Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[valiant]

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is heretical. The Church will never except it's practice.

Well a good proportion of the church does accept sola scriptura. Its only the heretical parts of the church that doesn't accept it. For it was the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the Apostles, and the doctrine of the early church. For what its worth it was also the doctrine of Mary.

What you mean is that your heretical church will not accept it because it wants to think that it is infallible in its weird ideas.

The Church has defended her way of life for over 2000 years repudiating heresies all along the way.

You are right, we have. And it has been difficult with the heretical Roman Catholic church using political muscle to persecute true believers and try to force itself on us. But we have come through and there are more true believer than there have ever been.

The Church is the pillar of truth, we all know this.

But the question is, which church? Certainly not the pseudo-church called the Roman Catholic church which only came into existence 700 years or more after Jesus Christ. The church which is the pillar of truth is the church which is wholly based on the New Testament, the church of true believers out of of many denominations, the church which is based on Apostolic principles..

Don't decieve yourselves.

Don't worry, we won't. We will not be joining the heretical Roman Catholic church.

Sola Scriptura is only turning Protestants towards the Ancient Faith.

Ahhh. Truth at last. Sola scriptura is restoring the true church of true believers to the ancient faith of the Apostles. In that you speak truly. Sadly it isn't helping Roman Catholics which is why they are mired in heresy.

There's to much contradictions.

Yes I've noticed the contradiction in the RC church. The Old Catholics who want everything in Latin. The eastern Catholics who allow priests to marry. The Latin American churches which worship Mary as divine, and do it openly. Its contradictory all the way through.,

 

[DesiredHaven]

Now this here , called The Cadaver Synod Cadaver Synod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is remembered as one of the most bizarre episodes of the medieval Papacy

where they dug up a dead body and putting it on trial, bizarre is truly in these things, the story is insane.

Just ending it on the bizarre note.

 

[valiant]

I'm sure you've seen this but from your perspective of being Protestant. Have you ever met a convert to Protestantism from Orthodoxy?

of course we have. and from Roman Catholicism also. Many of them priests. You can find some of their testimonies on the net.

 

[valiant]

You should watch this. I guess this conversion was a big deal in the Protestant world. His dad was a very prominent figure amongst Protestant Evangelicals.

well we've a turncoat on here called mikeuk. What does that prove except Satan's deceptions?

 

[mikeuk]

well we've a turncoat on here called mikeuk. What does that prove except Satan's deceptions?

What it actually proves is sola scriptura is bunk, and as a Protestant / evangelical, I could not work out which one of the ten thousand mutually exclusive doctrines could be right, since all of them started with the arrogance of 10000 people to believe they had the only truth, or that they possessed divine powers to interpret scripture that led them to contradict everyone else , so 9999 of the 10000 were logically false and the other 1 considering the origin of their beliefs in their " own interpretation" was false as well.

none could agree with each other, or give a credible explanation to some of the verses that define Catholicism.

This forum is more of the same. 10000 vaLiants who cannot agree with each other on matters of substance, who only unite on anti RCC rhetoric, because they disagree on everything else.

Your comment on the Eucharistic miracles haughtily discounting the forensic labs as " Argentinian" because you had not looked it up before discount it on a false assumption, is indicative of your attitude and position on scripture , church fathers and everything else. Opinions based on false assumptions, laced with abuse. Pointless responding.

 

[mikeuk]

Well a good proportion of the church does accept sola scriptura.,

Since it is logically indefensible, they need make no other error than that.

sola scriptura is the false doctrine that launched 10000 other false doctrines, since losing authority gave carte Blanche for all to make up their own populist version, as " many doctrines as heads" said Luther , regretting the monster he created, stating the only way to unity was back to the councils of Rome. YES HE SAID IT,

You only have to stand back and look at the divisions in Protestantism, each denomination born of a fracture and destined to fractures to see the house divided that cannot stand, you do not need to look at the differences to see none can be the true church. Simple logic proves that.

 

[valiant]

But that of course is the problem, you use your own definition of infallibility, not the RCC one, then use it to attack RCC.

LOL Confessions of a Turncoat. Not that you were ever a genuine Christian.

EVERY Christian believes in infallibility in its proper context, they must do to be Christians, or to believe that scripture is inspired.

Yes we believe in the infallibility of God and what God has declared infallible.. Not in men who claim they are infallible when every sensible person knows they are not. All you have to do is look at the ridiculous ideas they have declared ex cathedra in the past 1000 years to recognise that. None of them remotely Scriptural..

That some people can act inerrantly in doctrinal matters, that is God acting through people, which is for example the only way scripture can be inerrant and inspired, for the act of authorship of scripture to be infallible, free from error.

It is one thing for God to act inerrantly through genuine prophets and Apostles, men especially chosen by GOD NOT BY MEN. We accept that GOD can raise up a prophet. We don't accept that an heretical and bloodstained hierarchy can.

It is a mark of an act under inspiration not of a person, and it does not make that person sin free or inerrant in any other way.

That's strange. One of the tests of the true prophets and of the Apostles was their genuine righteousness. Look when your appointees can heal all who come to them like the Apostles could we may take more notice.

So the only question is who has acted or acts infallibly, not whether infallibility exists.

True and they must be chosen directly by God, must be deeply righteous men, since the coming of Christ must perform miracles on all who come to them in need, and must be accepted by all spiritual Christians. Any nominee?

The pope is only deemed infallible in limited matters of statement ofdoctrine which rarely has happened in 2 millenia.

Big Daddy was never accepted as infallible in the first 700 years of church history. You show me any genuine document that says he was. He wasn't even seen as Big Daddy. In 7th century Gregory admitted as much. It is an heretical idea established by a church which was at the time stained with blood, adultery, rape, kidnapping, and persecution of true Christians, and these Big Daddys were THEMSELVES murderers, adulterers, rapists and the rest.

He also presides over councils, that for example declared the canon of scripture, so YOU rely on the authority of those catholic councils to believe that the New Testament is inspired.

The genuine books of the New Testament did not become so because a council declared them so. They were ALREADY accepted by most and had been from the beginning because they were APOSTOLIC works. All that the council did (where there was no pope, only a bishop of Rome) was confirm for any in doubt that they were apostolic works. They did not make them Scripture. They saw them as having proved themselves to be Scripture. We have second century lists confirming the books that were acceptable as final authority.

A simple thank you to the pope and councils will do.

There was no pope at the time. The papacy is a post 7th century idea.

But then the pope has scriptural authority to do so having been given the " keys of the kingdom" an unquestionable reference back to the authority of steward in a davidic kingdom, " what you bind on earth is bound in heaven"

I don't see any reference to popes in Matthew 16. Jesus must have forgotten to mention them. No one at the council you mention accepted that the bishop of Rome held the keys of the kingdom. That too is a post seventh century idea.

Your problem is that you were deceived by Roman Catholic lies into turning your coat, and you are even now limited to reading Roman Catholic parodies of church history which are deceitful in the extreme. Try reading genuinely scholarly church histories which are recognised as such by independent scholars.

In fact the keys of the kingdom linked with the reference to binding and loosing clearly refers to the keys of knowledge given to Scribes when they graduated by which they were specifically given the power to bind and loose. Jesus gave the same power to all the Apostles (Matthew 18.18-19).

 

[mikeuk]

of course we have. and from Roman Catholicism also. Many of them priests. You can find some of their testimonies on the net.

You can find a thousand video testimonies on just one single site - , most of them ministers , pastors and theologians from every Protestant group, explaining the doctrines and scriptures that forced them to abandon Protestantism, and how studying history and church fathers brought them back to Rome. Many of them now priests. Watch the " journey home " from coming home network.

They all discovered as I did, that reformationist doctrines were a shallow synthetic fudge, on which none of the reformationists agree, proving there is no universal truth in any of Protestantism, beyond the creeds we share anyway.

 

[SAVAS]

Well a good proportion of the church does accept sola scriptura. Its only the heretical parts of the church that doesn't accept it. For it was the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the Apostles, and the doctrine of the early church. For what its worth it was also the doctrine of Mary.

Show me an Apostolic Father which said Sola is doctrine.

But the question is, which church? Certainly not the pseudo-church called the Roman Catholic church which only came into existence 700 years or more after Jesus Christ. The church which is the pillar of truth is the church which is wholly based on the New Testament, the church of true believers out of of many denominations, the church which is based on Apostolic principles..

I'm Antiochian Orthodox by the way. And if you want to put a date on your doctrine it started in the 16th century. It's a baby idea. We have places of worship at specific cites of Christs ministry.

Ahhh. Truth at last. Sola scriptura is restoring the true church of true believers to the ancient faith of the Apostles. In that you speak truly. Sadly it isn't helping Roman Catholics which is why they are mired in heresy.

Yes. And through the teachings of Christ, the Apostloic Fathers, the ante Nicene and Post Nicen Fathers there is not one teaching (let alone established Doctrine for Heavens sake) which calls Christians to practice Sola.

Yes I've noticed the contradiction in the RC church. The Old Catholics who want everything in Latin. The eastern Catholics who allow priests to marry. The Latin American churches which worship Mary as divine, and do it openly. Its contradictory all the way through.,

I wish I new what your talking about here but I dont.

 

[mikeuk]

Not that you were ever a genuine Christian.

Are you really incapable of civilised discussion? You have no basis for such an insult.

True and they must be chosen directly by God, must be deeply righteous men, since the coming of Christ must perform miracles on all who come to them in need, and must be accepted by all spiritual Christians. Any nominee?

The obvious nominee.
Speaking to Simon the rock. "thou art rock (peter) , and upon this rock (peter) I will build my church"

And the amount of twisting of words protestants use to ignore the obvious is astounding! But none of their explanations would pass the kids test. If I ask 100 kids to read that and ask "what or who is the rock upon which Jesus built his church" - all would answer Peter. It is only because protestants don't want to believe it they twist it every other way.

Sad to say , these protestants have forgotten that even Luther and Calvin thought Peter was special! they argued about succession, not about the first. And apostle Paul proves, God's appointees are often deeply flawed people - but they have ensured a constancy of doctrine.

Just as if I was to ask 100 kids to read the gospels then ask who the woman of revelations 12 was, they would overhwelmingly say it was Mary. Truly "revealing to children, and hiding from wise men" like you

Jesus frequently quoted old testament to be understooo to Jewish audiences who would interpret all in that context.
So "keys of the kingdom" is a clear reference back to the davidic role of steward. Just as riding on a donkey was also linking back to those kings. Your references to scribes in respect of the keys is pure invention. He was not speaking to them.

There was no pope at the time. The papacy is a post 7th century idea.

You who have a strange view of history.

Very little could happen out in the open, whilst the church was an illegal organisation and possessing writings could get you killed as a christian. So not much remains. Councils began only when it became safe in a converted roman empire.

Strange then it is for your interpretation that the council of Constantinople 380 under the rule of Theodysius proclaimed,

"the bishop of constantinople shall take precedence immediately AFTER the bishop of Rome"
so admitting the Bishop of Rome took precedence! How can that be if it was not invented for another 2 hundred years by your account..

You are a typical protestant. I know I was one. Going through hoops to avoid the RCC interpretation.

Yet these are the years in which councils were convened, the nicene creed was decided as a defense against heresy, the canon decided by rejecting many other books which had some claim to be canonical. And so on

Your grasp of history is as poor as your grasp of eucharistic miracles!

But until you admit the obvious truth. The logical IMPOSSIBILITY of sola scriptura as a doctrine, you are lost, as was I.

 

[mikeuk]

Thank you,

This is Bizarre actually, catholic churches made of bones (peoples body parts)

Truly bizarre. Thank goodness it is not in the catechism for me to believe in the efficacy of such, nor are such displays but few, and I do not think I would visit there, nor would I visit the churches of Rwanda full of the bones and memorial to the slaughtered faithful from the Rwandan genocides either .

Perhaps I might visit the churches of the incorruptibles though, as a rather less grotesque memorial and reminder and connection to saints and martyrs past.


The history is there in the catecombs, the early masses said by the graves of fallen martyrs.
Perhaps motivated by this?

When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained;10and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

 

[DesiredHaven]

That is no comparison LOL!

Souls under His altar in heaven is not the same as Him scattering the bones of them all around their altars and idols

 

[mikeuk]

That is no comparison LOL!

Souls under His altar in heaven is not the same as Him scattering the bones of them all around their altars and idols

I did not think you were talking to me. On the subeject, whatever.
Thank goodness I am not obliged to go to a place like that!

But the history of the catacombs as both the resting place of bones of martyrs, and simultaneously the place of early mass is unquestionable history. Some things I suspect are carried on for no better reason than continuity. If it was good enough for the early Christians, it is good enough for us.

It is still creepy., as indeed that eye in your avatar!

 

[valiant]

Which is one of the reformationists problems, they cannot agree between themselves what sola scriptura means, let alone find any scriptural or logical basis for it....

what you mean is that you are unable to cope without someone giving you a dogmatic statement to believe. you are simply a religious parrot. WE all know what we mean by seeing the Scriptures as God's final authority in faith and practise. So stop trying to pretend otherwise, TURNCOAT..

There are seemingly as many definitions of sola scriptura as there are post reformation doctrines, and as Luther despaired in gp his later years saying " as many doctrines as heads".

Absolute nonsense. I have been a Christian for 65 years and I have never found any problem in agreeing the doctrine with all whom I knew in all churches. You MANUFACTURE disagreements which don't exist. But at least we THINK and don't close our eyes and say, 'I will believe whatever Big Daddy tells me to believe'.

I find Martin Luther's comment amusing. He never quite threw of the heresies of the Roman Catholic church and the need to be 'under authority'. But diversity of views in secondary doctrine is to be expected. Unless you ignore Scripture like the Roman Catholic church does, only paying lip service to it, you must expect it. What Roman Catholics ignore is that Scripture is not intended to give a list of doctrines, it is intended to be an instrument through which God speaks to individuals in different circumstances, so as to build up their spiritual lives.

That is what happens when all Protestants claim the right to their own interpretation, so losing the basis of authority that kept constancy for millenia.

LOL you are so arrogant. Do you now anything about church history? Roman Catholic beliefs altered from century to century until they were a straitjacket which stifled thought. And Popes fought each other. Thank God for release from them. Science would still have been in the middle ages if Roman Catholic authorities had had any say in the matter

You were probably a high church Anglican who out-Romed Rome. what do you know about evangelical doctrine? It is quite clear you know NOTHING. In 65 years of involvement in evangelical activity I have found among evangelicals consistent views on all major doctrines.

.

And also guaranteed the endless fractures and schisms of Protestant denominations ever since. Indeed not content with those, there are a huge number of non denominationals who cannot agree with any of those.

You mean just like the New Testament church where each church established its own views based on Scripture and Apostolic teaching? That was when the church was vibrant. Even the Apostles did not try to lord it over the churches. They acknowledged their independence.

So you are right it is about authority, and the lack of it in any Protestant congregation and lacking that compass they drift apart.

Funny, churches I have been involved with have grown larger and larger. And they have been in fellowship with evangelicals of all denominations. All due to our being under the authority directly of the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures. You have such a distorted view of life outside the Roman Catholic church.

 

[valiant]

For example...is your congregation, liturgical, sacramental, has bishops handing on tradition in succession, real presence and so on? If not whatever your congregation is , is not following the early church as handed to the apostles and handed on by them.,

well lets look at the liturgy of the Corinthian church. It is found in 1 Cor 12-14. doesn't look very liturgical to me. sacramental? yes we observe the Lord's Supper and adult baptism. but we don't call them sacraments. yes our 'bishops' hand on the traditions found in the Scriptures from generation to generation. we reject the REAL PRESENCE as blasphemous. but then the Scriptures doesn't teach it.

The early church was NOT handed to the Apostles. they were all independent churches helped and guided by the Apostles who did not claim authority over them. So they could not hand it on to anyone. GOD was in control. They didn't exclude God like the Roman Catholic church does.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant Well a good proportion of the church does accept sola scriptura. Its only the heretical parts of the church that doesn't accept it. For it was the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the Apostles, and the doctrine of the early church. For what its worth it was also the doctrine of Mary.

Show me an Apostolic Father which said Sola is doctrine.

But the question is, which church? Certainly not the pseudo-church called the Roman Catholic church which only came into existence 700 years or more after Jesus Christ. The church which is the pillar of truth is the church which is wholly based on the New Testament, the church of true believers out of of many denominations, the church which is based on Apostolic principles..

I'm Antiochian Orthodox by the way. And if you want to put a date on your doctrine it started in the 16th century. It's a baby idea. We have places of worship at specific cites of Christs ministry.

Ahhh. Truth at last. Sola scriptura is restoring the true church of true believers to the ancient faith of the Apostles. In that you speak truly. Sadly it isn't helping Roman Catholics which is why they are mired in heresy.

Yes. And through the teachings of Christ, the Apostloic Fathers, the ante Nicene and Post Nicen Fathers there is not one teaching (let alone established Doctrine for Heavens sake) which calls Christians to practice Sola.

Yes I've noticed the contradiction in the RC church. The Old Catholics who want everything in Latin. The eastern Catholics who allow priests to marry. The Latin American churches which worship Mary as divine, and do it openly. Its contradictory all the way through.[/quote],

I wish I new what your talking about here but I dont.

well if you will mix up contributions from two contributors you must expect that. I've reseparated them for you.

 

[mikeuk]

Absolute nonsense. I have been a Christian for 65 years and I have never found any problem in agreeing the doctrine with all whom I knew in all churches..

Then you have never looked hard enough.

The protestant mantra "agree on the essentials" is a non starter, because all the differences were plenty enough to force them to fracture and fracture and fracture again. Differences so profound that they are no willing to stay in the same congregation as those they disagree.

Some do not have this problem like Anglican and presbyerian, but onlybecause what they believe is so varied, nobody can any longer work out what if anything they stand for.

But I listed the differences so many times. Here just a few.

All mutually exclusive,
Five different versions of eucharist, from real flesh and blood, to just a memorial. The difference between those is profanity itself.
At least three different versions of baptism.
At least four different versions of salvation from OSAS to not saved till the end.
Other sacraments vs no sacraments and many different flavours.
Charismatic variants. Lots.
Modalism vs trinitarianism. Try to get a pentecostal to explain how one mode can talk to another? Beats me!
Bishops and clergy, essential for sacraments , desirable, possible, or impermissible.
Single , double predestianation or none.
The destination of the child who dies before baptism, One church certainly fractured on that! They cannot stick each other now!

And many , many others.

Then the new stuff which panders to populism not christianity
Pro life vs pro choice. Both abortions and contraception attitudes.
Gays vs women vs men as pastors.
Divorce and remarriage


Now take the permutations of belief.
5*3*4*5 *3 etc etc etc etc
You RAPIDLY get to well over 10000 permutations.

And only one can be what the holy spirit states, yet all believe they have his imprimateur,
So all of them but one is wrong and preaching false doctrine, like almost all on here ,but who?

My life long quest was to find the right one since almost all protestants are provably wrong.

You betray your lack of study of any of this valiant.

 

[valiant]

What it actually proves is sola scriptura is bunk, and as a Protestant / evangelical, I could not work out which one of the ten thousand mutually exclusive doctrines could be right, since all of them started with the arrogance of 10000 people to believe they had the only truth, or that they possessed divine powers to interpret scripture that led them to contradict everyone else , so 9999 of the 10000 were logically false and the other 1 considering the origin of their beliefs in their " own interpretation" was false as well.

none could agree with each other, or give a credible explanation to some of the verses that define Catholicism.

This forum is more of the same. 10000 vaLiants who cannot agree with each other on matters of substance, who only unite on anti RCC rhetoric, because they disagree on everything else.

Your comment on the Eucharistic miracles haughtily discounting the forensic labs as " Argentinian" because you had not looked it up before discount it on a false assumption, is indicative of your attitude and position on scripture , church fathers and everything else. Opinions based on false assumptions, laced with abuse. Pointless responding.

if you claim that you can find 10000 denominations in the UK you are a LIAR. But then you belong to a lying church so it is to be expected. argue on the basis of fantasy is your motto

 

[mattp0625]

Then you have never looked hard enough.

The protestant mantra "agree on the essentials" is a non starter, because all the differences were plenty enough to force them to fracture and fracture and fracture again. Differences so profound that they are no willing to stay in the same congregation as those they disagree.

Some do not have this problem like Anglican and presbyerian, but onlybecause what they believe is so varied, nobody can any longer work out what if anything they stand for.

But I listed the differences so many times. Here just a few.

All mutually exclusive,
Five different versions of eucharist, from real flesh and blood, to just a memorial. The difference between those is profanity itself.
At least three different versions of baptism.
At least four different versions of salvation from OSAS to not saved till the end.
Other sacraments vs no sacraments and many different flavours.
Charismatic variants. Lots.
Modalism vs trinitarianism. Try to get a pentecostal to explain how one mode can talk to another? Beats me!
Bishops and clergy, essential for sacraments , desirable, possible, or impermissible.
Single , double predestianation or none.
The destination of the child who dies before baptism, One church certainly fractured on that! They cannot stick each other now!

And many , many others.

Then the new stuff which panders to populism not christianity
Pro life vs pro choice. Both abortions and contraception attitudes.
Gays vs women vs men as pastors.
Divorce and remarriage


Now take the permutations of belief.
5*3*4*5 *3 etc etc etc etc
You RAPIDLY get to well over 10000 permutations.

And only one can be what the holy spirit states, yet all believe they have his imprimateur,
So all of them but one is wrong and preaching false doctrine, like almost all on here ,but who?

My life long quest was to find the right one since almost all protestants are provably wrong.

You betray your lack of study of any of this valiant.

I didn't believe it until I read it for myself. Pro-contraception Protestant churches.

 

[mikeuk]

if you claim that you can find 10000 denominations in the UK you are a LIAR. But then you belong to a lying church so it is to be expected. argue on the basis of fantasy is your motto

You cannot even be civil about it. I proved my case above on variations..

Much worse than the denominations are the "non denominationals" who regard it as a passport to believe anything at all and there are so many flavours of those.
It is wholly unsupportable that the anglican union allows many of those variations as acceptable under the one uniion, when many are clearly and must be false doctrine.

Simple valiant. IF you believe in the real presence. YOU CANNOT CONDONE the treatment of the eucharist as just a memorial, the remnant thrown in the bin

IF you believe in OSAS, by very definition you regard most of Gods commandments as subservient to an unbiblical ritual of "accepting jesus into your life" or whatever it is you think is saved.

If you care about doctrine and scripture you cannot agree to all of the interpretations as acceptable.
I suspect, like most protestants, you do not realise the massive variation in what people believe. It was because I moved about I discovered it.