The Council of Trent and its support of paganism.

[Illuminator]

The Council of Nicea was made up of godly bishops of the church who settled the principal doctrines of the gospel of Christ according to Scripture.

The Council of Trent was made up of godless, adulterous, fornicating bishops, led by an antiChrist pope and was convened to oppose the Scriptural doctrines put forward by Martin Luther. Luther called the then pope the AntiChrist, and after his visit to the Vatican and seeing the total corruption there, and the burning at the stake of people whose crime was just to translate the Bible into their own languages, one can fully understand his view.

That's 5 topics.
1. The Council of Nicae. If you accepted all of it's canons, you would be Catholic. Much of it spells out rules for bishops which most of Protestantism unbiblically abolished.
2. total corruption? seriously?
3. The Council of Trent and reformist rhetoric
4. false charges of burning people at the stake, it was done by the state, not the Catholic Church
5. bible translations a crime? sheer nonsense. False translations were rejected, the same as you would reject gender free translations. The authors were executed by the state for the social disruption they caused.

And you wonder why my replies are so long. Try keeping your anti-Catholic lies to one or two at a time.

The Vulgate was so called precisely because it was written in the common tongue of all literate people in western Europe. If one could read at all, one could read Latin; so a Latin Bible, far from restricting medieval readers, made it universally legible.

Secondly a great many local vernacular translations of the Bible were made long before Luther produced his own. In the fourth century, Ulfilas made a Gothic translation, a bishop of Seville produced an Arabic bible during the Moorish occupation of Spain, and most countries produced manuscripts of large sections of the Bible in their own tongues - in this country beginning with the seventh century Anglo-Saxon of Caedmon. The Norman- French Bible made at the University of Paris was widely used around 1250.

With the invention of printing, vernacular bibles multiplied. Of one German version alone, first printed in 1466, 16 editions had been printed before Luther's New Testament appeared in 1522. The first French New Testament appeared in 1478, five years before Luther's birth, and the complete French Bible in 1487. The Italians had theirs in 1471, the Dutch in 1477. The Swedes, the Bohemians, Slavs, Russians and Danes all had vernacular Bibles, circulated with full ecclesiastical support.

Whatever was going on in the 16th century, whatever the importance of Luther's own translation, it was not about putting the Bible in the hands of the people. Letter: Bible translations before Luther
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it.

 

[Grailhunter]

Ok guys, pool your heads together...put on your thinking caps!
If you want to make your case....if the Catholics are wrong....tell them what the Trinity was really doing between 65 AD and 2000. Let's hear it.

 

[Illuminator]

I recently watched an interesting video on the origin of the Roman Catholic church, which explains how pagan customs flowed into the church.

Dave Armstrong

On the Sincerity and Good Faith (and Profound Ignorance) of Anti-Catholics

From exchanges on the Coming Home Network board (others indicated by A, B, and C):

A: Just recently I began to investigate the beliefs/teachings of John MacArthur. Make no bones about it, this anti-Catholic is one of the most listened to, influential Evangelical Christians out there today. . . . I would say that of those who have a great visibility within "Christendom" today, John MacArthur would definitely be at the top of the list of anti-Catholics.

DA: MacArthur is a good man with a good heart and good intentions. He does a lot of helpful and interesting expository preaching. I once went to hear him speak when I was a Protestant. He is an anti-Catholic, though, as you note. You might be interested in a direct reply to him that I made:

http://www.patheos.com/…/refutation-of-dr-john-macarthurs-s…

A: Dave, how can you speak so favorably about a man who attacks your Catholic faith?

DA: Because I was acknowledging the good things he does. We all have good and evil in us. It's a mixed bag. Just because someone is wrong in one area doesn't make them a completely despicable human being. That in itself is a sort of extreme Calvinist view that Catholics do not hold to.

A: He doesn't even consider Catholics to be Christians. He openly seeks to evangelize Catholics and pull them away from their faith. How can you call these "good intentions?"

DA: Generally, anti-Catholics are so ignorant that they know not what they do. MacArthur, like others of this mindset, truly believes that Catholics are in immediate, grave danger of hellfire, so he is trying to prevent that, which is a good motive, though erroneous and based on false premises. I don't believe for a second that most of these guys actually know that Catholicism is true and fight against it, anyway. Very few people do that. They believe a thing is false, and so oppose it.

I've always said that anti-Catholicism has far less to do with motives and character than it has to do with lousy thinking and being grossly uninformed. It does our cause no good to start calling names and trashing motives, anymore than it does their cause good to do that to us.

As one who has been lied about times without number (almost daily somewhere on the Internet), I know of what I speak, believe me!

B: I concur, John may be an okay guy, provided you agree with him! As far as he's concerned, all Catholics are in a religious system that seeks to damn people's souls, it is in his estimation a Satanic religion. . . . With men like John MacArthur, James White....don't you think it's a willful ignorance, a willful blindness? These men have been around the faith a long time, they have a knowledge of Church history, yet they continue to spew out venomous rhetoric about the Church.

DA: I don't, because I think prejudice and human stubbornness have extraordinary power over our wills. The prejudice in this case keeps these men from seeing that what they are defending and fighting against is dead wrong. I'm firmly convinced, from long experience, that they fight for the wrong thing precisely because they think it is the right thing.

In so doing, they do a lot of unethical things, and spew falsehoods by the bucket loads and so forth, but I don't think that proves that they don't believe what they believe in and disbelieve in our position. They're simply fallen human beings that get upset about things they disagree with, and quickly become uncharitable to those who hold them.

That said, they will still be accountable for their actions under God. They may get somewhat of a pass for ignorance, but they will have to give account for spreading falsehood, when they should have known better. Granted, it's a fine line.

The same things are said about me: "how could he not know that Protestantism is true; he used to be one?" One prominent anti-Catholic claimed I was utterly ignorant about Protestantism. Then I produced all the books I had read in those days. He promptly asserted that I must be deliberately deceptive. In his mind there was no other alternative. I had to be dismissed as evil and wicked because I had an honest disagreement with him.

Of course I am not. The truth is that I had a sincere, honest change of mind after a great deal of study and thought. Likewise, anti-Catholics sincerely believe in their point of view, just as I do mine. Since I don't care much at all for being lied about and having my supposed motivations dragged through the mud, I refuse to do it to others. It really comes down to the Golden Rule. We can't read hearts. That's God's job. We can certainly passionately argue in favor of our positions, though: ones that we firmly believe in faith (backed with plenty of reason) are true, and so, therefore, can aid others in this life and in the one to come.
continued...

 

[Illuminator]

C: I can't speak for John MacArthur or James White, but there are a couple of diametrically opposed presuppositions that make Catholic-Protestant dialogue difficult for the Protestant.

Protestants assume that if you are in the right you will anger people. Jesus angered people and He and the apostles were executed for telling the truth. Many Protestants honestly do not know where the line between "telling the truth" and willfully being provocative and offensive and enjoying the conflict lies. They would see any show of deference for "God's enemies" as cowardice. And when they make someone mad they believe it is because that person knows they're wrong and are fighting harder because they are coming closer to surrendering to God.

Also, Catholicism assumes that God made the universe, including human logic, to function properly. If a Moslem is mistaken about Jesus' divinity according to the Church, a Catholic will think at least we can agree that Jesus spoke for God, that will make a bridge of communication that will leave the door open for ongoing dialogue, whereas a Protestant with think seeking any agreement is delaying the Moslem seeing he is wrong and turning to Christ. Protestants often say "The devil appears as an angel of light." If a Catholic sounds right about something like abortion or some teaching of the church is presented in a logical, biblically grounded way, the Protestant will think he is being deceived. "It sounds good," she will say to herself, "but Satan quoted scripture to Jesus."

This antagonistic, suspicious, paranoid view of the world and the accompanying belief that to abandon it or even temper it is a betrayal of Christ is what makes people like MacArthur so aggressive. Imagine if you thought that in order to honor God you had to find what was wrong with the faith of each person you met. Imagine thinking that kinship and understanding you feel when someone you once considered your enemy finds something wonderful in common with you is a poison deception of the Devil. Imagine seeing crucifixes at various schools and hospitals around town and footage of JPII kissing mother Teresa's head and hearing there are ONE BILLION Catholics and thinking they are all Satanists. Imagine passing a priest in the hospital and getting a mental picture of him violating a child. Did he just come from molesting someone? It is a horrible way to live. Not only do anti-Catholics live in such a world, they want to save us from it. That is honorable. Mostly in their heads, but their intent is good.

Add to this that Catholics don't want to "save" them. If we had the truth wouldn't we want to save people? And no one knows who is going to Heaven?!? If Jesus had saved your soul you would know, wouldn't you? How could you not know that? Many Christians judge the state of one's soul by certain phrases. A demonic person can look like a Christian but the devil won't allow them to say "Jesus is my Lord." So if an anti-Catholic asks a Catholic "Is Jesus your Lord?" and the poor Catholic, thinking he doesn't own Jesus says "Jesus is everyone's Lord" there is more proof.

One of the testimonies in the Surprised by Truth books that lead me to this forum was the testimony of a woman who suffered terrible persecution at the hands of her family when she joined the church, especially from her brother-James White. Still God gives him a chance, an in with someone he already knows and loves, who knows everything he teaches and still chose the Church, and all he can see is Satan striking closest to his heart in retribution for his "ministry". These folks need our prayers. In view of such a mindset of seeing Satan everywhere but in them it is God's grace they are not all survivalists and that they are trying to help people who privately scare them so badly. That their intentions are good is perhaps the saddest thing of all.

DA: I think all of this is profoundly true. Thanks for these observations! I would say that they also often apply as accurate descriptions of the rhetoric and behavior of radical Catholic reactionaries: who frequently mirror in their thought and attitudes, anti-Catholic Protestant fundamentalists. Indeed, many of them came from that group and brought their unsavory behavior and inadequate and insufficiently Catholic mindset with them into the Church.

Refutation of Dr. John MacArthur's Defense of Sola Scriptura

 

[Grailhunter]

Those that try to condemn do so in ignorance. Those that try to condemn the oldest Christian Church on earth of Paganism are those that do not know Christian history. For one, if we traced our history back to our ancestors, to the first person that believed in Christ, your ancestors were probably pagan, not Jewish.

But there is a merging, it starts pretty early, the Hebrew language does not have a word for wed or wedding(s). They learnt of wedding ceremonies from the Persians. There was no requirement for a ceremony in the Hebrew culture or religion. So the belief of a requirement and the performance of wedding ceremonies have pagan sources and if you list the various customs associated with weddings, you will find over a dozen pagan rituals embedded in them.

The virgin birth from a god is a common motif of pagan mythology. A god walking on water is a common motif of pagan mythology. The ability to cause or calm a storm is a common motif of pagan mythology. The ability to call up the deceased is a common motif of pagan mythology. Religious services and blessings on the meal is a common motif of pagan mythology. (You will find no dinner blessings in the OT.) Resurrection is a common event in pagan mythology. The concept of the metaphysical Logos originated five centuries before Christ with the Greeks.

The Christian ritual of Communion very much appears to be pagan and that was how the Apostles took it. That can be seen in their reactions. In deed there were rumors going around that Christians were baking babies in loaves of bread and eating them in their evening services in the tombs. Christ understood the controversial nature of the ritual and its implications and it consequences. But still He said it had to be done. There was probably a good reason for that, because He said, if you do not do that, there is no life in you and you do not abide in Him. I think we all understand what abide means. He gave His Apostle no choice, accept it or leave.

People think that they can throw the word pagan up and it is all condemning...they are just not paying attention. God turned the reins of Christianity over to the pagan converts. It would be difficult to find an Early Church Father that was Jewish. And it was the Magi--witches and sorcerers that came to Christ first to worship him and fund his ministry.

When Christianity merged with the Roman Empire, customs and beliefs merged. Customs, days of the week, months, seasons, holidays, and planets. By this time, it is nearly impossible to separate.

It is common for every generation to condemn the people in the past....but it is only because of ignorance and a condemning spirit that drives them to condemn. Many of the people in the future will think we are idiots. It is just the way it goes.

 

[Paul Christensen]

That's 5 topics.
1. The Council of Nicae. If you accepted all of it's canons, you would be Catholic. Much of it spells out rules for bishops which most of Protestantism unbiblically abolished.
2. total corruption? seriously?
3. The Council of Trent and reformist rhetoric
4. false charges of burning people at the stake, it was done by the state, not the Catholic Church
5. bible translations a crime? sheer nonsense. False translations were rejected, the same as you would reject gender free translations. The authors were executed by the state for the social disruption they caused.

And you wonder why my replies are so long. Try keeping your anti-Catholic lies to one or two at a time.

The Vulgate was so called precisely because it was written in the common tongue of all literate people in western Europe. If one could read at all, one could read Latin; so a Latin Bible, far from restricting medieval readers, made it universally legible.

Secondly a great many local vernacular translations of the Bible were made long before Luther produced his own. In the fourth century, Ulfilas made a Gothic translation, a bishop of Seville produced an Arabic bible during the Moorish occupation of Spain, and most countries produced manuscripts of large sections of the Bible in their own tongues - in this country beginning with the seventh century Anglo-Saxon of Caedmon. The Norman- French Bible made at the University of Paris was widely used around 1250.

With the invention of printing, vernacular bibles multiplied. Of one German version alone, first printed in 1466, 16 editions had been printed before Luther's New Testament appeared in 1522. The first French New Testament appeared in 1478, five years before Luther's birth, and the complete French Bible in 1487. The Italians had theirs in 1471, the Dutch in 1477. The Swedes, the Bohemians, Slavs, Russians and Danes all had vernacular Bibles, circulated with full ecclesiastical support.

Whatever was going on in the 16th century, whatever the importance of Luther's own translation, it was not about putting the Bible in the hands of the people. Letter: Bible translations before Luther
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it.

Yep. If I did, I would be Catholic. I'm halfway there. My wife of 30 years was brought up and educated Catholic, and I did a paper in Catholic theology for my M.Div. Also, I have two precious puddy cats, one which comes and cuddles up to me in bed to wake me up - So I am a confirmed Catoholic! So, I might be a few steps up the Catholic side of Mt Olympus toward the gods!

 

[Paul Christensen]

Ok guys, pool your heads together...put on your thinking caps!
If you want to make your case....if the Catholics are wrong....tell them what the Trinity was really doing between 65 AD and 2000. Let's hear it.

There is the story of the believer who died and went to heaven. St Peter was showing him around the different areas - the Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Open Brethren, Greek Orthodox, saying "It didn't matter what denomination, they are all here." Then they got to an area where there was a high wall. The believer asked St Peter about it. "Oh." said St Peter, "That's the Catholic section. They think they are the only ones here!"

 

[Grailhunter]

There is the story of the believer who died and went to heaven. St Peter was showing him around the different areas - the Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Open Brethren, Greek Orthodox, saying "It didn't matter what denomination, they are all here." Then they got to an area where there was a high wall. The believer asked St Peter about it. "Oh." said St Peter, "That's the Catholic section. They think they are the only ones here!"

That is joke...all good

 

[Paul Christensen]

That's 5 topics.
1. The Council of Nicae. If you accepted all of it's canons, you would be Catholic. Much of it spells out rules for bishops which most of Protestantism unbiblically abolished.
2. total corruption? seriously?
3. The Council of Trent and reformist rhetoric
4. false charges of burning people at the stake, it was done by the state, not the Catholic Church
5. bible translations a crime? sheer nonsense. False translations were rejected, the same as you would reject gender free translations. The authors were executed by the state for the social disruption they caused.

And you wonder why my replies are so long. Try keeping your anti-Catholic lies to one or two at a time.

The Vulgate was so called precisely because it was written in the common tongue of all literate people in western Europe. If one could read at all, one could read Latin; so a Latin Bible, far from restricting medieval readers, made it universally legible.

Secondly a great many local vernacular translations of the Bible were made long before Luther produced his own. In the fourth century, Ulfilas made a Gothic translation, a bishop of Seville produced an Arabic bible during the Moorish occupation of Spain, and most countries produced manuscripts of large sections of the Bible in their own tongues - in this country beginning with the seventh century Anglo-Saxon of Caedmon. The Norman- French Bible made at the University of Paris was widely used around 1250.

With the invention of printing, vernacular bibles multiplied. Of one German version alone, first printed in 1466, 16 editions had been printed before Luther's New Testament appeared in 1522. The first French New Testament appeared in 1478, five years before Luther's birth, and the complete French Bible in 1487. The Italians had theirs in 1471, the Dutch in 1477. The Swedes, the Bohemians, Slavs, Russians and Danes all had vernacular Bibles, circulated with full ecclesiastical support.

Whatever was going on in the 16th century, whatever the importance of Luther's own translation, it was not about putting the Bible in the hands of the people. Letter: Bible translations before Luther
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it.

It all depends on the theological stance of the historian. It stands to reason that RCC historians are going to whitewash the darker episodes of the Catholic church of the Middle Ages and show Martin Luther as a liar and reprobate who teaches false doctrine. That is just normal human bias.

And the hierarchy at the Vatican are not going to expose their dirty washing to the rank and file faithful. They will always present themselves as holy men and women of God who are absolutely pure in their devotion to God. That's a totally natural response as well.

To be balanced, one has to accept that the 17th Century Calvinists in Europe and America had their major faults as well, and suppressed dissenters as ruthlessly as the RCC of the time, especially when the Calvinists had political control. The murder of many innocent women accused of witchcraft in New England by the Calvinists is one such example. And Pennsylvania came into being as a safe haven for Quakers because they were being murdered in other states by Catholics and Protestants.

So, you see, I do read a range of church historians. But if all you read and believe are exclusively Catholic historians, than I am not surprised that you have a one-sided view of church history - from the Catholic, anti-Protestant perspective.

 

[Illuminator]

It all depends on the theological stance of the historian. It stands to reason that RCC historians are going to whitewash the darker episodes of the Catholic church of the Middle Ages and show Martin Luther as a liar and reprobate who teaches false doctrine. That is just normal human bias.

And the hierarchy at the Vatican are not going to expose their dirty washing to the rank and file faithful. They will always present themselves as holy men and women of God who are absolutely pure in their devotion to God. That's a totally natural response as well.

Popes have apologized for the bad behavior of Catholics (centuries ago) on numerous occasions; your bias is glaring. But they don't apologize for endless exaggerations pumped out by Protestants over the last 500 years.

To be balanced, one has to accept that the 17th Century Calvinists in Europe and America had their major faults as well, and suppressed dissenters as ruthlessly as the RCC of the time, especially when the Calvinists had political control. The murder of many innocent women accused of witchcraft in New England by the Calvinists is one such example. And Pennsylvania came into being as a safe haven for Quakers because they were being murdered in other states by Catholics and Protestants.

So, you see, I do read a range of church historians. But if all you read and believe are exclusively Catholic historians, than I am not surprised that you have a one-sided view of church history - from the Catholic, anti-Protestant perspective.

Catholicism is not afraid of the truth of history and is not anti-Protestant. In fact, I cite Protestant reference manuals and historians whenever I can, but it falls on deaf ears.

Vatican II developed past the Council of Trent, and anti-Catholics are stuck arguing from a 16th century mindset.

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279
CCC - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 9 PARAGRAPH 3

Why don't you find a Catholic made video demonizing and misrepresenting Protestantism the same way billions of Protestant media does to us. Just one will do.

 

[Hobie]

Then there should be no problem looking at history and what happened at the Council of Trent...