Would Baptists even exist without Catholicism?

"This is to assume that there is actually erroneous or "bad" doctrine in the Church.

I got some news for ya, chief.

THERE AIN'T!!"

Dear Ed,
The question of papal infalability and the cannonization of saints are brought together in
the person of Simon of Trent. While Innocent IV had stated in 1247 that Jews do not kill
Christian children and then use their blood in the Passover, Sixtus V cannonised Simon
of Trent on just such a false charge. In 1965 he was de-canonized. So even rigorous checks and papal oversite on such a spiritual topic as sainthood is not infallable.

Likewise, St John Capistrano, acting in his official capacity, tortured and murdered 40 Jews in Breslau on the charge of “host desecration.”. This charge concerned the accusation that Jews would break into churches and cut and abuse the “host”, the body of Jesus. During these times,
priests swore in open court that the host was seen to grow wings, try and fly to safty, beg
for mercy, bleed real blood and so on. Thousands of Jews died across Europe in similar
circumstances. In 1243 the entire Jewish population of Berlin was burned alive for
allegedly torturing a wafer. Likewise, in 1389, three thousand Jews were killed in Prague
on a similar charge. By claiming that the Jews did such things, the priests were
attributing to the Jewish people Catholic beliefs. What does it mean when an infallable
pope cannonises a man who lied (unless you believe that the "host" does grow wings, speak and bleed etc) and murdered in this way?

Turning to life in the Papal states, under the direct control of the pope, Jews were forced
to live in a Ghetto as long as the popes held power. (Pope Innocent III stated in a letter to the Archbishop of Seus and the Bishop of
Paris (15 July 1205): “The Jews are condemned to eternal slavery”. A Papal legate to
presided over the Council of Breslau in 1266 which decreed that Jews must not
live side by side with Christians, and advised special quarters for Jews who must also
wear pointed hats and a red badge. A year later, in 1267 the Council of Vienna urged the
total separation of Jews from society. In 1555 Pope Paul IV, confirming
that Jews had been condemned by God to eternal slavery, decreed the establishment of
“Ghettos” throughout Europe.) There was no hospital in the ghetto, and Jews were not
allowed by the Vatican to become doctors. They were also forbidden to open bookstores,
or go to public schools. In 1843, an ex-friar attacked the papacy for banning Jews from
hiring Christian wet-nurses. “if some Jewish children die from lack of nourishment, you
couldn’t care less ... having to hate these people as much as possible, it only makes sense
to deny milk to their children”. In 1843, Prince Metternich of Austria, whose troops had
again helped the Vatican retake the Papal states, asked the pope if he could cease his
policy of re-ghettoisation. Coming from such an important backer, the prince’s request
was answered by the pope himself:

“The prohibitions on the Jews, forbidding them from employing Christian servants or
wetnurses, from owning real estate ... from living outside [ghetto] walls mixed in and
confused with Christians, are prohibitions founded in the sacred Canon. These ...
command the separation of Christians and Jews.”

The pope went on to note: “the scandal of seeing Jews pretending to be living the same as
others”. Jews living outside of the ghetto, the pope concluded: “cannot be tolerated in the
Ecclesiastical State, because they are openly contrary to the most sacrosanct principles of
the Ecclesiastical laws”. A year later, the pope called on parish priests to ensure that their
parishioners had no social contact with Jews. In 1849, Rome itself was liberated by
Garibaldi’s forces. The pope fled, the ghetto was opened and Jews were given equal
rights.

So popes can make saints on the basis of what other popes call falsehood, cannonise men
who lie in court to obtain murder, and jail all Jews on the stated basis of canon law. Do
the Catholics in America believe the popes were wrong to deprive Jews of their civil
rights, even though a pope stated that they acted on the basis of church councils, papal bulls and
ecclesiastical law?

In 1937, writing in Catholic Polish daily Maly Dziennik, the Catholic priest Trzeciak called for a boycott and expulsion of the Jews of Poland. He quoted from Pope Alexander III, Innocent III and Benedict XIV1, as well as Jerome, Ambrose, the Apostolic Canons (canons 69, 70), the
Council of Nicea (325 CE, canon 52), the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (692),
the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Council of Vienna (1267) and the Council of
Valencia (1388). The Catholic leadership of Poland did not refute these statements. How can you talk about infallability? I think there has been "bad abd erronious doctrine" in your church.

We all have skeletons in our closets, we need to be able to admit that we all sinners, including popes. Even Peter was rebuked by Paul for wrong practice!! We are saved by grace, and live by grace.
Sorry for the long post, all the best,
Colin

 

The Bible mentions "Levi" or "Levite" 100+ times in the Bible, but that does not make me one of them. The Covenant in the New Testament was made with Israel, not with believers in Christ.
DHK

 

-- John Wesley

 

This is interesting. Are you a Dispensationalist?

 

Colin,

Do you know the Pope goes to confession once a week? Do you know that he admits he is a sinner?
Do you know that he has asked for forgiveness for those who have done wrong in their official positions within the Church?

You're correct, we're saved by grace! Has any Catholic told you differently?

 

"Do you know the Pope goes to confession once a week? Do you know that he admits he is a sinner?
Do you know that he has asked for forgiveness for those who have done wrong in their official positions within the Church?

You're correct, we're saved by grace! Has any Catholic told you differently?"

Dear Australis,
thankyou for your gracious reply. It was pleasing to read the above. I was writing in response to Ed (also a nice guy) who had stated that the Catholic church had never, for the past 1800 years, had a wrong doctrine. That sort of statement really begs or challenges someone to go through their record and judge them accordingly. My understanding is that Catholicism finds its authority in three areas, Scripture, Magesterium and Tradition. That is, for Catholics, God has spoken authoritativly in the past through the councils and popes, and this record is an invaluable resource for anyone wishing to discover God's will in situations in the present. These rulings were not simply "a good idea at the time" but are an infallable guide, as reliable as scripture itself. In doing this, the church has really bet the farm on its own history. If it can be shown that church councils and popes, acting in their official, spiritual capacity, made wrong (misguided, prayerful but not perfect) descisions (how do you do spell check in this message box?), then Catholic distinctives are untennable, and its back to the Bible alone, frail humans seeking God, but aware of our own failings. That popes decreed the establishment of ghettoes for Jews, and backed this descision with reference to church councils and previous papal descisions, is surely such evidence.

The ghettoes were overcrowded areas, walled off and guarded by "Christians." Jews were not allowed to leave for even one day unless they had signed permission from the church officials. They were in fact prisons for Jews. In 1837, a Jewish father in the Rome Ghetto begged the pope for help. He wrote on behalf of his seven family
members, living within the one room: “because for a long time, our four children have
been afflicted with diarrhoea that wont go away. Since they have to relieve themselves
constantly, especially at night, the stench is overpowering, as we lack even a convenient
place to keep the excrement”. These were the conditions that sucsessive popes claimed that God wanted the Jews to live under. Now if the popes were right when they quoted ecclesiastical laws and councils, and if such rulings are an infallable and permanent expression of the unchanging will of God, then either the Catholic church should be working towards the establishment of Jewish ghettoes in America, or they should admit that church councils, official papal statements and popes quoting both can all get it wrong. I know I can, and thats why I look forward to your reply,
God bless, Colin

 

Colin --

You, sir, are also a most gracious person in our discussions and disagreements. I commend you for that.

No Catholic of any intelligence would deny that the Catholic Church has had periods when the ADMINISTRATION of the Church has been done absolutely atrociously. The fact that the Church would kill others with whom She disagrees is a testimony not to the incorrectness of Her doctrine, but to the sinfulness of the human beings who are in positions of leadership.

It is very hard sometimes to realize the difference between administration and doctrine. But if you read the official document of the Church, the Catholic Catechism, you will find within its pages statements which convey a profound respect for life.

I have seen web sites in which the Catholic Church has been accused of promoting all manner of immorality based upon the behavior of the few evil popes and bishops who disgraced the Church. Yet there is no official document which any one of these detractors can produce which clearly says that the Church is allowing men and women to act immorally.

I joined the Church because I examined the doctrines and found them to be in line with both the Scriptures and the idea of a Covenantal kingdom. Sometimes I have to hold my nose when I am reading about the behavior of other people in the Church, but I have no arguement with the teachings or morality.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

"It is very hard sometimes to realize the difference between administration and doctrine."

Dear Ed, I also enjoy discussion with you. I must confess that I would rather we were enjoying a good portion of Scripture together (the book of Exekiel is a favorite) rather than you having to endure me being mean about Catholic history! I am likewise utterly shamed by much Protestant history, and indeed, by some of my own actions also. I am however learning from this discussion, and really pray that it is of spiritual benifit to both of us. I do not enjoy controversy, but do believe that respectful discussion can be benificial. For that reason alone, I will therefore gird up my loins and return to the fray. (strap on the boomerang and grab the nulla nulla)

Where do you draw the line between doctrine and administration? Is there a disjunction between Catholic thought and Catholic action? What are the limits of papal infallability? Are you saying: "our doctrines are perfect, but our actions, based on those doctrines, are not?" Equally, when a pope claims to be acting on the basis of church canons, ecclesiastical law and papal statements can nevertheless, in his outward expressings of those, sin, what is their value? If even a pope, quoting such a pedegree can get it wrong, then in what sence are they an infallable guide either to him or to the rest of us? Are church canons, ecclesiastical law and papal statements considered to be infallable?

Sorry for putting you through this, all the best, Colin

 

dear catholic convert , which statement was I not truthful about? You have converted , if the catholic church and doctrine are so great and innocent why did you seperate from them? The fact that my last post was my first post should have no bearing on the statement I made. I have spent years exploring the catholic doctrine and the "church" is in fact a cult , man-made , man-controled.Catholic officials have dated the baptist church to apx.300 AD. And of the catholic murders , have you heard of the inquisition , webesters dictionary has.Satan is the head of false religion , if the catholic church is a true religion why did you convert to Christianity(dont get me wrong i'm glad you did)but we must admit the RCC doctrine is wicked leading hordes into hell. and yes they've done nice things but many will do WONDERFUL WORKS and still go to hell , why would any true christian want to endorse a false doctrine? Is that acceptable for a second post?

 

I'll let CatholicConvert give you his answer but he never separated from them - he converted (actually reconciled) to Catholicism. He is Catholic.

 

Hello HpH --

Astralis is correct. I was a Protestant for 25 years and my belief system was very much like yours. I was convinced that ALL Catholics are going straight to hell, that the whole system is corrupt, wicked and anti-christ in nature. (The Westminster Confesion of Faith actually names the pope as the anti-Christ).

My beliefs were based on a number of things:

1. Complete lack of knowledge of any Church history, including the writings of the Early Fathers, the doctrines which they believed, and their lives as Catholics.

2. Observation of the wicked popes, Inquisitions, murders, etc. of a few of the leaders of the Church. These get great press from anti-catholics, but what is not often spoken of is the millions of devout and decent Catholics of all walks of life who have built orphanages, hospitals, and done great works of charity throughout the last 2 millenia.

3. Jack Chick tracts, Lorraine Boettner's book ROMAN CATHOLICISM, and other assorted anti-catholic SCREED which I devoured on a regular basis.

4. Lack of understanding the covenantal nature of God's dealings with mankind and how the covenant of God actually supports the institution of the Church.

I was a Fundamentalist (Bob Jones and Jack Hyles were my heroes) for 13 years, and then a PCA Calvinist for the next 12. In Fundamentalism, I learned respect for the Scriptures and the idea that if God says in the Word "Do it".....well, you simply obey....no questions or excuses.

In Presbyterian Calvinism, I learned of the covenant of God (a term, believe it or not, that I never heard in Fundamentalism) and began to study it with great gusto. It was my understanding of the Covenant of God which brought me to the Catholic Faith. When I took each of the doctrines of the Catholic Faith (ESPECIALLY those which make no sense at all to the average Protestant -- like our devotion to the Blessed Virgin) and ran them through the template of the Covenant, they fit.

Converting was NOT EASY.....one does not spend 25 years being viriulently anti-Catholic and then just change overnight. In fact, there were days which were painful to the point of physical stress!! But I am glad that I made the trip and wouldn't trade in what I have found for the world.

As a second post, much better. Now, perhaps you and I could, if you desire, start a thread on why I converted and you could fire doctrinal questions at me and I would try to answer them. I do not try to defend for a second the wicked acts of a VERY FEW members of the Church. They shall answer to Christ and that is between them and God. Their actions, like those of the Boston scandal, have brought grave disrepute upon the Church and it is very, very sad. But there is nothing in any of the official writings or the Catholic Catechism which sanctions such behavior. We are called to morality. The failings of these men, as well as those of history, does not mean that the Church teaches otherwise.

Incidentally, just for your knowledge, I am an Eastern Orthodox Catholic and not a Roman Catholic. The Orthodox Church has never been touched by either the schism, the reformation, or the problems you have mentioned. Yes, there have been some scandals, and unfortunately, every heresy which the Church had to deal with came out of the East for some reason. It was while I was studying the apostolic faiths (Catholicism, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy) that I first visited an Orthodox parish. I fell in love with the beauty of the worship and the reverence for all things holy. But I knew, after two years of study, that I had to be jurisdictionally under the headship of the Holy Father in Rome. Becoming an Eastern Orthodox Catholic was the answer and the best of both worlds for me.

Our liturgy goes back to the 6th century, so we are even more ancient than the Council of Trent or Vatican II. It is the same worship you would have experienced in Constantinople in the 6th century.

So......I will start a thread sometime this weekend and hope you shall join me.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

PS....Just in case you are curious as to what we heretics look like , I have some pictures of our church online:

ST. ANN'S BYZANTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH

 

Brother Colin --

Hope you don't feel "short shifted" by my answer, but I really MUST get about work.

If one really desires to know the official teachings of the Church, one merely has to get a copy of the Catholic Catechism. All that we are bound to accept as truth is in there.

As for the issue of infallibility, I will attempt an answer, but it is not one of the areas of major study for me (I really studied the Eucharist and the Marian doctrines hard before converting).

For a pope to speak infallibly, he must be speaking "from the chair" so to speak. That is, he must be exercising his office as the head of the Church and making a pronouncement upon either a doctrinal or moral issue within the Church.

This has only been done TWICE in 2,000 years, so as you see, it is quite rare. If I remember correctly, the last one was in the 1950's on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (some of you Roman Catholics please jump in here and help out this Eastern brother!!).

I intend sometime this weekend to start a new thread on converting to the Catholic Faith. Perhaps you and hph will come join me for animated discussion.

Gotta run. Will stay in touch.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

CatholicConvert,

Could you clarify for everyone that your Rite is under the authority of Rome? This way people will understand that we are not divided.

I'll let you get back to work. You can't save the world if you can't pay the rent!

 

Dear Ed,
thanks for the informantion re papal infalability. This does still leave your original assertion:

"This is to assume that there is actually erroneous or "bad" doctrine in the Church.

I got some news for ya, chief.

THERE AIN'T!!"

I do think you need to deal more directly with my previous posts which pointed out that for most of its history, the Catholic church has had a doctrine that stated that Jews were condemned to slavery because of their sins. The outworking of this doctrine resulted in (among other things) the literal imprisonment of the Jewish population of Europe for nearly 400 years. A pope claimed that this policy was affirmed by church councils, canon and ecclesiastical laws, as well as by the official statements of previous popes. That is, he enlisted church tradition and magesterium to support sin. These are supposed (I think you think) to be an infallable guide to the will of God, yet here they directly broke the command of Jesus to love ones neighbour.

If you believe that tradition and magesterium are an infallable guide to the will of God, then you do have "erronious or bad doctrine" in your church.

Good luck with the studies, Colin

 

Brother Colin --

I guess the simple answer would be like this:

Doctrine would be like the doctrine of the Trinity. Once that was established as a doctrine, 1500 years of Arians, heretics, etc., has not been able to change or modify this doctrine. This is true with all doctrines.

As for the idea that Jews should be enslaved, you will not find this in the Catholic Catechism, therefore, it was simply an opinion of the time which was not on a par with doctrine.

And you are right -- it shows a dreadful lack of the love of Christ towards these people. We call that "sin", and most folks are infested with it in some degree.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

PS Australis -- Yes, we are under the headship of Rome, but remember, as far as our own culturalism in worship go, we are a sui juris body.

 

Brother Ed,
Just Curious. Isn't there a genuine and sincere movement within the Catholic church to make Mary, co-redemptrix with Jesus Christ, and thus a part of the Godhead? What would that do to the doctrine of the trinity?
DHK

 

Colin,
Infallibility applies only to the official, public, declared doctrines of the Church. That is, those which are given to the universal Church.
Infallibility does not apply to any other statement, even if made by a pope. And when a pope
declares an infallible doctrine it is only that statement within the document which was intended to be a public teaching for all the members of the universal Church which is infallible. Other statements in the document are not necessarily infallible.

The Catholic Church is very precise in her defined(de fide definita) doctrines. And that includes her definition on infallibility. She prayerfully studies the package of divine Revelation given to the Church before any further definition can be made. There can never be any contradiction or change in any defined doctrine in regard to all of the previous defined doctrines.

The defined doctrines support one another. Therefore, what the Church teaches about Mary supports and comes from what the Church teaches (and understands from Revelation) about Jesus Christ. To contradict or change a defined doctrine about Mary would be to rob Jesus Christ by detracting from a truth about Him.

Christ obviously never intended to protect His apostles from all sin. Revelation teaches us that they all sinned, Judas worst of all. And in His promises to the apostles He does not in any way indicate that He would keep them from sin.

Yet, Jesus Himself revealed to us that He has all power or authority in heaven and earth. And from that power or authority He delegated the apostles to go and teach and baptize (administer the Sacraments). And that Jesus would be with the apostles alway, even to the end of the world.

And in Mt 16, Jesus promises that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church He would establish. How could hell prevail? Satan is a liar. To teach doctrines against Christ's doctrines is the worst of lies because souls can go to hell as a result of such teaching. Then the gates (powers) of hell would have prevailed.

So when Jesus sent His apostles out to teach and when He gave them these promises, He was promising them infallibility. And He has kept His promise.

Popes are sinners just like the rest of us.
Thanks be to God, that most of them have lived lives morally and spiritually above the average.

When I was a Protestant I saw some really heavy authoritarianism. Those Protestant leaders had and exercised authority over their people that no pope has over the Catholic people.

In the Catholic Church, authority, and it's limits, are well defined.

Hope this clarifies a little what infalliability is and does.

Pauline

 

DHK,
There is a movement in the Catholic Church asking the pope to declare Mary co-mediatrix. It is important to use the correct term.

If that should be declared a doctrine that is given to us in public Revelation, what would that do to the truth about the Trinity? That truths about the Trinity are, and would remain, the same truths about the Trinity. To declare that Mary is co-mediatrix would, however, point out that God, in His great plan of salvation chooses to work through mediators.

Please always remember the use of the different levels of words. Jesus Christ, according to Catholic doctrines, is the one Mediator between God and man. Only because the second Person of the Trinity took to Himself a full human nature.
And, came to earth to live, walk, suffer and die among and for us, are we able to have a personal relationship with our Triune God. He is our divine Bridge to God. Nothing that any mere created human being could do would ever come anywhere near what He has done in value.

Remember too, Christ Himself said that without Him we Christians can do nothing. We can do nothing good, of eternal value, except when we live in union with Him and, by His grace, He effects His works through us. In other words, when we live and work in union with Him so the works are really His. And, that applies to Mary as well as to the rest of us.

So if Mary were to be declared co-mediatrix, it would never make her equal to Jesus. Nor make her God-given part in the plan of salvation anywhere comparable to what Jesus did for our salvation.

Jesus took to Himself a human nature, body and blood from the body and blood of Mary. Think of the honor He gave her. He kept her a virgin in order to make her the new ark of His new covenant which He would effect by His human body, blood, soul and His divinity.

To get this whole plan of salvation into perspective, one has realize that Jesus did it all. But in doing it all, He called human beings to share in what He did and continues to do today. Every Christian is called to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in the work of Jesus Christ, to be His instruments. Mary was called to be that in a unique and major way. You and I are called to be that in a lesser and more common way. We would do well to be co-mediatrixes in imitation of Mary, who willingly assented to be God's instrument in His plan of salvation. Who pondered in her heart the truths of all she learned about Jesus. Who was prayerful and obedient. Who served others for love of God. And who was faithful to Jesus to the end. If we would be like her in these ways, we too will be used by God in His plan of salvation.

We too then will be soul winners, or co-medatrixes. And every Christian is called to be such.

Pauline

 

Thanks for the reply Pauline,
From what I understand from your theology, Mary already has the title of co-mediatrix, does she not?
Would not this be a movement to go one step further and officially give her a status of deity? I know you say you don't worship her now, but if this movement would succeed then she would be either a god, or part of the Godhead (I'm not sure which) whom you would be worshipping. Is this true?
DHK

 

Even those Catholics who would like Mary to be declared coredemptrix would be appalled by the idea that someone would worship her.

Their stated position is that only Jesus was capable of redeeming mankind through His sacrifice.

Mary would certainly not qualify as God or worthy of worship, even if these folks had their way.

However, it's a moot point now. The Pope has said publicly that he is not inclined to review the Church's position on Mary.