Why we cannot accept the Reformation!

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,029
3,750
✟287,917.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Whatever their beliefs were, right or wrong, on what right does the Catholic church reserve the right to massacre thousands and thousands of people?



What did Jesus teach?


"Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven." -Mt. 18:21-22 (KJV)

And as a last resort, Jesus said:

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." -Mk. 6:11 (KJV)

Did they do that? No, instead they SLAUGHTERED thousands.



Does not matter, and it still proves my point.

Disagree with the "Catholic" church, persecution, torture, and death followed.

There is historical fact that when the Donatists rebelled, as its been said, that if they surrendered their scriptures, they could come back or if they didn't sure persecutioin:

"The church was horrified by stories of their fellow believers being handed over, along with many of their holiest scriptures, to be destroyed, often not by their enemies, but by traitorous Christian leaders within their own church. The church in North Africa was then faced with the decision “between the Church of traditores (traitors) and persecutors, or the unsullied Church of the martyrs.” A vast majority of North African Christians began seeing themselves as “a church of martyrs.”

Source

"During the persecutions, any Christian who renounced Christianity, made offerings to the Roman state gods and/or the Imperial divine cult, and who burned any sacred Christian texts they may have had, were spared. Those who refused — especially those caught with Christian texts that they refused to hand over or destroy — were usually killed. That texts were often used to determine who was Christian and who wasn’t, meant that the clergy — those Christians most likely to have such things — were particularly vulnerable to the persecution."

Source

Thus set the pattern up until the late 1300's.

Remember John Wycliffe, and John Huss, and how many others?

What else did Martin Luther do that earned the churches wrath?

He put the scriptures in the language of the German people.

And that is one of the principle dividing points between Catholicism and Protestantism today.

We do not revere a man sitting on a throne in Rome.

We do not revere the ECF's.

We do not revere the tradition of the mother church.

And even today, it still continues to a point.

And here is a fact that is undisputable.

If the Reformation wasn't a good thing, if God wasn't behind it, it would have died 600 years ago.

Tank God that many people had the guts and nerve, and the will to stand up to the mother church.

And no matter how you try to "whitewash" it (your term), the Catholic church has a very long history of persecuting, torturing, and even killing those who dare to stand up to its "corruption" as Martin Luther put it.

And that, no amount of whitewash can blot out.

Happy Reformation Day!

God Bless

Till all are one.

You realise that the persecution the Donatists faced was of Pagan and not Catholic origin right? That the whole contention between the Donatists and the Catholics was that Donatists believed that those who had sacrificed under the pressure of persecution to Caeser could not be re-admitted into the Church even if they were to repent? The Donatists were not murdered by the Catholic clergy as much as they were by Roman civil authorities (which was not uncommon for the government to do back then) and there's an important distinction there so we don't conflate the two institutions of Church and state which have always remained formally separated. You might criticise the policies of the empire and perhaps the Church's support of such repression yet that doesn't invalidate the theology of the Catholic side whom were clearly in the right here.

If the standard is persecution and you identify those whom were persecuted as teh true Christians, do you identifies the Arians as true Christians? They were repressed when Theodosius made Nicene Christianity the religion of state. Would you say the Gnostic Cathars are true Christians because they were persecuted?

I think you've claimed to deny Donatism in it's theology yet you insist that they are a proto-protestant movement. Where exactly do you stand? Do you demand perfection of your sacerdotally elected clergy and that in order for their Eucharist or baptisms to be valid they must be utterly pure? Because that's what the Donatists believed and what chiefly divided them from a man like Augustine who admitted his own sins in his Confession.

I would also point out that the age of an ideology does not validate it, it only allows the possibility of it being correct. Islam hasn't fallen yet but none of us believe God preserved it and allowed it to thrive today. Same with Buddhism and other non Christian ideas.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You realise that the persecution the Donatists faced was of Pagan and not Catholic origin right? That the whole contention between the Donatists and the Catholics was that Donatists believed that those who had sacrificed under the pressure of persecution to Caeser could not be re-admitted into the Church even if they were to repent? The Donatists were not murdered by the Catholic clergy as much as they were by Roman civil authorities (which was not uncommon for the government to do back then) and there's an important distinction there so we don't conflate the two institutions of Church and state which have always remained formally separated. You might criticise the policies of the empire and perhaps the Church's support of such repression yet that doesn't invalidate the theology of the Catholic side whom were clearly in the right here.

If the standard is persecution and you identify those whom were persecuted as teh true Christians, do you identifies the Arians as true Christians? They were repressed when Theodosius made Nicene Christianity the religion of state. Would you say the Gnostic Cathars are true Christians because they were persecuted?

I think you've claimed to deny Donatism in it's theology yet you insist that they are a proto-protestant movement. Where exactly do you stand? Do you demand perfection of your sacerdotally elected clergy and that in order for their Eucharist or baptisms to be valid they must be utterly pure? Because that's what the Donatists believed and what chiefly divided them from a man like Augustine who admitted his own sins in his Confession.

I would also point out that the age of an ideology does not validate it, it only allows the possibility of it being correct. Islam hasn't fallen yet but none of us believe God preserved it and allowed it to thrive today. Same with Buddhism and other non Christian ideas.

For the last time, I am a Baptist, and I stand on time honored Baptist beliefs.

And you have still missed the whole point as have others.

Not once in either thread have I condoned what the Donatists did. Nor have I condoned what Catholics did.

The point is, whether they defied Catholicism on the basis of disagreeing with defiled priests and baptism, or following Gnosticism, or trying to put God's word in the hands of the "common" man, the "Catholic" church has a very long history of persecuting, torturing, and even killing anybody and everybody who dared to disagree with them.

Do you demand perfection of your sacerdotally elected clergy and that in order for their Eucharist or baptisms to be valid they must be utterly pure? Because that's what the Donatists believed and what chiefly divided them from a man like Augustine who admitted his own sins in his Confession.

In the first place, I recognize that no man is perfect. Not even the pope.

Secondly, baptism and the Lord's Supper is dependent on the pastor.

Thirdly, who says baptisms has to be perform by the clergy? Phillip was only a deacon and he baptized the eunuch.

And if you read On the Perseverance of the Saints, Augustine admitted a great many errors the Catholicism still holds dear.

It was not thus that that pious and humble teacher thought—I speak of the most blessed Cyprian—when he said “that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own.” Cyprian, Testimonies to Quirinus, Book iii. ch. 4; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 528. And in order to show this, he appealed to the apostle as a witness, where he said, “For what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received it, why boastest thou as if thou hadst not received it?” 1 Cor. iv. 7. And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God’s gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God’s grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves."

St. Augustine, Anti-Pelagian Writings, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Chapter 7 [III.]—Augustin Confesses that He Had Formerly Been in Error Concerning the Grace of God."

Augustine admits, that as far as "grace" was concerned, and that takes in quite a few items, he was mistaken.

  1. "And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God’s gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God’s grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves." He admits, that as far as the faith to believe was not a gift of God. But he corrects that by saying: " I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will,.. I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love. For faith is not alone but as it is written, ‘Love with faith, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Eph. vi. 23. And what I said a little after, ‘For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,"
  2. He admits he was wrong in in his beliefs on "election" (cf. Jacob and Esau): " I say, ‘what God could have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,” Mal. i. 2, 3. Cf. Rom. ix. 13. I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: ‘God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.’ In fact, he admits that in reality, he was completely wrong and admitted that "calling" was for the "elect": "But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God’s purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect."
  3. Augustine also admits he was wrong as far as merits prior to grace saying: "is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given." In this statement alone, Augustine denies that heaven is given to the justified believer based upon merit.
  4. Augustine did in fact, hold to a "form" of "double predestination" (as most Catholics define it) saying: "Therefore what I said a little afterwards: ‘For as in those whom God elects it is not works but faith that begins the merit so as to do good works by the gift of God, so in those whom He condemns, unbelief and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that even by way of punishment itself they do evil works’—I spoke most truly."
Some of what Augustine believed, he came to the realization that he was wrong. DEAD WRONG!

Augustine realized that man had to be taken out of the equation. Five times in his "Error" he attributed everything I mentioned "of God."

In fact, Augustine goes even further to deny men are justified by works.

Chapter 12 [VII.]—Why the Apostle Said that We are Justified by Faith and Not by Works.

In his letter "Why the Apostle Said that We are Justified by Faith and Not by Works", he FLAT OUT says:

"But perhaps it may be said: “The apostle distinguishes faith from works; he says, indeed, that grace is not of works, but he does not say that it is not of faith.” This, indeed, is true. But Jesus says that faith itself also is the work of God, and commands us to work it. For the Jews said to Him, “What shall we do that we may work the work of God? Jesus answered, and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.” John vi. 28. The apostle, therefore, distinguishes faith from works, just as Judah is distinguished from Israel in the two kingdoms of the Hebrews, although Judah is Israel itself. And he says that a man is justified by faith and not by works, because faith itself is first given, from which may be obtained other things which are specially characterized as works, in which a man may live righteously. For he himself also says, “By grace ye are saved through faith; and this not of yourselves; but it is the gift of God,” Eph. ii. 8. —that is to say, “And in saying ‘through faith,’ even faith itself is not of yourselves, but is God’s gift.” “Not of works,” he says, “lest any man should be lifted up.” For it is often said, “He deserved to believe, because he was a good man even before he believed.” Which may be said of Cornelius Acts x. since his alms were accepted and his prayers heard before he had believed on Christ; and yet without some faith he neither gave alms nor prayed. For how did he call on him on whom he had not believed? But if he could have been saved without the faith of Christ the Apostle Peter would not have been sent as an architect to build him up; although, “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain who build it.” Ps. cxxvii. 1. And we are told, Faith is of ourselves; other things which pertain to works of righteousness are of the Lord; as if faith did not belong to the building,—as if, I say, the foundation did not belong to the building. But if this primarily and especially belongs to it, he labours in vain who seeks to build up the faith by preaching, unless the Lord in His mercy builds it up from within. Whatever, therefore, of good works Cornelius performed, as well before he believed in Christ as when he believed and after he had believed, are all to be ascribed to God, lest, perchance any man be lifted up."

Source

But all this is neither here or there. The point still remains, by the time of Luther, Catholicism had a very long history of persecuting, torturing, and even murdering anybody and everybody who dared to stand up to, or disagree with the dogmas of Catholicism, and were as Luther saw, corrupt.

And the fact remains, thanks to the Reformation, one of the largest Christian denominations in the world next to Catholicism, came into being. Baptists.

It may have taken 1200 years, but it came.

Thank God for the Reformation!

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,029
3,750
✟287,917.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
For the last time, I am a Baptist, and I stand on time honored Baptist beliefs.

And you have still missed the whole point as have others.

Not once in either thread have I condoned what the Donatists did. Nor have I condoned what Catholics did.

The point is, whether they defied Catholicism on the basis of disagreeing with defiled priests and baptism, or following Gnosticism, or trying to put God's word in the hands of the "common" man, the "Catholic" church has a very long history of persecuting, torturing, and even killing anybody and everybody who dared to disagree with them.

Yet you have claimed a spiritual connection to the Donatists, going so far as to say they represent a Proto-reformation. If you disregard their theology, the thing for which they stood for, is your only connection to them the fact that they were against the Catholic Church? Is that the only point of agreement you have in common with them? It seems to me that it was their Anti-Catholic perspective that you sympathise with most, not their beliefs, not what they stood for, only for what they stood against. Is that really the mark of the reformation, simply being Anti Catholic?

You accuse the Catholic Church of doing terrible things, alright, though you didn't seem to get what I said concerning the division of powers and thus you seem to be attributing all bad things done by the Kings and powers of Europe to the Church itself (which is not entirely fair). Yes, monarchs and the governing authorities were strict with those who dissented, yet that was the entire ancient world no matter where you went. Our modern concept of religious freedom did not exist in a world where religion was the be all spectrum of our beliefs. What the people believed mattered not only for their material lives but their spiritual lives thus why Christianity was enforced through government. You can disagree with that but the wholesale condemnation of a Church coming to term with this and civilisation working out toleration was not a simple thing. Protestant Princes and Dukes did not tolerate Catholics in their realms within the Holy Roman Empire anymore than Catholic monarchs tolerated Protestants. It's easy for you to sit back in your chair and condemn them for what they did, but it's quite another thing to understand what they did. I might not like Henry the 8th though I understand perfectly well why he did what he did.

In the first place, I recognize that no man is perfect. Not even the pope.

Secondly, baptism and the Lord's Supper is dependent on the pastor.

Thirdly, who says baptisms has to be perform by the clergy? Phillip was only a deacon and he baptized the eunuch.

...

But all this is neither here or there. The point still remains, by the time of Luther, Catholicism had a very long history of persecuting, torturing, and even murdering anybody and everybody who dared to stand up to, or disagree with the dogmas of Catholicism, and were as Luther saw, corrupt.

And the fact remains, thanks to the Reformation, one of the largest Christian denominations in the world next to Catholicism, came into being. Baptists.

It may have taken 1200 years, but it came.

Thank God for the Reformation!

God Bless

Till all are one.

1. Whoever said Popes or Bishops were perfect? Why if the Popes claimed this would they embrace Augustine who argued decivisively that humanity could not help but commit sin? If Popes wanted to present themselves as perfect, they should have gone with Donatism, but it's like they had some integrity and honest in admitting they were sinners. Same goes with my own Eastern Hierachs who rejected Donatism as well.

2. Then you are a Donatist. Those of us who agree with Augustine would say that the baptism and it's effects are not due to the righteousness of the Priest but due to the power of God alone. A priest could be a serial murderer and his baptism would be valid not because of his worthiness but because of God's power and promises.

3. Baptism has always been preferred to be done by those in authority which has clear precedence in the bible with the Apostles being given the commission to Baptise and Peter doing just that to a thousand or so people. Baptism has by laity has been allowed if the circumstance were an emergency.

I do not find the stuff about Augustine's perspective and changing opinions particularly relevant here. As for the tired claims about relentless persecution by Catholics of non believers I simply don't see it, unless you want to rely on tired arguments regarding the inquisition killing millions (which It didn't), I do not see the sort of deep seated persecution you are talking about. Now missionaries could be heavy handed, especially in regards to converting the Scandinavian regions or parts of then Lithuania. Nor was this the primary reason why Luther started his reformation. Luther was quite comfortable with the repression of non obeying peasants in his later life.

Also the second largest Church in the world is my own Orthodox Church with about 150 to 200 million. According to a quick google search and Wikipedia there are something 100 million different groups of baptists whom are not all in communion with each other.

Also I will correct you, it took 1500 years for the true Gospel to arrive on earth according to you.
 
Upvote 0

JIMINZ

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2017
6,600
2,358
79
Southern Ga.
✟157,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
.
It's all about Love of the Brethren.

1Jn_2:9,11
9) He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
10) He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.
11) But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

1Jn. 3:10
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

1Jn. 3:14,15
14) We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
15) Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

1Jn. 4:20,21
20) If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
21) And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yet you have claimed a spiritual connection to the Donatists, going so far as to say they represent a Proto-reformation.

I gotta call you out on that.

Please post here, for me to see where I, DeaconDean said: "I claim a spiritual connection with the Donatists".

If you disregard their theology, the thing for which they stood for, is your only connection to them the fact that they were against the Catholic Church? Is that the only point of agreement you have in common with them? It seems to me that it was their Anti-Catholic perspective that you sympathise with most, not their beliefs, not what they stood for, only for what they stood against.

When are you going to quit this?

How many times have I said that I don't condone theirs or Roman Catholicism's actions?

My whole point was that the seeds for the Reformation were planted long ago. And that the point they disagreed with the Catholic church is the same the Anabaptists did.

Now, what part of that did you not understand?

You accuse the Catholic Church of doing terrible things, alright, though you didn't seem to get what I said concerning the division of powers and thus you seem to be attributing all bad things done by the Kings and powers of Europe to the Church itself (which is not entirely fair). Yes, monarchs and the governing authorities were strict with those who dissented, yet that was the entire ancient world no matter where you went. Our modern concept of religious freedom did not exist in a world where religion was the be all spectrum of our beliefs. What the people believed mattered not only for their material lives but their spiritual lives thus why Christianity was enforced through government. You can disagree with that but the wholesale condemnation of a Church coming to term with this and civilisation working out toleration was not a simple thing. Protestant Princes and Dukes did not tolerate Catholics in their realms within the Holy Roman Empire anymore than Catholic monarchs tolerated Protestants. It's easy for you to sit back in your chair and condemn them for what they did, but it's quite another thing to understand what they did. I might not like Henry the 8th though I understand perfectly well why he did what he did.

Detract all you want. Fact is, the Reformation didn't effect the Kings of England, Spain, or any other European country. Martin Luther stood up against what? Bottom line.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Then you are a Donatist.

In a way, yes I am, and so is the whole Baptist denomination. We would re-baptize Catholics because they are baptized for the wrong reason only.

Baptism has always been preferred to be done by those in authority which has clear precedence in the bible with the Apostles being given the commission to Baptise and Peter doing just that to a thousand or so people. Baptism has by laity has been allowed if the circumstance were an emergency.

Says you. Scriptures record Phillip baptizing.

And if it is the Apostles author to baptize, then why in the whole entire NT do we only read of Paul baptizing only two people? If its for the Apostles "being given the commission to baptize" then the only logical thing to say is Paul refused to baptize.

Also the second largest Church in the world is my own Orthodox Church with about 150 to 200 million. According to a quick google search and Wikipedia there are something 100 million different groups of baptists whom are not all in communion with each other.

Wrong, your actually third:

"
  • Catholicism - 1.2 billion.
  • Protestantism - 600–800 million.
  • Eastern Orthodoxy - 225–300 million."
Source

You are right though, Protestantism is second in the world.

Care to try again?

In fact, here in the United States, Baptists are second only to Catholics.

With eastern Orthodox way, way down the list

Catholics: 50,873,000

Baptists: 33,830,000

Eastern Orthodox: 645,000

Source

Also I will correct you, it took 1500 years for the true Gospel to arrive on earth according to you.

I gotta call you on that one too.

Please post here for us all to see where DeaconDean said: "it took 1500 years for the true Gospel to arrive on earth".

What I have said, and still maintain, is the seeds for the Reformation was planted centuries before the event took place. It just took 1200 years to come to fruition in Martin Luther.

And what I have said is that the Catholic church also is guilty of keeping the scriptures from the people.

Between 1199 and 1382, we have:

"ITEM #1 POPE INNOCENT III

Pope Innocent III stated in 1199:

... to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771)

Source: Bridging the Gap - Lectio Divina, Religious Education, and the Have-not's by Father John Belmonte, S.J.

ITEM #2 COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.

The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition (Lat. inquisitio, an inquiry), to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the forty-five articles decreed by the Council dealt with heretics and heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 1. We appoint, therefore, that the archbishops and bishops shall swear in one priest, and two or three laymen of good report, or more if they think fit, in every parish, both in and out of cities, who shall diligently, faithfully, and frequently seek out the heretics in those parishes, by searching all houses and subterranean chambers which lie under suspicion. And looking out for appendages or outbuildings, in the roofs themselves, or any other kind of hiding places, all which we direct to be destroyed.

Canon 6. Directs that the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed.

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.

Additional Sources:

Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, Pierre Allix, published in Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1821, reprinted in USA in 1989 by Church History Research & Archives, P.O. Box 38, Dayton Ohio, 45449, p. 213 [Canon 14].

Source: The Crusades, A Short History, by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Copyright 1987, published by Yale University Press, New Haven and London, ISBN 0-300-04700-2, pages 138, 139.

ITEM #3 THE COUNCIL OF TARRAGONA - 1234 A.D.


The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:

"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion."

-D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14."

And:

"ITEM #4 JOHN WYCLIFFE - MORNING STAR OF THE REFORMATION

John Wycliffe was the very first to translate the entire Bible into English, which he completed in 1382. Wycliffe translated from the Latin Vulgate. One copy of an original manuscript is in the Bodlein Library in Oxford, England. Wycliffe's Bibles were painstakingly reproduced by hand by copyists.

In 1408 the third synod of Oxford, England, banned unauthorized English translations of the Bible and decreed that possession of English translation's had to be approved by diocesan authorities. The Oxford council declared:

"It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things. We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error."

Source: The Western Watchman, a Catholic newspaper published in St. Louis, August 9, 1894, "The Word of God", The English Bible Before the Reformation, page 7.

At the ecumenical Council of Constance, in 1415, Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury, as "that pestilent wretch of damnable heresy who invented a new translation of the scriptures in his mother tongue." By the decree of the Council, more that 40 years after his death, Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift river.

Around 1454 Gutenberg printed an edition of the Latin Vulgate Bible on the first moveable-type printing press. With this new printing technology books could now be printed faster and cheaper than ever before, a fact that Protestants soon took advantage of. Within a hundred years there was a virtual explosion of Protestant Bibles coming off the new presses."

Source

Its pretty bad, when the Catholic church hates a man so much for trying to put the scriptures in the hands of the common man that they dug him up, burned him, then put his ashes in the river.

Which brings us to this:

"CURRENT CODE OF CANON LAW ON VERNACULAR BIBLES

The current Code of Canon Law, which went into effect in 1983, reads as follows:

Can. 825 § 1. Books of the Sacred Scriptures cannot be published unless they have been approved either by the Apostolic See or by the conference of bishops; for their vernacular translations to be published it is required that they likewise be approved by the same authority and also annotated with necessary and sufficient explanations.

§ 2. With the permission of the conference of bishops Catholic members of the Christian faithful can collaborate with separated brothers and sisters in preparing and publishing translations of the Sacred Scriptures annotated with appropriate explanations.

Source: Code of Canon Law, Latin-English Edition, copyright 1983 by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, published by the Canon Law Society of America, Washington DC 20064, ISBN: 0-943616-19-0, page 309.

Ibid

And that principle only relaxed in the last 30 years or so.

Otherwise I have no recourse than to believe you are goading me.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I gotta call you out on that.

Please post here, for me to see where I, DeaconDean said: "I claim a spiritual connection with the Donatists".
Post #131 where you posted an article claiming the Donatists as Proto-Reformationists. If you view the Donatists as being persecuted by the Catholic Church, then you need to post the evidence. So far you have only shown a rather muddled view of history where you use Diocletian's persecutions to say that the Catholic Church killed Donatists.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
My whole point was that the seeds for the Reformation were planted long ago. And that the point they disagreed with the Catholic church is the same the Anabaptists did.

Now, what part of that did you not understand?
Seeds of reform were planted by Christ. This is nothing new. I agree that reform is a continuous and needed thing; but the Reformation and the Protestant sects that resulted are not reform of any existing church; but revolt pure and simple. Truly, it was not even a very good revolt. Assuming that the Roman Catholic Church was so egregious that it was felt that the only resolution was leaving it, then why not become Eastern Orthodox? Instead the Protesters chose to start their own churches centered around their own beliefs. So if this movement was so blessed by God, why couldn't these Protesters find their way to creating a single church based on a reformed model.

There is a saying within history that "Revolutions eat their children." This refers to the fact that the initial impulse of revolution is a unifying principle only as long as the revolutionists are out of power. Once they are in power, they turn upon themselves and fracture the movement into sub-movements centered around adherents of each leader. During the Reformation, this did not even happen. There was no true unifying principle other than revolt and the sub-movements were there from the beginning. So unity within the Protestants of today is still only evident when a protest against the Catholic Church is the topic. I understand this need; but find it to be vacant of any present reality. Instead we have you trying to dredge up protest by pinning together events that happened centuries ago and pointing to them and saying, "See this proves the protest was valid."

Strangely, I agree with you that the seeds of reformation were there from before the Reformation. I just think that to justify what actually occurred one can't say that the Catholic Church needed reform. You have to justify the actual events and the actual outcomes; because many of these outcomes were not unanticipated; but sought after. Wouldn't it be more pertinent to the Reformation to actually talk about events of that time frame and not try to justify a revolution with events that did not impact the people who were revolting?
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,029
3,750
✟287,917.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I gotta call you out on that.

Please post here, for me to see where I, DeaconDean said: "I claim a spiritual connection with the Donatists".



When are you going to quit this?

How many times have I said that I don't condone theirs or Roman Catholicism's actions?

My whole point was that the seeds for the Reformation were planted long ago. And that the point they disagreed with the Catholic church is the same the Anabaptists did.

Now, what part of that did you not understand?



Detract all you want. Fact is, the Reformation didn't effect the Kings of England, Spain, or any other European country. Martin Luther stood up against what? Bottom line.


I don't know what else to call the connection but spiritual if you insist on a connection between Donatists and Protestantism. If you want to deny even a spiritual connection to those you call proto-protestants then what is the connection? Is it as I said before, only the Anti Catholic nature of the group unites you to them? I hope not.

As for the reformation seeds being planted long ago, I have no idea why you would start from an obscure sect called the Donatists whose theology does not match the reformation. You personally might be a Donatist but the reformers weren't and would have condemned any such connection between them and the Donatists. If the Reformers could be said to insist upon anything it was that the power of the clergy did not depend on men but on God alone.

The Reformation had it's start in many things before it, but the Donatists were not one of them despite your sympathy for them.


In a way, yes I am, and so is the whole Baptist denomination. We would re-baptize Catholics because they are baptized for the wrong reason only.


Says you. Scriptures record Phillip baptizing.

And if it is the Apostles author to baptize, then why in the whole entire NT do we only read of Paul baptizing only two people? If its for the Apostles "being given the commission to baptize" then the only logical thing to say is Paul refused to baptize.



Wrong, your actually third:

"
  • Catholicism - 1.2 billion.
  • Protestantism - 600–800 million.
  • Eastern Orthodoxy - 225–300 million."
Source

You are right though, Protestantism is second in the world.

Care to try again?

In fact, here in the United States, Baptists are second only to Catholics.

With eastern Orthodox way, way down the list

Catholics: 50,873,000

Baptists: 33,830,000

Eastern Orthodox: 645,000

Source

I gotta call you on that one too.

Please post here for us all to see where DeaconDean said: "it took 1500 years for the true Gospel to arrive on earth".

You said Baptists, not Protestants generally were the second largest group. Now it is true Protestants outnumber Orthodox yet that isn't saying much when they are not united or recognise each other's communions. The Eastern Orthodox formally recognises each other so it can be said to be the largest single communion next to any Protestant group.

As to Rebaptism, I find that sad. How is Baptism done under the wrong motives within the Church historic if I might ask? It is done in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, it is given to us inspite of ourselves. Does our belief in the sacramental nature of it make it invalid and therefore we need some more water splashed over us? This is where the Orthodox/Catholic view of Baptism makes more sense to me. Baptism done in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, even if by a Baptists is a legitimate baptism even if they deny a sacramental view of it. It doesn't matter what the person thinks about what's happening, what matters is that God is present. That you now claim to be in some way a Donatist is also troubling. How many Baptists would agree with you here?

Now I referred to the case where the Apostles did Baptise, namely Peter on Pentecost. Do I really need to provide a verse number for something that you should already know about? Read Acts 2 where Peter gives them the command to be baptised as well as believe and then read the commission of Christ to Baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. Phillip's baptising of the Ethiopian Eunuch is not in contention here, he did it by command of the Spirit.


What I have said, and still maintain, is the seeds for the Reformation was planted centuries before the event took place. It just took 1200 years to come to fruition in Martin Luther.

And what I have said is that the Catholic church also is guilty of keeping the scriptures from the people.

Between 1199 and 1382, we have:

"ITEM #1 POPE INNOCENT III

Pope Innocent III stated in 1199:

... to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771)

Source: Bridging the Gap - Lectio Divina, Religious Education, and the Have-not's by Father John Belmonte, S.J.

ITEM #2 COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.

The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition (Lat. inquisitio, an inquiry), to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the forty-five articles decreed by the Council dealt with heretics and heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 1. We appoint, therefore, that the archbishops and bishops shall swear in one priest, and two or three laymen of good report, or more if they think fit, in every parish, both in and out of cities, who shall diligently, faithfully, and frequently seek out the heretics in those parishes, by searching all houses and subterranean chambers which lie under suspicion. And looking out for appendages or outbuildings, in the roofs themselves, or any other kind of hiding places, all which we direct to be destroyed.

Canon 6. Directs that the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed.

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.

Additional Sources:

Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, Pierre Allix, published in Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1821, reprinted in USA in 1989 by Church History Research & Archives, P.O. Box 38, Dayton Ohio, 45449, p. 213 [Canon 14].

Source: The Crusades, A Short History, by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Copyright 1987, published by Yale University Press, New Haven and London, ISBN 0-300-04700-2, pages 138, 139.

ITEM #3 THE COUNCIL OF TARRAGONA - 1234 A.D.


The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:

"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion."

-D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14."

And:

"ITEM #4 JOHN WYCLIFFE - MORNING STAR OF THE REFORMATION

John Wycliffe was the very first to translate the entire Bible into English, which he completed in 1382. Wycliffe translated from the Latin Vulgate. One copy of an original manuscript is in the Bodlein Library in Oxford, England. Wycliffe's Bibles were painstakingly reproduced by hand by copyists.

In 1408 the third synod of Oxford, England, banned unauthorized English translations of the Bible and decreed that possession of English translation's had to be approved by diocesan authorities. The Oxford council declared:

"It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things. We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error."

Source: The Western Watchman, a Catholic newspaper published in St. Louis, August 9, 1894, "The Word of God", The English Bible Before the Reformation, page 7.

At the ecumenical Council of Constance, in 1415, Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury, as "that pestilent wretch of damnable heresy who invented a new translation of the scriptures in his mother tongue." By the decree of the Council, more that 40 years after his death, Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift river.

Around 1454 Gutenberg printed an edition of the Latin Vulgate Bible on the first moveable-type printing press. With this new printing technology books could now be printed faster and cheaper than ever before, a fact that Protestants soon took advantage of. Within a hundred years there was a virtual explosion of Protestant Bibles coming off the new presses."

Source

Its pretty bad, when the Catholic church hates a man so much for trying to put the scriptures in the hands of the common man that they dug him up, burned him, then put his ashes in the river.

Which brings us to this:

"CURRENT CODE OF CANON LAW ON VERNACULAR BIBLES

The current Code of Canon Law, which went into effect in 1983, reads as follows:

Can. 825 § 1. Books of the Sacred Scriptures cannot be published unless they have been approved either by the Apostolic See or by the conference of bishops; for their vernacular translations to be published it is required that they likewise be approved by the same authority and also annotated with necessary and sufficient explanations.

§ 2. With the permission of the conference of bishops Catholic members of the Christian faithful can collaborate with separated brothers and sisters in preparing and publishing translations of the Sacred Scriptures annotated with appropriate explanations.

Source: Code of Canon Law, Latin-English Edition, copyright 1983 by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, published by the Canon Law Society of America, Washington DC 20064, ISBN: 0-943616-19-0, page 309.

Ibid

And that principle only relaxed in the last 30 years or so.

Otherwise I have no recourse than to believe you are goading me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

You know that those councils you are appealing to were local councils and therefore have only the authority of local bodies and not wider bodies as a whole? You realise we can find examples of Catholic laymen who possessed a bible and read it while remaining in the Catholic Church? Sir Thomas More was a Catholic Humanist who referenced scripture in his works against Protestants also there are plenty of examples of portions of the bible being translated into English before Wytcliff. A good resource is the Blackwell companion to the bible in English Literature which I recommend if you are interested in the subject.

I am hesitant to accept that because a group of local councils restricted the bible that this therefore applied to the whole of the Catholic Church in Europe. Such a thing simply could not be enforced by the Church to all laity. There is something to be said in criticism of the Catholic Church of their hesitancy to embrace the Printing presses and their reluctance to let a fruitful study of the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Text of the Old take place within the Church, that is certainty true, but outright forbidding it? No. You could also say that the Church did emphasise reading the bible within the context of the Church and it's teaching but that's far away from the claim they didn't want anyone to read the bible. I think given Protestantism's inclination to split and divide and it's reticence to maintain unity the traditional position of listening to other voices besides oneself and the bible is a wise position.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't know what else to call the connection but spiritual if you insist on a connection between Donatists and Protestantism. If you want to deny even a spiritual connection to those you call proto-protestants then what is the connection? Is it as I said before, only the Anti Catholic nature of the group unites you to them? I hope not.

As for the reformation seeds being planted long ago, I have no idea why you would start from an obscure sect called the Donatists whose theology does not match the reformation. You personally might be a Donatist but the reformers weren't and would have condemned any such connection between them and the Donatists. If the Reformers could be said to insist upon anything it was that the power of the clergy did not depend on men but on God alone.

The Reformation had it's start in many things before it, but the Donatists were not one of them despite your sympathy for them.

So you admit you lied when you said:

Yet you have claimed a spiritual connection to the Donatists, going so far as to say they represent a Proto-reformation.

In fact, the only thing along those lines that I PERSONALLY posted was:

DeaconDean said:

I never said that, the article which you did not read said it.

So get your stories straight.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You said:

Also the second largest Church in the world is my own Orthodox Church with about 150 to 200 million.

And I admitted I was wrong originally.

Wrong, your actually third:

"
  • Catholicism - 1.2 billion.
  • Protestantism - 600–800 million.
  • Eastern Orthodoxy - 225–300 million."
Source

You are right though, Protestantism is second in the world.

You were proven wrong in that you said EO were 2nd in the world.

I showed you were wrong.

You said Baptists, not Protestants generally were the second largest group. Now it is true Protestants outnumber Orthodox yet that isn't saying much when they are not united or recognise each other's communions. The Eastern Orthodox formally recognises each other so it can be said to be the largest single communion next to any Protestant group.

Face it, you were proven wrong.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Then, you said:

Also I will correct you, it took 1500 years for the true Gospel to arrive on earth according to you.

And again I asked:

I gotta call you on that one too.

Please post here for us all to see where DeaconDean said: "it took 1500 years for the true Gospel to arrive on earth".

I ask you again, provide the specific post where I said "It took 1500 years for the true gospel to come to earth."

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Post #131 where you posted an article claiming the Donatists as Proto-Reformationists. If you view the Donatists as being persecuted by the Catholic Church, then you need to post the evidence.

You don't want to read the article, then want to call me out?!?

I really want to say something but I better keep my mouth shut.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't know what else to call the connection but spiritual if you insist on a connection between Donatists and Protestantism. If you want to deny even a spiritual connection to those you call proto-protestants then what is the connection? Is it as I said before, only the Anti Catholic nature of the group unites you to them? I hope not.

As for the reformation seeds being planted long ago, I have no idea why you would start from an obscure sect called the Donatists whose theology does not match the reformation. You personally might be a Donatist but the reformers weren't and would have condemned any such connection between them and the Donatists. If the Reformers could be said to insist upon anything it was that the power of the clergy did not depend on men but on God alone.

The Reformation had it's start in many things before it, but the Donatists were not one of them despite your sympathy for them.

Why are you being so obtuse?

I've said I don't know how many times in the course of this thread.

It makes no difference who you are, if you dare to stand up to or against the Catholic church, you face:
  1. severe persecution
  2. torture
  3. death
And nothing you can say will change these facts.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As to Rebaptism, I find that sad. How is Baptism done under the wrong motives within the Church historic if I might ask? It is done in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, it is given to us inspite of ourselves. Does our belief in the sacramental nature of it make it invalid and therefore we need some more water splashed over us? This is where the Orthodox/Catholic view of Baptism makes more sense to me. Baptism done in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, even if by a Baptists is a legitimate baptism even if they deny a sacramental view of it. It doesn't matter what the person thinks about what's happening, what matters is that God is present. That you now claim to be in some way a Donatist is also troubling. How many Baptists would agree with you here?

Now I referred to the case where the Apostles did Baptise, namely Peter on Pentecost. Do I really need to provide a verse number for something that you should already know about? Read Acts 2 where Peter gives them the command to be baptised as well as believe and then read the commission of Christ to Baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. Phillip's baptising of the Ethiopian Eunuch is not in contention here, he did it by command of the Spirit.

I am only going to answer this one time and one time only.

And I don't give a darn if you agree or not.

Baptists baptize because of "the remission of sins" not as Catholics believe "in order to" have remission of sins.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You know that those councils you are appealing to were local councils and therefore have only the authority of local bodies and not wider bodies as a whole? You realise we can find examples of Catholic laymen who possessed a bible and read it while remaining in the Catholic Church? Sir Thomas More was a Catholic Humanist who referenced scripture in his works against Protestants also there are plenty of examples of portions of the bible being translated into English before Wytcliff. A good resource is the Blackwell companion to the bible in English Literature which I recommend if you are interested in the subject.

I am hesitant to accept that because a group of local councils restricted the bible that this therefore applied to the whole of the Catholic Church in Europe. Such a thing simply could not be enforced by the Church to all laity. There is something to be said in criticism of the Catholic Church of their hesitancy to embrace the Printing presses and their reluctance to let a fruitful study of the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Text of the Old take place within the Church, that is certainty true, but outright forbidding it? No. You could also say that the Church did emphasise reading the bible within the context of the Church and it's teaching but that's far away from the claim they didn't want anyone to read the bible. I think given Protestantism's inclination to split and divide and it's reticence to maintain unity the traditional position of listening to other voices besides oneself and the bible is a wise position.

Local or not, they spoke for the Catholic church at the time.

And you still forget, its was from Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

A translation from the original Greek MSS did start until years later.

And no matter what you say, there is no excuse for what the Catholic church did to the remains of John Wycliffe.

And nothing you can say will change history in that by the 1500's, the Catholic church was murdering, torturing, it was corrupt, and in very bad need of Reforming.

If it meant going to heaven and converting to Orthodoxy or Catholicism, I'd rather die and spend eternity in the lake of fire than to compromise my Protestant/Baptist beliefs.

Happy Reformation day!

Thank God for it!

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You don't want to read the article, then want to call me out?!?

I really want to say something but I better keep my mouth shut.

God Bless

Till all are one.
What made you think I didn't read the article? I was simply pointing out that you obviously support the contention made in the article, both by placing a link to it in post 131 and subsequently by your own articulation of your beliefs. What you have failed to relent on is your assertion that Diocletian's persecutions were actually caused by the Christian Church of that time, even though that Church was outlawed by Diocletian. This is such an egregious twisting of history that spits in the faces of the martyrs that died instead of renouncing that Church that I cannot stay silent. Somehow you think it is within your ability to claim these martyrs as Proto-Protestants 1700 years after the fact. You have both a Catholic and an Orthodox telling you that this is just wrong. Perhaps it is time to listen to the Church that these Christians actually belonged to.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If it meant going to heaven and converting to Orthodoxy or Catholicism, I'd rather die and spend eternity in the lake of fire than to compromise my Protestant/Baptist beliefs.
Sometimes I am contentious on here just to provoke and see what type of reaction I get. It is in these times that I think some of the true beliefs come out. If this is truly what you believe, then all pretense of accepting Orthodoxy and Catholicism as Christian groups has been removed.

My wife had an uncle who was a Baptist minister. I had many talks about theology with him and his wife, carefully avoiding any contentious subjects. I thought we acknowledged each other as fellow Christians. Right before he died he sent me some vitriolic Anti-Catholic pamphlets and I realized it had all been just a pretense for trying to evangelize me out of the harlot of Babylon. He had the same Landmark Baptist beliefs that you have been denying while citing on this thread. Maybe this has made me scarred towards this attitude; but now whenever I state a Christian belief in front of his wife, I can see that she sees the need to reply and subtly assert her superiority in true belief. It saddens me that she cannot just drop the bias and honestly look at my wife, her niece, and myself as fellow Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In the last year or so I have started to see it as a good opportunity if someone insults me!

Here's why.

We are instructed by Christ in Matthew 6 how to pray the best prayer -- the "Lord's"/"Our Father" prayer, which we need.

In this prayer we are told to pray:

"and forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us."

It's just like in Mark 11, and Matthew 6, where this emphasis comes immediately after the prayer, to make it crystal clear to us --

14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

!

So....when someone sins against me on the internet, it's an opportunity for me to gain!

I can forgive them totally, from my heart. In turn my many, many, many sins that I've done -- 10,000 bags of gold of debt worth: Matthew 18:24, can be forgiven!

Even that enormous debt! By His grace.

If.

If I forgive others from my heart:

35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”

So....what an amazing opportunity, to totally love and totally forgive, completely, when someone sins against you!

Or simply owes you. Or simply 'trespasses' as some translations render it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,029
3,750
✟287,917.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It certainly wasn’t my intention to lie Deacon, so I will amend what I said to that you claim the Donatists represent a Proto-reformation, which implies some sort of connection between the two movements or else you could not call it a Proto-reformation.

As for me being wrong regarding the number of Orthodox, I am not. Protestantism is a fractured entity in which there is no real communion between the total amount of Protestants. There is some level of communion between Church church bodies or even those who identify as one Church body (Southern Baptists for instance in America should be regarded as part of the SBC if I recall correctly. Also, your original post stated there were more Baptists than Orthodox, not more Protestants than Orthodox. Obviously the latter is true, the former is not. This is what you originally said, that I responded to.

“And the fact remains, thanks to the Reformation, one of the largest Christian denominations in the world next to Catholicism, came into being. Baptists.” Post 142

I am not willing to admit anything wrong on this point. Orthodoxy is the single largest Church after Catholicism. If you want to say Protestantism as a fractured and divided movement is the larger, I will admit as an ideology it is numerically superior, but as a Church? As a united front? Definitely not.

Regarding my comment of 1500 years, that was not a direct quote from you but what I think necessarily follows out of your theology. You’ve expressed a tendency to reject ECF, councils and a whole lot of Christian history as the barbarity of the Catholic Church. Where was the Church during the 2nd century in your mind? I can’t imagine you appealing to Ante Nicenes for evidence of a Church of God actually existing, so I think you are left with saying a great apostasy occurred very shortly after. Your views are however very confusing to me so feel free to correct me.

Now regarding your final point, which I have also addressed many times, that the connection between the reformation and the Donatists in your mind seems to be resistance. It isn’t in theological theme, it isn’t in what is being taught but the connection solely exists in that the Donatists represent a resistance to Catholicism. Never mind the fact the Donatists were not systematically purged by the Church to my knowledge, if you have evidence please post it. As TQ pointed out the article you reference was with regards to the Diocletian persecution and explains why two different opinions regarding the Traditores.

The problem with your analysis is that it belies a traditional anti-catholic narrative of history, that the Roman Catholic Church was nothing but a wicked and cruel persecutor of those who dissented. It personally as a Church did the terrible things itself. This is as I pointed out before, to ignore the reality that there was a divide between the secular and the Church, that these actions to repress heretics or heathens were done by the King or Monarch with Papal or ecclesiastical consent. You can criticise the Church for that, but you cannot say it was directly behind these movements. This was a legitimate concern of the secular rulers of the middle ages that their Kingdoms be united under one faith for the good of the realm. According to what I understand Catholic repression of dissenters was no more different than Protestant repression of dissenters (Queen Elizabeth executed many Catholics for fear of conspiracies that threatened her life). It is simply not fair to judge Catholicism as a whole when we have examples of men and women who did not use force or repression and are regarded as Saints today. Francis de Sales did not burn down the houses of Calvinists in Chablais if they didn’t listen, he published pamphlets and tried to convince the people by means of argument that they were wrong.

These Anti-Catholic narratives don’t impress me any more than some of the worst Anti-Protestant narratives spouted by certain Catholics who don’t take a deeper consideration of the reformation motives. Perhaps nothing I say can change your opinion of them, but you at least, if you want to claim some level of reasonability have to engage with what I’m saying. So far I haven’t seen much of that Deacon.

Finally regarding the bible. The fact that it was a Catholic Humanist by the name of Erasmus who initiated the start of the study of biblical greek should tell us something about Catholic attitudes. You are choosing local councils and saying that they represent the entirety of the medieval Church. I do think there was an attitude, an attitude which I share, that the bible should be interpreted and read within the context of the Church. But was this a conspiracy to keep the bible out of the hands of the people? Are there other factors you could consider such as the price it and cost it took to have a manuscript of the bible? The printing press was just beginning to be used effectively in Europe and reduced the cost of printing (though books were still extremely expensive). Now the Roman Catholic Church can be criticised for its reticence to accept the bible in other languages though that criticism should always be seen in light of Catholic translations like the Dhoey Rheims which were explicitly intended to counter Protestant assertions regarding the bible and provide English Catholics an alternative to the KJV.

I’m not an expert on most or any of these subjects, though I at least try to look at the sides fairly. Despite my criticism of the reformation I try not demonize the entire movement but work out what the reformation ultimately leads to. Perhaps you should do the same Deacon.
 
Upvote 0