# Pope holding the hard line



## BobVigneault (Jul 10, 2007)

Latest Pope news.

Yeeeehawwwww! You go JOE! I don't want to hear any of you accusing my Franzi drinking buddy of being wishy-washy. He has set his hand to the plow and he's not looking back. I just hope no body poisons his soup like they did to poor old John Paul the Oneth.

I love a man of strong conviction and this type of thing just endears me even more to him. Hey Joe! Call my cell, we'll go see Transformers or something and then get a beer! We'll celebrate our differences. Wooohoooo!


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jul 10, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Latest Pope news.
> 
> Yeeeehawwwww! You go JOE! I don't want to hear any of you accusing my Franzi drinking buddy of being wishy-washy. He has set his hand to the plow and he's not looking back. I just hope no body poisons his soup like they did to poor old John Paul the Oneth.
> 
> I love a man of strong conviction and this type of thing just endears me even more to him. Hey Joe! Call my cell, we'll go see Transformers or something and then get a beer! We'll celebrate our differences. Wooohoooo!



10:25 AM CDT on Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Associated Press 

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches. 


The demon possesed fat man in the funny hat has spoken. All bow and do reverence.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 10, 2007)

Sort of drags down the ECT momentum a little, doesn't it. 

Nice to have things set out clearly, it's a lot more fun when the lines are drawn.


----------



## calgal (Jul 10, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Sort of drags down the ECT momentum a little, doesn't it.
> 
> Nice to have things set out clearly, it's a lot more fun when the lines are drawn.



Something tells me Ian Paisley is doing a happy dance right about now.  I saw that earlier and found it encouraging that the pope is contradicting the KumBaYah ECT nonsense.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 10, 2007)

> The demon possesed fat man in the funny hat has spoken. All bow and do reverence.



I am taking extreme umbrage with that statement sir. The man is NOT fat. If you continue in calling him fat then I will raise my extreme umbrage to utter vexation. See if I won't.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jul 10, 2007)

Fat man with a funny hat in a Halloween costume!


----------



## Dagmire (Jul 10, 2007)

The papacy is an antichrist at best and the Antichrist at worst.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jul 10, 2007)

Dagmire said:


> The papacy is an antichrist at best and the Antichrist at worst.




Well said young man.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 10, 2007)

They take their hard line -- let no one complain when we take ours. The God of truth judge between us.


----------



## Mathetes (Jul 10, 2007)

> "...saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt"



Well it's a good thing they don't have to exercise private judgment! One has to wonder how we Protestants got by so far without such infallible certainty as the Rock of Peter provides for his flock.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 10, 2007)

This Pope is the only Roman Catholic person thinking and acting CONCISTENTLY as a True Catholic. Too bad, the English and American Catholics (Cardinals, Bishops, Priest, Laity, etc.) are ignorant to see their own true religious belifs. Seems to me that the Devil is changing once again his strategy and bringing once again divisions, lies, hatred, etc.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jul 10, 2007)

At the very least there is now someone sitting in Rome that recognizes the vast chasm between Catholocism and Protestantism. I can at least commend that. in my opinion it is good to see the polarization. Now we can stop beating around the bushes regarding the vast differences between the Roman church and biblical Christianity.


----------



## etexas (Jul 10, 2007)

I don't care what that ex-NAZI dotard thinks anyway! Devil take him..........oh wait.......he already has.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 10, 2007)

Brego said:


> I don't care what that ex-NAZI dotard thinks anyway! Devil take him..........oh wait.......he already has.



Godwin's Law went into effect after only 13 posts into the thread. How about THAT?!!


----------



## javajedi (Jul 10, 2007)

At least he is being honest and open about it. But I doubt the ECT "true believers" will listen to what he says.

This part of the article was amazing:



> The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.
> 
> "I don't know what motivated it at this time," she said. "But it's important always to point out that there's the official position and there's the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics."



Makes me think of the abused wife that makes excuses for the husband and refuses to press charges or leave [I mean no offense to those who have dealt with spouse abuse].

It very clear that to the Pope, ecumenicalism means everyone else becoming RC.


----------



## Davidius (Jul 10, 2007)

Brego said:


> I don't care what that ex-NAZI dotard thinks anyway! Devil take him..........oh wait.......he already has.



Max? Did you change your name?


----------



## Scott (Jul 10, 2007)

Does anyone know if the document is available online?


----------



## jsup (Jul 10, 2007)

I haven't found the document just this basic articles. Here's a good site for all our pure-bred Protestants against the antichrists of Rome.

The Pope has just reaffirmed what so many of us already knew and stood against for so long.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 10, 2007)

Scott said:


> Does anyone know if the document is available online?



http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2098


----------



## Scott (Jul 11, 2007)

This looks most relevant to us:


> Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of "Church" with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
> 
> Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense[20].


It is interesting that they have a pretty clear answer on what makes a church. Protestants often do not. There is much disagreement and confusion on this issue. If an unordained guy gets some people together, calls the group a church, and starts doing some churchy things (eg. "preaching" and singing), is the organization a church? Most evangelicals would say yes. Many people on this puritan-themed board would say yes.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 11, 2007)

Let us remain equally clear why we draw a line of difference that cannot be ignored. These are the words of the "Mother" church from Trent.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 11, 2007)

i am checking Chuck Colson's site frequently to see if he will comment on it.


----------



## etexas (Jul 11, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> i am checking Chuck Colson's site frequently to see if he will comment on it.


Maybe he will return his Templeton.........................RIGHT........


----------



## Scott (Jul 11, 2007)

The new papal document's understanding is consistent with the way I originally read Lumen Gentium and related docs, except I was not clear on "subsists," and am still not totally clear. 

The VII docs still say that protestants are "Christians" and "brothers," which is good. Their failure to recognize protestant groups generally as churches is not surprising. We have a hard time ourselves determining that.


----------



## etexas (Jul 11, 2007)

Scott said:


> The new papal document's understanding is consistent with the way I originally read Lumen Gentium and related docs, except I was not clear on "subsists," and am still not totally clear.
> 
> The VII docs still say that protestants are "Christians" and "brothers," which is good. Their failure to recognize protestant groups generally as churches is not surprising. We have a hard time ourselves determining that.


I am Roman Catholic Educated, those of us who are former RCC pupils or members call this madness "Roman Logic".


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 11, 2007)

I believe in the pope, binder and looser in heaven, earth, and hell, and in Simony, his only son our lord, who was conceived by the canon law and born of the Romish church. Under his power truth suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, and through the ban descended to hell, rose again through the gospel and Paul and was brought to Charles, sitting at his right hand, who in future is to rule over spiritual and wordly things. I believe in the canon law, in the Romish church, in the destruction of faith and of the communion of saints, in indulgences both for the remission of guilt and penalty in purgatory, in the resurrection of the flesh in an Epicurean life, because given to us by the Holy Father, the pope. Amen.


----------



## Scott (Jul 11, 2007)

Brego said:


> I am Roman Catholic Educated, those of us who are former RCC pupils or members call this madness "Roman Logic".


I certainly think Vatican II was a serious break with Trent and pasty doctrines. The RC attempt to harmonize VII with older doctrines, as you suggest, fails.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 11, 2007)

This is actually great news for me. My family is Roman Catholic. For years they have been under the delusion that there is no difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants or that the difference was one of "excitement."

I went to Saint Bartholomew's Roman Catholic Church in Southwest Fort Worth (on Alta Mesa < a mile from Southwest High School for you people familiar with the Metroplex).

The priest there arrived about the same time my family did (dad got stationed at Carswell). He was not well received by some traditionalists but by force of personality asserted himself. He was, for all intents and purposes, a charismatic first and a Roman Catholic second. He still performed the rituals but all his homilies and Bible Studies were Charismatic. I learned that I needed to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, to read my Bible daily, and to spend quiet time so I could "...discern the Lord's will." I would have fit right in at an Assemblies of God Church.

We used to give weekly testimony and a regular testimony went something like: "One of my co-workers was so mean. They found out I was Catholic and thought we believed differently. After we talked for a while they realized I was just as excited about Jesus as they were...."

Suffice to say, I was extremely confused about Roman Catholics and Protestants for years to come. It was, frankly, a blessing because when I finally decided to go back to Church, I was more interested in finding a Church that had "...dynamic worship" than I was in finding a Roman Catholic Church which are fairly universally boring and extremely unfriendly.

I was challenged by this girl I was dating about my beliefs and "...why didn't I attend Church...?" so I closed my eyes and picked a Church at random. I met Sonya at that non-denominational Christian Church. I got immersed there (got my bases covered Credo-Baptists!!!!) but I was still extremely ignorant of the differences. Sonya and I, when we visited home, would still attend Mass. In our ignorance, we even took communion.

Then, in 1997, I heard the last 5 minutes of _Renewing Your Mind_ for the first time while driving in Quantico. R.C. was talking about the Lord's Supper and it intrigued me. Based on that small snippet, I ordered his series on Roman Catholicism and the book _Faith Alone_. I read _Faith Alone_ in Feb 1997 on my first ever visit to Okinawa, Japan in fact! It was like a lightning bolt hit my mind as I was reading that. Within the week, I was already crafting a letter to my family explaining to them why I had fully repudiated Roman Catholicism and what the need for the Reformation was.

I believe this pronouncement will be used by God. I pray, that in God's Providence, he will keep the current Pope alive long enough to clearly define what his wicked church is all about. Roman Catholics are, in vast numbers, in slumber intellectually about what they believe. Post-modernism allows Protestants and Roman Catholics to be under the illusion that there are no differences. It allows folks like Billy and Franklin Graham to invite Roman Catholics to share in their "evangelical" efforts and then even plug in their fresh "converts" to Roman Catholic Churches.

I welcome unequivocal lines to be drawn. Let there be truth again and may God, in His wise Providence, use whatever means to that end to bring it about!


----------



## Gryphonette (Jul 11, 2007)

Great snakes, Rich, Dmitry's girl friend lives not far off Alta Mesa, so I drive past St. Bartholomew's often. In fact, when we were members of St. Andrews Catholic in the TCU area, our son Alex - the one in the Navy stationed in Yokosuka - attended preschool at St. Bart's.

It's...it's...as if we're twins. =8^o

Or something. ;^)


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Jul 11, 2007)

jsup said:


> I haven't found the document just this basic articles. Here's a good site for all our pure-bred Protestants against the antichrists of Rome.
> 
> The Pope has just reaffirmed what so many of us already knew and stood against for so long.


Well that just takes away the *DUH* factor...

BTW, nice to know that I'm not the only Liberty DLP student on here. Are you going to LTS?


----------



## Peter (Jul 11, 2007)

Dagmire said:


> The papacy is an antichrist at best and the Antichrist at worst.



Antichrist with a capital "A".


----------



## Scott (Jul 12, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I welcome unequivocal lines to be drawn. Let there be truth again and may God, in His wise Providence, use whatever means to that end to bring it about!


I don't think that the lines are unequivocal. Consider this. The Roman Catholic Church still teaches (per Vatican II), that protestants are "Christians" and properly called "brothers." Protestant ecclesial communities also have means of salvation. They can be (!) unwitting members of the Roman Catholic Church. This is from the new document:


> It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.
> . . .
> It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.


So, our "ecclesial communities" have some relationship with the Catholic Church that we don't recognize. 

I think this is a huge departure from and inconsistent with Trent (in spite of RC protests). They explain it away, in part, by saying that today's protestants are not responsible for the sins of the reformers. Too far removed. In any event, the RC position is still quite ecumenical compared to pre-Vaitcan II days. They don't say all protestants are damned or anything like that. And they recognize truth and the means of grace in protestant churches (what they call communities).

Today's interactions with Catholics are different than those of the reformers. I think this is progress on their side and I don't see Monday's documents as clawing back any of that progress.


----------



## JM (Jul 12, 2007)

It's good to see the line drawn, nice and clear. 

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

Anyone read Pius the X? He wrote about smashing prots, etc. 

12 Q: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ? 

A: No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.link

j


----------



## Scott (Jul 12, 2007)

JM said:


> It's good to see the line drawn, nice and clear.
> 
> Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
> 
> ...


Vatican II was a break from those views, as I outline a bit in my prior post. The views you posted are not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches now.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jul 12, 2007)

Scott said:


> I certainly think Vatican II was a serious break with Trent and pasty doctrines. The RC attempt to harmonize VII with older doctrines, as you suggest, fails.


Vatican II reaffirms Trent - without any doubt (the whole substance dressed up in a different style).


----------



## JM (Jul 12, 2007)

Scott said:


> Vatican II was a break from those views, as I outline a bit in my prior post. The views you posted are not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches now.



Vat II was a break with the views I posted and the pope is now restating the old line RC view, he's re-introducing the teaching, it is RC teaching...once again.

j


----------



## etexas (Jul 12, 2007)

I have met the Pope!


----------



## etexas (Jul 12, 2007)

With TBN!!!!!!!!


----------



## bookslover (Jul 12, 2007)

If you're interested, check out my first blog listed below. I just happened upon a nifty quotation from Spurgeon just a couple of days after the Pope, uh, popped.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 12, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Godwin's Law went into effect after only 13 posts into the thread. How about THAT?!!



(<groan>) Oh, Bob...Bob...Bob! Now you look like Barbra Streisand without her makeup on!

Avatar alert!


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 13, 2007)

bookslover said:


> (<groan>) Oh, Bob...Bob...Bob! Now you look like Barbra Streisand without her makeup on!
> 
> Avatar alert!









Puleeeeeze! I'm much prettier.


----------



## Scott (Jul 13, 2007)

JM said:


> Vat II was a break with the views I posted and the pope is now restating the old line RC view, he's re-introducing the teaching, it is RC teaching...once again.
> 
> j



I don't think so. It affirms the salvation of protestants, protstants as brothers and Christians, etc. This is not Trent. The Pope is affirming VII's changes.


----------



## JM (Jul 13, 2007)

Ok.

j


----------



## crhoades (Jul 13, 2007)

Al Mohler on recent RC happenings...Al Mohler makes me want to be a Baptist. 

*No, I'm Not Offended*
Posted: Friday, July 13, 2007 at 3:51 am ET


















Aren't you offended? That is the question many Evangelicals are being asked in the wake of a recent document released by the Vatican. The document declares that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church -- or, in words the Vatican would prefer to use, the only institutional form in which the Church of Christ subsists.

No, I am not offended. In the first place, I am not offended because this is not an issue in which emotion should play a key role. This is a theological question, and our response should be theological, not emotional. Secondly, I am not offended because I am not surprised. No one familiar with the statements of the Roman Catholic Magisterium should be surprised by this development. This is not news in any genuine sense. It is news only in the current context of Vatican statements and ecumenical relations. Thirdly, I am not offended because this new document actually brings attention to the crucial issues of ecclesiology, and thus it presents us with an opportunity.

The Vatican document is very brief -- just a few paragraphs in fact. Its official title is "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," and it was released by the Vatican's Congregation for the Defense of the Faith on June 29 of this year. Though many media sources have identified the document as a papal statement from Pope Benedict XVI, it is actually a statement from the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith that was later approved for release by the Pope (who, as Cardinal Ratzinger, headed this Congregation prior to assuming the papacy).

The document claims a unique legitimacy for the Roman Catholic Church as the church established by Christ. The document stakes this identity on a claim to apostolic succession, centered in the papacy itself. As the document states, "This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him."

Lest anyone miss the point, the document then goes on to acknowledge that the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy also stake a claim to apostolic succession, and thus they are referred to as "Churches" by the Vatican. As for the churches born in whatever form out of the Reformation -- they are not true churches at all, only "ecclesial communities."

Look at this:

_According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery__ cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense_.

Pope Benedict was already in hot water with the media because of his recent decision related to the (limited) reinstitution of the Latin mass, complete with a call for the conversion of the Jews. He was not likely to be named "Ecumenist of the Year" anyway. This latest controversy just adds to the media impression of big changes at the Vatican under the current papacy.
There have been changes for sure. Benedict is truly a doctrinal theologian, whereas his popular predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was more a philosopher by academic training. Those familiar with the current pope know of his frustration with the tendency of liberal Catholic theologians and laypersons to insist that the Second Vatican Council (known popularly as "Vatican II") represented a massive shift (to the left) in Catholic doctrine. Not so, insisted Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith. Now, as Pope, Benedict is in a position to shape his argument into a universal policy for his church. Vatican II, he insists, represented only a deepening and reapplication of unchanging Catholic doctrine.

Evangelicals should appreciate the candor reflected in this document. There is no effort here to confuse the issues. To the contrary, the document is an obvious attempt to set the record straight. The Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Christ is working redemptively through Protestant and evangelical churches, but it does deny that these churches which deny the authority of the papacy are true churches in the most important sense. The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are "ecclesial Communities," not churches "in the proper sense."

I appreciate the document's clarity on this issue. It all comes down to this -- the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church_ is_ the defining issue. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division. The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. 

Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children, it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.
The Reformers and their heirs put their lives on the line in order to stake this claim. In this era of confusion and theological laxity we often forget that this was one of the defining issues of the Reformation itself. Both the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church staked their claim to be the true church -- and both revealed their most essential convictions in making their argument. As Martin Luther and John Calvin both made clear, the first mark of the true Church is the ministry of the Word -- the preaching of the Gospel. The Reformers indicted the Roman Catholic Church for failing to exhibit this mark, and thus failing to be a true Church. The Catholic church returned the favor, defining the church in terms of the papacy and magisterial authority. Those claims have not changed.

I also appreciate the spiritual concern reflected in this document. The artificial and deadly dangerous game of ecumenical confusion has obscured issues of grave concern for our souls. I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger. His sacramental theology plays a large role in this concern, for he believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments. (This point, by the way, explains why the Protestant churches that claim a sacramental theology are more concerned about this Vatican statement -- it denies the basic validity of their sacraments.)

I actually appreciate the Pope's concern. If he is right, we _are_ endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.
The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.​

The Rev. Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jul 13, 2007)

JM said:


> Vat II was a break with the views I posted and the pope is now restating the old line RC view, he's re-introducing the teaching, it is RC teaching...once again.
> 
> j



Having studied Roman Catholicism in some depth I know of no changes since Trent - at any rate. A departure would amount to a denial of infallibility - which Peter, at any rate, did not possess.


----------



## JM (Jul 13, 2007)

According to the CCC 839-843, you don't even have to be a Christian to be saved...

http://www.truecatholic.org/heresiesjp2.htm

Heretics are Christians. 
LOR, 12/23/1982

Heretics have the Apostolic Faith. 
US:62, 05/25/1995

Plenty more, have a look.


----------



## Scott (Jul 13, 2007)

JM said:


> According to the CCC 839-843, you don't even have to be a Christian to be saved...



Yes, it seems to me that the RC is far less Roman Catholic in the Trent sense and has become very relativistic. In America, it is essentially a mainline liberal church even more so that the CCC. Their theologians and seminaries for the most part differ little from mainline protestant seminaries. You won't see that perspective from internet apologists, but much of the official church has adopted these views. See, for example, Michael Rose, Goodbye, Good Men. 

Anyway, I think the concerns about B16's supposed Tridentine views may be misplaced. I think the larger issue is relativism. That is certainly the impression I also get from talking to ordinary Catholics (as opposed to internet apologists). 

As JM did, it is often easiest to see the problems with modern Catholicism by looking at the writings of Catholic critics, especially traditionalists. Here is another good source, from an Arch-bishop who was later excommunicated: Open Letter to Confused Catholics.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jul 30, 2007)

Does this mean Charisma Magazine has to retract it's praise for the deceased John Paul 2?


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Jul 31, 2007)

Dagmire said:


> The papacy is an antichrist at best and the Antichrist at worst.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Jul 31, 2007)

crhoades said:


> Al Mohler on recent RC happenings...Al Mohler makes me want to be a Baptist.




You should go ahead with that in my opinion...


----------



## jbergsing (Aug 2, 2007)

crhoades said:


> Al Mohler on recent RC happenings...Al Mohler makes me want to be a Baptist.


I listen to him daily on XM. Too bad most Baptists aren't like Al Mohler!


----------



## ZackF (Aug 26, 2007)

Scott said:


> The new papal document's understanding is consistent with the way I originally read Lumen Gentium and related docs, except I was not clear on "subsists," and am still not totally clear.
> 
> The VII docs still say that protestants are "Christians" and "brothers," which is good. Their failure to recognize protestant groups generally as churches is not surprising. We have a hard time ourselves determining that.




"Separated bretheren" is the usual post VII way of referring to Protestants. Some papal/Vatican documents refer to Protestant denominations and congregations as "ecclesiastical communities." I've never understood that one back in my Catholic days and even now.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Aug 28, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> crhoades said:
> 
> 
> > Al Mohler on recent RC happenings...Al Mohler makes me want to be a Baptist.
> ...


Most Baptists I've ever known dislike him with venom regrettably.


----------



## christiana (Aug 28, 2007)

For sure most baptists in this area want nothing to do with doctrines of grace! Just love, only love! Mohler speaks pure truth!


----------

