beginning and confirmed again and again by Moses and the prophets, has never been abrogated. A part of the moral law, not a part or tittle of its sanctity has been taken away." The above official pronunciamento has committed that large body of Biblical Christians to the permanence of the third commandment under the new law. We again beg leave to call the special attention of our readers to the twentieth of "the thirty-nine articles of religion" of the Book of Common Prayer: "It is not lawful for the church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's written word" CONCLUSION We have in this series of articles, taken much pains fro the instruction of our readers to prepare them by presenting a number of undeniable facts found in the word of God to arrive at a conclusion absolutely irrefragable. When the Biblical system put in an appearance in the sixteenth century, it not only seized on the temporal possessions of the Church, but in its vandalic crusade stripped Christianity, as far as it could, of all the sacraments instituted by its Founder, of the holy sacrifice, etc., etc., retaining nothing but the Bible, which its exponents pronounced their sole teacher in Christian doctrine and morals. Chief amongst their articles of belief was, and is today, the permanent necessity of keeping the Sabbath holy. In fact, it has been for the past 300 years the only article of the Christian belief in which there has been a plenary consensus of Biblical representatives. The keeping of the Sabbath constitutes the sum and substance of the Biblical theory. The pulpits resound weekly with incessant tirades against the lax manner of keeping the Sabbath in Catholic countries as contrasted with the proper, Christian, self-satisfied mode of keeping the day in Biblical countries. Who can ever forget the virtuous indignation manifested by the Biblical preachers throughout the length and breadth of our country, from every Protestant pulpit as long as the question of opening the World's Fair on Sunday was yet undecided; and who does not know today, that one sect, to mark its holy indignation at the decision, has never yet opened the boxes that contained its articles at the World's Fair? These superlatively good and unctuous Christians, by conning over their bible carefully, can find their counterpart in a certain class of unco-good people in the days of the Redeemer, who haunted Him night and day, distressed beyond measure, and scandalized beyond forbearance, because He did not keep the Sabbath in as straight -laced manner as themselves. They hated Him for using common sense in reference to the day, and He found no epithets expressive enough of His supreme contempt for their Pharisaical pride. And it is very probable that the divine mind has not modified its views today anent the blatant outcry of their followers and sympathizers at the close of this nineteenth century. But when we add to all this the fact that whilst the Pharisees of old kept the true Sabbath, our modern Pharisees, counting on the credulity and simplicity of their dupes, have never once in their lives kept the true Sabbath which their divine Master kept to His dying day and which His apostles kept, after His example, for thirty years afterward according to the Sacred Record, the most glaring contradiction involving a deliberate sacrilegious rejection of a most positive precept is presented to us today in the action of the Biblical Christian world. The Bible and the Sabbath constitute the watchword of Protestantism: but we have demonstrated that it is the Bible against their Sabbath. We have shown that no greater contradiction ever existed than their theory and practice. We have proved that neither their biblical ancestors nor themselves have ever kept one Sabbath day in their lives. The Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists are witnesses of their weekly desecration of the day named by God so repeatedly, and whilst they have ignored and condemned their teacher, the bible, they have adopted a day kept by the Catholic Church. What Protestant can, after perusing these articles, with a clear conscience, continue to disobey the command of God enjoining Saturday to be kept which command his teacher, the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, records as the will of God? The history of the world cannot present a more stupid, self-stultifying specimen of dereliction of principle than this. The teacher demands emphatically in every page that the law of the Sabbath be observed every week, by all recognizing it as "the only infallible teacher," whilst the disciples of that teacher have not once for over three hundred years observed the divine precept! That immense concourse of Biblical Christians, the Methodists, have declared that the Sabbath has never been abrogated, whilst the followers of the Church of England, together with her daughter, the Episcopal Church of the United States, are committed by the twentieth article of religion, already quoted, to the ordinance that the Church cannot lawfully ordain anything "contrary to God's written word. "God's written word enjoins His worship to be observed on Saturday absolutely, repeatedly, and most emphatically, with a most positive threat of death to him who disobeys. All the Biblical sects occupy the same self-stultifying position which no explanation can modify, much less justify. How truly do the words of the Holy Spirit apply to this deplorable situation! "Iniquitas mentita est sibi"- "Iniquity hath lied to itself." Proposing to follow the Bible only as a teacher, yet before the world, the sole teacher is ignominiously thrust aside, and the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church - "the mother of abominations," when it suits their purpose so to designate her - adopted, despite the most terrible threats pronounced by God Himself against those who disobey the command, "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath." Before closing this series of articles, we beg to call the attention of our readers once more to our caption, introductory of each; vis., 1. The Christian Sabbath, the genuine offspring of the union of the Holy Spirit with the Catholic Church His spouse. 2. The claim of Protestantism to any part therein proved to be groundless, self-contradictory and suicidal. The first proposition needs little proof. The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday. We say by virtue of her divine mission, because He who called Himself the "Lord of the Sabbath," endowed her with His own power to teach, "He that heareth you, heareth me;" commanded all who believe in Him to hear her, under penalty of being placed with the "heathen and publican;" and promised to be with her to the end of the world. She holds her charter as the teacher from him- a charter as infallible as perpetual. The Protestant world at its birth found the Christian Sabbath too strongly entrenched to run counter to its existence; it was therefore placed under the necessity of acquiescing in the arrangement, thus implying the Church's right to change the day, for over three hundred years. The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day, the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church as spouse of the holy Ghost without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant world. Let us now, however, take a glance at our second proposition, with the Bible alone as the teacher most emphatically forbids any change in the day for paramount reasons. The command calls for a "perpetual covenant." The day commanded to be kept by the teacher has never once been kept. Thereby developing an apostasy from an assumedly fixed principle, as self-contradictory, self-stultifying, and consequently as suicidal as it is within the power of language to express. Nor are the limits of demoralization yet reached. Far from it. Their pretense for leaving the bosom if the Catholic Church was for apostasy from the truth as taught in the written word. They adopted the written word as their sole teacher, which they had no sooner done than they abandoned it promptly, as these articles have abundantly proved; and by a perversity as willful as erroneous, they accept the teaching of the Catholic Church in direct opposition to the plain, unvaried, and constant teaching of their sole teacher in the most essential doctrine of their religion, thereby emphasizing the situation in what may be aptly designated "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare." [Editor's note--It was upon this very point that the Reformation was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged, as here stated that the Catholic Church had apostatized from the truth as contained in the written word. "The written word," "The Bible and the Bible only," "Thus saith the Lord," these were their constant watchwords; and "The Scripture as in the written word the sole standard of appeal." This was the proclaimed platform of the Reformation and of Protestantism. "The Scripture and tradition." "The bible as interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." This was the position and claim of the Catholic Church. This was the main issue in the Council of Trent, which was called especially to consider the questions that had been raised and forced upon the attention of Europe by the Reformers. The very first question concerning faith that was considered by the council was the question involved in this issue. There was a strong party even of the Catholics within the council who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was so decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope's legates actually wrote to him that there was "as strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal." But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward justifying the claim of the Protestants. By this crisis there was developed upon the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of convincing the others that "Scripture and tradition" were the only sure ground to stand upon. If this could be done, the council could be carried to issue a decree condemning the Reformation, otherwise not. The question was debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a standstill. Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the following argument to the party who held for scripture alone: "The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestant's claim, that they stand upon the written word only is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of "Scripture alone as the standard.' fails; and the doctrine of "Scripture and tradition" as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges." There was no getting around this, for the Protestants own statement of faith--the Augsburg Confession 1530--had clearly admitted that "the observation of the Lord's day" had been appointed by "the Church" only. The argument was hailed in the council as of Inspiration only; the party for "Scripture alone," surrendered; and the council at once unanimously condemned Protestantism and the whole Reformation as only an unwarranted revolt from the communion and authority of the Catholic Church; and proceeded, April 8, 1546 "to the promulgation of two decrees, the first of which enacts, under anathema, that Scripture and tradition are to be received and venerated equally, and that the deutero-canonical {the apocryphal} books are part of the cannon of Scripture. The second decree declares the Vulgate to be the sole authentic and standard Latin version, and gives it such authority as to supersede the original tests; forbids the interpretation of Scripture contrary to the sense received by the Church, "or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers," etc. Thus it was the inconsistency of the Protestant practice with the Protestant profession that gave to the Catholic Church her long-sought and anxiously desired ground upon which to condemn Protestantism and the whole Reformation movement as only a selfishly ambitious rebellion against church authority. And in this vital controversy the key, the chiefest and culminative expression, of the Protestant inconsistency was in the rejection of the Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, enjoined in the Scriptures and the adoption and observance of the Sunday as enjoined by the Catholic Church. And this is today the position of the respective parties to this controversy. Today, as this document shows, this is the vital issue upon which the Catholic Church arraigns Protestantism, and upon which she condemns the course of popular Protestantism as being "indefensible, self-contradictory, and suicidal," What will these Protestants, what will this Protestantism, do?] Should any of the reverend parsons, who are habituated to howl so vociferously over every real or assumed desecration of that pious fraud, the Bible Sabbath, think well of entering a protest against our logical and Scriptural dissection of their mongrel pet, we can promise them that any reasonable attempt on their part to gather up the disjectamembra of the hybrid, and to restore to it a galvanized existence, will be met with genuine cordiality and respectful consideration on our part. But we can assure our readers that we know these reverend howlers too well to expect a solitary bark from them in this instance. And they know us too well to subject themselves to the mortification which a further dissection of this anti-scriptural question would necessarily entail. Their policy now is to "lay low" and they are sure to adopt it. APPENDIX I *********************** These articles are reprinted, and this leaflet is sent forth by the publishers, because it gives from and undeniable source and in no uncertain tone, the latest phase of the Sunday-observance controversy, which is now, and which indeed for some time has been, not only a national question, with leading nations, but also an international question. Not that we are glad to have it so; we would that it were far otherwise. We would that Protestants everywhere were so thoroughly consistent in profession and practice that there could be no possible room for the relations between them and Rome ever to take the shape which they have no taken. But the situation in this matter is now as it is herein set forth. There is no escaping this fact. It therefore becomes the duty of the International religious Liberty Association to make known as widely as possible the true phase of this great question as it now stands. Not because we are pleased to have it so, but because it is so, whatever we or anybody else would or would not be pleased to have. It is true that we have been looking for years for this question to assume precisely that attitude which it has now assumed, and which it so plainly set forth in this leaflet. We have told the people repeatedly, and Protestants especially, and yet more especially have we told those who were advocating Sunday laws and the recognition and legal establishment of Sunday by the United States, that in the course that was being pursued they were playing directly into the hands of Rome, and that as certainly as they succeeded, they would inevitably be called upon by Rome and Rome in possession of power too, to render to her an account as to why Sunday should be kept. This, we have told the people for years, would surely come. And now that it has come, it is only our duty to make it known as widely as it lies in our power to do. It may be asked, Why did not Rome come out as boldly as this before? Why did she wait so long? It was not for her interest to do so before. When she should move, she desired to move with power, and power as yet she did not have. But in their strenuous efforts for the national governmental recognition and establishment of Sunday, the Protestants of the United States were doing more for her than she could possibly do for herself in the way of getting governmental power in her hands. This she well knew, and therefore only waited. And now that the Protestants, in alliance with her, have accomplished this awful thing, she at once rises up in all her native arrogance and old-time spirit, and calls upon the Protestants to answer to her for their observance of Sunday. This, too, she does because she is secure in the power which the Protestants have so blindly placed in her hands. In other words, the power which the Protestants have thus put into her hands she will now use to their destruction. Is any other evidence needed to show that the Catholic Mirror (Which means the Cardinal and the Catholic Church in America) has been waiting for this, than that furnished on page 21 of this leaflet? Please turn pack and look at that page and see the quotation clipped from the New York Herald in 1874, and which is now brought forth thus. Does not this show plainly that that statement of the Methodist bishops, just such a time as this? And more than this, the Protestants will find more such things which have been so laid up, and which will yet be used in a way that will both surprise and confound them. This at present is a controversy between the Catholic Church and Protestants. As such only do we reproduce these editorials of the Catholic Mirror. The points controverted are points which are claimed by Protestants as in their favor. The argument is made by the Catholic Church; the answer devolves upon those Protestants who observe Sunday, not upon us. We can truly say, " This is none of our funeral." If they do not answer, she will make their Ti:2:14: Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity
| ||
5/2/2008 6:21 am |
EXCERPT FROM THE ABOVE LETTER ---concerning the Sunday verses the 7th day Sabbath Issue [Editor's note--It was upon this very point that the Reformation was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged, as here stated that the Catholic Church had apostatized from the truth as contained in the written word. "The written word," "The Bible and the Bible only," "Thus saith the Lord," these were their constant watchwords; and "The Scripture as in the written word the sole standard of appeal." This was the proclaimed platform of the Reformation and of Protestantism. "The Scripture and tradition." "The bible as interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." This was the position and claim of the Catholic Church. This was the main issue in the Council of Trent, which was called especially to consider the questions that had been raised and forced upon the attention of Europe by the Reformers. The very first question concerning faith that was considered by the council was the question involved in this issue. There was a strong party even of the Catholics within the council who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was so decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope's legates actually wrote to him that there was "as strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal." But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward justifying the claim of the Protestants. By this crisis there was developed upon the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of convincing the others that "Scripture and tradition" were the only sure ground to stand upon. If this could be done, the council could be carried to issue a decree condemning the Reformation, otherwise not. The question was debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a standstill. Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the following argument to the party who held for scripture alone: "The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestant's claim, that they stand upon the written word only is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of "Scripture alone as the standard.' fails; and the doctrine of "Scripture and tradition" as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges." There was no getting around this, for the Protestants own statement of faith--the Augsburg Confession 1530--had clearly admitted that "the observation of the Lord's day" had been appointed by "the Church" only. The argument was hailed in the council as of Inspiration only; the party for "Scripture alone," surrendered; and the council at once unanimously condemned Protestantism and the whole Reformation as only an unwarranted revolt from the communion and authority of the Catholic Church; and proceeded, April 8, 1546 "to the promulgation of two decrees, the first of which enacts, under anathema, that Scripture and tradition are to be received and venerated equally, and that the deutero-canonical {the apocryphal} books are part of the cannon of Scripture. The second decree declares the Vulgate to be the sole authentic and standard Latin version, and gives it such authority as to supersede the original tests; forbids the interpretation of Scripture contrary to the sense received by the Church, "or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers," etc. Thus it was the inconsistency of the Protestant practice with the Protestant profession that gave to the Catholic Church her long-sought and anxiously desired ground upon which to condemn Protestantism and the whole Reformation movement as only a selfishly ambitious rebellion against church authority. And in this vital controversy the key, the chiefest and culminative expression, of the Protestant inconsistency was in the rejection of the Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, enjoined in the Scriptures and the adoption and observance of the Sunday as enjoined by the Catholic Church. Ti:2:14: Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity
| ||
5/2/2008 6:36 am |
I will not bash the Catholic church in these blogs... My mother was a devout Catholic.... I respect those who follow this religion.. but I do not respect the church... therefore have ex communicated myself ... LOL.... It matters not WHO started the church.. rather how the church teaches it's disciples..... Bless you... and hold your faith to your heart..... CHOICE of RELIGION is exactly that ... A CHOICE.. so why bother even attempting to DEFEND it... No one can take your beliefs away....
| ||
5/2/2008 7:18 am |
I need to say this.... You are all of what ??? 20 something ??? I am 45... I was raised Catholic.... by someone who bought everything the church offered ( meaning believed it.. ) ... Your ARROGANCE as a YOUTH deeply disturbs me.... You come across as so very UGLY in how you present yourself as a CHRISTIAN.... and TRULY.... this is why so many people do not go to church... because of the arrogance of so many..... Humble yourself ... and go pray to this GOD you claim to believe in .... Preach the GOSPEL... USE WORDS if you have to... Mother Theresa said it better than anyone I know.....
| ||
5/2/2008 11:18 am |
Thank you very much for coming here and speaking your mind. I actually sincerely appretiate it. I think it's great that you have decided what path in life you choose to follow. Good for you! You know whats funny? In this posting of yours, you posted the very same thing my Priest told me in the confessional not but a few weeks ago. He told me to preach the gospel and if you have to sometimes, use words. I can't remember which one, but I think he told me it was Padre Pio. I've struggled with trying to understand exactly what that is supposed to mean. I do believe though that when people assert that Constantine started the Catholic Church (and not Christ) I do have to use words and explain that is not only absurd, it's downright laughable. I certainly agree that we can always use more humility and your right, maybe at times I am a bit arrogant, but do not equate my youth with in-experience or a lack of wisdom. Thats a mistake many people make about young people these days. When they know something they do not know, they write them off as just being young in order to feel more secure about themselves. Anyway thanks for sharing your opinions and I hope you continue to do so with me in the future. I'll consider the things you say. bless you.... tenderly... Blanche
| ||
5/2/2008 12:26 pm |
YIKES!! Trevor....nope that comparison is illogical!! 
| ||
5/2/2008 12:42 pm |
Of research I've been able to find, here are the first 10 Popes! 1 St. Peter (32-67) Peter's real name was Simon!! 2 St. Linus (67-76) 3 St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-8  4 St. Clement I (88-97) 5 St. Evaristus (97-105) 6 St. Alexander I (105-115) 7 St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I 8 St. Telesphorus (125-136) 9 St. Hyginus (136-140) 10 St. Pius I (140-155)
| ||
5/2/2008 1:52 pm |
Gotcha on the pic, homeboy! I never knew it was a joke. And hey, with a Fidel pic of my own, I shouldn't be judging. But speaking of judging... remember this quote...? "I know Protestantism has a habit of lying to their own congregations about how the Catholic Church came about, I respect this propaganda because they need their membership to believe it to keep their congregations going and their paychecks steady..." Not exactly gonna win you the Nobel Peace prize, if you catch my drift. It's easy to let one jackass get our goat and then without knowing it, we are insulting everyone else. In terms of the history of the Papacy, you can't have it both ways. You openly acknowledge that the early church in Rome had to meet underground just to survive. Rome was against what you are mistakenly referring to as the Catholic church. And even if you wish to call it catholic ( small c) it absolutely was not Roman. Lisa, the list of popes you name is nothing but a listing of the patriarchs of Rome, not a list of popes. It only magically 'became' a list of popes when many years later a Roman Pope said here are the predecessors of me as rightful heir. The Council of Nicaea was held there because that is where Constantine was. Nicea is now called Iznik andis practically a suburb of Istanbul. The Second Council was held in Constantinople (now Istanbul), and most records of it have been destroyed by the Roman Catholic Church which used this and other methods to supress opposition and further its claim of authority when they garnered power much later. I'm all for a more open discussion and I would propose Olga (SiennaSun) as host. She is presently removed somewhat from the Catholic Church, but is sensing God calling her back. It will likely be necessary to ban oe or two who will not respond as directly to questions or tend to get hot-tempered quickly. And then there are some people.. Ahem! ...who seem utterly incapable of posting anyhting shorter than 12 pages or so.  I chalk it up to heavy indoctrination.God's Peace.
| ||
5/2/2008 5:32 pm |
Catholic, I have a bet with Momto3Beagles. She thinks you are who you say you are, but I think you're someone else. Would mind posting a picture of yourself holding a banana and a toothbrush so we can settle this bet once and for all?
| ||
|
Constantine did not start the Catholic church.Your right about that.apostasy was around even in the days of the apostles. Quote:"Peters real name was Simon"Unquote Yeah,Simon Magnus!
| ||
|
Of research I've been able to find, here are the first 10 Popes! 1 St. Peter (32-67) Peter's real name was Simon!! 2 St. Linus (67-76) 3 St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-8 4 St. Clement I (88-97) 5 St. Evaristus (97-105) 6 St. Alexander I (105-115) 7 St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I 8 St. Telesphorus (125-136) 9 St. Hyginus (136-140) 10 St. Pius I (140-155) today the truly and mature believer (especially the one who really hears the Holy Spirit), doesn't bother anymore with "what happened"! I.e. Pope Benedict XVI is indeed another humble man of God, who loves Jesus! Even if some would discredit him, as chronic "anti-catholics" do, (because of the tradition or the Tradition) or different practice in the evolving ministry, the FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH is always the Truth of the Cross, and the only and one Jesus Christ!. The authority of a primate of the First Church (visible), must not be misinterpreted as being better or worse than any other GENUINE Jesus' Church, because HIS Church (invisible one, spiritual one, the bride) MUST BE ONE! Religion is a common term for the re-union with God. For ALL Christians God's OWN revelation is in the person of Jesus, as true as possible and AS His apostles and disciples where and are authorized by HIM himself!. Does really matter what one calls this visible TRUE Church here on earth? I told Cathoholic earlier: WHAT HAPPENED HAPPENED! (Due to the human's element ONLY!) As Colossians 3:11 says, there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all, that much do we owe Him for what He has done (who truly believes in his name!). And Pope Benedict calls those outside the RCC as "our Protestant brothers", as I call him my "brother in Christ" in the name of the Highest!! I've really "hated" that bad attitude certain people have showed since I joined BC! And my first long comments were actually about that! That "hatred is over and done with" and I personally don't accept it at all, because it is AGAINST our Lord. The "chronic ones" haven't yet asked for FORGIVENESS nor have REPENTED, because they don't even know what THAT MEANS! They think just apologizing and being sorry is the same! (These are fruits, and by them the Spirit judges them!) As for the pope's list, it doesn't matter either! It's not an argument of credibility in Christ either. Actually many of those and others were bishops, before Leo I, in 450 A.D. started giving the classic shape and grounds to the papal idea. History counts the Apostolic Fathers and the Church Fathers. All "brains" were in joint to preserve the Scripture and the NT as "pure" as possible, excluding heretics that tried to question the full divinity of Christ. Now, the Catholic Church prevailed and grew as the only church. "The bad" that happened later through history must be understood as the search for dominance and power, but has NOTHING to do with the True Gospel of Jesus and the Scriptures! That's remains THE SAME! As Mitch Finley, points out in his unbiased book (2005) (more info on CATHOLIC SPIRITUALITY UNBIASED Once and for all ), a heretic in the Middle Ages was more than someone with peculiar theological notions and crazy religious ideas; he was a traitor of state, a person guilty of treason. And he adds: "Religion – particularly the Christian religion – was the glue that held society together", and, "therefore it made sense to take drastic measures to protect society from religious heretics". The first actual entitled "Pope" one really can count, from Lutheran literature, is GELASIUS I, (492-496). As I mentioned earlier, the rest doesn't really interests me except the basis of Faith!! As I wrote in my blog: DON'T REVEAL, "...more than necessary", I'll mention again here: The enemy will use whatever new information one gives him, and use it in his own strategy. (Just as I have already experienced earlier.) Who has ears, hear! Give Glory to God always!!! Amen! BB ____________ 
| ||
|
I would have ended the discussion right here!!! "Cause this is precisely what "splitting hairs over and over" means!!!
| ||
|
faith = faith love for God = Love for God (in whatever denomination) Serving the Lord and living our life to be more like him cancels out the need for history lessons. Applying him to our everyday life is surely more important, we are ambassadors of Christ whilst we reside on earth and remember... we all have a common theme that brings us all together.........GOD. If God jumped in on these emails, try to imagine his thoughts.....i would think it would be along the lines of 'what does your comments/discussions do to promote your love for me? Praise him, not debate. The time it took some of you to write these blogs.....you could have sent a hundred prayers to save others. your sister in Christ x
| ||
5/13/2008 11:48 pm |
i follow catholic i follow seventh day does anyone here follow jesus???/ dont bother answering listen mr catholic i could tearr strips off you but i wont do it publicly becoz i respect people of your faith your motives are simply lustful (to prove others wrong) and perverted even if your WERE doctrinally correct you are so far away from the heart of GOD its ridiculous and again..i will not tear strips off you on a public blog FRED NO LOVE>>>CLANGING GONG NOISY CYMBAL and by the way i used the same point regarding a protestant on this site im neither i try to follow jesus give your bllodlust away,,,serve jesus...and hold your other convictions with conviction and disretion and HUMILITY you want to assert YOUR VIEW UP ABOVE HEAVEN??? GOOD FOR YOU>>>GREAT LOOKS GREAT PHILLIPIANS 2...jesus humbled himself and became of NO REPEUTATTION he did not exalt himself GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR QUEST FRED enjoy the depravity its your choice idont bite by the way...unlike some and for the record its not your catholicism that i have a prob with ..its your attitude i defended lisa and i defend her to this day i protected her from someone who had a spirit similar TO YYOU yu would rip otheres for the sake of your knowledge again i know extreme amount about the corruptions of history but i beleive in UNITY and HUMILITY AND RESPECT FOR OTHERS thats why i emailed you privatley i dont care if your catholic pr protestant your attitiude is of the flesh...the fruit will be devilish if you want to speak to me as a chrisitain..humble yourself jesus was not a catholic nor a prtotestant what about you FRED speak from a pure motive for once...or is it beyond you and again i reiterate if yu want to argue with me online you dishonor yourself...coz im not buying it if you want to say praise jesus God bless you my brother and sister FINE GO AHEAD but your intentions are DELIBERTLY DIVISIIVE and DEVILISH only post on here if yuou GENUINELY WNAT TO LEARN RESPECT AND HONOR OTHRE CHRISITANS FRED stop peddling your petty i follow paul i foolow christ/paul CORINTHIAN DOCTRINE
| ||
5/14/2008 7:26 am |
jesu has no need to defend catholicism nor protestantism HE is the one tru church ...multiple corruptions were introduced by catholicism ...FACT>>>BUT I DONT JUDGE CATHOLICISM FOR IT>>THERE WAS NO OTHER CHURCH GIVE IT UP <<<<AND START BLESSING AND EDIFYING PEOPLE IN CHRIST who even cares if you were right ....your fruit is badly wrong jesus doesnt need defeending....and corruptions i attribute to HUMANS rather than catholcism,,,,,because that was the only church in that era i woulda (and did want toas my posts have said) pick your brain about som on the positives of catholicism,,,which would have been abundant in pre 1500 but your attititude aint humble i will ask some humble catholic historain that is of the spirit of Jesus to inform me of MY rich history in the pre protestant tradition im not blind...im very open.....but sorry your fruit is bad show me some christlikeness like i sensed in our sister lisa are you in christ or just in your religion if youo are in the faith why do you treat your brothers with contempt FRED i treated youo with respect at all times prune your fruit and try again havent you listened to all the blogs complaining of people with agendas have one agenda ..LEARINING AND LOVEING GOD AND MAN
| ||
5/14/2008 9:24 pm |
ok mr catholic listen i respect your postings,,,thank you for giving me a far greater apreciation of the catholic church i as al;ways will continue to glean as much as i can from catholic histroy AGaIN the incredible corruptions that came in in the dark ages...where NOT WHAT I ATTRIBUTE TO CATHOLICISM BUT CORRUPTION THAT I ATTRIBUTE TO THE CHURCH..the only one that existed at that time there only has EVER BEEN ONE CHURCH IN HISTORY...and that is the BODY OF CHRIST jesus is the head there is no point arguing God bless you and all the best on that BLESSED DAY ABIDE IN JESUS LOVE FRED if you want to beleive in the church in a catholic form only...bless you in that conviction there is no unity only coercion in your approach you essentailly say that protestants are decieved i couldnt care less JESUS IS THE TRUTH and he aint protestant or catholic reform us all Lord...and bring us ALL OUT OF THE CORRUPTIONS OF PROTESTANTISM CATHOLICISM AND EVERY SCHISM no ism is any better than any other ism is schism but i dont sit under the pope and never will i sit under jesus you choose whether you accept me as a brother and no idont do communion in a catholic sense with you i only do communion with the BLOOD OF CHRIST wnat a cup?? you are essentailly saying that all the corruptions (indulgences/purgatory/praying to saints ,relics..necromancy,saint worship and superstition....mitres of dagon,,,peadophile popes,dont need reforming....most catholic churches in history are full of gargoyles and such....high level jesuits /freemasons ...host est corpus...pagan ceremonies....sun/moon worship are you saying ther was no need to reform such y .. youo are saying that all these diabolical practices dont need reforming again...i m saying i acdcept you if your faith is in the blood of jesus wnat a cup?? im not a protestant i belong to jesus do you..or just to rome im happy to hear your discourse on church history im happy to forgive the CHURCh (not catholics,,,the CHURCH) for these corruptions i dont care if you are catholic i care if you are a christian stand before God and agree with me that these corruptions IN THE CHURCH DONT NEED REFORMING or stand before God and say it all ok again....i would have communion with you any day///in my home..if you acknowledged me in the BODY AS A FULLY BLOOD BOUGHT BODY OF CHRIST protestants have a very legit issue in rejecting the headdship of the pope and the roman system if you wnat ot uphold it,,,FINE I RESPECT THAT BUT DONT come here and try ot superimpose a catholic agenda suggesting that we are out of order if we aint catholic reformmation was necessary becuse the church was CORRRRRRRRuPPPPPPUT i dont say you cant be a chrisitan and a catholic,,,i dont blame catholicism for these corruptions,,,it was the CHURCH WE AS A CHURCH ARE OBLIGED TO COME OUT OF SUCH whethter yu go to catholic or whatever wont save you your partaking in the BLOOD AND BODY OF CHRIST WILL i love the lisas of this world i just wont put up with someone OVERIDING OTHERS CONVICTIONS if you wnat to serve GOD in ROME BE THAT YOUR CONVICTION are you telling me the knights templar/holy grail thing didnt need reforming the doctrine of jesus having wife kids and seed on the earth today the cup of mary ..the challis,,,the blood representing we drink from her womb worshipping dead mens bones???SUPERsTITIONS sorry sir,,,im not referring to catholicism im referring to the GREAT WHORE OF BABYLON WHICH WE MUST ALL COME OUT OF iT IS A PRINCIPALITY....not a denomination are you telling me that Galileo and all such papal edicts are infallible if your church is the only church...God help us all if you want to tell me the good things that were done in history by the church in that era go ahead I WOULD SAY THAT ANY PROTESTANT IS A FOOL IF HE BLAMES CATHOLICS FOR THE HORRIFIC CORRUPTION OF THAT DAY IT AGAIN WAS THE CHURCH OUR CHURCH''THE CHURCH,THE ONE WE BELONG TO but for Gods sake get humble..dont be so smug and tell us that the reformations wernet necessary if God hadnt reformed the church she was nothing but a WHORE and im MORE THAN HAPPY TO ACCEPT ThaT MILLIONS IN THE BODY OF CHRIST TODAY WHO ARE CALLED CATHOLICS are potentailly free from that whore its a PRINCIPLAITY NOT A DENOMINATION...but millions of chriatains in these systems arent even BORN AGAIN being a catholic wont sAVE ANYONE FROM HELL ....only FAITH IN THE BLOOD OF JESUS WILL arer you free from the whore are you free ?? do you still beleive in paying money to redeem any wicked relative from hell/purgatory do you still beleive in relics...saint worship...necromancy ...superstition up to you your looking a little silly if you do you still saying the catholic thing is infallible?? EVERRY HUMAN CHURCH IS FAlLIBLE,,there is much corruptionnin it everywher BUT THATS THE EARTHLY,,,the BODY OF CHRIST IS THE ONLY CHURCH THAT EVER WAS arer you my brother do you shake my right hand of fellowship;;; do you say yes you are my brother if you put faith in the BLOOD OF JESUS ALONE???? have my right hand of fellowship if you will and by the way im not stupid enuf to blame catholicism for this corruption....i blame man AGAIN IT WASA THE CHURCH THAT WAS TO BLAME NOT CATHOLICISM NECESARILY.....multiitudes of evil has also been committed in protestantism since FRED
| ||
5/15/2008 12:14 am |
here is a copy of anothere comment i did today on another post im challenging you mr catholic to commune with me in the spirit of christ catholic isnt in the bible neither is protestant faith in jesus is you look at my posts/blogs/comments...where is the spirit of jesus in yours jesus doesnt belong to my denomination nor yours he belongs to himself...doe we belong to him THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS --------------------------------------------------------------------- ery good point...disagreeement and diveresity is the OPPORTUNITY to live in greaterove and unity it is designed to be a challenge TO HIM THAT OVERCOMES...overcomes what????the world the flesh and the devil WHAT FLESH....MY FLESH...HOW DO I DO THAT ??? BY GOD USING OTHER PEOPLE TO REALLY PEE ME OFF TO ALLOW GOD TO GO BEYOND MY VENEER OF CHURCH FACE AND GET TO MY ROOT CORE EVIL SELF AND CHANGE ME?WORK THE NATURE OF CHRIST INOTo ME MY GREATEST DISAGREEEMNT (40 letter wrestle with a former leader) did me the utmost benefit in terms of the love it wrought in my heart for my greatest persecutor to the point where i was able to give that minister (who caused such injustice and brutal damage in my life) A LARGE CONFIDENTAIL OFFERING AT AN UNEXPECTED conference we both attended last year even the world loves their freinds hey BC i sugest we should not be on here if we arent prepared to let iron sharpen iron truth is to wrestle with...as long as we learn that humility respect and defereing to the other are the necessary ingredients toward christlikeness usually every person we disagree with has the MOST POTENTAIL TO SHARPEN US WE ARE FOOLS IF WE THINK OUR DOCTRINE IS SUPERIOR TO ANYONE ELSE/// even if God has allowed that,,we are fools if we dont hink we can learn from any other soul...and the ones that seem to run into the most trouble on heree are the ones who know the most but know the FRIUT THE LEAST knowledge puffs up..better to me a humble spirit with the lowly (and know little but jesus) than to divide the spoil with the proud doctrines ARE IDOLS...jesus is truth ARE WE ABIDING IN HIM...if we arer our arguing will lead to a greater love for the truth and a greater acknowledgement of it in others the MORE WE CAN SEE THE TRUTH IN OTHERS of the faith ..the closer to jesus we are the LESS WE SEE OF TRUTH in other BELEIVERS..the more decieved we ar the most decieved are the ones who arer superior in their approach im enjoying my sojourn here are we growing in christ everey argument is an opportunity to grow in love and faith and truth DO WE APPROACH THIS SITE (IN THIS MOST CONSTUCTIVE WAY...or is ot just a platform for peddling our foolish proud petty idolatrous doctrine that we cling to for petty identity ah God we give your refiners fire the permission to continue to sweep thru every blogger and purify our hearts in this glouroius cauldron called BC purify us of pride and offences and prejudices...MIGHTLLY AND THOUROUGHY LET IRON SHARPEN IRON AND FIRE PURGE AND CLEANSE BE RUTHLESS IN YOUR LOVE FOR YOUR BRIDE TO BE HERE ON BC JESUS PURGE US with the glory of your JEALOUS LOVE We commit this site to your continual purging fire.......we seal it by your blood for your purposes AMEN EVEN SO COME QUICKLY LORD JESUS
| ||
5/19/2008 9:05 pm |
the devil has done a great work in programming the mind of someeone who sees catholicism in the new testament im claiming thomas was baptist that liked his potatoes mashed im not even bothering to respond to absolute garbage the CATHOLIC SYSTEM WAS THE WHORE OF BABYLON>>>>USED BY THE DEVIL TO DESTROY THE FAITH OF MOST OF THE WORLD TODAY the dark ages were called dark because it wasa sooo dark and corrput and most of the wars fought in history were fought in total deception and depravity..in the name of christ for politiacl bloodlust you can be blessed as a catholic.....but you must have faith in the blood of jesus to be saved catholic i reject your doctrine TOTALLLY AS SATANIC HERESY ...and you will look very very foolish in the day of judgment when God (who was incredibly pateint throughout the dark ages ) show you the WHORE OF BABYLON AND THE WOMAN RIDING THE BEAST AS BEING LARGELY POLITICLLLY ROOTED IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC HERESY AND CORRUPTION the amount of filth in your church you defend is disgraceful GET SAVED...the amount of programming you come up with is so shochingly entrenched that there is no way i could tell if you are even saved yourself FILTH IS FILTH I S FILTH IS FILTH IS FILTH your missing out on the greatest end time revival in history so be it..your church...read my post on demons and theology THE DEVIL LOVES YOUR THEOLOGY.....well done your propogating lucifers system well you cant even see in the spirit the blood is on the hands of many in your history that you so defend and by the way i love genuine catholic brothers and sisters who love jesus..i do not blame catholicism for church history i blamr the bloodlust of man again it was the only church that was around but the way you defend corruption as if wasa holy means you are a very very very verery verery very sick man i respect all the good GODLY stuff done in the era of catholicism but he way you distance yuorself from the sins of these fathers is appalingly twisited and perverted logic i pray the Lord does not hold you accountable for the sins of the fathers that you so defend God is my Father...and i willingly excommunicate myself from the politiacl corruptions of the FILTH that these men created may God bring on you such a resltess LONGING TO BE DELIVERED FROM THE FILTH YOU DEFEND i suppose hugh heffners playboy mansion is a godly thing as well GET saved mr cathlic time is short the doctrine of your fathes is totally riddled with perversion ....swear bybit if you will just dont die by it coz its full of maggots and no im not saying jesus is protestant,,,JESUS is JESUS,,and the great whore is the great whore merlin hawk testifies the truth to you,,,,,,protestantism is just more human stuff,,,but it was a progession OUT OF THE GREAT WHORE one of us has the great whore written on his forehead mr catholic only jesus can save us from identifaication with that system IT DOESNT MATTER IF YOUR CATHOLIC IT MATTERS IF YOU ARE OF THE GREAT WHORE IN YOUR HEART babylon is a principlaity not a denominationn are you part of the principality i dont know but your defending HUGE ASPECTS OF IT the only way you will be saved will be if you have faith in the blood of jesus these heresies you protect will be damned....please find the grace of God YOUR church CREATED THE CONCEPT OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSON TO PETER blind freddie can see the at the devil has lied to you profusely profoundly and tha you are in the claws oF SATANIC DOCTRINE im not arguing mr catholic your beyond correction i would respect you as much if you were a buddhist who beleives in monkey magic....that is how scriptural the doctrines you protect are and i was the first to defend lisa..becoz i did not see anyhing in her heart that resembled the deception that i see in you you preach filth and heresy...may the Lord save you mightily and not hold you in any way connected to the filth you defend COME OUT OF THAT PRINCIPLAITY jesus is saving some of his greatest judgements fro yhe great whore rev 18 and 19.....you are foolish to defend it Coz hes coming back...soon if you wanted to come to me and say yes i accept you as my brother fine,,,i did that to you...based on the blood of jesus instead..you insist salvation only comes from the WHORE i will stand before God my freind rith now and say that catholicism is the MOST CLOSELY AFFILIATED SYSTEM TO THE GREAT WHORE OF BABYLON that has EVER BEEN ON THE EARTH why do you defend it??????ONE OF US IS SERIOSLY WRONG one of us is totally decieved and that could have very verry serious consequences on the day of judgement again i welcome anyone whose conscience allows them to fellowship in the catholic church...as my brother and sister...the denom is now the problem,,,the principlaity is if these people have theere faith in the BLOOD OF JESUS ONLY FOR THEIR MSALVATION then that is the only thing that will save any of us...and good works and friuit that follow but you my friend,,,,you defend a system that JESUS WILL NEVER DEFEND WHEN HE RETURNS POWER CORRPUPTS and absolute power corrupts absolutley the reason i bleieve so many millions of poeple do not beleive in God today is because of the corruptions of church hisitroy...and most often CATHOLIC ERA HISTORY poeple arent stupid folks they know indulgences and rerlics and false saints and pagan symbols and mary worship and the invention of purgatory and the wars for bloodlust and land in the name of God are all absolute corruption God have mercy on us all for the desensitisation that we have as the ChURCH CAUSED throughout history,,,by the absolute corruption that we used to call the church we the church (not just catholic)crated the vacccum that led to new age catholic i willingly excommunicate myself from ALL OF YOUR TEACHINGS i willigly defy catholicism and ANY ISM TOATLLY in jesus MIGHTY NAME protestantism too MY SALVATION IS IN THE BLOOD OF JESUS ALONE ...i reject FOR ETRNITY the concept that roman cathoiciism is the only church i state for eternity that i am in complete opposition to the great whore FRED,,,call me freed stop defending the great whore...one day jesus may heve to stop defending you you promote utter trash,,,you need to be saved i thank God for every revolutionary who preached FREEDOM FROM ROME IN THE PAST and a return to the bible shame on you for such depravity at least the lisas of this world accept my love because i came to her in the spirit of LOVE trust me any messageg spouting catholicism in these lawst days will have NO POWER TO SAVE A SINGLE SOUL Go to a sports staduim eg florida and fall on your face and find God THERE WILL BE NO DEFENDING OF CATHOLICISM THERE jesus doesnt have a denom HE IS THE CHURCH are you even a part of it????lisa is....that much is sure may the power of GOD ARREST YOU FROM GREATT DECEPTION MAY THE POWER OF GOD ARREST YOU FROM THE GREATEST DECEPTION MAY THE POWER OF GOD ARREST YOU FROM THE VERY GREATEST DECEPTION I BELEIVE THAT GOD WILL SAVE YOU FATHER SEND DREAMS AND VISIONS CONVERTING THIS MAN TO YOu WE COVER HIM IN YOUR PRECIOUS BLOOD AND JUST LIKE SAUL ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS ...may the feircewst defender of corruption becaonme the one most FEIRCLEY SAVED only your power could do that LORD...this man has never seen you jesus...could you grant him that mercy we pray he is under a doctrine of demons.....may the blinding light of christ peirce his soul right now as we speak FATHER SPARE HIM IN YOUR MERCY FROM THE GREAT PIT....have mercy on the decpetion that lucifer planted in his heart save him LORD and show him your truth LET HIM BECOME A POWERFUL PREACHER OF HOW GOD SAVED HIM FROM THE whore LORD,,,and let him bring MULTITITUDES OUT OT THE same system FATHER he is called to preach...save him first...we cover Him in your blood and Let him attain to the greatest harvest and reward in heaven Lord upopn this immininet conversion Lord move powerfully in his life,,,we declare a destiny of great deli verance from rome let every tv he sees and every step he takes walk him right into crusades in these end times where the Glorry of God penetrates his heart spare him in jesus name...thank you Lord Let him havethat significant conversion like saul /paul road to damascus let him have the greatest testimony of anyone here on BC BY MILES in jesus name,,,thank you father,,,prepaer him for that moment anointing...move upon this one NOW IN GREAT AND CONTINUEL POWER AND STIRRING be relentless in your love and pursuit of this man,,,and show him the great whore of history and show him abundant GRACE AS YOU WAKE HIM UP FROM HIS DEAHTH inot life you can reject this prayer mr catholic..but God wont may he override you and choose you for his purposes regardless GOD savev and bless you FRED im
| ||
5/20/2008 12:15 am |
ok thanks....millions who escaped the system would love to tell you the same thing dont lower yourself..get saved i could gaurantee most non catholicswould agree they just dont bother arguing with an entrenched dogmatisit God bless,,and save
| ||
5/20/2008 8:34 am |
i have no need to have credibility....saved will do me your apple cart deserved the treatmnent public prayer is more exposing jesus is Lord you can go to any church you wish..but just stick to the bible or i will tell you that humphrey bogart and osama bin laden were new testamnet founders,,,,,sounds right what do you think authority comes fom a source you cant handle glad to irritate you but salvation would be far more productive God save and bless
| ||
5/20/2008 6:43 pm |
if yu did get saved you could spend your time praying,healing the sick,casting out demons, maybe raising the dead prophesying,,preaching to the lost,words of knowledge,words of wisdom instead of the life you are spending defending absolute apostate corruption i pray the Lord grant you this privilege,,you could be very useful to God if he allowed you to cross over there can never be any anointing or power on the preaching supporting the catholic whore the holy spirit and the devil cant cohabit millions can know jesus in the catholic denom...but that is his grace overlooking some ignorance but you my freind DONT HAVE IGNORANCE THEREFORE YOU ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE again i pray the LORDS mercy GRACE AND LOVE ALL OVER YOUR LIFE >>TO BRING YOU TO REDEMPTION,,,truly the religion in you will despise me for telling you that you havent even begun your christain journey.... but someones gotta tell you the truth saul wouldnt of liked it eaither but God overruled..i truly pray the same grace upon you. truly love in christ FRED
| ||
5/20/2008 6:54 pm |
i knew if i dug under the surface you would tell me im not one of you unless i belong to your great deception it would be obvious to all who read what was going on sorry to bring you shame but its necessary to lead you to the truth there is no change without exposure when it comes to total deception we ..your friends on bc will continue or quest in love ...to lead you to jesus its like extracting a rotten tooth that has completely got you bound..it hurts a lot but the Lord and his LOVe will be faithful to do it
| ||
5/20/2008 10:16 pm |
I get a real kick out of the picture of "Protestants" telling a Catholic to come out of Babylon when they themselves are in Babylon, bowing down to the authority of the Pope. "The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."-Catholic Mirror, Sept. 23, 1893. You will notice in this information that the Church declares that it was not God Who changed the day from Saturday to Sunday but that they, the papists, were the ones who made this change. The Sabbath was officially changed by the Papacy at the Council of Laodicea on March 7, 364 A.D. That was 43 years after Constantine declared Sunday the day for Christians to honor as a rest day. "Question.-Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?" "Answer.-Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."-Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, p. 174. This quotation emphasizes the fact that since the world accepts Sunday as a day of worship, this acknowledges her supremacy. "I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to any one who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says, 'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.' The Catholic Church says, 'No; by my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day, and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.' and lo! The entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church. 'Priest Enright, C.S.S.R., Kansas City, Missouri. ---------- SECONDLY, many many Catholics are more devoted to God than some Protestants are. There are God's people in ALL Denominations and there are false disciples in ALL denominations right now at the present time, including mine and when the Shaking comes many will come OUT of Babylon. But Protestants are right there in it themselves at the moment and it just makes me laugh when they are "calling" Catholics to come out of Babylon and right there in it themselves. This is what MY Church, the Seventh Day Adventist believes... you can show where DOCTRINE is wrong but NOBODY can read anyone elses heart and their standing with God. God has jewels in all the churches, and it is not for us to make sweeping denunciation of the professed religious world.--4BC 1184 (1893). The Lord has His representatives in all the churches. These persons have not had the special testing truths for these last days presented to them under circumstances that brought conviction to heart and mind; therefore they have not, by rejecting light, severed their connection with God.--6T 70, 71 (1900). Among the Catholics there are many who are most conscientious Christians and who walk in all the light that shines upon them, and God will work in their behalf.--9T 243 (1909). In the eighteenth chapter of the Revelation the people of God are called upon to come out of Babylon. According to this scripture, many of God's people must still be in Babylon. And in what religious bodies are the greater part of the followers of Christ now to be found? Without doubt, in the various churches professing the Protestant faith.--GC 383 (1911). Notwithstanding the spiritual darkness and alienation from God that exist in the churches which constitute Babylon, the great body of Christ's true followers are still to be found in their communion.--GC 390 (1911). Jn:14:15: If ye love me, keep my commandments. --Jesus.
| ||
5/20/2008 10:34 pm |
Heres to all of you who are calling this Catholic to come "to Jesus". Lk:6:46: And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Jn:14:15: If ye love me, keep my commandments. Jn:14:21: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Mk  :9: And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.Lk:6:46: And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Jn:14:15: If ye love me, keep my commandments. --Jesus.
|
|
