Neither Catholic or Protestant

[Marymog]

Paul says things like denominations is division in the body of Christ. Being nondenominational I am neither Catholic or Protestant, I am biblical.

what say you?

Hi CoreIssue,

To you, what does it mean to be biblical?

Mary

 

[Brakelite]

And once again, Einstein - "Vicarus Fili Dei" is NOT a title of the Pope - and more importantly, it is not his NAME, NOR is its "equivalent" found on "numerous" other documents.

So, YOU and your false prophetess, E.G. White and all of her minions can invent titles all day long that don't mean a thing in regards to Rev. 13.
It only amplifies the false Gospel of your SDA sect . . .

And your denials don't remove the facts of history. If that forgery which contained the name vicarius filii dei was promoted and used by the Pope's for centuries to justify papal supremacy, apostolic succession, land theft and secular authority, then they also accepted the name and the document as real. Add to that is the fact it wasn't until much much later, quite recent, the church has rightly admitted to it's falsity. I notice however it doesn't reject the concept of papal supremacy, there primacy of Peter and Apostolic succession etc etc that this forgery was used to justify. And it was a part of canon law. It was quoted in papal bulls. And the name that equals 666 wasn't accepted? Even though Catholic scholars and writers used it and it's variants on numerous occasions and in a variety of languages?

 

[marksman]

If you want to get completely biblical and technical, Jesus never said He will build a church, since the word for church - kuriakos - isn’t in that Matthew 16 passage.

The Greek word there is ekklesia, which is defined as a congregation, or an assembly of people.

Thus Jesus isn’t talking about building a church hierarchy of pope, cardinals, bishops, and priests, etc, but increasing the size of the congregation of His followers via the confession of faith Peter had just made, that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of the living God - and not about constructing an organization.

Quite right. He said he would build HIS church as in where two or three are gathered in HIS name he would be in the midst. Without him there it is not a church.

 

[marksman]

It's ironic. That's the reaction I get every time I speak about the Sabbath as still being a crucial and integral part of the moral law of Ten Commandments. Yes, but...

Perhaps they were goatherders in a previous life. You know the goats favorite pastime is butting people.

 

[Brakelite]

Quite right. He said he would build HIS church as in where two or three are gathered in HIS name he would be in the midst. Without him there it is not a church.

With that in mind, let me quote this guy...
“A true and safe leader is likely to be one who has no desire to lead, but is forced into a position of leadership by the inward pressure of the Holy Spirit and the press of the external situation. Such were Moses and David and the Old Testament prophets. I think there was hardly a great leader from Paul to the present day but that was drafted by the Holy Spirit for the task, and commissioned by the Lord of the Church to fill a position they had little heart for. I believe it might be accepted as a fairly reliable rule of thumb that the person who is ambitious to lead is disqualified as a leader. The true leader will have no desire to lord it over God's heritage, but will be humble, gentle, self-sacrificing, and altogether as ready to follow as to lead, when the Spirit makes it clear that a wiser and more gifted person than themselves has appeared.”
How many church Leaders do you know who would pass muster in harmony with the above?

 

[BreadOfLife]

And your denials don't remove the facts of history. If that forgery which contained the name vicarius filii dei was promoted and used by the Pope's for centuries to justify papal supremacy, apostolic succession, land theft and secular authority, then they also accepted the name and the document as real. Add to that is the fact it wasn't until much much later, quite recent, the church has rightly admitted to it's falsity. I notice however it doesn't reject the concept of papal supremacy, there primacy of Peter and Apostolic succession etc etc that this forgery was used to justify. And it was a part of canon law. It was quoted in papal bulls. And the name that equals 666 wasn't accepted? Even though Catholic scholars and writers used it and it's variants on numerous occasions and in a variety of languages?

And I see that in your desperation, you keep moving the goalposts . . .

I've already stated that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery and that several centuries of Church hierarchy were duped by its claims.
The REAL issue here is what your FALSE prophetess, Ellen White claimed about this fake document.

The Donation of Constantine, which uses the the phrase, “Vicar of the Son of God” does so ONLY in passing and does NOT attempt to claim that this is the TITLE of the Pope. As a matter of fact - it ONLY applies to Peter in this document. but NOT to his successors.
Ergo, YOUR false prophetess, Ellen White, falsely claimed that this was a TITLE of the Pope and tried to applied its numerical value to that office.

YOUR claims that only "quite recently" this document was said to be a forgery is ALSO a lie. It was fabricated some time in the 9th century - and was exposed as a forgery some 600 years later in the 15th century by clerics within the Church.

Bearing FALSE witness is a direct violation of God's Commandment (Exod. 20:16) - and was White's (and your) legacy.

 

[marksman]

With that in mind, let me quote this guy...
“A true and safe leader is likely to be one who has no desire to lead, but is forced into a position of leadership by the inward pressure of the Holy Spirit and the press of the external situation. Such were Moses and David and the Old Testament prophets. I think there was hardly a great leader from Paul to the present day but that was drafted by the Holy Spirit for the task, and commissioned by the Lord of the Church to fill a position they had little heart for. I believe it might be accepted as a fairly reliable rule of thumb that the person who is ambitious to lead is disqualified as a leader. The true leader will have no desire to lord it over God's heritage, but will be humble, gentle, self-sacrificing, and altogether as ready to follow as to lead, when the Spirit makes it clear that a wiser and more gifted person than themselves has appeared.”
How many church Leaders do you know who would pass muster in harmony with the above?

Three.

 

[Brakelite]

And I see that in your desperation, you keep moving the goalposts . . .

I've already stated that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery and that several centuries of Church hierarchy were duped by its claims.
The REAL issue here is what your FALSE prophetess, Ellen White claimed about this fake document.

The Donation of Constantine, which uses the the phrase, “Vicar of the Son of God” does so ONLY in passing and does NOT attempt to claim that this is the TITLE of the Pope. As a matter of fact - it ONLY applies to Peter in this document. but NOT to his successors.
Ergo, YOUR false prophetess, Ellen White, falsely claimed that this was a TITLE of the Pope and tried to applied its numerical value to that office.

YOUR claims that only "quite recently" this document was said to be a forgery is ALSO a lie. It was fabricated some time in the 9th century - and was exposed as a forgery some 600 years later in the 15th century by clerics within the Church.

Bearing FALSE witness is a direct violation of God's Commandment (Exod. 20:16) - and was White's (and your) legacy.

Your attempt at distraction notwithstanding, the donation of Constantine, which historians believe was fabricated 100 years before your suggested date, was just one of several forgeries presented by lying priests and monks to further the political aims of avaricious bishops and gain lands and territories under pretence. One was a letter presented to Pepin supposedly written by Peter himself and presented in person to his so called successor. The Catholic Church was built not on the promises of Christ and truth, but on forgeries and lies.

 

[Brakelite]

And I see that in your desperation, you keep moving the goalposts . . .

I've already stated that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery and that several centuries of Church hierarchy were duped by its claims.
The REAL issue here is what your FALSE prophetess, Ellen White claimed about this fake document.

The Donation of Constantine, which uses the the phrase, “Vicar of the Son of God” does so ONLY in passing and does NOT attempt to claim that this is the TITLE of the Pope. As a matter of fact - it ONLY applies to Peter in this document. but NOT to his successors.
Ergo, YOUR false prophetess, Ellen White, falsely claimed that this was a TITLE of the Pope and tried to applied its numerical value to that office.

YOUR claims that only "quite recently" this document was said to be a forgery is ALSO a lie. It was fabricated some time in the 9th century - and was exposed as a forgery some 600 years later in the 15th century by clerics within the Church.

Bearing FALSE witness is a direct violation of God's Commandment (Exod. 20:16) - and was White's (and your) legacy.

Does it matter whether one uses a plastic or a real gun in a robbery? Either way, the robbery is affected. So it was with the donation. Forgery or not, it was used by the church for centuries to steal vast tracts of land... Claim papal supremacy... Confirm Apostolic succession. All claimed, and today retained, now knowingly on the basis of lies. And you dare talk to me about bearing false witness? Seriously?

 

[Taken]

Neither Catholic or Protestant
^OP

Awesome!
Neither standing with or protesting Against Catholicism.
Neither standing with or protesting
Against Protesters.
Stand with this, no stand with that.
A deflection ploy.

Yes --->Standing WITH God, IN Christ!

(Same application in a political view...
Stand with this, no stand with that, protest against, protest against the protesters...
Yet another deflection ploy...)

Yes ----> Standing WITH God, IN Christ!

Glory, Glory, Glory to:
Our Great Lord God Almighty,
Taken

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your attempt at distraction notwithstanding, the donation of Constantine, which historians believe was fabricated 100 years before your suggested date, was just one of several forgeries presented by lying priests and monks to further the political aims of avaricious bishops and gain lands and territories under pretence. One was a letter presented to Pepin supposedly written by Peter himself and presented in person to his so called successor. The Catholic Church was built not on the promises of Christ and truth, but on forgeries and lies.

First of all - I already conceded to the fact that there WERE malicious clerics within the Church with ulterior motives. This doesn't nullify the God-given authority of Christ's Church. It simply means that those "bad guys" will be dealt with by God.

Anyway - you guys have GOT to stop reading Lorainne Boettner, Alexander Hislop and all of the other liars.
Ummm, time for a history lesson.

In 750, Pepin the Short had positioned himself to take charge of the Frankish kingdoms. Since he had been educated by Catholic monks and knew St. Boniface, Pepin asked Pope Zacharias for advice as to whether or not he should take control of the kingdom or not. Pope Zacharias told Pepin that since he held de facto power over the Franks, it was better for all that he take control.

When we study the facts, it becomes clear that Boettner and the like have their “facts” jumbled.
Pepin never conferred temporal power on the Pope – it was the Pope (not Peter) who confirmed the temporal power of Pepin.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Does it matter whether one uses a plastic or a real gun in a robbery? Either way, the robbery is affected. So it was with the donation. Forgery or not, it was used by the church for centuries to steal vast tracts of land... Claim papal supremacy... Confirm Apostolic succession. All claimed, and today retained, now knowingly on the basis of lies. And you dare talk to me about bearing false witness? Seriously?

For the :LAST time: the Donation of Constantine was a forgery.
The cleric(s) who crafted it had ulterior motives.
Just because there were some bad people within the hierarchy of the Church does NOT nullify Christ's Church. It nullifies THEM.

If YOU cheat on your wife - is SHE guilty? Aren't you "ONE" in the eyes of God??
NO - the guilt is ALL yours. The SAME is true in this situation..

As for Apostolic Succession - it was NOT the Donation of Constantine that promulgated this doctrine - it merely SUPORTED it, albeit falsely. Apostolic succession doesn't need this document because it can be proven by Scripture (Acts 1:20).

And the question of Authority and Supremacy was answered by JESUS (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

 

[FHII]

For the :LAST time: the Donation of Constantine was a forgery.
The cleric(s) who crafted it had ulterior motives.
Just because there were some bad people within the hierarchy of the Church does NOT nullify Christ's Church. It nullifies THEM.

If YOU cheat on your wife - is SHE guilty? Aren't you "ONE" in the eyes of God??
NO - the guilt is ALL yours. The SAME is true in this situation..

As for Apostolic Succession - it was NOT the Donation of Constantine that promulgated this doctrine - it merely SUPORTED it, albeit falsely. Apostolic succession doesn't need this document because it can be proven by Scripture (Acts 1:20).

And the question of Authority and Supremacy was answered by JESUS (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

I had to give a like to this and a previous post. I've studied extensively this time period and while I may forget some of the facts, overall what BOL says is accurate on this. It should also be noted that he (BOL) has no problem admitting there were errors and "bad people" in the system. Well, there were in the Bible as well.

Quick sidenote on Pepin the Short: his son and successor was Charlemagne the Great. It is rumored that Charlemagne was 6'8". But Pepin was short? I donno... But I think Pepin better start asking his wife some questions! (There is a logical theory to this... Just trying to add some fun into it).

What we do have to look at historically is the hild the Catholic Church had over Kings, and more importantly, their subjects. Without going into detail which would require me to brush up on the names, dates and reasons; the Catholic Church has made kings and broke kings with their endorsement. Pepin and Charlemagne (as well as Charles Martell) definitively benefited from that. Not saying it was good or bad. But politically... It probably saved Europe and Christianity. Why? Because of the spread of Islam.

It wasn't only that... But also feudalism. While it has its merits, there is no, or very slow progress in that system. The plague helped to end that, but so did the efforts to establish nationality.

I am not speaking of the Catholic Doctrine here, I am speaking of political and historical events. Martel/Pepin/Charlemagne did some serious things for good. And whether you like it or not, the political influence of the Catholic Church needed.

 

[Brakelite]

One was a letter presented to Pepin supposedly written by Peter himself and presented in person to his so called successor. The Catholic Church was built not on the promises of Christ and truth, but on forgeries and lies.

Anyway - you guys have GOT to stop reading Lorainne Boettner, Alexander Hislop and all of the other liars.
Ummm, time for a history lesson.

In 750, Pepin the Short had positioned himself to take charge of the Frankish kingdoms. Since he had been educated by Catholic monks and knew St. Boniface, Pepin asked Pope Zacharias for advice as to whether or not he should take control of the kingdom or not. Pope Zacharias told Pepin that since he held de facto power over the Franks, it was better for all that he take control

Great strawman. I wasn't discussing how or who placed Pepin on his throne. Both you and @FHII may well be correct. What I was pointing out was the profusion of frauds, and forgeries that littered that era of Catholicism in order to protect, promote, and cement papal power and assumed authority. I can happily provide a copy of the fraudulent letter to Pepin, a fraud approved of by no doubt a number of high level prelates including the Pope himself. It's fascinating reading, considering it was what was resorted to after several previously ignored letters that were genuine.

Apostolic succession doesn't need this document because it can be proven by Scripture (Acts 1:20).

If you're going to use Acts 1:20 to justify papal succession, then you will need to accept the full verse... Are previous habitations of former Popes left desolate when a new one is announced?

PS. Have no idea who Boettner is, and couldn't be bothered wading through Hislop's tome.

 

[farouk]

Great strawman. I wasn't discussing how or who placed Pepin on his throne. Both you and @FHII may well be correct. What I was pointing out was the profusion of frauds, and forgeries that littered that era of Catholicism in order to protect, promote, and cement papal power and assumed authority. I can happily provide a copy of the fraudulent letter to Pepin, a fraud approved of by no doubt a number of high level prelates including the Pope himself. It's fascinating reading, considering it was what was resorted to after several previously ignored letters that were genuine.


If you're going to use Acts 1:20 to justify papal succession, then you will need to accept the full verse... Are previous habitations of former Popes left desolate when a new one is announced?

PS. Have no idea who Boettner is, and couldn't be bothered wading through Hislop's tome.

L. Boettner wrote an in depth study of Roman Catholicism some 60 years ago.

 

[Brakelite]

L. Boettner wrote an in depth study of Roman Catholicism some 60 years ago.

Haha. Then I can well understand BoL's outright repudiation of her work. No doubt based on his KoC prejudices, rather than her actual presentation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Great strawman. I wasn't discussing how or who placed Pepin on his throne. Both you and @FHII may well be correct. What I was pointing out was the profusion of frauds, and forgeries that littered that era of Catholicism in order to protect, promote, and cement papal power and assumed authority. I can happily provide a copy of the fraudulent letter to Pepin, a fraud approved of by no doubt a number of high level prelates including the Pope himself. It's fascinating reading, considering it was what was resorted to after several previously ignored letters that were genuine.

No - I was merely showing you that it was the Church who influenced Pepin - and NOT the other way around.

If you're going to use Acts 1:20 to justify papal succession, then you will need to accept the full verse... Are previous habitations of former Popes left desolate when a new one is announced?

PS. Have no idea who Boettner is, and couldn't be bothered wading through Hislop's tome.

I'm not surprised that you don't know who Boettner is. Most Protestants simply regurgitates his nonsense but have NO knowledge of the man. He wrote what is come to be known as the "anti-Catholic Bible" called, Roman Catholicism.
It is an almost laughable collection of lies, myths and half truths. I say "almost" laughable because dishonesty is NEVER funny.

As for Acts 1:20, Peter was quoting from the Psalms in reference to Judas:
Acts 1:20
“‘May his camp become desolate,
and let there be no one to dwell in it’;
and
“‘Let another take his office.’

The Greek word used here for "office" is "Episkopay", which means "Bishopric". The OFFICE of Bishop is a successive office. We see this in the Early Church.
Ignatius succeeded Peter as Bishop of Antioch.
Simeon, son of Clopas succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem - and so on.

As for his camp becoming "desolate" - this is about the hope that nobody follows his example.
Not that difficult to figure out . . .[/QUOTE]

 

[Mungo]

While we are discussing forgeries, here is another one regarding the SDA Vicarius Filii Dei =666 claim

To promote the claim in the mid 20th century, one Adventist book included a doctored photograph of a papal tiara with the words "Vicarius Filii Dei" added by an artist.
(Vicarius Filii Dei)

 

[Mungo]

L. Boettner wrote an in depth study of Roman Catholicism some 60 years ago.

Loraine Boettner was a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In 1962 he published a book called Roman Catholicism which has become a major source for anti-Catholic evangelicals. Like Hislop’s The Two Babylons it lacks intellectual rigour. As Karl Keating says in Catholicism and Fundamentalism:

“.. he shows virtually no familiarity with the writings of the first several centuries of the Christian era. He skips from the Bible to nineteenth- and twentieth –century anti-Catholic works…..Boettner accepts at face value any claim made by an enemy of the Church. (p29-30)

Boettner claims Popes or Catholic writers have said x, y & z but provides no citation to allow his claims to be checked.

As is very common with anti-Catholics Boettner makes little effort to find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches but presents a caricature of the Catholic position against which he then argues. He also produced a list of supposed “inventions” by the Catholic Church (the Boettner List) which “proves” that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ founded. I quote from Catholic Answers:
Boettner accepts at face value virtually any claim made by an opponent of the Church. Even when verification of a charge is easy, he does not bother to check it out. If he finds something unflattering to Catholicism, he prints it.

Boettner’s Roman Catholicism contains a mere two dozen footnotes, all of them added to recent reprintings to reflect minor changes in the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council. Within the text, biblical passages are properly cited, but references to Catholic works are so vague as to discourage checking by making it difficult or impossible to locate the work or the reference. Many times there is no reference. A certain pope will be alleged to have said something—but there is no citation given to support the claim. A Catholic author of the seventeenth century is alleged to have claimed something—but again no reference that can be checked. Sometimes there may be mention of a Catholic book, but no page number or publication information given.

By contrast, when non-Catholic authors are cited, the reference usually includes title and page number. One suspects that Boettener took his alleged Catholic quotations and citations from Protestant works and then deliberately failed to reference them in order to conceal the extent to which he is dependant on secondary sources. This is a common tactic among writers who have not done primary source research and rely on second-hand sources.

What is even worse, Boettner seems to have no appreciation of the Catholic Church from the inside. He seems to have made little effort to learn what the Catholic Church says about itself or how Catholics answer the objections he makes. His "inside information" comes from disaffected ex-priests such as Emmett McLoughlin and L. H. Lehmann, or outright crackpots like the nineteenth-century sensationalist Charles Chiniquy.
The Anti-Catholic Bible

Unfortunately as with Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons these are devoured uncritically and passed around by anti-Catholics and appear regularly on their websites.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Haha. Then I can well understand BoL's outright repudiation of her work. No doubt based on his KoC prejudices, rather than her actual presentation.

Boettner was a man - and ALL of his claims have been debunked repeatedly on this forum.

The following is just a taste of those refutations.
ANYBODY who LIES this much should never be taken seriously . . .

1. Prayers for the dead - Boettner CLAIMS this began in 300 A.D.
This is a practice that can be seen as far back in Jewish history as 2 Macc. 12:42-46. The practice of praying for the dead is still done by Orthodox Jews to this day. The New Testament also refers to a prayer for the dead by St. Paul in 2 Timothy 1:16-18.
On the Epitaph of Abercius, the Bishop of Hierapolis, he asks all who may read his grave marker to pray for him. This was written in 180 AD.

2. Making the sign of the cross- Boettner CLAIMS this practice began in 300.
Where Boettner got this phony date, we may never know, but it is completely untrue. Tertullian writes about making the sign of the cross circa, 195 A.D.: “In all the occupations of our daily lives, we furrow our foreheads with the Sign of the cross”.
This was already a long-established.

8. Extreme Unction- Boettner CLAIMS this practice began in 526
Are we supposed to disregard the sick and dying? Another Boettner LIE . . .
.What Boettner doesn’t mention is that the Church practice of Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick) is derived straight from the Bible itself. It didn’t begin in 526, as he would have you believe:
James 5:14-15 says “Is one of you sick? Let him send for the presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Lord’s name. Prayer offered in faith will restore the sick man, and the Lord will give him relief; if he is guilty of sins, they will be pardoned.”.
Mark 6:13 tells us that the Apostles, having been sent out by Jesus, drove out demons and cured the sick by anointing them.

9. The doctrine of Purgatory - Boettner CLAIMS this belief wasa established by established by Gregory I in 593
Were we supposed to keep this a secret?

As you will see in many other issues brought up by Boettner, a declaration or decree of a Catholic belief does NOT mean that it was “invented” at that particular time. The belief in Purgatory has been believed and written about since the dawn of the Church. One need only open up the Bible and read the following Scripture verses that support the idea of final purgation/purification before entry into heaven to see where the Early Church got their ideas: Matt. 5:25-26, Matt. 12:32, Matt. 18:32-35, Luke 12:58-59, 1 Cor. 3:12-15.

Along with the Scriptures, Early Church writings from such giants of the early Christianity faith like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan and Augustine support the Catholic position that this was always a belief of the Church.

ALL of this is CLEAR evidence that Loraine Boettner was a LIAR with an ax to grind against the Catholic Church.