Some time after, when the reforming spirit had reached its full growth, Dudithius, a learned Protestant divine, in his epistle to Beza, wrote:
"What sort of people are our Protestants, straggling to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, sometimes to this side, sometimes to that? You may, perhaps, know what their sentiments in matters of religion are to-day, but you can never tell precisely what they will be to-morrow. In what article of religion do these churches agree which have cast off the Bishop of Rome? Examine all from top to bottom, and you will scarce find one thing affirmed by one which was not immediately condemned by another for wicked doctrine."
The same confusion of opinions was described by an English Protestant, the learned Dr. Walton, about the middle of the last century, in his preface to his Polyglot, where he says:
"Aristarchus heretofore could scarce find seven wise men in Greece; but with us, scarce are to be found so many idiots. For all are doctors, all are divinely learned: there is not so much as the meanest fanatic who does not give you his own dreams for the word of God. The bottomless pit seems to have been opened, from whence a smoke has arisen which has darkened the heavens and the stars, and locusts have come out with stings, a numerous race of sectaries and heretics, who have renewed all the ancient heresies, and invented many monstrous opinions of their own. These have filled our cities, villages, camps, houses and nay, our pulpits, too, and lead the poor deluded people with them to the pit of perdition."
"Yes," writes another author, "every ten years, or nearly so, the Protestant theological literature undergoes a complete revolution. What was admired during the one decennial period is rejected in the next, and the image which they adored is burnt to make way for new divinities; the dogmas which were held in honor, fall into discredit; the classical treatise of morality is banished among the old books out of date; criticism overturns criticism; the commentary of yesterday ridicules that of the previous day, and what was clearly proved in 1840, is not less clearly disproved in 1850. The theological systems of Protestantism are as numerous as the political constitutions of France -- one revolution only awaits another." ( Le Semeur, June, 1840.)
It is indeed utterly impossible to keep the various members of one single sect from perpetual disputes, even about the essential truths of revealed religion. And those religious differences exist not only in the same sect, not only in the same country and town, but even in the same family. Nay, the self-same individual, at different periods of his life, is often in flagrant contradiction with himself. To-day he avows opinions which yesterday he abhorred, and to-morrow he will exchange these again for new ones. At last, after belonging, successively, to various new-fangled sects, he generally ends by professing unmitigated contempt for them all. By their continual disputes and bickerings, and dividing and subdividing, the various Protestant sects have made themselves the scorn of honest minds, the laughing-stock of the pagan and the infidel.
These human sects, the "works of the flesh," as St. Paul calls them, alter their shape, like clouds, but "feel no blow," says Mr. Marshall, because they have no substance. They fight a good deal with one another, but nobody minds it, not even themselves, nor cares what becomes of them. If one human sect perishes, it is always easy to make another, or half a dozen. They have the life of worms, and propagate by corruption. Their life is so like death that, except by the putridity which they exhale in both stages, it is impossible to tell which is which, and when they are buried, nobody can find their graves. They have simply disappeared.
The spirit of Protestantism, or the spirit of revolt against God and his Church, sprung up from the Reformers' spirit of incontinency, obstinacy, and covetousness. Luther, in despite of the vow he had solemnly made to God of keeping continency, married a nun, equally bound as himself to that sacred religious promise; but, as St. Jerome says, " it is rare to find a heretic that loves chastity."
Condemnation by members of the protest themselves. And this is what you would have me to join against the 2000 years of continued moral and theological truth of the Catholic Faith?
Agapetus (535-6) burned the anathema, which Bonface II (530-2) had solemnly issued against Dioscorus (530). The later is shown as an antipope, but Agapetus, who sided with him, is shown as a true pope. Adrian II (867-72) said civil marriages were valid; Pius VII (1800-23) declared them invalid. Both men are shown as legitimate popes. Nicholas V (1447-55) voided all of Eugenius IV's (1431-47) "documents, processes, decrees, and censures against the Council [of Basle]. ... to be regarded as having never existed" (Dollinger, op. cit., p. 275), yet both remain on the official list of popes today. On July 21, 1773, Pope Clement XIV issued a decree suppressing the Jesuits, only to have it reversed by a decree restoring them, issued by Pope Pius VII on August 7, 1814. Eugenius IV condemned Joan of Arch (1412-31) to be burned as a witch and heretic, but she was beatified by Pius X (1903-14) in 1909 and canonized by Benedict XV (1914-22) in 1920. Today inside Paris's Cathedral of Notre Dame, one of the most popular images is that of Saint Joan of Arc, France's "natural heroine," with a profusion of candles always burning before it. How could an "infallible pope" condemn a saint to death as a witch? Yet Eugene IV remains on the list of allegedly infallible "successors of Peter."
You know, one of the major problems with Protestants is that they criticized what they don't even understand. I know. Used to do the same thing myself.
It would be nice if you would try to understand the difference between infallibility, which has to do with issues of doctrinal and moral correctness and the propensity of all men to make general administrative screw ups.
The Chair of St. Peter is protected against doctrinal and moral error. That is infallibility. The quote you gave me above is an example of how personal opinion, which popes have, can mess up the smooth running of the Church (which it has on a number of occasions).
This is far, far different than the constant changing of doctrines which exemplifies Protestantism. Just on this board alone I have seen considerable argument over the issue of baptism and salvation. You will never get this in the Catholic Church because that issue was settled 2000 years ago. There is but one teaching on this doctrine.
However, a pope could believe that the world is flat. He could even publish his opinion. That is his personal opinion and since he is not making it a doctrine of the Church or a moral teaching, it is not covered under the auspices of infallibility.
Condemnation by members of the protest themselves. And this is what you would have me to join against the 2000 years of continued moral and theological truth of the Catholic Faith?
You gotta be kiddin'
Right, because as we all know, there have never been any such disagreements and condemnation within the Papal Church! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Right, because as we all know, there have never been any such disagreements and condemnation within the Papal Church!
That's exactly right! Congratulations!!
Look, man, the Eucharist has always been the Eucharist. It has never been anything else but the Body and Blood of Christ until the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anabaptists came along.
Ditto with Baptismal Regeneration.
You may have schismatics and dissidents in the Church, but that is FAR FAR different than changing the official teaching every 100 or so years like Protestantism does.
ONE Church, holy, catholic, and apostolic, with ONE set of teachings found in the Catholic Catechism.
Those living in faith in Christ and faithful to those teachings have every right to expect eternal bliss with Him. Those who are rebellious (who SHOULD leave and join you Prots) can expect..............
well, whatever it will be, it ain't gonna be nice!!
You and the people you quote from all assume that Protestantism is united like Catholicism. Protestants separate over error necessarily and become completely separate groups. Catholics, on the other hand, ignore what's going on in the local churches. Also, the Catholic church has changed over the centuries with the culture. That's why I can go into several Catholic churches in different towns and find contradictory doctrines, many of which are against Scripture and heretical to established Catholic doctrine. Protestants aren't united, and don't claim to be. Catholics aren't as united as they claim to be.
Look, man, the Eucharist has always been the Eucharist. It has never been anything else but the Body and Blood of Christ until the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anabaptists came along.
Ditto with Baptismal Regeneration.
As if the sacraments were the only issue!
Quote
You may have schismatics and dissidents in the Church, but that is FAR FAR different than changing the official teaching every 100 or so years like Protestantism does.
Utterly laughable contention, if for no other reason than this: Protestants do not have a single infallible human authority. The question of doctrinal changes within Protestantism is not the same as it is in Catholicism.
Quote
ONE Church, holy, catholic, and apostolic, with ONE set of teachings found in the Catholic Catechism.
Those living in faith in Christ and faithful to those teachings have every right to expect eternal bliss with Him. Those who are rebellious (who SHOULD leave and join you Prots) can expect..............
The POPE is neither the embodiment of the church nor the infallible explicator of the apostolic doctrines. The Papists, and indeed a great number of others, including Protestants and Eastern Orthodox, are in rebellion against the Word of God as long as they set some other authority over above it, be that the Pope, "sacred" tradition, or human reason.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
[color:"0000FF"]Matthew 16:18-19 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; [color:"FF0000"]and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [/color] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[/color]
There is the promise. It is iron clad and bound by the precious Blood which Jesus shed on the Cross. Notice to WHOM Jesus was addressing this. He was addressing the first one who would hold the office of covenantal head over the people of God -- St. Peter.
In a covenant relationship, as we see in the federal paradigm you guys are so fond of, it is the federal head who leads the family under him. He protects it, leads it, and is responsible for it. Thus, when Adam, as the federal head of mankind, sinned against God, the entire human race, being within his loins and yet unborn, were cast into the separation from God which the Bible calls "death". Neither you nor I did anything to earn this other than to be under Adam's headship. The covenantal head acts on behalf of the coveantal people.
This is why the Jews were annihilated in AD 70 (remember I said that my reason for coming here was that I was searching for more material on Preterist Eschatology?). The covenantal head of the Jewish theocratic nation, the high priest, condemned Jesus to death, and in doing so, condemned all who were in the nation to the destruction which befell Jerusalem in AD 70.
The covenantal head of the earthly people of God is the Holy Father in Rome. He is the "prime minister" if you please, who is in charge down here. It is the responsibility of this office to exercise proper doctrinal and moral teaching so that the people of the kingdom may obtain the salvation which is in Jesus Christ, and having obtained it through faith, live that life in "covenantal faithfulness" to the end of their days.
The promise of Christ is that His Holy Spirit would thus protect this office from error in these two areas that the people of God might know truth from error. This is completely unlike the mess we view as Protestantism, in which, as my first post [color:"FF0000"]made by Protestants[/color] states, there is a confusion which borders upon the lunatic. Having dozens of differing ideas on baptism, salvation, ordinances vs sacraments, the number of sacraments, even the existence of hell, is not a testimony to the protection of the Holy Spirit upon the Protestant Rebellion.
Neither is the wholesale moral depravation we are seeing in most "mainline" churches today as they allow for "gay marriage" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one!), abortion "rights", live sexual arrangements, feminism, female "preachers and priests" and a host of other moral degeneracies. Again, where is the protection of the Holy Spirit? Seems considerably absent to me.
And lest you start thumping your chest about how YOUR denomination is more conservative and will never allow for such things....let me remind you that at one time, so were these. Let me further remind you that already the PCA has changed the wording of the Nicene Creed to appease the feminists among them. Won't be too many more years before they have "wimmen preachas".
You watch!!
Your lack of understanding of the truth does not change the truth. Neither is it changed by the many in the Catholic Faith who mangle it, oppose it (as I said, they SHOULD leave), or fail to live it properly. Truth is truth and the Lord Jesus Christ established one office on earth to protect that truth for all time.
In closing, let me ask you this: in a country filled with pagans, when the average pagan looks out of his villge and sees 15 different Christian assemblies, all preaching something different, even to the point of telling him different ways to get to Heaven, how can he not feel that Christianity is a religion of simple minded idiots?
If the men who wrote the paragraphs I posted in the first post could see today what Protestantism has become, they would be spinning in their graves like pinwheels!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jawdrop.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jawdrop.gif" alt="" />
So, are you saying that the Protestant members on this board are unsaved?
UNBLIEVEABLE!!
Let's go back and see what I said please:
Quote
Those living in faith in Christ and faithful to those teachings have every right to expect eternal bliss with Him. Those who are rebellious (who SHOULD leave and join you Prots) can expect..............
Now.............WHO am I talking about here? I was talking about CATHOLICS WHO ARE COVENANT BREAKERS BY THEIR REBELLION!!
I didn't even MENTION anyone on this board.
See?
This is another reason you need an infallible interpretor of the Word of God. You can't even read a simply statement I made without "reading into it". And yet you expect private interpretation of something as deep as the holy scriptures to be without error or presupposition on the part of the reader!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />
And BTW, I am willing to bet that there are people on this board who's faith in and love for the Lord Jesus Christ makes me look like a pagan. Much better I attend to my own soul than pass judgment upon others!!
My apologies nonetheless. Offense was not my intention.
Ummm, without scripture, we'll never agree. There is where we differ. Protestants, especially the reformed type (is there another?), believe Gods Word is inerrant and the sole rule of faith. You uphold a tradition not found therein. I doubt you'll get anybody here to put on some Romish glasses and I can tell you aren't currently interested in looking at Gods Word as your ultimate authority.
