Whom do you call bretheren?

[raderag]

[quote:312c605d05][i:312c605d05]Originally posted by sastark[/i:312c605d05]
[quote:312c605d05][i:312c605d05]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:312c605d05]

I don't think it requires us to consign the entire Medieval Church to hell to say that Rome is a synagogue of Satan today. [/quote:312c605d05]


I agree and I hope it did not sound like I meant every one who lived from 600 to 1517 went to hell. Not what I meant.

As usual, I agree with Fred. [/quote:312c605d05]

Ok, I understand now. Saying that the Eucharist (you didn't say it, but seemed to abgree) was worse than Satan worship implies to me that one couldn't be a Christian and do this. Midieval Catholics, almost without exception, took the mass unrepentantly. I was just connecting the dots.

 

[sastark]

[quote:501fa143b3][i:501fa143b3]Originally posted by raderag[/i:501fa143b3]


Seth, do you suppose that I don't know that verse.

The point is that you are implying that no midieval Catholics are in heaven, which means the church did not exist in visible form. WHat do you say to that? Is the Eucharist damnable? [/quote:501fa143b3]

Brett, hey, I didn't mean to come across like I was talking down to you, because I really didn't mean to. I know it's hard to judge the tone of a post sometimes (I am the king of taking offense unneccessarily), so I'm sorry if I offended you by what I wrote. It really wasn't my intention.

Having said that, here are a couple of points to consider:

1- No, I am not implying that all medival Catholics are in hell. I believe that even among all that idolotry, there were some who were saved. Here is how I come to that conclusion:
a. I believe there were some who truly trusted in Christ for their salvation and were given the gift of faith.
b. Christ died for those who are truly elect
c. The elect, therefore have their sins forgiven
d. Therefore, I conclude that though medieval Catholics were sinning by participating in the Mass, Christ atoned for these sins, and there fore, not all medival Catholics went to hell.

2- Even if all medival Catholics went to hell, that does not mean that there was not church in medieval times. Rome never was, is not now and never will be "[b:501fa143b3]the[/b:501fa143b3]" church. Since the time of the Apostles there have been Christians outside the "Empire". Perhaps a little church history would help you understand God's porvidential hand in preserving His church both inside and outside of Rome (I say that in a spirit of love, not to offend you).

 

[raderag]

[quote:1f892c7fae][i:1f892c7fae]Originally posted by sastark[/i:1f892c7fae]

Brett, hey, I didn't mean to come across like I was talking down to you, because I really didn't mean to. I know it's hard to judge the tone of a post sometimes (I am the king of taking offense unneccessarily), so I'm sorry if I offended you by what I wrote. It really wasn't my intention. [/quote:1f892c7fae]

Seth, don't worry about it. I was frusterated because I seem to have a hard time getting an answer. I think I understand where you and Fred are coming from now.

Sorry if I was a bit too terse in my reply also.

 

[raderag]

[i:27393317b3]Originally posted by sastark[/i:27393317b3]
[quote:27393317b3][i:27393317b3]Originally posted by raderag[/i:27393317b3]
2- Even if all medival Catholics went to hell, that does not mean that there was not church in medieval times. Rome never was, is not now and never will be "the" church. Since the time of the Apostles there have been Christians outside the "Empire". Perhaps a little church history would help you understand God's porvidential hand in preserving His church both inside and outside of Rome (I say that in a spirit of love, not to offend you). [/quote:27393317b3]

I cannot agree here as the true church contains elders, sacraments, etc. I think you are speaking of only the invisible church, unless you have another body of believers in mind. It is my understanding that the RC, until the split with the East, contained almost all of the Christians in the World. I realize there were some Christians in the Mid-East, Orient, etc, but most of their views where not orthodox either? My main point is that there was a time when Rome had power over most all of the CHristian world.

I am not offended at all as I have much to learn.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by raderag]

 

[sastark]

[quote:66744053f8][i:66744053f8]Originally posted by raderag[/i:66744053f8]
Sorry if I was a bit too terse in my reply also. [/quote:66744053f8]

No problem!

 

[Bladestunner316]

The rome church became false form the get go when constantitne declared himself pope and paganized christianity.

blade

 

[sastark]

[quote:a72fbdc03f][i:a72fbdc03f]Originally posted by raderag[/i:a72fbdc03f]

I cannot agree here as the true church contains elders, sacraments, etc. I think you are speaking of only the invisible church, unless you have another body of believers in mind. It is my understanding that the RC, until the split with the East, contained almost all of the Christians in the World. I realize there were some Christians in the Mid-East, Orient, etc, but most of their views where not orthodox either? My main point is that there was a time when Rome had power over most all of the CHristian world.

I am not offended at all as I have much to learn.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by raderag] [/quote:a72fbdc03f]

I agree with you about the three marks of the true church; however, once again, I would contend that there were true churches (local congregations) who did not submit to the doctrine of Rome. (I would point to England as a good example of an entire nation which was evangelized but did not fully come under Rome until the Norman invasion of 1066. Ireland is another example of a nation which was Christian, and yet not Roman for many centuries. See Phillip Schaff here: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/4_ch02.htm Do a search for England, and you will eventually get to section 8 dealing with the Britons.

Other than that, I will need more time to get you lists of Christians who were not Romanists. But, I'll be out of town this weekend, away from my computer, so maybe I'll have some time to study up.

You are right to say that there was a time when Rome had control over most of the Christians in the world, but God always kept a remnant for Himself.

 

[sastark]

[quote:d229abbb77][i:d229abbb77]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:d229abbb77]
The rome church became false form the get go when constantitne declared himself pope and paganized christianity.

blade [/quote:d229abbb77]

Blade,

No offense, but this never happened. Do you have a source for showing Constantine declaring himself pope?

 

[Bladestunner316]

I was implying that it was him who started it not in that he was a pope so to speak but that he was the one who got the ball running.

blade

 

[sastark]

[quote:85ac308283][i:85ac308283]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:85ac308283]
I was implying that it was him who started it not in that he was a pope so to speak but that he was the one who got the ball running.

blade [/quote:85ac308283]

Oh, ok, I see what you mean. I don't think I totally agree, but at least I understand what you meant.

 

[Bladestunner316]

cool:goodpost:

 

[Scott]

[quote:2daeba9b5d]
Other than that, I will need more time to get you lists of Christians who were not Romanists. But, I'll be out of town this weekend, away from my computer, so maybe I'll have some time to study up.
[/quote:2daeba9b5d]

I would be interested in seeing your list too. Your position sounds similar to the anabaptist trail of blood theory, although it may differ (you have not sketched a position in detail). I suspect, but hope you won't, appeal to the Waldensians. I have heard a number of others appeal to this strange group (that is not saying you will).

Of course, there were always the Greek churches in the east.

Scott

 

[Scott]

[quote:7db4802a64]
Remember that according to Rome (even if each church does not admit this practically) you are going to hell if because of what you believe. Trent is very clear here.
[/quote:7db4802a64]


Fred:

I disagree that this is the current view of the Catholic Church toward those Christians outside RC. Current catholicism views Protestants very differently than Trent did. Here is a quote from Unitatis Redintegratio, a document from the Second Vatican Council. It is as binding on Catholics as Trent and is much more recent.


[quote:7db4802a64]
Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. [i:7db4802a64]The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers[/i:7db4802a64], with respect and affection. [i:7db4802a64]For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect[/i:7db4802a64]. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. [i:7db4802a64]But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church[/i:7db4802a64].(22)
[/quote:7db4802a64]

Here is the entire document:
http://www.cin.org/v2ecum.html

Scott

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Scott]

 

[A_Wild_Boar]

[quote:aba86eb7e0][i:aba86eb7e0]Originally posted by raderag[/i:aba86eb7e0]
[quote:aba86eb7e0][i:aba86eb7e0]Originally posted by Scott[/i:aba86eb7e0]
You are asking questions that many Reformed find hard to answer or don't care about.

Scott [/quote:aba86eb7e0]

I wonder if that is why you are the only one to answer here so far?

Come on. Whoever is saying Rome is false, answer this question. [/quote:aba86eb7e0]

I will have to quote some one else.

AW Pink

"The success of an illegitimate coiner depends largely upon how closely the counterfeit resembles the genuine article. Heresy is not so much the total denial of the truth as a perversion of it. That is why half a lie is always more dangerous than a complete repudiation. Hence when the Father of Lies enters the pulpit it is not his custom to flatly deny the fundamental truths of Christianity, rather does he tacitly acknowledge them, and then proceed to give an erroneous interpretation and a false application."

Just because one affirms the apostles creed does not make for a sound church. When they actively promote non biblical means of salvation , the use of idols, the re sacrificing of Christ at every mass and other blasphemies like that. They can repeat the Apostles creed till they are blue in the face. It does not mean they are a true church.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:c9535ee549][i:c9535ee549]Originally posted by Scott[/i:c9535ee549]
[quote:c9535ee549]
Remember that according to Rome (even if each church does not admit this practically) you are going to hell if because of what you believe. Trent is very clear here.
[/quote:c9535ee549]


Fred:

I disagree that this is the current view of the Catholic Church toward those Christians outside RC. Current catholicism views Protestants very differently than Trent did. Here is a quote from Unitatis Redintegratio, a document from the Second Vatican Council. It is as binding on Catholics as Trent and is much more recent.


[quote:c9535ee549]
Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. [i:c9535ee549]The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers[/i:c9535ee549], with respect and affection. [i:c9535ee549]For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect[/i:c9535ee549]. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. [i:c9535ee549]But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church[/i:c9535ee549].(22)
[/quote:c9535ee549]

Here is the entire document:
http://www.cin.org/v2ecum.html

Scott

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Scott] [/quote:c9535ee549]

Scott,

This is much vaguer than Trent, which Rome has steadfastly refused to repeal, and frankly, deals more with the issue of "no salvation outside Rome" than the doctrine of sola fide.

Sola fide is still anathama to Rome.

Just one example: when asked what he believed the status his wife (an Episcopalian) was, Mel Gibson responded that she was probably going to hell because she was not in the Roman Church.
[quote:c9535ee549]
Gibson was interviewed by the Herald Sun in Australia, and the reporter asked the star if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. "There is no salvation for those outside the Church," Gibson replied. "I believe it."

He elaborated: "Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it."
[/quote:c9535ee549]

 

[pastorway]

Sheer idiocy.....the Pope is the "holy father" who acts as though he has kicked Jesus off His Throne. Antichrist indeed.

Phillip

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[yeutter]

Romanism vs Orthodoxy

The Church of Rome denied at Trant several fundamental truths of the Christian Faith, chief among then justification solely by faith. After that they cast out the Jansenists who still held to the soveriegnty of God. At Vatican 1 they confirmed the false doctrines of Papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I never call the Church of Rome Catholic because it no longer is.

Eastern Orthodoxy has never adopted in a formal sence these errors. I am inclined to regard the Serbian or Ukranian Orthodox as brothers; unless they manifest themselves as enemies of the Gospel.

 

[Scott]

Fred:

Within Catholicism there are various schools of thought. There is a tiny strain (in America at least - perhaps alrger elsewhere) called tradtionalists. These believe that the mass should be in Latin only, are very Tridentine, reject Vatican II, and are very much old school Catholics. There are rather strange and many believein strange conspiracy theories, such as Pope John Paul II is not the real pope, but is rather an imposter. The real pope is in prison somewhere.

Mel Gibson is a tradtionalist. There was a fairly long NY Time article on Gibson's traditionalist views several months ago. His views are a small minority in America. I can't speak to other regions. There is a good book documenting traditionalist views in Michael Cuneo's The Smoke of Satan:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t..._1_1/102-0328332-1146513?v=glance&s=books

Gerry Matatics (former PCA minister turned Catholic) is in this strange camp.

Anyway, I think someone like Fr. Richard John Neuhaus is more representative of modern non-liberal Catholic thinking. He spoke at the Covenant Seminary symposium on "What is the True Church" and took a very Vatican II approach.

Mel Gibson is I think representative of a pre-Vatican II era. I do agree with you that Trent is a problem and fatal error. But the modern Catholic church is functionally ingoring Trent with Vatican II (even though they won't admit that Trent is repealed, which they should do).

Scott

 

[raderag]

[quote:92740316e7][i:92740316e7]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:92740316e7]
Just because one affirms the apostles creed does not make for a sound church. When they actively promote non biblical means of salvation , the use of idols, the re sacrificing of Christ at every mass and other blasphemies like that. They can repeat the Apostles creed till they are blue in the face. It does not mean they are a true church.

[/quote:92740316e7]

I agree, but I didn't make that claim. Rather, I was only asking Scott Bushey to defend his claim about RC and the Creed.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:363d66910c][i:363d66910c]Originally posted by Scott[/i:363d66910c]
Fred:

Within Catholicism there are various schools of thought. There is a tiny strain (in America at least - perhaps alrger elsewhere) called tradtionalists. These believe that the mass should be in Latin only, are very Tridentine, reject Vatican II, and are very much old school Catholics. There are rather strange and many believein strange conspiracy theories, such as Pope John Paul II is not the real pope, but is rather an imposter. The real pope is in prison somewhere.

Mel Gibson is a tradtionalist. There was a fairly long NY Time article on Gibson's traditionalist views several months ago. His views are a small minority in America. I can't speak to other regions. There is a good book documenting traditionalist views in Michael Cuneo's The Smoke of Satan:

Gerry Matatics (former PCA minister turned Catholic) is in this strange camp.

Anyway, I think someone like Fr. Richard John Neuhaus is more representative of modern non-liberal Catholic thinking. He spoke at the Covenant Seminary symposium on "What is the True Church" and took a very Vatican II approach.

Mel Gibson is I think representative of a pre-Vatican II era. I do agree with you that Trent is a problem and fatal error. But the modern Catholic church is functionally ingoring Trent with Vatican II (even though they won't admit that Trent is repealed, which they should do).

Scott [/quote:363d66910c]

Scott,

I'm very aware of the different strains in Catholicism. My background is Catholic. While you are correct that there are some "traditionalists" that have a lot of baggage that goes along with them, there are also many - the vast majority of conservative Catholics - that are not wackos, but actually think that Catholic doctrine is important and worth upholding. Scott Hahn is a good example of a former Protestant who fits this category.

America is an odd place for the Catholic church, and is by far and away not the norm or the way to judge Rome's doctrine. For years the Catholic bishops have been more concerned with bashing Reagan/Bush than upoholding canon law on celibacy, homosexuality and abortion. In America there tend to be two types of liberals - ones who ignore Rome like mainline Protestants ignore confessions, and men like Neuhaus that have a hidden agenda. Don't fool yourself into thinking that Neuhaus is interested in closing the divide. He's not. This is simply his tactic to win over converts for Rome. After all, he is a Protestant convert to Rome himself.

Here's an honest question, that I have no intention of using against anyone: have you ever been to a Catholic mass? Not a wedding, but a full blown mass? What is your practical experience with Roman worship?

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by fredtgreco]

 

[raderag]

[quote:35a721419a][i:35a721419a]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:35a721419a]
Here's an honest question, that I have no intention of using against anyone: have you ever been to a Catholic mass? Not a wedding, but a full blown mass? What is your practical experience with Roman worship?

[/quote:35a721419a]

I have heard several on the radio. Pretty scary stuff if you ask me.

 

[raderag]

[quote:0b6412624c][i:0b6412624c]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:0b6412624c]
Sheer idiocy.....the Pope is the "holy father" who acts as though he has kicked Jesus off His Throne. Antichrist indeed.

Phillip [/quote:0b6412624c]

The problem is that this 'idiocy' seems wise to many very intelligent people. Don't ever underestimate the Roman apologist or theologian. Many a fundamentalist has been converted to Roman Catholicism because what they had been taught about Rome was a straw man. Fortunatly, God has given much to the simple and humble, and resisted the proud.

 

[A_Wild_Boar]

[quote:e25d3441c7][i:e25d3441c7]Originally posted by raderag[/i:e25d3441c7]
[quote:e25d3441c7][i:e25d3441c7]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:e25d3441c7]
Just because one affirms the apostles creed does not make for a sound church. When they actively promote non biblical means of salvation , the use of idols, the re sacrificing of Christ at every mass and other blasphemies like that. They can repeat the Apostles creed till they are blue in the face. It does not mean they are a true church.

[/quote:e25d3441c7]

I agree, but I didn't make that claim. Rather, I was only asking Scott Bushey to defend his claim about RC and the Creed. [/quote:e25d3441c7]



I understand. I didnt mean to make it seem like you made the claim. I misrepresented it pooly. I never get my point across well sometimes.

 

[raderag]

[quote:70511a1284][i:70511a1284]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:70511a1284]

I understand. I didnt mean to make it seem like you made the claim. I misrepresented it pooly. I never get my point across well sometimes. [/quote:70511a1284]

No, I knew that you probably meant it in that way, but I wanted to clarify so a new argument wouldn't be started with someone else.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:064206d63e][i:064206d63e]Originally posted by raderag[/i:064206d63e]
[quote:064206d63e][i:064206d63e]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:064206d63e]
Sheer idiocy.....the Pope is the "holy father" who acts as though he has kicked Jesus off His Throne. Antichrist indeed.

Phillip [/quote:064206d63e]

The problem is that this 'idiocy' seems wise to many very intelligent people. Don't ever underestimate the Roman apologist or theologian. Many a fundamentalist has been converted to Roman Catholicism because what they had been taught about Rome was a straw man. Fortunatly, God has given much to the simple and humble, and resisted the proud. [/quote:064206d63e]

You are absolutely correct here. That is one of the reasons that Rome should never be given an inch. Vatican 2 or not, the only way that there will ever be any "progress" made is if Protestants bow the knee to the Pontiff and kiss his ring.

But the problem with Protestants is that they either take one of two tacks:

1. They underestimate the differences with Rome, and believe that there are some good things in Rome

2. They underestimate Rome and think that every Papists will be sent packing with an accusation of "you believe in salvation by works not grace." Let me tell you, a good Papist apologist will obliterate the poor evangelical that raises this.

Only when we understand that Papists mean entirely different things by "church," "grace," "faith," "baptism," "salvation," "works," and other can we address her poison.

 

[raderag]

[quote:9d9eccffd5][i:9d9eccffd5]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:9d9eccffd5]
[quote:9d9eccffd5][i:9d9eccffd5]Originally posted by raderag[/i:9d9eccffd5]
[quote:9d9eccffd5][i:9d9eccffd5]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:9d9eccffd5]
Sheer idiocy.....the Pope is the "holy father" who acts as though he has kicked Jesus off His Throne. Antichrist indeed.

Phillip [/quote:9d9eccffd5]

The problem is that this 'idiocy' seems wise to many very intelligent people. Don't ever underestimate the Roman apologist or theologian. Many a fundamentalist has been converted to Roman Catholicism because what they had been taught about Rome was a straw man. Fortunatly, God has given much to the simple and humble, and resisted the proud. [/quote:9d9eccffd5]

You are absolutely correct here. That is one of the reasons that Rome should never be given an inch. Vatican 2 or not, the only way that there will ever be any "progress" made is if Protestants bow the knee to the Pontiff and kiss his ring.

But the problem with Protestants is that they either take one of two tacks:

1. They underestimate the differences with Rome, and believe that there are some good things in Rome

2. They underestimate Rome and think that every Papists will be sent packing with an accusation of "you believe in salvation by works not grace." Let me tell you, a good Papist apologist will obliterate the poor evangelical that raises this.

Only when we understand that Papists mean entirely different things by "church," "grace," "faith," "baptism," "salvation," "works," and other can we address her poison. [/quote:9d9eccffd5]

I agree there is no ecumenical compromise as Rome would have to give up her claim of authority, thus ceasing to be Rome. However, the other side of the coin is that we must be very intellectually honest in seeking the whole truth on Rome. I think that Rome feeds on the many straw men that those against them build.

 

[raderag]

[quote:3e145d35dd][i:3e145d35dd]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:3e145d35dd]
Brett:
I think that strawmen have their own church. Their creed is off the wall, though. I don't think anybody lets them in. I think they're all in Oz, looking for a brain. [/quote:3e145d35dd]

BTW, that was very funny.



[Edited on 4-18-2004 by raderag]

 

[Scott]

Vatican II does propose restrucuring the papacy to make it more palatable to other Christian communions. As I recall, the docs ask for suggestions from other communions, especially Eastern Orthodoxy, about what other kinds of changes can be made.

 

[Scott]

Fred: I am aware of "conservatives" in contrast to traditionalists and also use Scott Hahn as an example of that (as a side note, it is interesting to see how their two paths diverged since they were both involved in each other's conversions). The Smoke of Satan book deals with both camps. Conservatives are still a small minority (less than 10 percent of Catholics) in America and the West. Probably less so outside the West, but I am not sure. You are right that there are some and they are certainly more numerous that traditionalists. Given that there are 60 million Catholics in America (compared to 300,000 in the PCA - yikes!), 5-10 percent is still alot. Still, conservatives accept Vatican II, including the Decree on Ecumenism, quoted above. That is a very different approach than a traditionalist like Gibson.

Scott